I agree, Im just saying we are even more vulnerable now then we have been in the past. I know we arent privy.. media reports what will get viewers, not the truth, to some extent. We can always research stuff on the web, though, and I think those are less.. biased, shall we say.. then what the media reports. :chagrin: It's tough to say, though, since we aren't actually there. I guess you accept whatever appeals to your mindset..? :neutral:
Agreed. Stuff on the web is less biased. However it's still biased from the poster's point of view.
We are more vulnerable. But we are leaps and bounds ahead of our pre 9/11 days. Granted I don't really like all the homeland security stuff and giving up some freedoms to get extra security. But usually it's stuff I can get around (ie take a train instead of a plane so I don't have to spend a half an hour getting the "special" security checks).
The best people to ask though are our soldiers that are or have been over there, since they're at the leading edge of the issue.
I think if we invaded canada for no reason then mexico should attack us. Saddam was not a nice guy and he had obligations to adhere to his surrender agreement with us. He didn't, so he got screwed.
I do basically agree with part of your statement. We should have bombed them into submission, killed Saddam, and then left the mess up to them to clean up.
If you agree on what they are trying to do, how do you suggest they do it? I'd like to hear a real idea other than give up.
"how would we feel if, lets say.. Mexican government came into our country and tried to tell us how to run stuff."
They have been here protesting on May 1st every year. They want benifits for sneaking their people across our borders. The Mexican government condones the illegal entering of our country and crossing of our borders. Then they come here and demand rights that they don't have and want benifits from our government that they can't get from their own country. If the mexican government and country were so great the people wouldn't need to come here.
besides the fact that if we get another terrorist attack, we are pretty much completely defenseless, cause most, if not all of our frontline troops are over there, leaving America unguarded.
Our troops have never been on the border. Thats why we have a border patrol. And thing are no better now than on 9-11. We don't enforce our border policies at all. Any one that wants in can walk across our border or pay to ride across from a coyotee that smuggles people in for a price. The mexican government don't bother to stop them either. So that argument is moot because our "frontline troops' have never guarded our border anyways.
If the mexican government and country were so great the people wouldn't need to come here.
So I'll use a different country.. Singapore, lets say. The point of it was to say.. how would we feel, if someone we didnt know, came into America and told us how to run everything..? I think as American's, we would all stand back and say.. hold on.. we're fricken America!!! You can't do that to us! But I think everyone takes a little pride in their country, and how its ran.. so who could really blame them?
Our troops have never been on the border. Thats why we have a border patrol.
I never said they guarded our borders.. Im just saying that the military is who we called on to get the planes down on 9-11.. we don't have too many to call on now, or say, if we had a natural disaster.. most of our military couldnt help, cause they aren't here. Im not saying give up, but if the people there dont want us there.. no matter what we give them, as soon as we leave, things will be back to normal.
HeH! Not really. He was a boss of mine back in the day. Well, not a direct boss, more like a boss to everyone, but we would blab together after hours. He was much better than the current dickwad running St. Paul Travelers right now.
Doug Leatherdale, the former CEO of The St. Paul Companies, is the new host committee chairman for the Twin Cities' 2008 Republican National Convention, the host committee announced today.
Cool... For our annual training next year, part of our divisions job is to perform security for the RNC. We have no idea who, what or how yet... but that is our mission anyway.
Yeah, while I was making dinner I listened to the debate. It was pretty good. Lots of good questions posed, some were even more than vaguely answered. I'm curious to see how this turns out.
It was nice to focus on the dialogue when listening to it on the radio but I would have loved to see their facial expressions, Esp. when Edwards reneged on the comment about Hilary's suit jacket. Guess theres always youtube or next time!
Nothing much changes for me. But I'm doing well. Actually enjoying winter this year. Ordinarily I get a bad case of cabin fever, but its been a beautiful winter I think. The family keeps me busy.
And I'm getting psyched about the upcoming election. I wonder if anyone counted how many times the word "change" was said during the New Hampshire debate?
I Googled and found this in a blog. I would have guessed they said it more times.
MANCHESTER, N.H. — We’re all about change on this late Sunday morning, because it’s a little late to offer you something called The Early Word (our morning news briefing).
But it’s never too late to point out overused words — like change. And we have this fabulous interactive graphic for debate analysis that allows us to search video and transcripts, word for word and by phrase.
The graphic for the Democratic debate on Saturday night tallied 65 mentions of the word “change.” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton used it 23 times, John Edwards 14 and Senator Barack Obama 12.
HereÂ’s one segment by Senator Clinton, who jammed the word in there several times in a few minutes:
I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change, I’m running on 35 years of change. … So you know I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change.”
Making change sounds to us like breaking a dollar for coins, but maybe thatÂ’s an old-fashioned reference.
Now, if you watched the Republican debate last night, you know that Mitt Romney also has ramped up his desire to use the word change. Mr. Romney suggested on Saturday night that what was propelling voters in Iowa and elsewhere to choose candidates like Mr. Obama was the desire for change from the same-old, same-old.
Our graphic analysis for the G.O.P. debate shows a total of 36 mentions of “change.” Mr. Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani each used it nine times. Senator John McCain’s line — calling Mr. Romney the “candidate of change” — was quite the zinger.
I'd really like to know what Hillary changed in her 1st five years of her supoosedly "35 years of experience". I thought she was a corporate lawyer back then.
I also really liked when they asked Edwards what his greatest achievement as a senator was. He replied that it was the patient bill of rights law that never got passed.
Wow!
What an accomplishment!
I could probly write a law that never gets passed too.
