A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Okay, Democrats and Liberals...why aren't you screaming about this?

Posted: Jun 21, 2014

All anyone ever heard was "get out of Iraq," "we don't belong in Iraq," yada, yada, yada. Why aren't they screaming now about sending 300 troops as "advisors?" Another double standard? Yet, last week Obama said he was sending them to guard the Embassy. Funny thing is, he’s not saying a thing about protecting the embassy now. Did he order it closed (because I didn’t hear anything about it)?

As far as I know, our guys are going in there without a SOFA agreement; yet that's one of the reasons Obama didn't leave any troops behind in 2011. If some civilian decides to try a suicide attack and our guys decide to defend themselves, they will be arrested by the Iraqi government. IMHO, Obama is sending these men to their deaths because 300 ‘advisors’ can’t ward off ISIS/ISIL renegades who care nothing for life. Big Mouth Pelosi is all for this and says they don’t need congressional authority AGAIN (remember Libya). Yet, how is this action being taken in the interest of “national security?” I didn’t know ISIS/ISIL were marching in this country, did you?

This is how Viet Nam started. I don’t care what anyone says, this is going to blow up into a full blown fight again.

I'm not doing the whole article due to the length (2 pages). You'll just have to go to the link.

Barack Obama: U.S. to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq

…The additional U.S. advisers are a modest step that’s unlikely to have a dramatic impact on the chaotic situation in Iraq unless the president decides to actually give the go-ahead for air strikes. However, even the small additional deployment of U.S. special forces is raising fears among some of the president’s supporters that the U.S. military could be sucked back into a bloody sectarian conflict in Iraq.

“American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again,” Obama said. “We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in thousands of troops and committing the kind of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq.”

A senior administration official who briefed reporters following Obama’s remarks declined to rule out the possibility that future air strikes aimed at the Sunni fighting group might range into Syria, not just Iraq.

“The group ISIL operates broadly and we would not restrict our ability to take action that is necessary to protect the United States,” the official said. “We don’t restrict potential U.S. action to a specific geographic space.”

Reengaging militarily in Iraq is a politically uncomfortable move for a president who won election in large part due to his opposition to the Iraq War and who has touted the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in 2011 as one of the key achievements of his presidency.

Pelosi said Thursday that she and the other congressional leaders who met with Obama at the White House Wednesday told him that he does not need any additional authority to act if the action is being taken in the interests of national security,.....

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/barack-obama-send-300-military-advisers-iraq-108072_Page2.html#ixzz35J0KMfAG

;

The Sixties on CNN - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I DVR'd "The Sixties" from Thursday night and watched it last night. This particular installment was about Vietnam and how US involvement in Southeast Asia started with the "advisors." The objective was to not let the Communists get Southeast Asia, so the US sent the "advisors" to find out what, if anything, the US should do. I actually did not know that. Nor did a lot of the soldiers fighting over there. A lot never did find out why they were there. Anyway, hearing the term "advisors" made me feel even more nervous about Obama's decision. I hope to God he knows what he's doing. This is no time for rookie politicians.

They're quiet because they're still waiting to receive their memo - on what they should say.

[ In Reply To ..]
It seems they have to be told what to say or do.

They are quiet because a democrat is doing it - If he was a republican it would be different

[ In Reply To ..]
It's that hypocrite thing.

If he was a republican, we'd be sending - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
back all the soldiers that participated in the original Iraq fiasco, whether they still have limbs in place or are suffering from PTSD from the first time they were there -- doesn't matter. As long as he/she has a heart that pumps blood. And we will see the same soldiers and civilians murdered.

This is basically a RELIGIOUS war between the Sunnis and the Shiites. WE HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INVOLVED IN A CIVIL WAR!!! None whatsoever.

Some people think THIS country is on the verge of a civil war, and I can easily see that happening. Should the Shah of Iran send in troops to help one side or the other? I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, we wouldn't welcome an invasion "in our best interests" from ANYONE.

