Saturday, April 18, 2009

Did anyone else see Senator Claire McCaskill call out the Senate Republicans? LOL?

She called them out for being the hypocrites that they are. She said that EVERY Republican Senator who stood up and complained about earmarks, actually had some of their own in the stimulus package. She also said the Republican Senate leader had TWICE as many earmarks as the Democratic Senate leader. One Republican even had one for the "Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference" whatever that is.

http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1067590.html

What a bunch of losers.


It's about time someone called them out on it and it was a woman who had the cahones to do it. They are a party of hypocrites and losers.

She should have gotten more publicity for her courage. I like her very much. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/accuse_write?qid=20090305092544AAOVSDr&kid=NbUvWzC0UTCbazzv9f6p&s=comm&date=2009-03-08+21%3A39%3A34&.crumb=

So what?

They voted AGAINST the bill. Once the money was going to be spent and their constituents were going to be bound to PAY for it, they were as entitled to the few crumbs that actually reach the people as any others.

Earmarks is just our elected representatives, rather than some unelected administrator, saying where the money goes, once the total amount has been agreed upon. The questions are not whether they are earmarks (that is Congress's job and we sure don't want the already too strong executive end running separation of powers with an unConstitutional line item veto or anything). The question is whether the money is being wasted or spent for the people, not for the government or special interests.

I agree that we didn't need a pig odor study. If that came from the GOP that Senator should resign in shame.

But I bet it didn't.

So bad is okay because the other person did it too? The point is that BOTH sides are loading on the earmarks and both are wrong.

They're all hypocrites.

I'm sick of Republicans and all their pork.

Did anyone else see Senator Claire McCaskill call out the Senate Republicans? LOL?

She called them out for being the hypocrites that they are. She said that EVERY Republican Senator who stood up and complained about earmarks, actually had some of their own in the stimulus package. She also said the Republican Senate leader had TWICE as many earmarks as the Democratic Senate leader. One Republican even had one for the "Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference" whatever that is.

http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1067590.html

What a bunch of losers.


It's about time someone called them out on it and it was a woman who had the cahones to do it. They are a party of hypocrites and losers.

She should have gotten more publicity for her courage. I like her very much. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/accuse_write?qid=20090305092544AAOVSDr&kid=NbUvWzC0UTCbazzv9f6p&s=comm&date=2009-03-08+21%3A39%3A34&.crumb=

So what?

They voted AGAINST the bill. Once the money was going to be spent and their constituents were going to be bound to PAY for it, they were as entitled to the few crumbs that actually reach the people as any others.

Earmarks is just our elected representatives, rather than some unelected administrator, saying where the money goes, once the total amount has been agreed upon. The questions are not whether they are earmarks (that is Congress's job and we sure don't want the already too strong executive end running separation of powers with an unConstitutional line item veto or anything). The question is whether the money is being wasted or spent for the people, not for the government or special interests.

I agree that we didn't need a pig odor study. If that came from the GOP that Senator should resign in shame.

But I bet it didn't.

So bad is okay because the other person did it too? The point is that BOTH sides are loading on the earmarks and both are wrong.

They're all hypocrites.

I'm sick of Republicans and all their pork.

Very messy boyfriend situation....?

Okay my best friend moved to another state and one day I was talking to her in a chat room and then her best guy friend came in and asked me out. I said ok. Well he moved close to where i live a couple months later. My best friend sent me a picture of him because i really wanted to know what he looked like. Welp guess what I found out on my own? That that is not him. Long story of how i found out. I put in the name of who that picture really was of in google image And I was SHOCKED. "Olathe boy,16, sought in stabing." was the title and my boyfriend's "pic" was right next to the title. Now i know he lied to me. I dont have his email, phone number, have no idea now what he looks like, and etc.. So please help me decide what to do. Thanks.

P.s. here is where i found out he lied.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2006/12/olathe_boy_16_s.html

Thanks again. :)


Forget about the past and also him. Think on how to better your life.

don't talk to him. you could get yourself in a lot of trouble.

Very messy boyfriend situation....?

Okay my best friend moved to another state and one day I was talking to her in a chat room and then her best guy friend came in and asked me out. I said ok. Well he moved close to where i live a couple months later. My best friend sent me a picture of him because i really wanted to know what he looked like. Welp guess what I found out on my own? That that is not him. Long story of how i found out. I put in the name of who that picture really was of in google image And I was SHOCKED. "Olathe boy,16, sought in stabing." was the title and my boyfriend's "pic" was right next to the title. Now i know he lied to me. I dont have his email, phone number, have no idea now what he looks like, and etc.. So please help me decide what to do. Thanks.

P.s. here is where i found out he lied.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2006/12/olathe_boy_16_s.html

Thanks again. :)


don't talk to him. you could get yourself in a lot of trouble.

Forget about the past and also him. Think on how to better your life.

So what about Obama? Who can unify and reach across party lines to get it done the best? ?

This is a bit convoluted sorry, I am trying to be quick :( I have to go

Polls are screwy because generally they are agenda pushing in some way but when you take a poll of the polls LOL â€" it often give you a clearer view of things Not always but often. If you use polls/surveys/studies that are actually trying to look for some truth and not the ones geared to sway your opinion one way or another SO.

In 2006, the last year he was present for at least 95 percent of the votes on issues in which Bush took a clear position, Obama voted with the president nearly half the time. (His total Bush presidential agreement tally is 40 percent.) for example Obama voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy bill

According to WashingtonPost.com, since 2000, McCain has voted with a majority of his fellow Senate Republicans an average of 82 percent of the time. That’s only slightly less than the average for all Republican senators, who toed the party line almost 87 percent of the time in the same period.

Meanwhile, Obama voted with a majority of Senate Democrats more than 95 percent of the time in both of his congressional sessions, while the average for Democratic senators was 87 percent.

The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time.

It also shows Obama has voted with Bush 79% of the time

who would be more likely to reach across party lines?

Although one candidate said he would sit across the table with those who have declared war on our Great nation because we believe in freedom so in a way if he could do that I would think he would be more than willing to work with those who supposedly are on the same side and work with them in even greater ways. Hmmmmm maybe I been wrong Lucy…..

Point being They try to tell us how a like McCain and Bush are but ya know that doesn’t quite add up. Sure in some core issues it does cause they are both practicing Christians vs Obama who is just a sit in the pew on Sunday Christian cause my grandma made me and really doesn’t believe any of it. But other wise McCain and Obama are not too far apart. Oh and Obama is racists and thinks whitey wants to keep me down.

But other than those two things Yeah very similar so who do you think can better reach across the isle?

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/818085.html


As Obama says look at history who has reached across the table more. McCain

McCain will reach across the table

Obama is sooo far laft, his arms aren't long enough!

McCain clearly has the record of working with the other side, while we don't know much at all about Obama.

Obama is the one most likely to unite our country because Obama supporters are more likely to tolerate other people's points of view. McCain supporters are closed-minded and insist on spreading lies even when they've been disproven. Well, they're in for the shock of their lives come next Tuesday.

I am not going to answer the first part of your question as, by your own admission, you are citing conflicting sources. Further I am not surprised that a Dem votes Dem. I would point out the irony that you prove the Rep voted on the Dem side more.

How do claim to KNOW that Obama is racist? Unlike many of your posts, he has never said anything that I can find to show he hates half his own heritage. You on the other hand have said many borderline racist things in your many posts. Can you see how people can take the things you said and make them worse than you intended? It sucks when people twist what you say to suit their own agenda doesn't it. Now you have something in common with Obama. By the way, once again your link did not work. Not that it matters as most of your links are from very biased sources. You are building a case of straw here with very little merit. What we need is someone to clean house on both very corrupted sides not someone who is good at getting along with both sides. I am not against getting along but we can not afford to get along with these greedy unscrupulous people who have brought us here.

Friday, October 24, 2008

If You Only Read One Blog Today, Make It This One.

Current mood: worried

Category: News and Politics

Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. At the very least, 'Stand and Face It'.

Senator Obama Live on Sunday states: "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides, there are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all, it should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose.

I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it. We should consider to reinvent our National Anthem as well as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the nations of Islam, whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord between our governments.

When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation have placed upon the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the Flag for many personal reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine'. Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path of hope.

My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America."..

These are all direct quotes from the show "Meet the Press".

I'm sick and disgusted, and you should be too…. Nov 4 will be the day America ends and Obamunism begins….. Redesign the flag? Change the national anthem? Disarm Americans to the acceptance of the Middle East? Why do we need their approval? I don't know if OBama watches the news much, but in the Middle East, peace doesn't usually prevail. ....Excuse me while I go throw up now...no, seriously.

I find your claim that Obama is racist frankly offensive. Do you know how much hate mail he gets, how many threats to his life? That 9% of the public admits they won't vote for a black candidate? That's where the racism is. Whereas I've never heard Obama say anything racist, and I would be rather astonished if someone whose own mother was white would be prejudiced against white people. How dare you blame the victim here?

when they put negative aids out stating that the other guy voted for this and that is because when a bill is pass in the senate or the house there are alot of sub Claus to it. exp; a bill to give 150 billion dollar to Iraq might have a 30 million dollar to Dallas highway construction. They put alot of things into bills that most of then senators are not aware of. They only vote on the key issues in those bills that would get them re-elected in their state.

