Jeannie Babb Taylor: Why we need to elect Democrats
Thursday March 20, 2008 10:12:49am
Are you concerned about family values? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Democrats founded the Department of Education in America. Democrats passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to prevent working parents from being fired when they have to leave work to care for a sick child. That act had been on hold for years because Republicans opposed the idea.
Republicans also opposed the World Health Organization (WHO) code to hold formula companies accountable for their unethical marketing tactics that harm mothers and babies. While the rest of the world signed the WHO code in 1980, babies in the United States had no protection from unscrupulous corporations until Democratic President Bill Clinton took office. Democrats have a bill before the House now to protect breastfeeding mothers from discrimination and offer them a tax break for contributing to the public health.
Speaking of children, Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of poor children. Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of funding cuts and repeated vetoes by Republicans.
Are you concerned about Christian values? The last president who actually attended church was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The next-to-last president to attend church was a Democrat, too. Jimmy Carter preaches, teaches and has written numerous devotionals. As for the current crop of presidential hopefuls, Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a history of Christian faith that includes conversion, church membership and attendance. By contrast, John McCain is so loosely attached to any church that he changed his credentials from “lifelong Episcopalian” to “been a Baptist for years” mid-campaign.
Are you looking to protect our personal freedoms and civil liberties? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Republicans have conceived attack after attack on the rights we hold dear. Bush launched the Patriot Act, suspending the right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus protects us from unlawful arrest by preventing authorities from detaining a person without evidence of a particular crime. Without habeas corpus, we can be arrested without ever breaking the law, and held indefinitely.
Republicans continue to chip away at our civil liberties by spying on Americans through the telephone companies. Although the companies’ actions are illegal and a violation of privacy, blanket immunity protects the companies from prosecution.
Perhaps you are concerned about the economy and prefer to vote for fiscal conservatives. That’s why we need to elect Democrats. The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat. The last president to preside over a budget surplus was a Democrat. Republicans have not so much as broken even since the Nixon era. In fact, President Clinton left office in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus. By 2005, President Bush had burned through that extra money and accumulated a $319 billion deficit.
After another term of Bush, the deficit has spiraled to $9.4 trillion at the time of the writing of this article. The deficit will be higher when you actually read this piece, since it is increasing by $1.7 billion per day. In case you’re wondering what this means to you, your personal share of the budget deficit is $31,001.26 and rising.
Sure, Republicans will cut funding in the name of tax relief. They cut school lunch programs, health programs, and help for the elderly. They cut school funds to help special needs kids — both gifted and learning delayed. Federal and state cuts mean that individual school districts must raise property taxes, suspend programs, or lay off teachers. Look around you and notice that they are doing all of the above just to make ends meet and stay solvent.
Republicans like to call Democrats “tax and spend.” In reality, it is Republicans who tax and spend — but they cut important programs while doing so. They spend everything in the budget and more, then use the budget as an excuse to hurt the helpless. After your child’s special needs teacher is let go, do you think you will receive a tax refund based on her lay-off? Hardly. That money is needed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The war in Iraq costs Americans some $275 million per day. According to the New York Times, the $1.2 trillion spent on Iraq up through January is enough money to fund the following U.S. improvements — an unprecedented public health campaign that doubles cancer research funding, treats every unmanaged diabetic and heart disease patient, and saves millions of lives through global immunization. In 10 years, this program would only use half the money. We could also fund a preschool program for every 3 and 4-year-old in the country, and give New Orleans a gigantic reconstruction boost.
The rest of the money could be spent improving national security by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which Bush chooses to ignore. We would still have money to finance the war in Afghanistan to hold back the Taliban, and fund a peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Darfur.
Are you concerned about security in a time of war? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Let’s look at security on a local level. Notice that the sheriffs of Whitfield, Walker and Catoosa counties are all Democrats, and all known for their ability to keep order and provide safety. Nationally, the same is true. It was a Democratic president who won World War I. It was a Democratic president who won World War II.
What exactly is the Republican war legacy? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan and Iraq? Republicans do not even declare war properly. They surely don’t know how to declare peace.
Democratic leaders are our best hope for a brighter future.
Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.
Republicans also opposed the World Health Organization (WHO) code to hold formula companies accountable for their unethical marketing tactics that harm mothers and babies. While the rest of the world signed the WHO code in 1980, babies in the United States had no protection from unscrupulous corporations until Democratic President Bill Clinton took office. Democrats have a bill before the House now to protect breastfeeding mothers from discrimination and offer them a tax break for contributing to the public health.
Speaking of children, Democrats also implemented the State Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) program that provides health care for millions of poor children. Democrats continue to fight valiantly for the program in the face of funding cuts and repeated vetoes by Republicans.
Are you concerned about Christian values? The last president who actually attended church was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The next-to-last president to attend church was a Democrat, too. Jimmy Carter preaches, teaches and has written numerous devotionals. As for the current crop of presidential hopefuls, Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have a history of Christian faith that includes conversion, church membership and attendance. By contrast, John McCain is so loosely attached to any church that he changed his credentials from “lifelong Episcopalian” to “been a Baptist for years” mid-campaign.