Is Boehner still the house majority leader? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I guess I do not know why you are all upset about Pelosi. Isn't Boehner still in control of the house? Is Cantor already packed up and out? I have not had time to check why the Republicans have not put forth any legislation on this. I was too busy getting a sunburn at the beach today.

I do know that the situation has totally changed right now and we are still trying to clean up Bush/Cheney's messes.

It must really get tiring... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
...trying to find creative ways to defend BO. Sorry, but repeating the left wing disinformation campaign and playing the blame game just doesn't cut it anymore.

P.S. Try some aloe for your sunburn. :-)

Yep! And the OP should be asking why cons and pubs aren't screaming - about

[ In Reply To ..]
The Bush/Cheney Disaster.

Charges should be brought against them. They have blood dripping from their hands.

Do you know that Cheney got five deferments from service in Vietnam? - I only found that out recently.

[ In Reply To ..]
That makes the whole Iraq war seem doubly evil: the whole old men sending young men off to war thing. But in this case, the old man never even served.

Neither did Rush - Neither did Rove

[ In Reply To ..]
Chicken Hawks make me sick. My husband has 3 purple hearts & a bronze star from Vietnam.

Your husband is a TRUE hero. I thank - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
him for his service, and "Welcome Home" to him from a person who loves and respects all soldiers.

Slick Willie? - Isn't this interesting?

[ In Reply To ..]
NM

Neither did Bill Clinton - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Remember Kosovo, Somalia, etc.

So, going by your words it would make any war seem doubly evil. Men sending men off to war thing. Yeah, in this case the old man (Clinton) never even served.

Can't believe you are comparing Kosovo to - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
the so-called nation building exercise called the "war on terror" and building a case for war with Iraq under false pretenses! After sitting on the sidelines and watching events unfold, the United States under President Clinton ultimately entered the war in Kosovo at the request of NATO, and I believe there was 1 US combat casualty and about 15-20 non-combat casualties TOTAL.

If President Clinton would have been a gung ho war monger like Cheney who didn't serve and Bush Jr. but was nevertheless all too eager to send American troops to their deaths in order to nation build (and they had a 7-country plan drawn up to topple the regimes starting with Iraq and ending in Iran), then I guess you'd have a point. But since President Clinton didn't easily jump into war with a whole set of plans for toppling nations, then there's really no valid comparison to be made here.

And sure, let's erroneously hang Somalia on Bill Clinton when it was a humanitarian effort begun in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush!

Somalia was started in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush - and NOT by President Clinton! LOL -- nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Boehner has no control over the situation - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It doesn't matter what Boehner says. He has no control over the matter. Obama does what he wants.

Yeah, the situation has changed, but we are no longer cleaning up Bush/Cheney's messes. That time has passed. These are now Obama's messes. In case you didn't know this Obama has been in office for over 5 years now. These problems are because of him.

Nice narrative, but the politicians know the truth.... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Expect the right wing to fracture further as the establishment GOP plays the false narrative and screams to go back into war in Iraq, while the far right Tea Party tells you the truth that the war was not winnable, the liberals were correct, and that "not one more" thing should be done there.

Fact. Sorry if you don't get it, but the Tea Party conservatives are telling it like it is on this one while the jerks that voted for it are whining and blaming Obama in order to absolve themselves for their bad decisions.

I give the far right credit when it's due; those guys are telling you the truth...... finally!

The right wing is destroying what's left of America. - No matter who is in office, it may not be fixable.

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

How can this be when the left has been in power - for nearly six years?

[ In Reply To ..]
Please explain.

So... the Republicans (TP to be specific) have been powerLESS and had no - impact on

[ In Reply To ..]
anything that has happened in the last 6 years? Please be specific in your response so we can discuss this gross generalization and gross lack of knowledge of how government works (together that is, which is what has been lacking... hint, hint)

You're serious? Okay: Government 101 (severely condensed edition) - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
We have a Constitution that a bunch of guys wrote centuries ago that was put into effect in 1789. We call those guys our Founding Fathers. Lawmakers today are bound by decisions that other lawmakers made long, long ago.

Fast forwarding here.....

