BJean

Good job, Colorado. Thank you. I would agree with you about government interference or bail outs. Except for the fact that it's the taxpayers who are hurt in this economic debacle. Everyone (that I know of) agrees that much of this happened because of absolutely no oversight. It would be interesting to know if allowing chips to fall where they may, would have been a better solution. But this was affecting most countries and most Americans. It really seemed like it was time for someone to take the bull by the horns and wrestle it to the ground. Guess we will learn something in this process. At least I hope so. I hate the idea of the bailouts. I just do not have a better plan to offer up and I'm afraid I have to disagree with you about bankruptcy being a reasonable plan for all these companies.

I'm just guessing here but Beth I have a feeling that the reason Palin's entry into the race resonated with you is because she stood up and railed against Obama. She made outlandish claims from the podium. She was given her scripts and doggone it she stuck to it, day after day, venue after venue. She didn't do well when she got called on some of the stuff she said, but no matter, she got to say it, right?

And it's interesting to hear about a bank that didn't want any of the bail out money. Now why do you think that would be the case? Why do you think they want to be able to operate with no oversight? What do they have to hide?

Is there really anybody here who doesn't understand why companies go into business as Colorado suggested? Are you familiar in any way with companies that do have a conscience, so to speak? Companies like Hewlett Packard, for instance. Ben & Jerry's is a very small company by most standards but they have developed a company with a conscience. What I mean by that is that they not only opened their doors in order to make a profit. They also wanted to create a decent work place for their employees. They put policies into effect that protected employees from a lot of things that other companies have not. There are so many things I could cite to explain this better, but I honestly think you know what I'm talking about. And the interesting thing is that those companies (many more than I mentioned) DO make a profit - in fact, they have become very successful. Their employees are loyal and are much more productive than employees who are just a number to corporations. People who cared about more than money started a lot the good businesses in America many years ago. Companies cared about their employees and treated them with respect. By the same token, employees loved their jobs, took pride in them and became part of a team. Then many things happened to change it. Way too many things to list here, but for the past 30 years companies have become more and more greedy. They are not satisfied making a healthy profit. Their executives were not satisfied making several million dollars a year. They clamoured to become billionaires - and did not care one whit who they had to hurt to get it. Employees were expendable. In fact, they figured out lots of ways to get as many employees off the books as possible. They farmed out the work to part-timers, illegal aliens and to other countries. Capitalism is not a bad thing. But with no limitations or checks and balances, they can become bad and detrimental to a decent way of life. In theory what you all are saying is true, people should be able to start a company and run it any way they like. But when they start running on the edge of legality and intentionally harming people just for the bottom line, they need a daddy to slap their greedy little hands.

Colorado: Can you help me out, please. I would like to better understand exactly how a bankruptcy works. I mean a large bank or other large institution that goes bankrupt - what actually happens? What money goes where, who doesn't have to pay what, what happens to the creditors, and all the rest. I have a good idea about personal bankruptcy but I don't believe that corporations are handled in exactly the same way. I would like to understand how allowing these big guys to declare bankruptcy is a better solution than helping them with taxpayer money with the hope that the taxpayers are going to be able to recoup some of the investment in not only profits, but also they won't be experiencing the losses that they would if a company went bankrupt. I am sure I'm not understanding how this all works. I'd appreciate you enlightening me. Is your degree(s) in finance?

Thanks for the history lesson patty. It sounds like you're telling us that President Obama is reading the Mussolini/Hitler book on governing and is following in their foot steps. Is that right? Give him an inch and he'll turn us into a communist country, eh? We're only one step away from losing all our freedoms and having a tyrannical dictator who gasses anyone he doesn't like, right? Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic? Nobody is taking away your right to vote, your right to voice your opinions, in fact any of your freedoms. If you disagree I would appreciate it if you would list the things that this President has taken away from you. Tell us how he's going around Congress to make laws that govern us. And most importantly, please tell us where you're getting the information that he's taken or taking these things away from you.

You've definied facism as: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. In my humble opinion, Bush may not have "forcibly" supressed opposition, but he did supress opposition and I believe that it can be proven that he did all of those things except practice racism and actually I guess he actively did that too. His response to Katrina was certainly questionable. The Patriot Act, Quantanamo Bay and the bombing of Iraq are all examples of Bush gone wrong. The way he handled the oil companies, aggressively emphasized nationalism by subsidizing them, etc., are all examples of things we should have questioned, should have been up in arms over. The fact that they said that anyone who opposed the war was not a patriot was just one of the things that he did to oppress people. I could go on but this has turned into a darned book again. Sorry!