Of course they would vote with their party line for most of the time. Guess who is giving them money to run their re-election campaign........

The only thing i DON'T like about Obama is he has spent more time campaigning for president then he has being a senator.

How is Obama racist lol? Overall I've been very pleased with the focus not being on the race and gender of the candidates, however it turned into mudslinging and false accusations and attempts at linking people to some person they've had no real relationship with.

And of course McCain is more like Bush, not only are they representing the same party and most of the same policies, McCain has increasingly shifted his views on major issues to a more conservative vantage point during his campaign, which, for me and a lot more people who respected the Senator was a huge disappointment. He sold out his ideals for a shot at the country. He dealt with the Devil and sold his soul for that nomination. I hope it was worth it.

Overall I think McCain up until 2008 would have been better at reaching across the aisle than Obama, but the new McCain has alienated himself from both moderates and liberals, surrounding himself with many of the same leaders of the Bush campaigns, which can apparently run a great campaign but not such a good country.

Why can't our leaders focus more on making the nation better than making their campaign better?

Are the language police poised at the doors of America's Catholic schools?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/744122.html

It was ridiculous enough when they forced public schools to incorporate the evil of multiculturalism, but private and parochial schools have been exempt from this mandatory foolishness.

I ask you, leftists: Is it not enough that you attacked and ruined our public schools, must you now ruin our parochial ones as well?


Since it is a private school, I have to side with the school even though I believe "english only" rules and laws are pretty ignorant. Since they go to this "private" school, they can choose to send their kids elsewhere if they don't like it. The bad PR itself will be very bad for the school anyway. The only valid argument they could have is if free speech rights are violated, but since it is a private institution, that will probably not be an issue.

The school and church is doing itself a disservice to insist on english only laws since the future growth of the Catholic Church in the USA is heavily dependent on spanish speaking immigrants and their children. I live in Texas and even Protestant denominations have services in spanish.

Question for you: If a private business decided to put "spanish" only laws on its employess since most of the clients spoke spanish, would you be ok with it? If not, then why? If not, you then reek of hypocrisy and just admit that your bias isn't toward freedom, but of racism.

It's a private school funded with private money, they can teach as they see fit. There have been Latin only Catholic schools. There still exist French only Catholic school in the US that cater to ethnic Canuck immigrants. As long as they are not supported with tax dollars they can have an English only rule. The parents are not compelled to send their children to that school. They can pick another private school or even send their kids to a public school.

From reading the article I would say the parents are putting a huge amount of distress and emotional turmoil on their own children. The article states that the children are nervous, worried, and cry at night. Not about the English only rule but about having to testify in court.

The suit is justified. A Catholic school can legitimately restrict activities that are contrary to it's religious teachings. Speaking a foreign language is not a violation of church doctrine. The policy is thus an abridgement of free speech.

BTW--the only people who have a problem with multiculturalism fall into one or both of two categories:

a) they are bigots who want to deny access to equal education and jobs to people they hate

b) they are inferior mentally and morally and can't compete--so they want to exclude anyone they can attach a derogatory label to to eliminate competition.

Its they--not the multiculturalism--that is ruining our public schools.

A Catholic school is a private organization. No one is forcing these parents to spend a LOT of $$$ to send their kids there. If they don't like it, they are perfectly within their rights to remove the children from school and send them to a school which caters to their ideals.

This lawsuit is as stupid as walking into an Italian restaurant and filing a lawsuit to force them to start serving Chinese food. If I were the judge, I would throw them out on their ear.

I have to wonder if they are sending their kids to catholic school because they are illegal and not eligible to send them to public school?

Four words: No child left behind.

You blame leftists while those on the right and left put their nose where it doesn't belong. The right has lowered the bar on education, while the left has change the way things can and cannot be done. For example (left example), in junior high football, we used to kneel at the endzone before the game and pray - you won't see that anymore. Another example (right example) - I took pre-Algebra in 5th grade. You don't see that much anymore.

When I went to parochial school in N.Y.C." AQUINAS ROCKS" I learned three languages Latin,French and English. Parochial schools demand much more from their students they must pass the regents and graduate with an academic diploma no commercial nonsense. If you can't make the grade goodbye! McCain08'

If you want to make it anywhere in the world, you need to take a foreign language. Get over it. This has been a practice within colleges for many years. It's called education.

Ah, well like it or not. Spanish is America's second language. Speak to all of your politicians about that.

How easy it seems to put the blame of the failure of our public school system onto the liberal faction. This carries very little truth to it.

If the Catholic schools have a problem then they are capable of handling it however they see fit.

I've been involved in the public school system for 15 years. You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry.

Don't expect President Bush to say anything condemning it. Bush is all for it. Hispanics are part of his base and he doesn't want to offend them.

Can't they hire a Spanish speaking teacher to teach the Spanish speaking students? No need to make the whole school learn Spanish. I think this is outrageous, and I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg.

They won't be happy until every single person behaves the way THEY think is best.

This is what happens when you let the government get too much control. They will try to take over every single aspect of your life.

Vote conservative! Get the government out of your life. Nothing is as safe as a bird in a cage. However, is that the life you want to have?

.

The Catholics will win this baby, you watch and see. This is one that the right wing will fight to the death and well they should. Where is the ACLU, they are the ones always saying Church and State should be seperate,,, where is the seperation now.

Who knew there were conservative catholic "leftists." Yes, liberals to blame for all your problems. O' how thou suffers!

Their goals like the Commies are to control every part of our lives. What makes me laugh is they all claim to have "Free thinking minds" but they let their so called leaders control them.

Another non issue clogging up the Federal court.

This has nothing to do with any so called leftists. This is just an example of another whining conservative (you) who does no more than *****, bellyache and complain.

Isn't this a private school? Then leave and go somewhere else.

Damn this public education you moan about sure didn't educate you.

But the rest of the nation is doing alright.

EDIT:

Public schools are doing fine too, only the moronic cannot see that our education system has allowed the great technology boon to grow this nation. This economy is fueled by the graduates of both public and private schools. Instead you wanna whine some more. Give it up. Maybe you should send your kids to an Islamic school where they can get real conservative indoctrination.

RNC Advertisement Attacks Obama About Lack of Energy Plan: Is the ad fair?

The Republican National Committee last night began running ads questioning Barack Obama's commitment to energy reform, the first major ad buy by either party in the presidential race.

Obama says nothing but "no" when it comes to addressing the energy problems the country is facing. "He just says no to lower gas taxes.... No to nuclear.... No to more production," says the narrator before concluding: "No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line."

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/693849.html

Fair? Unfair?


Why should you expect fairness from either side? They are polar opposites in intent, if not identity. Each is spending MILLIONS to make you think the other guy is worse. They cannot "nicely" demonize an opponent! Politics is war in its most civilized state, and the object is to CRUSH THE ENEMY, not just win an office.

The Clintons understand this. Republicans generally don't.

well, in my opinion, Obama has failed to address alternative energy issues with any kind of forward moving plan that this country needs. he has pandered about for votes while changing his position as often as i change my underwear. Is the add fair, Of course it is, it reflects a lot of peoples opinion, not just propaganda and lies. show me something besides doublespeak from Obama, and I'll rethink my opinion of his energy policy.

I would say it is about as Fair as Obama running an ad saying that he was responsible for the welfare reform act. Even though it was a Republican bill signed in by Clinton and Obama opposed it.

This is election season. They will both try and do things that are not fair.

I just saw the ad - I think the ad is fair. Obama will NOT have my vote anyway. Americans need to vote someone who share American principles and values. Obama, to me is not that person

Read more

Obama hates the working class. He seems to feel that 4.00 a gallon is still not enough to charge for gas, he wants it to be 7.50/gallon

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Fair.

Were you aware that Obama was originally against the use of Nuclear energy and only changed his stance after accepting funds from pro-nuclear lobbyists who "educated" him on it's value?

All add attacks on the O are fair game... I think people better start listening more and stop worrying about color, but I guess if you want to live in a socialistic America here your freedoms are swept away ..So be it ! I sure the hell don't

Obama has plenty of energy! Unlike "are you sleeping,brother John" McCain.

Unfair,Obama will help this country an the RNC knows it an thats what they're afaird off.

It is fair . ..

I don't think it's unfair. Obama does have a weaker energy policy.

McCain has proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Obama hasn't.

McCain has a more specific plan regarding nuclear energy to build 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 and with a goal of constructing 100 plants. I can not find anything about nuclear power on Obama's webpage, though I have seen him mention it with skepticism in the news.

McCain support clean-coal technology and will commit $2 billion annually to clean coal alone. Obama mentions investing in low-emissions coal plants on his webpage but it's grouped in with the same "$150 Billion 10 Years in Clean Energy" proposal. It's not as clear how much of that he would actually put towards clean coal technology since all are grouped together.

McCain has made the very important distinction between ineffective E85 corn ethanol and the more promising cellulosic ethanol, produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants and won't compete with food crops.