Civil War 1865, lots of new laws.

Fast forwarding here.....

On August 18, 1920, lawmakers amended that Constitution with the 19th Amendment that effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett, in which a unanimous Supreme Court had ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give women the right to vote. I get to vote today because decisions lawmakers made long ago are still binding on lawmakers today.

On August 14, 1935, the Social Security Act was signed into law by FDR to establish a system of old-age benefits for workers, benefits for victims of industrial accidents, unemployment insurance, aid for dependent mothers and children, the blind, and the physically handicapped. Lawmakers today are bound by decisions they made long ago.

Fast forwarding here.....

In 2001, lawmakers made decisions in the prior administration that bind us today. Hint: Lots of the laws contained the word "Terror" in them and gave the government the right to do stuff they never had the right to do before. Condensed: October 2001 USA Patriot Act, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism; November 2001 law that treated attacks as acts of war rather than criminal acts; January 2002, Guantanamo Bay detention camp; etc.

Need I go on?

Decisions get made every day that affect our lives today. I have a right to freedom of speech and right to have a gun because of those laws from 1789; I get to vote because of that law from 1920; they take a percentage of my pay because of that law from 1935; my country is at war today because of lots of laws from 2001.

To deny that the actions of prior lawmakers and representatives of the people, by the people, and for the people somehow cease to exist when lawmakers change based on intervals as mandated by our Constitution is a handy tool of partisans and politicians but in no way reflects reality.

Seriously, why do you find it necessary to be so - condescending?

[ In Reply To ..]
I may or may not agree with you, but I usually stop reading most of your posts after the first couple lines because you come across as very condescending. Is that really necessary?

Condescending? I don't think so. Unless you consider offering up the facts - condescending

[ In Reply To ..]
There were lots of good educational data in that post, not hollow proclamations as are chanted over and over by republicans without any substantiation for same.

I'm surprised your only response to this well-thought-out, factual, and eloquent post was that it was condescending. Well... maybe not that surprised... What do you think about the points the poster addressed?

You come across as very judgmental. Is that really necessary? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If you don't like the writing style, you are free to stop reading, although I sure don't see why you'd take anything personally and take the extra steps of singling out a poster and passing judgment on them (unless you were the moderator, of course). If you read the boards for any length of time, you will see several different styles of writing contained in the posts. The style being criticized is more educational prose and a scholastic writing style, but that does not make it condescending.

For comparative purposes only, some posts on this board are written more in the vein such as "hopey, changey, bread buttered on both sides, lower than a snake's belly, what else ya got, honey, gotcha," but would it be okay for a poster to single out those type posters and ask if it was really necessary and slap a label on them?

Conservatives often describe those they disagree with as condescending and elitist. They seem somehow hardwired to pass judgment and lump people who don't share their ideology into little boxes and label them and summarily dismiss their point of view, and therein lies the GOP's weakness.

So you're saying that if Bush hadn't started a war, Obama would be dealing with - this situation?

[ In Reply To ..]
I'd love to hear how you try to rationalize that theory.

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, but it's complicated. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I will try to answer your questions because you seem genuinely inquisitive versus accusatory.

You asked: "Why aren't they screaming now about sending 300 troops as 'advisors?'"
Answer: It's complicated because contrary to the right wing's portrayal of Iraq as that "war we won" where Obama then yanked out all the Americans and just let Iraq fall into the hands of the Islamist radicals just waiting in the wings for Obama to cut and run so they could commence tearing the whole thing up again, the reality of this war has run quite a different course than the spin of it.

That version is the fantasy, but the reality of Iraq is that the Bush administration's "number one priority" from the minute they unpacked their boxes was Saddam Hussein's ouster. Beginning after the 9/11 attacks they started formulating their plans for regime change. They subsequently waged a propaganda campaign to convince Congress and the American people that Iraq posed a dire and imminent threat to the safety of the United States, which culminated in Colin Powell's speaking at the UN and convincing Congressional holdouts to give Bush the authority to decide whether or not to go to war in Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction, which was preplanned all along. Fast forward to Bush's arrogant, expensive, and stagecrafted "Mission Accomplished" speech in May 2003. But the mission, if it was actually the stabilization and democritization of Iraq, was not nearly accomplished and far from over.