Are you looking to protect our personal freedoms and civil liberties? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Republicans have conceived attack after attack on the rights we hold dear. Bush launched the Patriot Act, suspending the right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus protects us from unlawful arrest by preventing authorities from detaining a person without evidence of a particular crime. Without habeas corpus, we can be arrested without ever breaking the law, and held indefinitely.
Republicans continue to chip away at our civil liberties by spying on Americans through the telephone companies. Although the companies’ actions are illegal and a violation of privacy, blanket immunity protects the companies from prosecution.
Perhaps you are concerned about the economy and prefer to vote for fiscal conservatives. That’s why we need to elect Democrats. The last president to balance the budget was a Democrat. The last president to preside over a budget surplus was a Democrat. Republicans have not so much as broken even since the Nixon era. In fact, President Clinton left office in 2001 with a $127 billion surplus. By 2005, President Bush had burned through that extra money and accumulated a $319 billion deficit.
After another term of Bush, the deficit has spiraled to $9.4 trillion at the time of the writing of this article. The deficit will be higher when you actually read this piece, since it is increasing by $1.7 billion per day. In case you’re wondering what this means to you, your personal share of the budget deficit is $31,001.26 and rising.
Sure, Republicans will cut funding in the name of tax relief. They cut school lunch programs, health programs, and help for the elderly. They cut school funds to help special needs kids — both gifted and learning delayed. Federal and state cuts mean that individual school districts must raise property taxes, suspend programs, or lay off teachers. Look around you and notice that they are doing all of the above just to make ends meet and stay solvent.
Republicans like to call Democrats “tax and spend.” In reality, it is Republicans who tax and spend — but they cut important programs while doing so. They spend everything in the budget and more, then use the budget as an excuse to hurt the helpless. After your child’s special needs teacher is let go, do you think you will receive a tax refund based on her lay-off? Hardly. That money is needed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The war in Iraq costs Americans some $275 million per day. According to the New York Times, the $1.2 trillion spent on Iraq up through January is enough money to fund the following U.S. improvements — an unprecedented public health campaign that doubles cancer research funding, treats every unmanaged diabetic and heart disease patient, and saves millions of lives through global immunization. In 10 years, this program would only use half the money. We could also fund a preschool program for every 3 and 4-year-old in the country, and give New Orleans a gigantic reconstruction boost.
The rest of the money could be spent improving national security by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which Bush chooses to ignore. We would still have money to finance the war in Afghanistan to hold back the Taliban, and fund a peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Darfur.
Are you concerned about security in a time of war? That’s why we need to elect Democrats. Let’s look at security on a local level. Notice that the sheriffs of Whitfield, Walker and Catoosa counties are all Democrats, and all known for their ability to keep order and provide safety. Nationally, the same is true. It was a Democratic president who won World War I. It was a Democratic president who won World War II.
What exactly is the Republican war legacy? Vietnam? Korea? Afghanistan and Iraq? Republicans do not even declare war properly. They surely don’t know how to declare peace.
Democratic leaders are our best hope for a brighter future.
Jeannie Babb Taylor may be contacted at jeannie@babb.com, or you can leave a public comment on her blog at JeannieBabbTaylor.com.
Post a comment: You must be logged in order to comment.
Comments: 75 Joined: 04/09/2006 |
08/27/2008 09:21:39 AM
Why must I vote for a Democrat or a Republican? BOTH sides voted for the war in iraq. BOTH sides allowed the housing market crash, gas prices, etc etc. Its time we understand why George Washington warned us about political parties. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/05/2008 11:55:13 AM
Comment in previous post was from catvoter. Forgot to clarify where comment came from. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/05/2008 11:54:12 AM
JBT could you explain for us the difference between a budget surplus/deficit and the fact that the historical debt of the United States has increased EVERY year for over 50 years. Deficit spending?To see graph go to http://zfacts.com/p/318.html (copy/paste) National Debt as % of GDP. see also: (Source) In 1981 the gross national debt, compared to the nation's annual income, reached its lowest point since 1931. Despite his claim to hate the debt, Reagan instituted unprecedented peacetime deficit spending. This is not partisan politics, this is straight off the White House web site. As the graph shows, Bush II repeated Reagan's performance and turned the debt upward again. Bush II's own Office of Management and Budget provides all the data. Not sure where you get YOUR information. Give us a link, Kudos to bloggeye......... she sites sources for her statements !!! |
Comments: 100 Joined: 08/10/2007 |
04/05/2008 12:13:16 AM
The point is the subject of the above article. Are Democrats the way to go? Regardless of talking about drilling oil in ANWR or US coastal areas. Regardless if the initial findings of oil reserves in ANWR would supply 100% for a year (not possible) or 5% for 20 years. The "Democratic leaders" (referred to above) are the keys to the current blocking of drilling and are blocking the opportunity for lower oil and gas prices. 79% of the public disapprove of the direction the Democratic lead Congress is headed. (Yes, 69% disapprove of the President's path.) Another issue from the above article. JBT refers to the buget surplus of President Bill Clinton, but fails to thank the Republican controlled Congress for 6 of Bill's 8 years in office. JBT could you explain for us the difference between a budget surplus/deficit and the fact that the historical debt of the United States has increased EVERY year for over 50 years. Deficit spending? JBT, how do you tag the Vietnam War on the Republican war legacy? Kennedy started the war and Johnson escalated it. Both Presidents and both houses of Congress were Democrats their entire time in office. |