Oh I almost forgot to ask - and this is a serious question because I do not have the answer - how many businesses has Obama snatched up? How many corporate CEOs has he fired?

Thanks Beth, that was much easier to read. And luluc, I agree with what you said! Several times I have made reference to the fact that greed in American corporations has been a huge problem and has caused what has become nearly catastrophic for our economy. No government oversight (because we all want a simple capitalist way of life here) has allowed the greed to run rampant and trample on the rights of workers and has put many people out on the streets, jobless. It is because of this kind of greed and disregard for their employees and investors that it has become necessary for someone, or some agency, to intervene and hopefully turn things around so that we can get back to a healthy economy and people can keep their jobs without the constant fear of layoffs. I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know if this intervention (which I believe is temporary!) is the answer. I do know this... Obama has been willing to step up to the plate and give it the ole college try. He is sure taking his lumps for it and he may wind up being wrong. But his is the only plan that is viable that has been put forth. Just allowing these companies to fix themselves with no intervention, wasn't working. Things were just continuing to get worse every day. I believe that the jury is still out and I also believe that raising cain and accusing Obama of being a socialist is fruitless. I asked you once when your taxes have been raised since Obama took office and you ignored my question. I also asked on other threads when he said he wanted to take away people's guns. And when has he said that he doesn't want the border laws enforced? Much of what people (not necessarily you) are yelling about just isn't what's on the agenda right now - they just ain't happening.

luluc, I have a similar experience with my friends and co-workers when we discuss politics and religion. It is always interesting and I always learn something. No one gets mad or calls each other names. Here at LBT, we feel we are anonymous and we say things that are not respectful and that are downright tacky. Beth is correct when she said that I have gotten personal but she is wrong when she has accused me of not having a point or "drinking the kool-aide" (which is NOT one of the things that I have ever suggested of anyone). We disagree on very fundamental issues. She has decided that I have blinders on and I wouldn't exactly characterize her in those terms, but I do believe that she is consumed with things that are not worth discussing or irrelevant. The right wing has become quite adept at raising issues that promote fear and distrust, while at the same time they are pushing an agenda that is very lopsided and single-minded. That is my opinion and just that. I do not set myself up to be a font of knowledge and I do not have dozens of links to back up my opinions. I am an American. I have every right to voice my opinion, just as Beth and Patty and Plain and you and everyone else does. I can disagree but I sure don't think it is my job to accuse anyone of "drinking the kool-aide" - which I believe is a very distasteful (pardon the pun) reference to an extremely tragic event.

"Foreign countries seem to loves them some Obama." I am surprised at you plain. I really didn't figure you as that kind of person. I read that and felt depressed and disappointed. Not that it's a HUGE deal, but in some ways it may reflect a lot of the backlash that we're hearing right now from Obama critics. They're being very contradictory in their criticism of Obama vs what they put up with in Bush. Maybe it has to do with plain ole' discrimination and bias. If it is, those people who are biased against him because of his skin color just need to get over it and realize that this is a new era - an enlightened era - a more intelligent and less fearful era. Some of us are marching forward with a hopefully, less rigidly partisan Washington, and toward a brighter future. Brighter from light bulbs coming on inside people's heads instead of brightness from bombs going off.

plain: "I think you'll find I don't dodge." Um, hmmm. And I said: "Were you proud of the way he represented our country on the night he used the term "shock and awe" when he dropped bombs on a country that we were not at war with?" And you responded: "Except....Bush didn't coin the term "shock and awe". A dude named Harlan Ullman coined that military philosophy way back in 1996. Who was president in '96?" (And that is relevant because.....?) I feel like your response could be considered at least a misdirection. My comment was about his use of the term "shock and awe" as if what he was doing was an admirable thing - but I didn't say that he made the phrase up - he just used it to make bombing a country something that he thought we should be proud of. And that is why I found it so stinkingly innappropriate; the context, not the words themselves. And you also said: "Wait!! Congress authorized Bush to use military force "at any time and in any way he sees fit" on October 11 2002. The bombing didn't start until March 19 2003. So to recap....congress approved, Bush followed through. It wasn't like he invaded within 10 minutes of congressional approval." Another misdirection. I said we weren't at war with Iraq and you said that he was given the authority to drop those bombs. Congress allowing him to use his own judgment about when, where and upon whom he could send in the bombs wasn't the point. And the timing when he invaded wasn't my issue either. My issue was with bombing a country that we weren't at war with. They had not attacked us and some very good intelligence advised him not to do it. He did it anyway and we had never actually declared war. I believe you used words that may be correct, but they are off the point that I was making. It's a clever tactic and one that many people use. Just like your compatriot, Beth, who goes all offensive instead of attemting to defend her stance. You know what they say: The best defense is a good offense. You all have learned that lesson well.