The Bush/Cheney allegations that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" were proven false by a thorough investigation that revealed that the administration had lied repeatedly to the citizens about Iraq's weapons capabilities. The CIA and Bush administration officials had colluded with a known liar and political operator, Ahmad Chalabi, who turned out to be a spy for Iran. Chalabi's propaganda was integral in convincing the United States that the only way to "solve" the Iraq problem was to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, and it was exactly what the administration wanted to do so there was no need to verify the motives. Iraq wasn't a cakewalk, and U.S. soldiers tortured Iraqis and served prison sentences for war crimes. No WMDs existed. The mission was changed to "free the Iraqi people," as if that was the mission all along. In June 2004, the US transferred the formal sovereignty of Iraq to an Iraqi coalition. The US "government," and L. Paul Bremer left Baghdad under cover of night. An array of Bush administration officials, from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, resigned in disgrace for their incompetence and systematic lying about every aspect of the invasion and occupation, and the mission wasn't anything close to accomplished.

In November 2008, after Obama won election but before he took the office, the US signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that mandated the end of 2011 as the date by which American troops must leave there. As late as June 2011, Obama opposed the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq but was unable to convince the Iraqis to let the Americans stay past the December 2011 target date as agreed to by the previous administration.

So fast forward to today, and it's just a false narrative that the invasion was going just great until Democrats took over Congress and went totally nuts when Obama became president. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The good news is that at least some conservatives are wise to this fact and are finally speaking out against the Bush administration's role in the chaos in the Middle East. Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, Rand Paul to name a few (see link), while Cheney and company are out in full force trying to push the false scenario that everything was "mission accomplished" when they left it and being quite content to drop it all on Obama's head, but they know better. They knew exactly what they were getting this country into, which is why Bush's father refused to topple Saddam, and Dick Cheney knows it.

So after 2 trillion dollars spent on Bush's war that Democrats didn't want and warned would not be winnable, that you cannot force peace on people that don't want it, the far right GOP are now saying "no more," while the establishment GOP are pointing the finger at Obama and screaming go back in (McCain is on record wanting to use air strikes in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum). Now Obama has to decide what's best for this country.

You asked: "Another double standard?"
Answer: No, our outrage about Iraq is over 12 years old and has pimples and is fast growing into a cranky 13-year-old teenager.

You asked: "Did he order it closed (because I didn't hear anything about it)?"
Answer: I am merely speculating, but I'm guessing the people he sent in are going to evacuate the premises if necessary. Meanwhile, he'll try to get a peaceful resolution somehow (if it's even possible at this point). Time will tell.

You asked: "Yet, how is this action being taken in the interest of 'national security?' I didn't know ISIS/ISIL were marching in this country, did you?"
Answer: Take your pick. Revisit the reasons from 2003. Keep in mind that the embassy is huge, contains thousands of citizens, and I think it's safe to assume that it's a CIA listening post containing lots of expensive, state-of-the-art technology that we have no intentions of abandoning.

I believe Obama to be the type of conscientious leader who will not send any more troops back into an unstable Iraq. This region is not foreign to chaos and conflict and never has been, far from it, they've been at civil war for centuries, and Saddam had been holding them in check. I think Obama will leave the American people to weigh the arguments of the criminal idiots who got us into this mess to begin with and will keep us out of the situation that Democrats never wanted from inception and that the far right is now tuning into. If ISIS is vulnerable to incineration by rockets, I expect he'll take a shot but otherwise leave Iraq alone....

Exactly what should have been done over a decade ago when the Bush administration took their eye off bin Laden and Al Qaeda to go fight the war they lobbied for and lied us into.

As for WMDs, see inside - Truthhurts

[ In Reply To ..]

You can read the full report(s) of Iraq’s WMD program on the below site.