Comments: 291 Joined: 08/18/2006 |
04/04/2008 08:24:38 PM
Hopefully there won't be any problems when they drill. Some politicians and others like to note that they believe the North Slope of Alaska is a "wasteland"; however, I don't presume such nonsense. You are naive if you believe they will only use 2000 acres for all their equipment, holes, road systems, living quarters, etc. Alaska has already experienced problems with drilling in Alaska, such as, the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the recent corrosion of the pipeline. I haven't heard of many fisherman excited over losing their livelihood from the oil spill. The companies seem to have failed in their inspection duties. Many Alaskans are for drilling in ANWR. They hope their Permanent Fund check will increase. Many folks might look forward to working on a new project in the north as well. I actually have friends that worked on the first pipeline. It is an engineering marvel. In addition, my husband fought fire above the Arctic Circle to keep the fire from the pipeline. He can attest to the "aggressive mosquitoes" as you called them. My point seemed to have been lost because at the avg. prediction of 7.7 BBO that might be recovered from area 1002 that would provide American with only a little over 1 year's use of oil. I don't think this oil is going to get us even close to be independent from foreign oil. Nor will it make much of a dent in the price. Maggie is right with her comments from he Watercooler that we need to make many changes, big and small. |
Comments: 100 Joined: 08/10/2007 |
04/04/2008 07:31:02 PM
It would appear that the ANWR estimates at any recovery rate are equal to the remaining recovery amounts of oil for Alaska's North Slope. We have pulled oil out of the North Slope for years, so we could double the amount of currently recoverable oil from Alaska by drilling in a very small area of ANWR.Please note that the 1002 area of ANWR is only a small confirmed area and that a much greater potential could exist. Area 1002 is 1.5 million acres in total, the oil companies only need 2,000 acres to drill on by using horizontal drilling per the website. The oil companies have been drilling for years in a National Refuge in Louisana with no problems. There are no significant environmental problems with the Alaska North Slope, the Alaska residents want it, and the Democrats lead by a few special interests are blocking it. Again, let the oil companies use 2,000 acres of the TOTAL ANWR 19 million acres. I'm more concerned about gas prices than breeding birds. Let the birds use the other 18,998,000 acres. It probably would turn out like the caribou "problem" when the environmental people said the caribou would be driven out of the North Slope areas. Then actually the caribou liked the pipeline and used it as scratching posts. The environmental people said the wells in the Gulf of Mexico could damage the fishing. Then later the fishermen like to fish around the rigs because they act as structures drawing fish. ANWR would be a "tree huggers" cause, but there are no trees in area 1002; it is a flat plain on the coast. It seems the Democrats want those on fixed incomes to pay more for gas, so birds can eat better in a very small area in Alaska. |
Comments: 291 Joined: 08/18/2006 |
04/04/2008 03:41:26 PM
catvoter, I believe they will open ANWR to drilling, but your estimates are at the high end of what oil is technically recoverable. The USGS gives a mean estimate at 7.7 billions barrels of oil(BBO) (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm and http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/ANWR_DNR_review.pdf). That means it has a prabability of about 50% of being 7.7 BBO. The higher volume of oil the lower the probability. Your estimate is a 5% probability. In fact, I think your figure is probably the mean for the oil in place. The United States uses 6.6 BBO per year now (http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html) Furthermore, Area 1002 is 1.5 million acres not 2000 acres. The USGS site and the anwr.org site with the document from the AK DNR backs up those facts as well. and our use continues to rise 2% every year. The point is the amount of oil we gain from ANWR is not that much in the long or short run. ANWR does have a lot of mosquitoes but they support all the migratory and year-round birds which live and breed on the Arctic Slope. Atl east 195 species of birds use this area in addition to the other wildlife, such as, musk ox, dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, grizzly bear, etc... |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
04/03/2008 11:21:07 PM
AC, how old are you, if you don't mind me asking? |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
04/03/2008 11:12:36 PM
Familymom, it's ok, he is not bothering me. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/03/2008 09:15:30 PM
Then we do not need to be making condescending remarks to begin with, do we???? If maggie thought we did not know about the Alaskan Pipeline's existence, she could have simply asked us if we were not aware of it. No, her post was intended (or sure came across that way) to embarrass us by not even knowing the pipeline existed. Come on folks, stop being so juvenile. I am not responding in a hateful manner...... just pointing out the obvious. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
04/03/2008 09:06:06 PM
We are not thin skinned, we just know that in the context of blog and email, a person's tone cannot be known. We therefore try to be careful and respectful in how we post our messages so as not to come accross as exceptionally rude. Additionally, there are a few here of whom I respect and do not wish to see them referred to in a hateful manner. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/03/2008 08:41:08 PM