I do think it's a fair ad. To tell the truth, neither candidate has a "plan" so far, just lip service and talk. I don't think Obama is going in the right direction by not exploring ways to expand our domestic production of oil AND gas (refineries). Gas fueled cars will be around for a very long time, and as the new "alternative" fuel cars come on line they will be bought by those that can afford them. Lower income peeps will then buy the cast off gas guzzlers and struggle to pay for the gas...to get gas prices down within the next couple of years we need to ACT now. The less dependent on foreign oil we are the stronger our dollar will become. We need alternative energy sources developed AND increased oil production. One last thought: you know what the "smart" oil companies are doing? Putting their profits into developing alternative sources of fuel. BP is one that I know of that is doing this.

RNC Advertisement Attacks Obama About Lack of Energy Plan: Is the ad fair?

The Republican National Committee last night began running ads questioning Barack Obama's commitment to energy reform, the first major ad buy by either party in the presidential race.

Obama says nothing but "no" when it comes to addressing the energy problems the country is facing. "He just says no to lower gas taxes.... No to nuclear.... No to more production," says the narrator before concluding: "No new solutions. Barack Obama: Just the party line."

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/693849.html

Fair? Unfair?


Why should you expect fairness from either side? They are polar opposites in intent, if not identity. Each is spending MILLIONS to make you think the other guy is worse. They cannot "nicely" demonize an opponent! Politics is war in its most civilized state, and the object is to CRUSH THE ENEMY, not just win an office.

The Clintons understand this. Republicans generally don't.

well, in my opinion, Obama has failed to address alternative energy issues with any kind of forward moving plan that this country needs. he has pandered about for votes while changing his position as often as i change my underwear. Is the add fair, Of course it is, it reflects a lot of peoples opinion, not just propaganda and lies. show me something besides doublespeak from Obama, and I'll rethink my opinion of his energy policy.

I would say it is about as Fair as Obama running an ad saying that he was responsible for the welfare reform act. Even though it was a Republican bill signed in by Clinton and Obama opposed it.

This is election season. They will both try and do things that are not fair.

I just saw the ad - I think the ad is fair. Obama will NOT have my vote anyway. Americans need to vote someone who share American principles and values. Obama, to me is not that person

Read more

Obama hates the working class. He seems to feel that 4.00 a gallon is still not enough to charge for gas, he wants it to be 7.50/gallon

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Fair.

Were you aware that Obama was originally against the use of Nuclear energy and only changed his stance after accepting funds from pro-nuclear lobbyists who "educated" him on it's value?

All add attacks on the O are fair game... I think people better start listening more and stop worrying about color, but I guess if you want to live in a socialistic America here your freedoms are swept away ..So be it ! I sure the hell don't

Obama has plenty of energy! Unlike "are you sleeping,brother John" McCain.

Unfair,Obama will help this country an the RNC knows it an thats what they're afaird off.

It is fair . ..

I don't think it's unfair. Obama does have a weaker energy policy.

McCain has proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Obama hasn't.

McCain has a more specific plan regarding nuclear energy to build 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 and with a goal of constructing 100 plants. I can not find anything about nuclear power on Obama's webpage, though I have seen him mention it with skepticism in the news.

McCain support clean-coal technology and will commit $2 billion annually to clean coal alone. Obama mentions investing in low-emissions coal plants on his webpage but it's grouped in with the same "$150 Billion 10 Years in Clean Energy" proposal. It's not as clear how much of that he would actually put towards clean coal technology since all are grouped together.

McCain has made the very important distinction between ineffective E85 corn ethanol and the more promising cellulosic ethanol, produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible parts of plants and won't compete with food crops.

I do think it's a fair ad. To tell the truth, neither candidate has a "plan" so far, just lip service and talk. I don't think Obama is going in the right direction by not exploring ways to expand our domestic production of oil AND gas (refineries). Gas fueled cars will be around for a very long time, and as the new "alternative" fuel cars come on line they will be bought by those that can afford them. Lower income peeps will then buy the cast off gas guzzlers and struggle to pay for the gas...to get gas prices down within the next couple of years we need to ACT now. The less dependent on foreign oil we are the stronger our dollar will become. We need alternative energy sources developed AND increased oil production. One last thought: you know what the "smart" oil companies are doing? Putting their profits into developing alternative sources of fuel. BP is one that I know of that is doing this.

Obama wants kids to spend more time at school?

forgive me,but our children are over weight as it is,schools are cutting recess and gym every year! with longer school days and possible longer school year,when will the kids be running,skipping, jumping? as it is,kids are in school from 7 to 4 everyday and with parents working kids are spending less and less time at home,what happened to the days of bike riding and jumping rope? is there anyone out there who would actually like to see more of their kids"We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day," Obama said, adding U.S. education to his already crowded list of top priorities. fyi obama this country still has a LOT of farmers! http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1078454.html


sad to see answers such as american kids are dumb they need to be in school longer, don't you people realize that these kids are being taught to achieve standardized testing and not academia?...what about the family?...i want a part of everyday to be my influence in my children...wake the f up!!!

Here is an idea in order to graduate kids have to take tests in math, science, and English. Why not add in a PE test. Think about in order to graduate you have to be able to the following:

25 push ups in 2 minutes without stopping

35 sit ups in two minutes with out stopping

run 1 mile in under 9 minutes

Be able to do 5 pull ups in 2 minutes without letting go of the bar.

This would be easy the standards for the test I have posted are no where near a military standard and with even a little exercise a 17 or 18 year old should have no problem meeting that.

"Obama urges longer school hours, extended school year"

I disagree with longer school hours, but I wouldn't have a problem with an extended school year. A special exception can be made for those families who still have their children help with family farms.

Uh... Y'know that the problem is that they have a huge quantity of low quality education... Obama is just worsening the problem. he needs to fund schools more for better educators than make the hours longer.

Schools are also cutting toilet paper and lunches...

It gets Maylia and Shasha out of his hair for a couple of more hours.

I would rather my kid be fat than stupid...you can fix fat

I'm American so i can say this.

American kids are fat, lazy AND stupid. We have to start with them somewhere....

Longer days won't solve anything.

If you're not interested in learning, you're not going to learn - you could spend your whole life in that classroom and nothing will change. What needs to change is the QUALITY of education, not the quantity of it.

More money needs to be put towards funding for schools, so they can afford better technology, better teachers (who can actually teach, as opposed to reading out of answer keys that are sometimes incorrect, and who actually CARE about making sure that their students learn), et cetera.

And what about kids who participate in sports or other extracurriculars? There are days that I spend fifteen, or more, hours at school as it is. With a longer school day, I would just be more exhausted and have less time for sleep, and thus would be far less productive at school.

I don't feel that a longer school day is going to solve anything. What needs to be changed is the curriculum. Kids spend plenty of time in school, but the material is too easy. They need to make it harder, and they need better discipline. The problem isn't all with the school either. Kids these days are disrespectful to their teachers and don't care about school. They need motivation.

These things can all be accomplished without extending the school day. When I was in school, there was plenty of time to learn the subjects, it's just that what they taught us wasn't all that difficult, and the teachers weren't strict enough. We need to toughen the standards. We need to make sure the kids are actually LEARNING the material, not just passing each grade without learning anything.

Kids are already exhausted from being in school all day the way it is. By the end of that 7 hour day, they are ready to leave. Keeping them in school a few hours longer or so is just going to make them more restless. Yeah they'll be in school, but will they really be paying attention? No, because they won't want to be there. Give them a break. They are just kids afterall.

You must be like 5 years old. I don't know one adult that opposes Obama on this one.

Kids in America have the lowest IQs in the world, have the highest droppout rate, and you are saying we should keep things the same? Wow. You are the reason people in America are so lazy and stupid.

Obama wants kids to spend more time at school?

forgive me,but our children are over weight as it is,schools are cutting recess and gym every year! with longer school days and possible longer school year,when will the kids be running,skipping, jumping? as it is,kids are in school from 7 to 4 everyday and with parents working kids are spending less and less time at home,what happened to the days of bike riding and jumping rope? is there anyone out there who would actually like to see more of their kids"We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day," Obama said, adding U.S. education to his already crowded list of top priorities. fyi obama this country still has a LOT of farmers! http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1078454.html


sad to see answers such as american kids are dumb they need to be in school longer, don't you people realize that these kids are being taught to achieve standardized testing and not academia?...what about the family?...i want a part of everyday to be my influence in my children...wake the f up!!!

Here is an idea in order to graduate kids have to take tests in math, science, and English. Why not add in a PE test. Think about in order to graduate you have to be able to the following:

25 push ups in 2 minutes without stopping

35 sit ups in two minutes with out stopping

run 1 mile in under 9 minutes

Be able to do 5 pull ups in 2 minutes without letting go of the bar.

This would be easy the standards for the test I have posted are no where near a military standard and with even a little exercise a 17 or 18 year old should have no problem meeting that.

"Obama urges longer school hours, extended school year"

I disagree with longer school hours, but I wouldn't have a problem with an extended school year. A special exception can be made for those families who still have their children help with family farms.

Uh... Y'know that the problem is that they have a huge quantity of low quality education... Obama is just worsening the problem. he needs to fund schools more for better educators than make the hours longer.

Schools are also cutting toilet paper and lunches...

It gets Maylia and Shasha out of his hair for a couple of more hours.

I would rather my kid be fat than stupid...you can fix fat

I'm American so i can say this.

American kids are fat, lazy AND stupid. We have to start with them somewhere....

Longer days won't solve anything.