What it states is that Saddam never intended to stop producing WMD’s and did his best to hide what he was doing. The program goes all the way back to the ‘80s, but no one seems to be interested in that.

No one seems to be interested in the program during the ‘90s, either. They just jump all over Bush because of the information he received from different agencies.

While other WMD programs were strictly prohibited, the UN permitted Iraq to develop and possess delivery systems provided their range did not exceed 150 km.This freedom allowed Iraq to keep its scientists and technicians employed and to keep its infrastructure and manufacturing base largely intact by pursuing programs nominally in compliance with the UN limitations. This positioned Iraq for a potential breakout capability. (their emphasis, not mine.)

Given Iraq’s investments in technology and infrastructure improvements, an effective procurement network, skilled scientists, and designs already on the books for longer range missiles, ISG assesses that Saddam clearly intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems and that the systems potentially were for WMD. (Their emphasis, not mine.)

UNSCOM did find B. anthracis in two fermentors and a mobile storage tank at the FMDV Plant that was “consistent with the strain used in Iraq’s BW program,” according to an UNMOVIC document on Iraq’s unresolved disarmament issues (UDIs) as of 6 March 2003. Two pieces of the equipment that tested positive were destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996, and subsequent sampling of the FMDV Plant in November 1996 did not detect B. anthracis on any remaining equipment.

Would you care to read this report? Even though it’s dated 2002, this is some of the info that is a summary of Iraq’s WMD program.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf

The following document is a timeline. Please note the years starting at #274. BTW, CW=chemical weapons, BW=biological warfare, POL=political (I think).

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/WMD_Timeline_Events.html

You can read the full report(s) of Iraq’s WMD program on the below site.
What it states is that Saddam never intended to stop producing WMD’s and did his best to hide what he was doing. The program goes all the way back to the ‘80s, but no one seems to be interested in that.

No one seems to be interested in the program during the ‘90s, either. They just jump all over Bush because of the information he received from different agencies.

While other WMD programs were strictly prohibited, the UN permitted Iraq to develop and possess delivery systems provided their range did not exceed 150 km.This freedom allowed Iraq to keep its scientists and technicians employed and to keep its infrastructure and manufacturing base largely intact by pursuing programs nominally in compliance with the UN limitations. This positioned Iraq for a potential breakout capability. (their emphasis, not mine.)

UNSCOM did find B. anthracis in two fermentors and a mobile storage tank at the FMDV Plant that was “consistent with the strain used in Iraq’s BW program,” according to an UNMOVIC document on Iraq’s unresolved disarmament issues (UDIs) as of 6 March 2003. Two pieces of the equipment that tested positive were destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996, and subsequent sampling of the FMDV Plant in November 1996 did not detect B. anthracis on any remaining equipment.

Would you care to read this report? Even though it’s dated 2002, this is some of the info that is a summary of Iraq’s WMD program. It's only 28 pages.

program.https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf

The following document is a political timeline of Iraq. Please note the years starting at #274. CW=chemical weapons, BW=biological warfare, POL=political (I think), NUC=nuclear (which Sadam was trying to get started).

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/WMD_Timeline_Events.html

I can't discuss the other items you brought up since I am using RTF and it doesn't show your discussion. So, I have to go back to your post to see what else you stated, but can't do it today :)

There were no WMDs and certainly no imminent threat from Iraq. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
There were no weapons of mass destruction.

Watch this clip from John Pilger's documentary, Breaking the Silence, which contains 2001 footage of Colin Powell (Februrary 24, 2001) and Condoleezza Rice (July 29, 2001) declaring that Iraq is not a threat.

During Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt, answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Condoleezza Rice appearing on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, when guest host John King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq, she replies: "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://youtu.be/v0wbpKCdkkQ
(0.56 second video)

So less than 2 months later, these same people are beginning to formulate their plans after 9/11 for regime change in Iraq. They made a case where none existed a few months prior. There was no imminent threat to America from WMDs, and WMDs were never found. Hear it in Bush's own words, please (see link for short video of Bush). Listen to the words he's saying there.