I have never seen so many "thin skinned" people. I did not think it was rude at all. Just a response to your condescending post. The area of Alaska we were talking about has only been discussed for decades (as catvoter pointed out). Your entire post implied that we had never heard of the "Alaskan Pipeline" or the fact that we get oil from the region. Seems to me that you were the one acting a little "smart-elicky". I really don't see what was rude about the post.You have shown that you know "history" well..... now how about current events?? |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
04/03/2008 07:54:05 AM
Familymom and Jaydubya, thanks for your support. He was rather rude wasn't he, seems like I recall him being rude to others as well. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
04/02/2008 11:57:12 PM
Maggie, sorry you got "Duh"ed". familymom is correct, that was rude and immature. Read what you were commenting about and I didn't see where the subject was changed to "obviously other areas". In the future you could get out your crystal ball to decipher the blogs. Or maybe it was a chemtrail that prevented you from reading between the lines. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
04/02/2008 10:43:12 PM
American Citizen,There is no need to be rude to maggie. Your "DUH" statement was not necessary and not very mature. |
Comments: 100 Joined: 08/10/2007 |
04/02/2008 10:40:40 PM
I am specifically refering to needing to drill in the 1002 area of ANWR in Alaska. This is in an area of about 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 2,000 acres is just bigger than the 1,600 acres of the Catoosa County National Guard rifle range.Google "Arctic Refuge drilling controversy" for several sources of information. The current Alaska oil drilling in the North Slope area now supplies about 17%. ANWR oil could contribute a significant amount. The potential 16 billion barrels from ANWR was estimated as being equal to 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia or 58 years of imports from Iraq. The ANWR area has been cussed and discussed in Congress since the days of Jimmy Carter. Congress was supposed to have decided all this before 2001 but it has been delayed by the Democratic Senators, Representatives and one bill was vetoed by Bill Clinton in 2005. The Democrats and 3 to 7 Republicans have continued to block legislation allowing drilling. The Democrats blocked it even when the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Per the Google articles "Alaska residents, trade unions, and business interests" support the ANWR drilling and "environmental groups and many Democrats" oppose it. Environmental concerns are weak arguments. They try to show ANWR as pure mountains and forests. In reality the prime drilling area is in a flat, treeless area on the coastal plain that is best known for having millions and millions of agressive mosquitoes during a 3 month thawing summer. Polar bear and caribou have done well during Alaska North Slope drilling. The caribou in that area have more than tripled from 6,000 to over 20,000 since 1978. Changes since 2006 maybe haven't been all bad? Maybe not, but Bush has an approval rating of 30.8% and the Democratic lead Congress approval rating today is 21%. Certainly neither can brag, but more negative change is not needed. My point on ANWR drilling rapidly decreasing oil futures is based on analysts saying that oil supply and demand right now would justify $80 a barrel oil, but the raise to $100+ a barrel in oil futures is due to all the speculators on Wall Street. If drilling in ANWR was approved in Congress, oil futures would drop below $50-60 because the speculators are trading "futures". We don't need more Democrats to block ANWR. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/02/2008 10:22:43 PM
maggie, we are obviously talking about the other sections of Alaska that some have been wanting to drill in for the last few years. Duh.... I think most of us are aware of the Alaskan Pipeline. Do we have to be THAT specific. You know there are areas of Alaska they have been begging to explore drill. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
04/02/2008 03:25:52 PM
We already drill oil in Alaska and the Alaskan pipeline produces 25% of our crude oil, so where are you getting your facts from?Pipeline Quick Facts The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was designed and constructed to move oil from the North Slope of Alaska to the northern most ice- free port- Valdez, Alaska. Length: 800 miles. Diameter: 48 inches. Crosses three mountain ranges and over 800 rivers and streams. Cost to build: $8 billion in 1977, largest privately funded construction project at that time. Construction began on March 27, 1975 and was completed on May 31, 1977. First oil moved through the pipeline on June 20, 1977. Over 14 billion barrels have moved through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. First tanker to carry crude oil from Valdez: ARCO Juneau, August 1, 1977. Tankers loaded at Valdez: 16,781 through March 2001. Storage tanks in Valdez- 18 with total storage capacity of 9.1 million barrels total. The mission of Alyeska’s Ship Escort Response Vessel System is to safely escort tankers through Prince William Sound. Last updated May 7, 2004 14 billion barrels seems like a good bit of oil to me and this was in 2004. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
04/02/2008 02:11:02 PM
There are environmental concerns in drilling is Alaska that need to be addressed. There are Democrats and republicans who recognize this. If we began tomorrow drilling in Alaska, how long do you think it would be before we got the first barrel of crude? You make it sound like we would get it immediately.It would be years (with an s) before we could benefit from what is believed to be a small amount of oil. We all expected change when we voted in the Democrats. However, realize that even though there are more Democrats, until they get "60" in the Senate, the republicans can still stop the progress the Democrats are trying to get. Just need a few more !! By the way, I do not think the changes that have been made since 2006 have been all bad. |
Comments: 100 Joined: 08/10/2007 |
04/01/2008 06:30:41 PM