If you're not interested in learning, you're not going to learn - you could spend your whole life in that classroom and nothing will change. What needs to change is the QUALITY of education, not the quantity of it.

More money needs to be put towards funding for schools, so they can afford better technology, better teachers (who can actually teach, as opposed to reading out of answer keys that are sometimes incorrect, and who actually CARE about making sure that their students learn), et cetera.

And what about kids who participate in sports or other extracurriculars? There are days that I spend fifteen, or more, hours at school as it is. With a longer school day, I would just be more exhausted and have less time for sleep, and thus would be far less productive at school.

I don't feel that a longer school day is going to solve anything. What needs to be changed is the curriculum. Kids spend plenty of time in school, but the material is too easy. They need to make it harder, and they need better discipline. The problem isn't all with the school either. Kids these days are disrespectful to their teachers and don't care about school. They need motivation.

These things can all be accomplished without extending the school day. When I was in school, there was plenty of time to learn the subjects, it's just that what they taught us wasn't all that difficult, and the teachers weren't strict enough. We need to toughen the standards. We need to make sure the kids are actually LEARNING the material, not just passing each grade without learning anything.

Kids are already exhausted from being in school all day the way it is. By the end of that 7 hour day, they are ready to leave. Keeping them in school a few hours longer or so is just going to make them more restless. Yeah they'll be in school, but will they really be paying attention? No, because they won't want to be there. Give them a break. They are just kids afterall.

You must be like 5 years old. I don't know one adult that opposes Obama on this one.

Kids in America have the lowest IQs in the world, have the highest droppout rate, and you are saying we should keep things the same? Wow. You are the reason people in America are so lazy and stupid.

MEN: Who do you find most attractive?

Put these women in order according to your personal preference. Please put your favourite first, and the least attractive last.

A.http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/naomi_campbell.jpg

B. http://www.sokakta.com/photos/nisan06/nedersin-lucy_lui.jpg

C. http://merasapna.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/shakira.jpg

D. http://music.donyell.net/kellyrowland/Kelly_Rowland.jpg

E. http://www.pxdrive.com/pics/norm/63594.jpg

F. http://www.kozmikhoroscopes.com/claudia.jpg

G.http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/255720~Keira-Knightley-Posters.jpg

H.http://jennylopez.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/lopez103.jpg

I. http://nicole-kidman.topwomen.org/

J.http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/jessicawhite/jessica_white_1.jpg


A is my favorite, go Naomi!

man do you know. diferent of orange is only the color otherwise the tasty is the some. so stop disturbing urself. you want find a girl who has gold between her legs they almost have the same the difeerent may be the size and shape.but tasty is according to how girl treat you.if girl wants it will be sweet if she want salty.......

i mean her behavior towards you will make the meal tasty

g,i,a,j,f,d,e,c,b,h in that order.

F. Claudia

I. Nicole

G. Keira

C. Shakira

A. Naomi

J. Jessica White

H. Jenifer Lopez

D. Kelly

E. Loraine

Keira Knightley

F and I are the best looking.

If I was still single I would require more than looks to attract me.

You forgot to put one of you up there classy spice

C and H

A bit too long.

So to summarize.

G is first (i.e. hottest)

E is last (i.e. nottest)

Why are you posting the same question twice?

im going with C. them hips dont lie...

j

h

d

f

b

c

e

g

a

i

MEN: Who do you find most attractive?

Put these women in order according to your personal preference. Please put your favourite first, and the least attractive last.

A.http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/naomi_campbell.jpg

B. http://www.sokakta.com/photos/nisan06/nedersin-lucy_lui.jpg

C. http://merasapna.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/shakira.jpg

D. http://music.donyell.net/kellyrowland/Kelly_Rowland.jpg

E. http://www.pxdrive.com/pics/norm/63594.jpg

F. http://www.kozmikhoroscopes.com/claudia.jpg

G.http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/255720~Keira-Knightley-Posters.jpg

H.http://jennylopez.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/lopez103.jpg

I. http://nicole-kidman.topwomen.org/

J.http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/jessicawhite/jessica_white_1.jpg


A is my favorite, go Naomi!

man do you know. diferent of orange is only the color otherwise the tasty is the some. so stop disturbing urself. you want find a girl who has gold between her legs they almost have the same the difeerent may be the size and shape.but tasty is according to how girl treat you.if girl wants it will be sweet if she want salty.......

i mean her behavior towards you will make the meal tasty

g,i,a,j,f,d,e,c,b,h in that order.

F. Claudia

I. Nicole

G. Keira

C. Shakira

A. Naomi

J. Jessica White

H. Jenifer Lopez

D. Kelly

E. Loraine

Keira Knightley

F and I are the best looking.

If I was still single I would require more than looks to attract me.

You forgot to put one of you up there classy spice

C and H

A bit too long.

So to summarize.

G is first (i.e. hottest)

E is last (i.e. nottest)

Why are you posting the same question twice?

im going with C. them hips dont lie...

j

h

d

f

b

c

e

g

a

i

Can learning self defense be useful and effective enough for most women?

Or is it better to run away as fast as you can?

I do freeze up frequently when confronted with surprise situations.

My boyfriend says all girls are wimps and couldn't possibly win against a more powerful male attacker.

Well, I just started my self defense class in high school and our instructor thought very little of my boyfriend's advice when told of it.

To psychologically counteract the "freeze effect" common to many women in surprise situations, she gave us 2 web sites of current events where females were successful in dealing with their assailants:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/471467.html

http://www.surinenglish.com/noticias.php?Noticia=12145

Your thoughts?

Your advice?


yes for sure. i would love to learn some self defense,thats a great one.

It is better to get help from authority. However, when police is drity or too far away, you can only conduct self-defence.

Force is not depending on muscle. F=ma. (newton second law). Muscle is mass whereas speed is a. If you can move much faster, it does hurt much. It also depend on the angle of attack. 90degree against the action force is the basic principal of chinese Ku Fu.

You should watch the film "The Brave One". It can give you some inspiration.

In addition, there are many women soldiers in the frontline fighting against terrorists.

depending on the situation. if u cant escape by running,,,and know this for sure,,,,u must defend yourself!

Yes, if for no other reason than the fact that you will have the confidence to defend yourself if needed. There is nothing like a confident posture and affect to put up the first wall of defense. Also, there are techniques that you will learn which could easily put off a stronger man if you can think fast enough to use them. You are not going to win in a traditional style fight. You just need to know enough to give you enough space to get the heck out of the situation. Karate can teach you that. Go for it girl. It is worthwhile!

You have one weapon and one weapon only to defend yourself if you get in a bad situation...the lump of matter between your ears. The women who have escaped predators are the ones who paid very careful attention to what was going on and did what they had to do to escape. Be it run, talk, or fight. There is no magic answer, and no, other than giving you a bit more self confidence, self defense courses won't help. The typical male is simply much stronger than the typical female, and the dangerous ones are used to violence, unlike the typical female. This book is the best I have sen for covering this:

https://www.gavindebecker.com/books-gof.cfm

Also, females should NEVER under ANY circumstances allow themselves to be alone with a man who isn't thoroughly vetted. Get in the next elevator, don't get in the car, don't unlock the door, whatever...if you don't know him it doesn't matter how charming and harmless he appears.

Can learning self defense be useful and effective enough for most women?

Or is it better to run away as fast as you can?

I do freeze up frequently when confronted with surprise situations.

My boyfriend says all girls are wimps and couldn't possibly win against a more powerful male attacker.

Well, I just started my self defense class in high school and our instructor thought very little of my boyfriend's advice when told of it.

To psychologically counteract the "freeze effect" common to many women in surprise situations, she gave us 2 web sites of current events where females were successful in dealing with their assailants:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/471467.html

http://www.surinenglish.com/noticias.php?Noticia=12145

Your thoughts?

Your advice?


yes for sure. i would love to learn some self defense,thats a great one.

It is better to get help from authority. However, when police is drity or too far away, you can only conduct self-defence.

Force is not depending on muscle. F=ma. (newton second law). Muscle is mass whereas speed is a. If you can move much faster, it does hurt much. It also depend on the angle of attack. 90degree against the action force is the basic principal of chinese Ku Fu.

You should watch the film "The Brave One". It can give you some inspiration.

In addition, there are many women soldiers in the frontline fighting against terrorists.

depending on the situation. if u cant escape by running,,,and know this for sure,,,,u must defend yourself!

Yes, if for no other reason than the fact that you will have the confidence to defend yourself if needed. There is nothing like a confident posture and affect to put up the first wall of defense. Also, there are techniques that you will learn which could easily put off a stronger man if you can think fast enough to use them. You are not going to win in a traditional style fight. You just need to know enough to give you enough space to get the heck out of the situation. Karate can teach you that. Go for it girl. It is worthwhile!

You have one weapon and one weapon only to defend yourself if you get in a bad situation...the lump of matter between your ears. The women who have escaped predators are the ones who paid very careful attention to what was going on and did what they had to do to escape. Be it run, talk, or fight. There is no magic answer, and no, other than giving you a bit more self confidence, self defense courses won't help. The typical male is simply much stronger than the typical female, and the dangerous ones are used to violence, unlike the typical female. This book is the best I have sen for covering this:

https://www.gavindebecker.com/books-gof.cfm

Also, females should NEVER under ANY circumstances allow themselves to be alone with a man who isn't thoroughly vetted. Get in the next elevator, don't get in the car, don't unlock the door, whatever...if you don't know him it doesn't matter how charming and harmless he appears.