Well Susan I decided not to whine about it, I just flung it right back and I gotta confess that although it felt pretty good, it was inappropriate and - my bad. I try really hard not to allow someone to push my buttons but since it went on way too long, I allowed it to happen. Glad you popped in. The voice of reason, at last. Plain when I get some time I will try to go back through some old threads and pull some of the items I was speaking of. Jack is an expert at it and perhaps I was attributing some of his to you. I'm sort of a hit and run gal. I just don't have a lot of time to play on this thing. But when I read posts that are completely outrageous I feel compelled to jump in. I really should have given it up for Lent. Luluc anytime you can help me out it is majorly appreciated. I hope I can rescue you sometime. Sometimes it sure feels like there's some piling on happenin' ya know? patty you do realize that for most of Bill Clinton's terms the Republicans were the dominate party in Congress, right? And why weren't you bellyaching when George Bush insulted people both here and abroad? What did you think when he was caught on camera chewing with his mouth wide open and saying "shit" to the British Prime Minister? You didn't find that insulting and inappropriate? Were you proud of the way he represented our country on the night he used the term "shock and awe" when he dropped bombs on a country that we were not at war with? Wonder why he didn't just use the term "death and carnage"? Not as catchy? I have no quarrel with you criticizing President Obama if you think he was inappropriate for giving the Queen an IPod, but don't you think that maybe the Queen has plenty of crystal and silver treasures cluttering all the castles by now? And did you know (no you don't because you don't watch the real news) that the Queen opened the door for Mrs. Obama to touch her? The Queen as well as the Prince seemed to be quite taken with the President and First Lady. Bush was not an impressive President when he visited foreign countries. President Obama is, whether you agree with his politics or not.

"Thus why God planned for men and women to get married, and then have sex and children. He planned for the parents to care for them. And rape, incest and sexual imorality was not in his plan. Even so, there is no reason why in an unperfect world women who get pregnant can't protect the child until it is born. Why make 2 wrongs out of 1? " Problem is that whether it was in his plan or not, people are not all getting married and having children. If everyone were getting married and having children I doubt seriously if the question of choice would be much of a factor, would it? You're giving a solution to a problem that isn't real. We're dealing in the real world, not one that we wish were real. Forcing women (and their impregnators) to bring children into this world because you think that's God's plan just doesn't work and it is not a good solution to something that although perhaps God didn't plan it, is quite real.

You say it takes a village, in so many words, and then you say you disagree with Clinton who says it takes a village. It might be that you disagree with Clinton just because she's a Clinton. Ya think?

And you also seem to endorse Hillary Clinton's theory that "it takes a village" to raise a child. Again, in a perfect world we would all gather around the well and pull the child to safety. But this isn't a perfect world, and there are some people you really wouldn't want involved in the rescue attempt of a young child.

Do you really not understand the distinction between a fetus that is wholly dependent upon its' host, and a baby outside the womb? Anyone can take a baby outside the womb and provide for its' needs so that it can thrive and develop. A fetus needs the mother's uterus and her entire body to provide the things that it needs in order to develop. It's a very important distinction, whether you believe it is or not. All life isn't precious. It just isn't. It may be "God's plan" for every man and woman to procreate, but unfortunately it isn't in mother nature's plan. Not all people are wired that way. They just cannot provide the things that are needed for a child to develop and grow. There are many reasons for this, none the least of which are anatomical abnormalities as well as other deficiencies that some men and women have. You seem to be thinking in terms of a perfect world. Unfortunately, this world we live in is nowhere near utopia.

It also bothers me a lot that the anti-choice people keep claiming that a baby is totally separate when we all know that only until the baby separates from the mother, is it then separate. Just because it has it's own heart doesn't mean that it is separate. They don't want to admit that a fetus cannot survive without its' host mother, because if they did, it would be like saying it isn't totally independent or "separate". Only by making the determination that the fetus is a separate being does it make sense to give a fetus all the rights that a fully separate human being has. Another example, in my estiimation, that the anti-choice movement discounts the importance of the woman. And another huge reason why they should not be given the ability to make decisions for her.