Don't forget that the Democrats are the major cause of stopping more oil drilling in the US.If you want to do something. Get the Democrats in Congress to approve drilling for oil in Alaska and off the US coasts. The Democrats are blocking it due to special interests. If more oil came from the United States, fuel prices would drop fast. Oil futures would drop a barrel to under $60 in a hurry, compared to over $100 now. The current Democrats in Congress have total control over the regulations in trading oil futures and could get the fuel prices down with one good bill. Congress can do it themselves, the President cannot. We wanted change when we elected the Democrats to Congress in 2006, but didn't realize the change would be bad. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
03/30/2008 04:15:16 PM
It started with teen pregnancies and family values and that is how we ended up on the subject of clothing. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
03/30/2008 12:56:22 PM
I was just kidding with you!!! |
Comments: 401 Joined: 11/14/2007 |
03/30/2008 10:24:44 AM
oops. Sorry AmericanCitizen.... we stray from time-to-time. Please feel free to get us back on topic. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
03/30/2008 10:22:08 AM
I'm sorry..........How did we get to the topic of clothes shopping?? |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
03/29/2008 07:48:07 PM
Hoosier, yes I have and they are moderately priced and cute clothes, but sometimes I forget they are there. I have bought some cute things for my grandchildren there in the past. Another place, a lot of people probably don't think about or know they carry girls clothes is Cato. They have really cute girls clothes and they aren't expensive either. |
Comments: 401 Joined: 11/14/2007 |
03/29/2008 07:13:27 PM
familymom and maggie:Have either of you shopped for clothing at Hamrick's in FO. They have some very pretty dresses, which seem to be very conservative as well. Just thought I'd toss that in there. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
03/29/2008 06:48:05 PM
Land's End is about the best place for conservative clothes for kids...but they can be pricey too..especially with more than one child to buy for. I also hate that many of their clothes are made in China. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
03/29/2008 05:28:43 PM
Irishred, it is a sad state of affairs the way these young girls are allowed to dress. You are right it is the mothers who allow it. After all, 12 years olds can't drive theirselves to the mall and most of them don't have their own money, so it is mom who takes them and mom who buys the clothes. It doesn't help to have the influence of the actresses (train wrecks) you mentioned, but even so, these mothers need to be the parent and not allow their daughters to dress this way. Although, I am sure it is hard to find decent clothes. Even in the little girls clothes it can be hard to find decent clothes. I remember a couple of years ago, trying to find a Christmas dress for my granddaughter and everything looked like hooker clothes. I ended up having to spend way too much money and buying a dress at Strassburg. They have beautiful childrens clothes, but are rather pricey, even on sale they can be more than some people can or want to pay. I guess it is time for parents and grandparents to complain loudly to dept stores and clothing manufacturers that we prefer our children to look like children. |
Comments: 593 Joined: 01/19/2007 |
03/29/2008 08:54:43 AM
As the mother of a 12 year old boy, I can tell you that the kids that age are pairing off in what they call "school girl and boy friends". They are "going steady" at school. I have seen some of these girls and they look like 18 with the hair and makeup and high heels. Those things come mostly from their mothers who allow it. The media who constantly puts focus on these teen and early 20 train wrecks like Britney, Lindsay, Jamie Lynn and all the others are not helping. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
03/29/2008 05:19:23 AM
Moving on would be great but I don't think it will. This is more than a man saying these vile things. This is a preacher saying these things from the largest black church in Chicago. And we have a man that wants to be the leader of our country, to be my president, and he sat there for twenty years and never heard this stuff. I find that hard to believe. I'm not convinced that is the truth. That was too much hate and anger to be isolated and for "no one" to repeat!!!! I find that hard to believe. I don't feel he adequately denounced this language. Sorry if I feel it won't go away, reckon that's just my opinion. Hillary's "mis-spoke" I can overlook much easier. No telling what she was really told. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
03/28/2008 11:41:00 PM
Hoosiermama,I have not heard about Obama being the anit-Christ. That's crazy. I am so sick of hearing and reading about his pastor...wish the press would move on to something else. Ditto for Hillary and the Bosnia thing. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
03/28/2008 11:37:07 PM
Roscoe,There are crooked politicians in both parties. With that said, however, the next Pres. will decide on some judges and that can affect us for 50 years or more. That is a major reason for Repubs to vote with their party. I am in TOTAL agreement with you on the 2nd ammendment. This case in DC now is historical and Dems tend to want more gun restrictions and Hillary said that she sides with idea of gun confiscation (similar to post-Katrina). That case is also going to court. That is a very scary thing for us gun rights folks. Though I disagree with both Hillary and Obama on several issues, gun rights are enough to make me not vote for either. It is interesting to me that the 2nd ammendment and the current Supreme Court case in DC have not been asked of either candidates. It's a major issue and I think they are avoiding it. |
Comments: 401 Joined: 11/14/2007 |
03/28/2008 10:31:16 PM
Gosh, Roscoe. I certainly hope that you don't mind if a staunch Independent attempts to address one question out of your many concerning Democrats. Allow me to disclose the fact that I normally vote Republican, however, this year for the first time in several decades, I'm voting Democrat. Let me refresh your memory in the way of "crooked" politicians because obviously my memory is better than yours. This year, how about that Idaho senator, REPUBLICAN, that got caught playing footsie underneath the bathroom stalls at an airport. You do remember that, don't you? How about President Richard M. Nixon? Watergate? The only President to resign his office? Please don't start with your nonsense about how Democrat politicians are more crooked than Republicans because that is just a silly, bunch of foolishness that is going to earn you a "dunce" cap just like another poster here that has insinuated that Barack Obama is the AntiChrist. As for the rest of your post...... I won't even bother. Let somebody else with a little more patience than me attempt to answer. |