Anne rice went from atheist to Catholic. What do you think?

http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/story/834109.html

“It’s a more strenuous path than the religious path, because you’re then going to say that there is no God, there is no reason (for anything), that people on Earth are the only (way) to provide any meaning. That’s a rough road to travel.

“When you lose a child, you’re telling yourself as an atheist, ‘I’m never going to see that child again in any form.’ That’s a hell of a lot harder than a religion, which gives you the consolation that you will see that child again in heaven. It’s hard being an atheist. It’s tough.”


Boo hoo hoo. Cry me a river I lost a child and I'm never going to see it again. So I'm going to turn to religion so it can create an imaginary, completely unproven world for me in which I will see my child again. Just sad!

Our emotions don't change reality. So changing your philosophy for emotional reasons may be psychologically sound, it is still goofy from a rational point of view.

agrees with Hugo and The Mighty Ra

I am happy for her.

That's her problem.

It sounds like she was thoroughly indoctrinated as a child and did not loose that indoctrination as an adult. The quotes that you provided indicate this especially from the ideas that there *needs* to be a meaning and it's much more comforting to think that there is life after death.

I have a hard time with giving meaning to life, especially from the religious definitions of it, as it strikes me as trying to give meaning to a cloud formation or a four leaf clover. There are "meanings" behind these things, just not what a person would assume them to be without studying them.

I do understand the fear of death and wanting to always be with your loved ones, but simple desire does not mean that it is true.

Fear of death is the number one cause of religion.

I also disagree with her quote "people on Earth are the only (way) to provide any meaning"

Oh really? I find plenty of 'meaning' outside of human-made religion and 'deities'.

'Meaning' is in nature itself. All living things are our brothers and sisters, not just humans. The cosmos, time and space, etc, is a enormous mystery and innately humbling. Just to *be* is surely enough 'meaning'.

Anne ironically becomes that very thing she is trying to avoid; Christianity is enormously self-focused. It sees humans as the very epicentre of their 'daddy's' 'creation'. It's so obviously a man-made mythos for a man-centric view of everything.

I can think of few teachings that are more self-absorbed. At least Ann was honest, and basically 'fessed up that her religion gives her consolation that she will be reunited with her dead child.

Isn't that the meaning of religion? To 'conquer' death, if only in our minds?

I vote we have to face death as adults. Be every day thankful for our short time here, and know that death makes way for new life. Such is nature, no matter how tough it is to lose a loved one. Most of us have. We look for 'meaning' to our loss, when the truth is hard to face, that there may be no intrinsic 'meaning' to death, other than it happens, and if it didn't happen, there would be no life. Basic physics and biology.

Every life is a miraculous chance. Why throw it away hankering after 'eternal life'? Life is too precious to be wasted on wishful thinking for post-death experience.

May be she decided to find *god"

What do I think about Anne Rice converting from atheist to Catholic? Not much of a difference. She just traded one god for another god (herself for the pope). Now If she were to convert to Christian, then she would have traded a god for the God. Big difference.

“I stopped talking to God,”

An actual atheist cannot actually say that, Anne Rice was never an atheist. It shows that the term is delibrately misunderstood. Not attending your church for a few years doesnt make one an atheist. Christians like to claim the conversion of an atheist, it makes them look strong and right.

i think that just because something seems like a nice idea, it doesn't mean it's true. wanting to believe in something isn't evidence for it. but i'm not going to criticise her for finding what comfort she can in a difficult situation.

i does rather seem like she way never really atheist, having a religious passion about something requires faith, which defeats the point of not believing. if you think god's there to not talk to, you must still think god's there... but just like people can't make themselves believe, they can't make themselves not believe, so there's no point judging anyone.

I think she is being honest about the psychological reasons that she has for being religious. I think we are all individuals though. For me the idea that we are the ones who create meaning if we wish is empowering, far more so then our purpose is to worship a deity. Even if I wanted to believe that we see those who die again it just doesn't seem realistic to me. Its sort of like saying, "why not believe in leprechauns when if you do you might just trip over a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow someday?! Doesn't everyone want to find some gold at the end of a rainbow?"

It's not "hard" being an atheist. If someone finds it "hard" to be an atheist, then they're not an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe other people's claims of the existence of God. It's not something you have to work at, and spend a lot of time thinking about. You either believe something, or you don't. It's like saying that it's "hard" to not believe in Santa.

Yes, it is painful losing a loved one. But you can't just turn around and say that you're going to start believing in God because it will make you "feel better" when you lose a loved one because you *want* to see them again in a magical afterlife, any more than you can just 'decide' to start believing in Santa because you want to think that there's a bunch of presents waiting at the North Pole with your name on them.

And the need to think that there is some sort of "higher" meaning to life is simply a need to feed the human ego. Just because we *want* there to be a "higher" meaning to life, doesn't mean there is a higher meaning to life. That isn't to say that we can't MAKE our lives meaningful, it just means that they are only as meaningful as we want them to be and make them ourselves. That is a much healthier way to look at life than just thinking that we're something super-special just because we were born. This ego trip that humans have been on for so long, thinking that everything was put here for us, and the sense of entitlement that comes with such an attitude is precicely what has lead to the downward spiral of society and our environment.

I think her books were good & her religion is nothing to do with me...

I think anyone who has been high or drunk or has a mood disorder such as bipolar will tell you that feeling sad or happy has nothing to do with reality!

I think Anne Rice made a mistake being an atheist in the first place. I am glad she became a Catholic because she now has eternal life and no more enmity with God. She has taken the salvation offered to her by the grace of God through the atonement provided by Christ on the cross for her sins

Catholicism is false and can't save, so she went from one unsaving belief system, to another unsaving belief system.

Catholicism cannot save. Only faith alone in Jesus saves.

Another innocent victim of the secret "terrorist" watch list. Who's next?

http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/757262.html

I thought this was to PROTECT people, what's going on?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802971.html

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/middle-school-k.html

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but doesn't anyone find this troubling?!?! What the hell is our federal government doing?


Are you on the list? http://stoplying.ca/video/naomi_wolf_end_of_america.htm

By the time people get over being arrogant fools it will be to late, I wonder if they will laugh when they are in concentration camps?Example,some of your answers. This is all part of the elite,that includes Obama and McCain obtaining new world order.

Edit: There are over 1 million innocent Americans on the list so far,and people think they have rights.

Maybe its his Pakistani wife.

Big brother!!!! By giving up only a minute amount of freedoms due to the terrorism fear factor, we are actually loosing way too much.

You're a conspiracy theorist. Our government is preventing another 9/11. If that means that some people are "racially profiled" or inconvenienced, it's worth it.

I will admit that taking my shoes off at the airport and having a perpetual color coded alert system seem ridiculous at times, but have we suffered any more attacks while Europe and Asia have?

And if we do away with this list, and somebody on it blows up another building. We'll be blasting the government for that as well.

There is no perfect solution to this problem, and thus far this is the best one presented. If you have something better, then by all means make it known.

That's what he gets for converting to Islam at a time like this.

And who's next? Hopefully you.

George still making sure you sleep safe and well in your bed at night?

When you give up freedom for security you get neither.

When Bush and Congress handed out all the bailout money without restrictions?

Did these "great Americans" know it was being over the last 6 years to apply for visas to hire over 21,000 non Americans? While our unemployment rate is sky high? Obama is the one looking out for Americans, keeping our jobs at home, and making sure we have a decent living. I think if he wouldn't have been elected, this would have never been on the front page of any newspaper.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1012639.html


lol these people knew what they were doing,and how long they had to get away with it before some could stop it, its right out of a old book,the corrupt governments of the world will all be caught sooner or later, but by them the people would have paid the price, we need to keep more jobs here in america, and stop imports of things that are made here, sorry but its time to get drastic and save out own country first, and put a stop to the oil wars

I guess you know that no President, only Congress can give out money from our treasury. Presidents execute the laws, congress allocates money and decides how and where to spend our money. And President Obama was in Congress when that money was spent.

I was just as opposed to the Bush bailout as I am to the Obama bailout.

It will only serve to hurt this country more than anything else.

Take the time to read the 600 pages of the Obama bailout. Only about 12 cents of every dollar in it is actual stimulus.

These banks have no concern for the American worker. My initial reaction is that it is time to nationalize the banks, after all the government already guarantees deposits to 250 thousand, why not go all the way.

And he gave open Visas to 15 South American countries, if they flew to Disneyland in Orlando, but the best was the fence on the Mexican border being built by illegals.

lol i thought the whole peyton thing was peyton manning ,

Obama leading by double digits so what now ?

Just a question , Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote , but he won by 0.5 % , they pretty much tied , but now Obama is leading by over 7 points in most polls , and Zogby:released a poll today where Obama is leading by 11 points , how can McCain win the election ? unless the polls are terribly wrong (polls were right in 2004 ) i don't see how McCain can win , it's very unlikely , even a 5 point lead usually means an electoral vote landslide , Obama's lead is solid , how do you think McCain is going to win ?