President Obama will probably insist that we tattoo the "mark" on all our foreheads.

pattygreen: 40 years ago my brother-in-law, who was an evangelist of the Southern Baptist persuasion, said almost verbatim what you posted above. He was just certain that Jesus was going to return within 10 years. He was telling everyone to get themselve right with God or they'd wind up staying here on earth to burn while their "saved" spouses and children floated up to heaven to be with God. How long do you give us this time?

Beth you're out of your rabid ass mind. How do you think you got all your ammunition? It was from posts that I made containing points that I made. You're a raving lunatic. You have no ability to discuss this subject - you are like patty with fundamentalist religion. All show, no go. You are scary. Your posts remind me of people like Timothy McVeigh, who thought he was making a political statement. Which I guess he was, eh? You might think about calming down before you do something really stupid.

Thank you Laptastic! I greatly admire rodriguezequal's strength and fortitude to stand by her beliefs in spite of being badgered with the anti-choice rethoric. I don't mean to be offensive by calling it the "anti-choice" movement, rather than the "right-to-life" movement. I just cannot, in good faith, agree that the anti-choice people are actually people who care about everyone's right-to-life. I know that's what they claim, but it is an extremely transparent claim. It is offensive to a lot of people who believe that women are smart enough and good enough to make the proper decision when it involves their reproductive organs.

Sorry Beth, I can't take the time to read your posts because they are so long. And here I thought I won the prize for that. You out B.S.'d me. Congratulations. plain I wasn't directing my post to you. I wasn't accusing you of not answering a question. But you do dodge things that you don't like by raising a different subject. We all do it and you're good at that. I gave up last week. The week is young and I am already one beaten down puppy. I had hope that I might inspire somebody to watch and read people who don't disagree with them, but in most cases that's not going to happen. Beth, for instance, is having too much fun doing what she's doing. I am crying "uncle!" What happened to the fairness doctrine? :thumbdown:

Jennifer and rodgriguez, the main focus of the anti-choice movement is not about the quality of life for anyone, either the baby or the mother.

I'm pretty sure I referred to a fertilized egg as a blob of tissue and I stand by that. Just because there are cells that can grow and develop into a person, does not mean that they are any more than a blob of tissue at the point of conception. You see, I do not believe that a fertilized egg has all the rights and privileges of and in fact, IS, a human being. It merely has the potential to be a human being. It is composed of human tissue but that does not mean that it is an actual person. Lots of things must happen correctly and in a timely fashion for a fertilized egg for it to develop into a person. An egg still in a woman's reproductive organs also has the potential to be a person, but it isn't a person, not yet. Neither are all those millions of sperm that are sometimes deposited where they don't belong. Sure, they too are human tissue, but they aren't a person. So to give all the protection that one gives an actual person to a blob of human tissue or a fertilized egg or a single egg or a single sperm, is wrong. God didn't say anywhere, anytime, anything that would lead us to believe what pattygreen said: "Just remember that we will all be held accountable for the lives we have destroyed that weren't ours to destroy." Because I do not believe that God has given us free reign to decide which people ARE ours to destroy. Bible thumpers believe that God has given them the right to pluck out an eye if someone puts their eye out. They justify war and other atrocities like America's attack on Iraq because they've decided that God has told them it is their right to make that decision - who to kill? - call a fundamentalist Christian - they'll tell you. They'll decide if a murderer should be put to death. They'll decide which country's people we should go kill. They'll tell us that every woman in the world who has been impregnated must go through the development of a baby. They'll decide for all of us exactly what the Bible says and who said it. That is one reason why they have jumped on a bandwagon together and have decided that this debate about women's choice is THEIRS to make. Frankly, this is why so many people voted against the Republicans. The fundamentalist Christian right wing has taken over the Republican party. They are hell bent on taking away women's rights to choose. It is the number one item on their agenda. They've set themselves up as judge and jury and the purveyors of all things right and good, while most of us know (if we're brave enough to say it) what they preach is single-minded poppycock. If they don't see the light and temper their insistence on making these kinds of choices for everyone else, they will get fewer and fewer votes. I predict that the right wing faction will spin off and try to create a 3rd party - and that is what I think they should do. Because many of the Republican values are far more moderate and in sync with mainstream Americans. Most people want to live and let live. Most people want the freedom to choose personal issues and their own religious or spiritual beliefs. And isn't THAT what America is all about? Sorry folks, it's Monday and I'm baaack.