Bush says: "The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.... I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda." He again talks about 3,000 citizens being killed on 9/11 and the broader war on terror being the reason for the war in Iraq, but of course nothing could be further from the truth as to the reasons that were given to Congress and the American people for the invasion.

How many lawmakers would have voted for the authorization for regime change and to free the Iraqi people even though there was no imminent threat to the United States? Right. So they made their case to do what they had already decided. Case closed.

You might want to tell that to President Bill Clinton - He says otherwise

[ In Reply To ..]
In fact most all democrats say otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts

Thank you for posting this. - I'm so tired of the old refrain.

[ In Reply To ..]
They just repeat the same old leftwing loony tunes day in and day out even with the evidence staring them in the face. I doubt your post will change anything, but we can hope. Again, thank you!!

You're welcome - tired of the old refrain too - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
I just also posted this.

http://general.mtstars.com/385363.html

That hypocrisy is what astounds me.

Yes, very good thinking. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Show the Democrats. But this is actually not new information you posted. President Clinton was speaking in 1998 about IF there was proof that Saddam Hussein developed the capacity, then we would not hesitate to act. Bush said the same thing in January 2000 as a candidate (see link). They were both speaking about IF there was evidence of WMD. But what part of Colin Powell's statement in 2001 was unclear when he said Saddam did not have that capability, and what part of Condoleezza Rice's statement in July 2001 was unclear that Saddam was not a threat?

Showing me a bunch of statements of Democrat lawmakers who decided to vote "yes" for Bush to have the authorization to decide to invade Iraq that were based on the ginned up intelligence reports presented by the Bush administration really has little value and proves nothing. The decisions and statements they made were based on false intelligence reports the Bush administration were pushing to aggressively seek regime change, i.e., the false case for war they were aggressively pushing while conveniently ignoring conflicting intelligence.

There were no WMDs. What part of Bush, the man himself, saying that was unclear? What part of Bush saying "the freedom agenda in Iraq" (i.e., regime change) was unclear? The information was faulty; Bush is on record admitting that. The Bush administration pushed the false narrative to accomplish their goal and got caught in it. Joe Wilson reported that the information was incorrect at the time, and the Bush administration began a game of "shoot the messenger" against him, for which people were tried and convicted. They lobbied for war and aggressively opposed anyone who said anything to the contrary.

When 9/11 happened and Bush and Cheney and the neoconservative war machine decided for regime change in 7 oil rich countries in the Middle East, what changed from July 2001 to September 2001 in Iraq? Nothing! But Congress and the American people would have never given the authorization for their plans for regime change in the Middle East, so they made their case that there was an imminent threat of WMDs in Iraq and ignored any evidence to the contrary.

Case is only closed - in your mind.

[ In Reply To ..]
LOL

Similar Messages:

Sep 13, 2010
North Carolina Restaurant to parents: No screaming kids allowed Restaurant to parents: No screaming kids allowed Owner of Olde Salty restaurant in North Carolina spurs controversy with signs http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39075518/ns/today-parenti... / On an airplane, in a movie theater or in a restaurant, the shrill sound of a childish voice raised in distress can resemble nails across a blackboard — especially when it’s not your child. Now one North Carolina eatery has drawn ...

Jul 10, 2010
Unsure how to deal with this. We have neighbors facing our back yard who have a little girl, probably maybe 7 or 8 years old. Cute as pie, plays nicely, just very nice little girl. On the other side of them is a 10 or 11 year old kid and he is a bully...and boy do I mean a bully. He is constantly picking on her which in turns makes her squeal at this high pitched ear piercing scream (if you know what I mean). He sprays water on her and she keeps yelling at him to st ...

Jan 08, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y THE HATCHET MAN ...

Jul 03, 2014
Kinda funny that they want more yet, according to the BLS, these are the statistics. The dates are June 2013, April 2014, May 2014, and June 2014. Looks like wages are going up, not down. Of course, this administration isn't bragging this up, are they? Wonder why. You would think they'd be proud of these numbers. HOURS AND EARNINGSPRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES Total private Average weekly hours 33.7 33.7 33.7 33.7 Avera ...