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1633

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2648


Sounds good to me. On to victory.

I don't think McCain's going to win.

The Republican party gave up on him couple of weeks ago.

Palin started moving towards pushing him out last week.

If he wins now, it would be a miracle. Or a disaster, depending how you look at it.

LOL,

They are having problems concentrating on these questions with the Fat Lady singing!!

Oh, I will add Gallup for you

Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111703/Final-Presidential-Estimate-Obama-55-McCain-44.aspx

McCain really can't win.

The polls are never that far off.

Republicans couldn't give up hope, and news agencies still wanted people to pay attention, so they made up the story that McCain was coming back.

screw the liberal MEDIA polls ...VOTE...McCain all the way baby

Very sad news for me....As a black American patriot, I cant stand Obama ...but that seems to be where this is going...very sad day in America!

Jeremiah Wright is now our voice....we may indeed be damned!

it just seems obama supporters don't need to stand in those long

lines to vote, since we're being told it's a lock!

i think Obama has got it . mccain lost out because of bush!

Is the reason that doesn't have a huge lead b/c of R or P?

Race or Positions?

Raise taxes, more and bigger government programs, no drilling in ANWR, etc. … What’s new about that? That’s same, not change.

Barack Obama thinks these are the things the American people want. If that’s true, then why isn’t Obama running away with this election?

Some would tell you it’s because too many of us are stupid and bitter people who cling to our guns and God. Others, including Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, suggest that race has something to do with it.

So the race card has been played again this election; nothing new about that either. Democrats do it every election cycle. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend race.

Now again, if you aren’t liberal, you must be some kind of racist, right? After all, there’s no other reason why anyone would not vote for Obama, correct?

So let me get this straight. With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you don’t want higher taxes, you might be a racist.

If you think we should drill for more domestic oil, you could be a racist.

If you believe we should secure the borders, you might be a racist.

If you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, the sanctity of life or winning the war on terror, you just might be a racist.

Heck, if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be a racist.

I, for one, am tired of this old routine.

Let me be very clear: The problems with Obama have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Rather, it has to do with positions, beliefs and associations and the lack of any substantial experience that would qualify him to be president.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/midwest_voices/story/815557.html


I am tired of it as well, Obama is simply not for me and I would not care if he were purple with brown poolka dots.

He's not running away with the election because people who focus on race, color, religion, creed can not make good decisions and have poor judgment. So look in the mirror.

as a demacrat , i agree with the whole race card and higher taxes bull crap. i will not vote for some one who came out of no where and brought with him cronies like wright and aires. this dem will be backing mccain.

I'm a Racist (if it means I like to go fast).

Again, no disrespect to Jeff Foxworthy, "... if you like racing, you might be a racist"

John McChange...McChange we can believe in!

John.. uh Susie, you are right.

With a nod to Stone Cold Steve Austin, you hit the nail right on the head, son. It's like this. The Democrats and Liberals are already setting this up. It's like the mid-term elections of 2006 when the talk of malfunctioning voting machines, long lines at polling places, ect. If the Dems didn't walk away with the majority, they were readying their excuse because after all, the Republicans never win on the up and up, right(see 2000)? But, alas, the Dems won and...not one word of voter disenfranchisement anywhere. Not even from the places were allegedly Democratic pollsters were intimidating voters into voting Democrat.

Now, with Obama, the race card is slowly but surely being played. Even from Obama himself when he talks about him not looking like the other presidents on the Dollar Bill. The white liberals are trying to make other white people feel guilty about slavery by voting for Obama. Sorry, I didn't own slaves and neither did my family. In fact, half of my family ancestry weren't even here so no dice. Now there are blogs out there talking about a race war if Obama doesn't win. Nice.

Now, let's flip this around. USAToday on Friday had a poll on race and this election. I don't have the exact numbers but the gist was that when it came to whites voting for McCain or Obama, it was something like 47-42% for McCain. However, when it came to blacks, the numbers were something like 92%-4% in favor for Obama. Now I ask you, what's worse, whites not voting for Obama because he's black or blacks voting for him because he's black. But based on these numbers, it's blacks that are making this election based on race. How else do you explain only 4% of "Uncle Tom's" supporting McCain? (If you're black and conservative, you're a sell out, Uncle Tom, ect. Just ask Harry Belafonte)

Now, I'm not supporting Obama because he's a left wing big government tax, tax, tax liberal. Not that McCain doesn't have his faults but if Obama get elected, with a Democratic majority in the house and senate, I don't want nor want to pay for the programs that, according to Nancy Pelosi, no one would stop them from implementing. I'm tired of 50% of my paycheck going bye-bye every 2 weeks to pay for crap I don't want.

dayum, you mean like the train wreck interviews by Obama...oh, wait, he only has softball interviews. Trash Palin's interviews when your guy actually has an interview that doesn't include what his favorite flavor of ice cream and have him actually answer real questions. I'm getting a kick out of you libs jumping all over Palin, who's the VP candidate while your guy hasn't has a hard question thrown at him yet on any policy of his by his cronies in the mainstream media.

At the end of the day McCain is bush all over. A McCain Palin ticket would make Bush/Cheny look like girl scouts. McCain was blasted by David Letterman for lying about not coming on his show then McCain went and did an interview with Katie Couric instead trying to do damage control from palin's train wreck interview. John McCain has voted consistently against issues pertaining to vets. he is against women having equal pay as men. He has voted down minimum wage 19 times.

What kind of Puppy is this?

http://kansascity.craigslist.org/pet/648721834.html

The lady said the Dog shouldn't be over 10 pounds when it gets to be an adult. What is the name of this dog (i mean as in Breed) It won't get big will it? I am considering getting it as a lapdog that i could play with and all. Are they nice dogs? Thanks Everyone!


She says it is a doxie x bichon.

But beware of buying dogs over the internet. Why don't you visit a shelter?

EDIT~ Well, okay. But then make sure you meet the dog before you bring it home.

It's a mixed breed, so there's no way to tell how big it will be (somewhere between the size of a Doxie and a Bichon), what the fur will be like, what the temperament will be like, what possible health issues will be, how much it will weigh, etc. etc. etc.

Why not go to Petfinder.com and adopt from a breed rescue? You're a lot more likely to find a dog who will be the size and temperament that you want.

Is he nice? Well I believe every breed of dog can be nice if it gets proper humane contact and love like they should. I have never seen a puppy like that. The first thing the popped into my head when I saw was that he might be a terrier mix. The add also stated that he has very short legs...Long hair terrier and Winni dog mix? Maybe, he sure is a cutie.

The listing says it is a Bischon Frise /Daschund mix. The dog will not be very big all. 10lbs sounds about right.

Well truthfully it does look like bic/dac mix and both of them usually get of 10lbs but still make good lap dogs

its a dauchan

Obama wants kids to spend more time at school?

forgive me,but our children are over weight as it is,schools are cutting recess and gym every year! with longer school days and possible longer school year,when will the kids be running,skipping, jumping? as it is,kids are in school from 7 to 4 everyday and with parents working kids are spending less and less time at home,what happened to the days of bike riding and jumping rope? is there anyone out there who would actually like to see more of their kids"We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day," Obama said, adding U.S. education to his already crowded list of top priorities. fyi obama this country still has a LOT of farmers! http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1078454.html


This is mind boggling!. Our schools are already failing, a great percentage of our teachers are incompetent and another percentage are having sex with their preteen students.

Children are waiting in the dark at bus stops and arriving home after dark.

For those who really care, there is no time for the family to spend together, parents to help with homework.

Maybe he thinks it will keep the delinquent, pot heads off the streets which any reasonable person knows is ridiculous.

He either needs to shuck this idiotic idea or subject his darling little ggirlsto the same burden he wants to put on other families and children.

Maybe families like to eat together, pray together, play together, chat together. I don't get it! Where is Obama's mind??? What are his ulterior motives. Maybe an extra few hours to teach socialism or more study from text books that have changed the entire history of the U.S.

I don't see the point in adding days to the school year, which will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, when the quality of our schools continue to suffer.

Whats the point of adding a week to the school year when those days are going to be spent watching movies and doing pretty much nothing productive?

It's the quality of the teachers that need to be examined, and I am happy Obama is trying to take on the Teachers Union. Teachers that aren't doing their job should be fired.

More time with the state=less time with parents.

This will ensure that the youth are indoctrinated to report parents that step outside the bounds of Barry's administration. Its a political landgrab, just like the census. He is trying to change who is the master of children, parents or the state. I think we know who Barry will side with. ( for you libs, its the state)

Your complaint makes little sense. Expanding the school day doesn't decrease the opportunity for children to exercise. Kids DON'T do any of the stuff you list NOW... I think it would make more sense to expand the day and put PE back into schools.

This country has a tiny fraction of family farms compared to 100 years ago when our school system was being put in place.