Comments: 9 Joined: 10/26/2006 |
03/28/2008 09:42:48 PM
I got a question for all you democrats. Why are all major cities in America that are controlled by democrats also the highest crime cities? Why is it that when crooked politicians are arrested, 9 out of 10 have a "D" after their name? Look at Clayton County Georgia. An ALL democrat school board and their school system was decertified. 52,000 kids who can't get the HOPE scholarship and go to college. Why do gays, lesbians and the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney all vote democrat? Is it because they believe the gov't should penalize people who work and have money so they can support bums too lazy to work? Wake up. The democratic party went north years ago to be with Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. All the democrats want is your money and your gun. |
Comments: 401 Joined: 11/14/2007 |
03/28/2008 09:33:24 PM
AmericanCitizen:It's going to be an interesting Democratic race regardless. However, the bigger question, which was so skillfully suggested by ringgoldone is: Is Barack Obama the AntiChrist? Unbelievable that there are some in the Republican party that are so fearful of losing the election that they would even stoop to this level, but the evidence is clearly there. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
03/28/2008 09:26:00 PM
I respectfully disagree. What we have are two very strong and very good candidates in Clinton and Obama. They both are very passionate about what they say and believe and both are close enough to each other that they both fill like they have a chance. Why should either one quit? Of course, I wish we had a nominee right now so that we could save our money for the battle with McCain. But, McCain rose to the top of his party faster; I guess the competition was not that good according to republican primary voters.Probably after the Pennsylvania primary, one of the two will have to drop out. At that time the Democrats will come together (for the most part - there will always be a percentage that gets mad and either do not vote at all or vote for someone else) and unite against the republican McCain. Just my thoughts....we will have to look back on these posts a few months down the road and see what happened. |
Comments: 401 Joined: 11/14/2007 |
03/28/2008 09:15:45 PM
familymom:The arguing between HRC and Obama is putting a huge strain on the Democratic party. Once a nominee is chosen, a lot of the animosity that is left over from the primaries will spill over into the Presidential race, making it very difficult to unite the party. There are polls out right now that substantiate that theory. Many Obama supporters say they will vote for McCain instead of HRC, if she wins the nomination, and vice versa. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it was approx. 20%. The Democratic Senators may be trying to keep the democratic votes by ending the primary campaign, before it completely divides the party. The reason the HRC is being singled out is probably that many of the polls predict Obama to win. There is also some differing opinions on who would have more "electability" against McCain. There are some in the democratic ranks that think Obama would fare much better than HRC. Perhaps there are others that would suggest her, but I haven't heard many, if any, of them speaking out. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
03/28/2008 09:05:20 PM
What about some of the dem senators trying get Hillary to quit her run? that's crazy! I think these are people who endorse Obama too. I guess they are afraid of going head-to-head with Hillary and are wishing she will drop out. How absurd! I hope she stays in and beats him.....I like her better than him. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
03/28/2008 08:55:59 AM
Good luck, jaydubya. I guess it takes all types. I will respect your wishes and not comment on your future posts. I will let others address your comments. You might do the same. Anger comes across in the written word as well as the spoken word. But I guess you know that as well.P.S. I can't even understand what you are trying to say in the following paragraph: You blogged "I don't believe I ever implied that you needed my permission for anything. And you implying that I did only lowers the credibilty of your comments". I suppose your implying that my implying that you had implied I needed your permission lowered the credibility of my comments, but I think I read what you blogged correctly. I don't know, maybe the fact you can't remember what you blogged lowers the credibility of your comments. What are you attempting to say? Confusing collection of words here. On second thought don't repond, I forgot, we're not speaking. Have a great day as well. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
03/28/2008 02:31:46 AM
Oh, I'm sorry if I came across as "an angry individual". It's difficult to express emotion on a blog but you must have a sixth sense. I believe, if I am not mistaken you blogged "If you get so upset (at her well researched columns, I might add) then DON'T READ THEM. Don't subject yourself to such an upsetting moment for you". I alway thought that when someone blogged in capital letters it was like they were yelling at you. So silly of me but I thought you were yelling at me not to read them. I have only been speaking and reading English for a little more than 40 years but I must have misunderstood your meaning. And thank you for being concerned about my well being.Then you also told me in a seperate blog "Jay, JBT is a DEMOCRAT! Do you understand that?? It is obvious that you and her are not going to hold the same views. She doesn't mind that you have an opinion BUT SHE HAS ONE AS WELL." Again, so silly of me but seems you are questioning my ability to comprehend the written word. But I must add my thanks to you for allowing me my own opinion. At least now it is validated. You blogged "I don't believe I ever implied that you needed my permission for anything. And you implying that I did only lowers the credibilty of your comments". I suppose your implying that my implying that you had implied I needed your permission lowered the credibility of my comments, but I think I read what you blogged correctly. I don't know, maybe the fact you can't remember what you blogged lowers the credibility of your comments. Enough with you AmericanCitizen, I don't even know you nor do I care to know you. So let's part ways here and keep it civil. Thank you and have a great day. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