Jul 17, 2017
With all the wildfires we have in this country, loss of life, property and the toll on wildlife and environment, why aren't we using this as a resource. Seems to be there should be funds appropriated for the use of this aircraft. I know departments only have so much funds to work with and maybe our federal government needs to have an emergency fund to allow this to be used. It would surely outweigh the cost of life, property and the environmental costs sustained by our cur ...

Oct 26, 2012
http://werenotbrokemovie.com/ See the above for a movie preview on corporate tax breaks, etc. The preview looks really interesting and I plan to rent the documentary this weekend. ...

Sep 10, 2011
President Obama isn't the only one who has presented a jobs plan. In “Believe in America: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth,” the candidate says that if elected, he would lower the corporate tax rate by 10 percentage points, points, to a top rate of 25 percent; eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest for taxpayers earning under $200,000 a year; slash the federal workforce by 10 percent, by allowing Uncle Sam to hire a new employe ...

Dec 10, 2009
Why can't I have a dad who helps me sometimes instead of me having to always be the one helping him? I need to VENT! My dad is a bum who basically lives off others. Since my mom divorced him, due to the fact she was footing all the bills, it was either he had to get a job and take care of himself or live however he could. Well, he is determined not to get a job. So he lived in a shed for a while. When I asked him why he didn't ask a certain man I kne ...

Feb 23, 2015
It was a true pleasure to see such a large group in support of many of the basic tenets of the Democratic party. Some were even driven to tears. Where was James Woods anyway? I constantly hear people on the board accusing that the liberals are all worthless, welfare seekers and that there aren't very many who could possibly believe that stuff anyway. I would say there was a whole program celebrating them last night! ...

Sep 21, 2012
Link to CNC special report on jobs--"What's really going on out there." "Discussions with numerous middle market company CEOs on the subject were striking in their uniformity, even though the industries represented were wildly different: All said their hiring was relatively flat because they were aggressively using technology to get more output from the same number of employees." http://www.cnbc.com/id/48326918/Technology_Grows_Freelance_Economy NOTE: This is actually good news: A n ...

Apr 20, 2013
Rep. Peter King Says Muslims Aren’t ‘American’ When It Comes To War By Lee Fang on Jan 11, 2011 at 2:17 pm Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, has promised to launch a series of investigations of Muslim Americans beginning in February. “I’ve made it clear that I’ll focus the committee on counterterrorism and hold hearings on a wide range of issues, including radicalization of the American Muslim community and homegrow ...

May 23, 2013
A handful of George Washington University political and history professors largely support the idea of adding President Barack Obama’s face to Mount Rushmore – just not quite yet. Are they building a prison named Mt. Rushmore? ...

Feb 03, 2014
This rich American has a different take on job creation and capitalism. ...

Mar 29, 2017
Looking forward to spring and not trying to look into the future with Trump or the ugly mess career politicians have gotten us in selling their votes to special interest groups. I come here and I see the same old thing - arguing on behalf of millionaires and crooks who do not give a care about us. ...

Feb 12, 2010
We all know your sources use derogatory terms like "neocons" in a desperate attempt to discredit those with traditional values. Evidently, your side hasn't studied history too carefully. When did the term "Left" and "Right" come into use? If you trace back to when there began to be obvious big differences of opinion, you'll come to realize that it is the liberals who have moved--those holding conservative, traditional values have stood firm. What does this mean? ...

Apr 07, 2010
Reading some of the posts below of liberals calling people racists, birthers, paranoid, delusional, and all the other insults reminded me of an article I read talking about why liberals use insults and why the arguments of the liberals are so illogical. When you can’t face the facts the next thing is to use the liberal “buzz” words. The fortunate thing is that people have woken up to this style of tactic and it doesn’t work anymore. Calling people names ...

May 04, 2013
said Obama would still be a community organizer if he had been busted for pot. LOL - I wish he had been. He was better qualified for that job. ...