American kids need better teachers. They don't need more time at school. Do away with the useless teachers' union that won't allow merit raises. Everyone has to get the same raise socialism now. Reward the teachers who work hard and get rid of the lazy ones who don't give 2 figs about the kids. We've nearly lost all of our decent teachers now. Get some discipline back into the classroom. If the kids can't make the grade then make them repeat the grade until they do! What is wrong with the American people? What's happened to our country?

yes he wants that to happen but i doubt congress/ board of education will actually follow through with that idea

and they better not

i hate the school institution,

i wish i was home-schooled or was allowed to take classes online or something.......teachers and students just get in your way of trying to learn something sometimes

your exercise thing doesn't make sense but still school shouldn't be extended

Honey, they can put back recesses and gym if they have more time. Your argument doesn't make much sense. Kids go home from school and do what? Play video games? Watch TV? Precious few go outside to play anymore. And if they do, they ride motorized pretend cars. We have gotten entirely too lazy.

Yes. He is arguing that other developed nations have longer school years. Given all that's now crammed into the average curriculum, its not a bad idea. And, it would give schools enough time to offer PE and art.

I disagree with him on this. Better curriculum and better management of teaching time is all that is needed. There is much to be learned outside of a classroom also.

he wants the schools to begin using kids as soldiers

and

and he wants to dictate new history books that only favor him

YES WE CAN

IMPEACH THE MAN

When was the last time you saw kids run, skip, and jump. It's not the schools it's video games.

So he can indoctrinate them with more far-left ideologies

Do you have data that correlates the two?

If you are so upset about it, homeschool your kids. I thought that was what farmers and fundies did anyway.

Other industrialized countries keep their children in school longer hours and with a longer school year and their test scores are much better than the USA's. The school year used to be planned around the harvest and now it is no longer relevant as fewer than 1% own family farms. We are losing the education race and he is trying to address this issue.

What happened to the days of running, skipping and jumping? Those days are long over with the advent of TV, video games, and high crime.

Should the Wal-Mart stampeders be punished?

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2945

Should people who callously ran over a man to get the best deal on a GPS unit or a plasma TV be punished?

I've heard many say that Wal-Mart should have provided better security. I agree that they could have prepared a little better, but do you think it's so much to ask people NOT to trample their workers? Is that something they really should have anticipated?

Reports said that even after paramedics arrived, the crowd wouldn't give them room and kept pushing and jostling paramedics. Then they were angry when they actually closed the store down. What kind of people are these??

So what's your opinion? Should the people who trampled him be punished? They have video and can identify the people who stepped on him.

Personally I think they should at LEAST give what they bought that day to charity. I can't imagine watching my loved ones open my "great deal" on Christmas morning, while elsewhere a family is mourning the loss of that man.


I totally agree about opening a gift like that . It is like you will say "here you go ,,I had to help kill a man to get it , but I got it" I do not think that wal-mart needs to be blamed . According to the story that I read the shoppers tore the door off and trampled the man. Now it is a clear door so they could see him there and if they weren't acting like heathens then they would not have killed him . So yes I think that the shoppers should be held accountable.

I think they should definitely be punished. I mean the man died. It's serious and when people tried to help him they also got trampled. It's so sad I mean what is wrong with people. It saddens me! :(

Yes. What they did was inexcusable.

It would be impossible to identify all of the stampeders. The ones who actually stepped on the worker may not be at fault. In a stampede, the crowd rushing from behind will shove people forward. When you are being shoved very hard from behind, it is hard to keep your footing, and it is a panicky situation, because you become aware that if you fall down you could be trampled and killed, so those people were fighting for their own lives, too. It is likely that it happened so fast that the people did not even have a chance to look down to see what they were stepping on. With the crowd shoved around them, they may not have been able to see even if they looked down. And, even if they looked down and saw the situation, it is likely that they were being shoved forward so hard that it would be impossible for them to stop or step aside.

Stampedes are the fault of those who set up the conditions to trigger the stampede. In this case, I fault Walmart, and in particular, Walmart management and security. If the police were aware of the crowd, then they, too, failed to intercede in this dangerous situation. I wonder if a permit is required when planning for a crowd this size. Walmart security should have consulted with police when they saw the size of the crowd. Walmart should have instituted crowd management techniques, like setting up barricades or line mazes, using address systems to speak to the crowd, etc. Walmart should have had experienced people managing the opening.

Walmart is at fault for deliberately planning to draw a large crowd and then failing to institute proper safety procedures to manage that large crowd. This outcome was entirely predictable. The fact that they left an untrained temp worker to stand in the door to face that massive and potentially dangerous mob is an act of negligence rising to the level of reckless disregard for human life.

Somewhere in that store is a photo or video of that crowd. I personally think they should all be convicted of a "partial sentence" as a group (set up a new precedence then!) and the judge presiding over the case should give each person involved in that "capitalistic calamity" a severe fine to each. Imagine the trepidation of the man's family having to explain to any of his not-so-close relatives who may live on the other side of the country or even out of the country, the "real" reason he died. Any other form of murder is given just cause by law. I just hope that some form of justice is served for this man's death.

Only in America....

Did we all throw our money away on auto industry bailouts?

Yesterday, it was announced that GM will probably have to go bankrupt.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1070222.html

The handwriting was on the wall that these companies are dinosaurs, sadly.

Why was money thrown away on GM? What course of action would you have recommended?

This mess is sad. We've thrown a life preserver the size of pea to a sinking ship the size of the Titanic. Now the money will be gone, wasted. It's your tax dollars.

How would you have spent the money, if you would have spent it at all?

Are you going to stand for this kind of faulty decision making that is sinking our economy even further? Things were bad enough before BO took office and so far his decisions have been utter failures from these massive bailouts all the way to tax cheats in cabinet posts.

We have to put it to a stop to this massive spending spree before our entire country is bankrupt, just like GM will be.

What can we all do?

What do you think? What would you have done with the auto companies? Can any of our tax dollars be saved?


Yes, the economy is bad, and people are not buying cars. This is the major problem.

It is sad what the elite rich democrats done to the industry.

DTG

People are given the illusion that they have a choice when in fact they don't. Republicans and Democrats have been bought out by the elite corporations that want a New World Order. "No matter who you vote for you always vote for us"-Joseph Stalin

Yes. Tax dollars should not be used to prop up failed businesses.

sadly the attention to the crisis that started last year was luke warm at best. the first tarp was managed very incompetently with the wrong people tasked with the job. on top of that no accountability and a 'we must do something' attitude. the auto companies are indeed dinosaurs that started with management letting the unions dictate how the companies should be run. unfortunately for them their only recourse now is to go belly up and start over and let the chips fall where they may. we will not see a dime back of the money that has been given to them. our only recourse is to constantly blitz our elected officials with letters, e/m's, phone calls and the like. if they listen, then i suppose we can vote them back in. if they don't listen, we have to vote them out pure and simple. this process takes a long time but if the american people would start voting with their heads instead of their feelings then and only then will the powers that be get the picture. let's all remember, they work for us, not the other way around. one thing that needs to be stopped in it's tracks right now is the card check bill that may pass, this will give the unions a near slam dunk on ruining this country. we can sign a petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/Actioncenter/Petitions/Default.aspx?guid=87f7f73f-48bc-44c9-965b-e86805571adf to put a stop to the takeover of our country by the unions. take a look at the site also for a 12 point plan that can get this country back on it's feet if it were implemented today!!

here's some more on the above i found on the number of jobs lost possibly

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20090305.DC79700&show_article=1&catnum=3

This is very sad news indeed. Yes the government did.

Why couldn't all the companies that support one another work these problems out together. Cars need steel, steel factories need the car makers. Farmers need the food Industries, the food Industries need the farmers. Unite! while these huge companies continue to compete with one another in price gouging each other, they are destroying the small Business owners to nonexistence. Get rid of those stupid "Pay to be protected" Insurance companies. Put the control back into the Peoples hands.

We have unions that have their hands in the workers and the companies pockets, we have the governments hands in the workers and the companies pockets, and we have the Insurance companies in the workers and the companies pockets.

Did we all throw our money away on auto industry bailouts?

Yesterday, it was announced that GM will probably have to go bankrupt.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1070222.html

The handwriting was on the wall that these companies are dinosaurs, sadly.

Why was money thrown away on GM? What course of action would you have recommended?

This mess is sad. We've thrown a life preserver the size of pea to a sinking ship the size of the Titanic. Now the money will be gone, wasted. It's your tax dollars.

How would you have spent the money, if you would have spent it at all?

Are you going to stand for this kind of faulty decision making that is sinking our economy even further? Things were bad enough before BO took office and so far his decisions have been utter failures from these massive bailouts all the way to tax cheats in cabinet posts.

We have to put it to a stop to this massive spending spree before our entire country is bankrupt, just like GM will be.

What can we all do?

What do you think? What would you have done with the auto companies? Can any of our tax dollars be saved?


Yes, the economy is bad, and people are not buying cars. This is the major problem.

It is sad what the elite rich democrats done to the industry.