03/27/2008 11:21:26 PM
jaydubya........why are you such an angry individual? I will read your posts. I like to hear all viewpoints. I don't believe I ever implied that you needed my permission for anything. And you implying that I did only lowers the credibilty of your comments. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
03/27/2008 09:37:44 PM
Thank you AmericanCitizen for pointing out what I already knew. I could care less what JBT writes. She is in her own fantasy world anyway. But, if you took the time to read back many blogs ago, she called me out by name and told me I was wrong in my thinking, in a manner. I just responded to one of her columns, didn't put her initials in, but it was her column. But she went on the defensive, called me out by my blog name, and more or less told me I was wrong. So, if I choose to respond to one of her columns I will. I don't need your or her permission to do so. Thank you but no thank you. My problem with JBT and her articles is that she writes them as the truth, everything else is wrong, and we are not entitled to our opinions. I don't support one side over the other, it's the man/woman and what they stand for and believe in. So if you are going to write an article write both sides. Her articles are onesided. There is enough bad on each side to go around. But there is also good on each side and that should be talked about also. To be a credible writer you need to look at both sides. Right now I look at JBT as a liberal writer. I'm not a liberal. I consider myself a moderate liberal conservative. Some ideas need to be tried. But not at the expense of others. Some programs need to be stopped, some need to be started. But we need serious people, not those that want to use scare tactics. We need serious people to lead us. Not those that support the "good ole boy system" or the democratic or republican way. But those that will lead. Fix what is wrong. Work to make a stronger America. Work with the world and not against. Protect our way of life and not invite terrorists into our land. And the same can go for you Citizen, if you don't like what I write, THEN DON'T READ IT. You aren't my dad, I have one and he is dead. I'm so glad you can read in between the lines of what I wrote. I wasn't telling anybody anything. Simply saying that if you are going to hold someone to a certain standard then you need to hold everyone to that standard. Or you end up looking wishy-washy. Or maybe weak is a better word for you to understand. Obama shouldn't say Don Imus should be fired if he isn't willing to say Rev. Wright needs to leave the pulpit. You can't have it both ways. Either you stand for right or you don't. In this case Obama has shown us he is weak. But if you don't like what I write then seriously, don't read or respond to me. I have made it this far in life without you and I'm sure I will make it a little further more. Thank you though. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
03/27/2008 08:01:39 PM
You are missing the point on having unwanted pregnancies. Condoms are handed out like candy at the health dept. As far as I know, girls can also go there and get prescriptions for birth control. I am also fairly certain if a young woman is adamant that she is going to be sexually active her mother would take her to the doctor and get birth control pills or some other form of birth control. This is 2008, not 1968 and there is absolutely no reason for any girl or woman to get pregnant unless she absolutely wants to. These girls in high school and now even in the middle schools, think it is COOL to get pregnant, they are doing so on purpose. They brag about it at school and bring their ultrasound pictures to show off. They see absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing. You know, we have taken worrying about their little self esteems so far, that as a society we don't teach them right and wrong or consequences for their actions and heaven forbid we tell them that something is shameful.Not saying that you are that way or anyone else that regularly visits here, but as a society that is the message we are sending kids today. I don't have a problem with JBT writing a one-sided column, what I have a problem with is that whenever regular posters on here, voice their opinion, she appears and blasts everyone for daring to have a different opinion. She can say what she wants, it is a free country, she can even tell us we should vote for Barney and why, but I have the right to say I don't want to vote for Barney and why. |
Comments: 225 Joined: 10/12/2006 |
03/27/2008 07:21:06 PM
jaydub ---- air is fine where I am at! I'm not in a penthouse; just an average American. You know as well as I do that what Obama was saying about his grandmother is exactly the way it is, in most cases. In her time, if she was walking down the street and one or two black men were approaching her, she would be a little concerned. Did not say it was right or justified. That is just the way it was in the 60's and even the 70's. A lot of unjustified stereotyping going on then, and probably still does today.JBT is a Democrat and writes a Democratic Column. She does not have to defend the republican views in order to "report both sides and let you make up your own mind". Does the "ultra-conservative republican" columnist (I can't even remember his name) do what you are asking? I think not. If you get so upset (at her well researched columns, I might add) then DON'T READ THEM. Don't subject yourself to such an upsetting moment for you. Seems to me that in the second paragraph of your most recent comment, you are pretty much telling the Democrats they are wrong for even considering Clinton or Obama. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say. I do have children and we both have to work. We are responsible parents who are very involved. We make it a point to be. Point I was trying to make, maggie, was that teenage sex is going to happen. Either the parents, the churches, the schools, whoever is not doing the job. Do we want to take our heads out of the sand and start addressing the problems. If we do we are going to have to have more than just abstinence only programs. Stop the need for abortions in the first place. We might not be able to stop pre-marital sex but we at least can do what we can to eliminate the need for abortion. |