May 09, 2013
are *******. My son asked me the other day (when talking about a liberal cousin with a high paying job at an international company) - "are they just ****?" I said I don't know, I certainly can't figure it out. Example: I just heard that Mike Lee (R) introduced a bill to assure the cleanliness and safety of these abortion clinics, IOW a little more oversight by the states to assure women's health. Even this the liberals can't go along with - I gue ...

Jul 21, 2013
proud of my state for passing a new abortion law. This is the best I can do for you folks, but I'm sure you'll like it. Link ...

Jan 19, 2017
The nastier and more petulant they behave, the easier it is to predict a catastrophe for the radical left in 2018. Keep digging, libs. Keep right on digging. it's your grave, and it can't be deep enough to suit me. ...

Apr 26, 2015
you never listen. Turns out the gridlock was all about Harry Reid blocking bills. WE TOLD YOU!!! lINK ...

Oct 17, 2016
Please watch this and then defend. http://dailyinfo.co/breaking-undercover-video-exposed-hillarys-criminal-efforts-to-sabotage-trump/ ...

May 17, 2017
We wll be heard where it counts - not in the lawless streets, not in the biased media, not on latenight TV - but in the ballot box. Believe me, we are watching, and we wlll speak loud and clear in 2018. Goodbye, liberals. This was your last chance and you blew it. ...

May 23, 2017
are criticizing Trump's words, actions and policies (admittedly with an occasional disparaging name thrown in). Some of the posters on the right insist on call this Trump-bashing and hatred and don't seem to recognize the difference. Seems to me the hatred is mostly on the right. ...

Jul 11, 2010
But I'm a little freaked out, and the first available appointment with the glaucoma specialist isn't until August 31, so I have some time to continue freaking out.I went to the optometrist for what I thought was a routine visit and refraction update. He was alarmed at how much worse my right eye had gotten in 2 years, and suspected a cataract.A cataract? At my age? I'm only 54! But yes... I am developing a cataract in my right eye. Not only that, my pressure is up, and they would ...

May 20, 2015
Did any of you know that famously "liberal" celebrities such as Bill Maher actually endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 rather than Barack Obama as they had previously? The Washington Post article below mentions a few who endorsed Ron Paul, but whom have either "defected" over his son, Rand Paul, or just aren't sure about him yet. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/20/ron-pauls-celebrity-fans-arent-flocking-to-rand-paul/ Apparently disillusioned with Obama by 2012, Bill Maher c ...

May 01, 2010
"The liberals that are making false accusations about Tea Partiers must stop!! This is dirty, outrageous, and wrong!! The Democrats and liberals in the media have consistently entered into a smear campaign of tactics consisting of false accusations, hateful rhetoric, and incendiary comments. One particular brand of false accusations that comes to my mind is how the liberals recently have been making charges that Tea Partiers are racists without having one iota of proof to back up their claims. ...

Aug 19, 2016
Your president just got proven again to be a complete liar. He lied to all Americans that $400 million was not a ransom payout and yet the state department confirms that the money was held until the release of hostages. How in the heck is this not ransom? Simply because Obama said so? Honestly, are you that brainwashed that someone can tell you a complete lie then have that lie be exposed for all to see, and you will still accept his word as truth? Oh, and that little bit of rain in Louisiana? H ...

Aug 01, 2012
First of all, liberals don't understand that no one BUT liberals care about what taxes Romney did or did not pay as long as he complied with the tax code that was in force at the time he filed his taxes. It has long been a very well-established principle that no one is obliged to pay one cent more in taxes than the law requires - and LIBERALS make better use of that principle than anyone. In fact, there are plenty of liberals who take, shall we say, "questionable" advantage of the ta ...

Aug 18, 2012
While this board was loaded with comments against Chik and Mr. Cathy several days ago, regarding his position on marriage, very, very little has been said about the liberal gay rights activist who enterd Family Research Council and began shooting. The liberal gay-rights activist had 15 Chik-Fil-A in his back pack along with rounds of ammunition. After shooting up the place, severely injuring a family man at work, the liberal gay-rights activist asked that he not be shot and said ...