DTG

People are given the illusion that they have a choice when in fact they don't. Republicans and Democrats have been bought out by the elite corporations that want a New World Order. "No matter who you vote for you always vote for us"-Joseph Stalin

Yes. Tax dollars should not be used to prop up failed businesses.

sadly the attention to the crisis that started last year was luke warm at best. the first tarp was managed very incompetently with the wrong people tasked with the job. on top of that no accountability and a 'we must do something' attitude. the auto companies are indeed dinosaurs that started with management letting the unions dictate how the companies should be run. unfortunately for them their only recourse now is to go belly up and start over and let the chips fall where they may. we will not see a dime back of the money that has been given to them. our only recourse is to constantly blitz our elected officials with letters, e/m's, phone calls and the like. if they listen, then i suppose we can vote them back in. if they don't listen, we have to vote them out pure and simple. this process takes a long time but if the american people would start voting with their heads instead of their feelings then and only then will the powers that be get the picture. let's all remember, they work for us, not the other way around. one thing that needs to be stopped in it's tracks right now is the card check bill that may pass, this will give the unions a near slam dunk on ruining this country. we can sign a petition at http://www.americansolutions.com/Actioncenter/Petitions/Default.aspx?guid=87f7f73f-48bc-44c9-965b-e86805571adf to put a stop to the takeover of our country by the unions. take a look at the site also for a 12 point plan that can get this country back on it's feet if it were implemented today!!

here's some more on the above i found on the number of jobs lost possibly

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20090305.DC79700&show_article=1&catnum=3

This is very sad news indeed. Yes the government did.

Why couldn't all the companies that support one another work these problems out together. Cars need steel, steel factories need the car makers. Farmers need the food Industries, the food Industries need the farmers. Unite! while these huge companies continue to compete with one another in price gouging each other, they are destroying the small Business owners to nonexistence. Get rid of those stupid "Pay to be protected" Insurance companies. Put the control back into the Peoples hands.

We have unions that have their hands in the workers and the companies pockets, we have the governments hands in the workers and the companies pockets, and we have the Insurance companies in the workers and the companies pockets.

Question for Rooker on the Ma section/ why do you think martial arts do not have real world applications?

I know your a troll in the martial arts section but ah what the heck. Why do you assume that martial arts do not work in real life applications?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEv6i-lhIWc

Tell me was this NOT a real life situation? Did the karate master NOT use his skills to take care of a real life situation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2776841/Female-karate-champion-defeats-mugger.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUKELK06239620070910

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2007/04/muggers_pick_on.html

http://www.mmaopinion.com/2008/10/06/lloyd-irvin-and-brandon-vera-attacked/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2008/10/10/1010_road_rage.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=76

courtesy of clowns because this is where I got them from, Were these NOT real life situations? So tell me why do you refuse to believe that martial arts do not work? If they did not work why do you think that most law enforcements and army personell use them? Please I would like to see your reasoning. If you know nothing about martial arts, please stop trolling on the ma section and go back to your wwe wrestling.


Where did he go. Did he answer and get deleted. Thanks for the acknowledgment, It is very much appreciated.

Honestly though do not waist to much time on him and others like him. They just want to cause a stir. Yes, I know that is hypocritical because I do it too, but hey if I can help out others its a good feeling.

I would like to add if any one has any more links I would like to see them. I add them to a collection.

Thanks again :)

Would a vehicle tow dolly be able to pull this vehicle 200 miles???

This is a link to the listing, with a picture...

http://kansascity.craigslist.org/car/670477537.html

... it is 22feet long and the distance between the front and rear wheels is 14ft and the distance between the two front tires... measuring from the outsides of the tires is 6ft 4in roughly.

Would a dolly work? U-Haul's dollys can handle the weight but they say the maximum width is 72in. But I am assuming that is just the "safe" standard. Would it be able to fit on one of their dollys? If not what should I rent? I am in Kansas City, so if you know of any place hell I would be so happy to be informed of it.

Thanks,


You do not **** around with "safe" standards when it comes to towing. And U-haul is known for not maintaining their equipment properly anyway. So you REALLY don't **** around like that with U-haul equipment.

Also, you not only have to look at the capacity of the dolly, but the vehicle towing it. If your tow vehicle isn't big enough to tow that behemoth (and unless you've got a full-sized 1 ton pickup set up for towing, it probably isn't), you could be putting yourself and everyone around you at risk by driving something like that on the highway. Improper towing kills.

The ideal vehicle for moving that truck is a bigger truck.

Or itself. The ad says it runs. Just drive it the 200 miles. Bring tools and someone who knows trucks with you. Take it easy the whole way if you have to.

To be honest i think 72 inches is just the widest you can put on one of those single axle dollies. And I wouldnt trust that weight reccomendation either. I wish I knew people in KC like I do here I'd give you a phone number.

But best I can say is stop by there with a tape measure and try it out.

you would do better usesing a trailer from u haul than a dolly .

Friday, April 17, 2009

Are Democrats subverting the election process by not requiring valid photo ID's be presented before voting?

Yes or No? Why or Why Not? What say you?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/417713.html


Democrats think that letting convicted felons and people not eligible to vote will vote for them since they're soft on crime, so they want to dilute the vote of eligible Americans. They want illegal aliens to vote and think people likely to commit voter fraud will help them get elected.

Republicans are apparently more interested in creating yet another divisive political issue, than they are examining the merits of the case.

This is another one of those nonsense right wing non-problems. In real life it's hard to get more than 50% of elegible voters to the polls, much less non-elegible voters. How many 'illegals' actually vote anyway? And if a few do they're just as likely to vote for the republican as the democrat so it's a wash. While picture ID is always a good thing, we've had elections for over 200 years without picture ID. No problems that I know of. Besides that, how do you really know that the picture ID is real? There's so much BS identification out there now that anyone who needs papers can get them. I wish the republicans would take the lead on some really important issues.....the environment...health insurance...energy....climate change...border security....getting out of the middle east...balance of payments...under-employment...social and physical infrastructure...the national debt...education...soil erosion...flood control...crime in the suites and the dozens of swindles that screw Americans out of their money....like this business with sub-prime loans. If the Eisenhower republicans were still in charge those would be the parties issues....not gays, 'God' and abortion. Now that the right wing talk show bozos and FOX have convinced so many people that the non-existant 'liberals' want to raise their taxes, take their guns, open the borders and promote the gay agenda 'somebody' has to take charge.....but that's the problem. The fascisti nitwits of the GOP, like a dog chasing a car, caught the car...now they have no idea what to do with it. Dumb and dumber...don't vote for these guys until they learn to behave.

Don't we have bigger issues to worry about, here? We seem to be having a problem with Osama's latest message, don't we?

All of the squabbling about what defines a legitimate ID, whether to have the ID, it's all petty argument of an issue which is handled by each state, which makes it's own decisions. Every state sets their own primary, every state runs their election. Let the states handle it. Most states require ID for first-time voters who register by mail, anyway, and who's going to go out in public without their ID? It's not as if the pollers show up at your doorstep and demand you to find the ID that fell down between the cushions of your sofa. Voters get out of their houses and go vote, and SHOULD have their ID with them, regardless of why they are out in public.

If you live in a state where you believe the law can be changed, lobby your representative or your political party to create and enact a law to govern the absentee ballot frauds, which cries the most for reform.

no it may speed the process up a little .but if your going to go through the hastle of voting twice getting a fake id wouldnt be to hard .this law is leading down the road to a police state dont you think.home land security said they couldnt slow down illegals coming into this country cause there were just to many ids they couldnt disprove.strange i thought republicans were for less gov and less laws i guess thats why im an ex republican the big worry to me would be the polling machines and voter intimidation on site.with the computers you could block out or erase mega votes its a sad day for america when our freedoms are so at stake it would be nice if the republicans looked at what their policies and actions are doing to our nation and the world this good ol boy thing is grim

Republicans have publicly stated that making it harder to vote helps them. Many poor people, especially in urban areas, do not have drivers licenses and this is the only available photo ID in many states.

The basis of voting has ALWAYS been that you must prove to the election commission that you exist, not prove at the polls.

What is really amazing is that while no voter fraud by pretending to be someone else has ever been proven, illegally denying persons their right to vote is common and many people have been sent to jail (Republicans have even bragged of their "caging" operations to remove Democratic voter, even soldiers serving in Iraq.)

Why is it that we concentrate on single, poor voters and ignore massive institutional voter fraud? (Did you realize 4 Republicans are in prison now for manipulating votes/denying voter access in Ohio in 2004?)

Edit: BTW you do have to have some ID to vote now, just not a photo ID.

no, the picture id is a scheme by Republicans to suppress the votes for Democrats.There is no widespread vote fraud problem to be addressed. As noted in your link:

Terence T. Evans: “Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic,” Evans wrote.

That link you posted the best you got ? Pathetic.

Absolutely Yes.....Because Democrats do will do ANYTHING for a Vote including PANDERING to ANY PREDICATE FELON OR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT ALLIEN by rewarding them with entitlement programs for free housing, food stamps, education & medicaid health care + amnesty & citizenship.----Even photo ID's are a joke unless they also have a fingerprint ID.--- I once found a Woman's Handbag, which had been tossed out of a car at a Bridge Toll Booth, containing nothing but 21 Medicaid Cards with 21 different names & 21 different ID numbers with the same woman's photo on each of the 21 cards.

You should have to present a valid ID to vote. In many stores I have to present a valid ID to use a credit card -- it would be ridiculous to let people vote without a valid ID!!

Well,I guess that means the dead can't vote for the Dems anymore.

No they're just reverting back to the Constitutional Representative Republic. DEMOCRACY has stepped on their toes. And they're not liking it. Neither will the Republic. They're being boxed in for exposure. They're trying to play both sides. Give it time. Remember what really happened in 2006.

No republicans are perverting the voting process by creating laws that are unconstitutional.

anything to get those 13 million illegals voting!!