Comments: 192 Joined: 11/05/2006 |
03/27/2008 05:33:21 PM
Americancitizen, how's the air way up there where you live? Must be nice to decide what I should think and say. If you would come in from looking out your tower over all us peons you might watch a news program. They have all played Clinton's Sniper story. It's not been that long ago but I know if I had heard sniper fire I would remember it. But she went further, no ceremony on the tarmack. Well, I think we have all seen that there was. Clinton didn't seem worried for the safety of Chelsea or the little girl giving her flowers and reciting a poem to her. Excuse it all you want, Clinton's selective memory has been very active over the past 20 years. She couldn't remember who she represented in her law firm in Little Rock???? Didn't know where improtant papers were in the White House but gosh isn't that them on the breakfast table 2 months later. Get real Citizen, her selective memory will send us all to the poorer house.You go ahead and overlook Clinton's "mis-spoke" or Obama's "didn't know what was being said in church" all you want. These are the folks you want to lead this country and they can't remember what really happened or what has been preached about for 20 years. And for Obama to talk about his white grandmother the way he did and calling her a "typical white person". Can you tell me what a typical white person is? And what if Bush called someone a "typical black person"? Can someone tell me what that is also? Obama was real quick to call for the firing of Don Imus when he called some girls by degrading names. But Rev. Wright can call for beating up white people and the da__ing of America and that doesn't bother you? Strange what some people consider important and what some choose to ignore. And Citizen, it's not that she is a democrat or I MIGHT be a republican it's that she is continuously telling us how wrong we are and how right she is. If you are going to write an article, then tell both sides and let the people make up their own minds and form their own opinions. She tells us how we are wrong for thinking anyway other than how she thinks because she has done so many wonderful things in her wonderful life. She doesn't know any of us and neither do you. |
Comments: 1542 Joined: 01/08/2006 |
03/27/2008 05:10:18 PM
Grace you always get to the heart of the matter!!! Like you, I am not to impressed with any of the candidates. You are right, Church attendance doesn't make you a Christian, which makes me wonder why JBT trys so hard to drill it into everyone's head that the Clintons are such devout Church attendees, then they must be devout Christians. Americancitizen, you didn't answer my question, do you have kids? Yes, I know that it is more difficult when both parents work and I realize in many families it takes two incomes just to live, but there are plenty of families that could very well live on one income, yet often both parents work, because they want to. I know plenty of young families who live on one income, it is not easy and they don't have a lot of discretionary money, but they feel it is more important for one parent to be home with the kids. For those that have to both work, there are ways to do that and still have one parent at home at all times. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on these issues. I have my opinions and am entitled to them. The main thing about JBT is that she puts her opinions out there in the form of a column and when people disagree with her, she does her best to shoot them down. Seems that she really has a hard time with anyone disagreeing with her views. Frankly I don't care what she thinks or who she is going to vote for, but when she puts her opinions out there, I have the right to speak how I feel, as to all the others who agree or disagree with her. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
03/27/2008 11:31:13 AM
I wonder how many times there will be a re-count....especially in Florida. Those people can't seem to get it straightened out. |
Comments: 281 Joined: 11/29/2007 |
03/27/2008 11:30:26 AM
At least after 4 years if everyone REALLY hates who won...we can vote again:-) |
Comments: 494 Joined: 01/19/2006 |
03/27/2008 11:26:06 AM
Already, Florida had their primary too early and then Michigan didn't have a candidate on the ballot. Were the votes not counted in Florida or misrepresented in Michigan, or did I hear incorrect news reports. November is only a few months away and we will see what really happens in this year's presidental election. I still say in the overall final outcome, it will be a very controversial election. |
<< < Prev - Next > >>
Login
| Password: |
Newest Users
Popular Blogs
What makes me mad in Walker County is...
The Watercooler
Matters of Faith
Disappearance of Theresa Parker, 911 dispatcher in Walker County
LaFayette man arrested on federal pornography charges
What makes me mad in Catoosa County is...
What makes me mad in Floyd County is...
Catoosa fire meeting heats up
Most students promoted despite CRCT failure
Candidates for Walker County clerk of Superior Court
Recent Blogs
And the winner is; Lakeview Fort Oglethorpe High School, Governor’s Cup No. 2
Jeff O’Bryant: Bush bailed, people nailed
LaFayette Rotary holds mock election
Democrats charge Catoosa Chamber debate was partisan
Handgun found in restroom at Ridgeland High
Jeannie Babb Taylor: Got melamine? Formula-fed infants are at risk both at home and abroad
New policy requires Walker County students to make up time for bomb threats
Naman Crowe: The Russia/Georgia Conflict and America
Jeannie Babb Taylor: Palin pros and cons
Northwestern, Coosa Valley tech colleges will merge services
Comments: 363
Joined: 06/26/2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLPpINP5B2w