When Hillary says "her experience", she really means "our experience". Hers and Bills. In 1972 Bill started his political career as leader of the Texas McGovern campaign. And everyone knows that behind every good man is a good woman. :eyeroll: :sillygrin:
One thing I always notice about politicians, every one of them come election time always says something to the effect of "this election is the most important we've ever had". Wouldn't it just be easier to say every election is important?
Frankly I don't care if he is Muslim, Catholic, Baptist or Atheist. I am not voting for a pope, I am voting for someone to lead our country. I suppose that my personal views would be closer to Bushes when it comes to religion... however my political views couldn't be further from his. Not even saying that I am voting for Obama... frankly I am a bit concerned about his lack of experience. Just pointing out that to make a decision based on religion (remember how shocked people were about JFK's Catholosism) is shortsighted. I respect everyones right to have an opinion and this is just a reflection of mine... not meant to offend just another voice heard.
We are more vulnerable. But we are leaps and bounds ahead of our pre 9/11 days. Granted I don't really like all the homeland security stuff and giving up some freedoms to get extra security. But usually it's stuff I can get around (ie take a train instead of a plane so I don't have to spend a half an hour getting the "special" security checks).
The best people to ask though are our soldiers that are or have been over there, since they're at the leading edge of the issue.
thank you for your support :wink:
I do basically agree with part of your statement. We should have bombed them into submission, killed Saddam, and then left the mess up to them to clean up.
If you agree on what they are trying to do, how do you suggest they do it? I'd like to hear a real idea other than give up.
They have been here protesting on May 1st every year. They want benifits for sneaking their people across our borders. The Mexican government condones the illegal entering of our country and crossing of our borders. Then they come here and demand rights that they don't have and want benifits from our government that they can't get from their own country. If the mexican government and country were so great the people wouldn't need to come here.
besides the fact that if we get another terrorist attack, we are pretty much completely defenseless, cause most, if not all of our frontline troops are over there, leaving America unguarded.
Our troops have never been on the border. Thats why we have a border patrol. And thing are no better now than on 9-11. We don't enforce our border policies at all. Any one that wants in can walk across our border or pay to ride across from a coyotee that smuggles people in for a price. The mexican government don't bother to stop them either. So that argument is moot because our "frontline troops' have never guarded our border anyways.
So I'll use a different country.. Singapore, lets say. The point of it was to say.. how would we feel, if someone we didnt know, came into America and told us how to run everything..? I think as American's, we would all stand back and say.. hold on.. we're fricken America!!! You can't do that to us! But I think everyone takes a little pride in their country, and how its ran.. so who could really blame them?
Our troops have never been on the border. Thats why we have a border patrol.
I never said they guarded our borders.. Im just saying that the military is who we called on to get the planes down on 9-11.. we don't have too many to call on now, or say, if we had a natural disaster.. most of our military couldnt help, cause they aren't here. Im not saying give up, but if the people there dont want us there.. no matter what we give them, as soon as we leave, things will be back to normal.
Lets attack Canada.
What are they gonna do? Throw Bacon at us?
Doug Leatherdale, the former CEO of The St. Paul Companies, is the new host committee chairman for the Twin Cities' 2008 Republican National Convention, the host committee announced today.
Cool... For our annual training next year, part of our divisions job is to perform security for the RNC. We have no idea who, what or how yet... but that is our mission anyway.
so...I had to go to a formal dinner with her to St. Paul Hotel for an awards banquet...
anyways.....
I'm out in the hallway just shooting the shit with this guy...
turns out...I was talking to doug....
current politlcl party
Oh wait :sheepish: :angry: :eyeroll: :coolfrown:
How are you?
And I'm getting psyched about the upcoming election. I wonder if anyone counted how many times the word "change" was said during the New Hampshire debate?
MANCHESTER, N.H. — We’re all about change on this late Sunday morning, because it’s a little late to offer you something called The Early Word (our morning news briefing).
But it’s never too late to point out overused words — like change. And we have this fabulous interactive graphic for debate analysis that allows us to search video and transcripts, word for word and by phrase.
The graphic for the Democratic debate on Saturday night tallied 65 mentions of the word “change.” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton used it 23 times, John Edwards 14 and Senator Barack Obama 12.
HereÂ’s one segment by Senator Clinton, who jammed the word in there several times in a few minutes:
I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change, I’m running on 35 years of change. … So you know I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change.”
Making change sounds to us like breaking a dollar for coins, but maybe thatÂ’s an old-fashioned reference.
Now, if you watched the Republican debate last night, you know that Mitt Romney also has ramped up his desire to use the word change. Mr. Romney suggested on Saturday night that what was propelling voters in Iowa and elsewhere to choose candidates like Mr. Obama was the desire for change from the same-old, same-old.
Our graphic analysis for the G.O.P. debate shows a total of 36 mentions of “change.” Mr. Romney and Rudolph W. Giuliani each used it nine times. Senator John McCain’s line — calling Mr. Romney the “candidate of change” — was quite the zinger.
I also really liked when they asked Edwards what his greatest achievement as a senator was. He replied that it was the patient bill of rights law that never got passed.
Wow!
What an accomplishment!
I could probly write a law that never gets passed too.
Good President? I think so.
One thing I always notice about politicians, every one of them come election time always says something to the effect of "this election is the most important we've ever had". Wouldn't it just be easier to say every election is important?
This is very interesting - please take a few moments and read it.
 Something that should be considered when you make your choice.
Who is Barack Obama?
We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.....
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born
in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM
from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from
Wichita, Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two
years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His
mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama
attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a
Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is
quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also
attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that
that he is not a radical.
Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this
influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned
to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct
influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham,
introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school
in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL ISLAMIC teaching that is followed by the Muslim
terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since
it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major
public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined
the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim
background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he
DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor
will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands
over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential
candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside
out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!
Would you want this man leading
our country? NOT ME!!!!
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside