Page 89 of 244 FirstFirst ... 397985868788899091929399139189 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 890 of 2438

Thread: The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RIGHT NEXT TO ARROWHEAD!
    Posts
    18,752
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd


    0 Not allowed!
    Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



    WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
    Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.
    Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola
    Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
    While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
    But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






    http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html







    Crap.
    http://arrowheadjunkies.com/pictures/PhotoShop/sig_pics/NFL_Players/kansas_city_chiefs/tyson.jackson/062009/tyson.jackson.500.png

  2. #881
    Member Since
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,768
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 183
    Given: 51

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by hermhater View Post
    You like the govt, you don't like the govt...

    How will you decide?

    I got it!

    Do the ol' "She loves, She loves me not" thing, then make a decision!

    :wink:
    yeah, call me crazy for not wanting to watch towers fall to the ground OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER on my TV screen. If it means that the Govt. looks at everyone's porn records, so be it....But my gut tells me, the next attack won't just be a couple towers. I'm guessing an entire city will be wiped off the map next time.

  3. #882
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RIGHT NEXT TO ARROWHEAD!
    Posts
    18,752
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by texaschief View Post
    yeah, call me crazy for not wanting to watch towers fall to the ground OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER on my TV screen. If it means that the Govt. looks at everyone's porn records, so be it....But my gut tells me, the next attack won't just be a couple towers. I'm guessing an entire city will be wiped off the map next time.
    The towers?

    Really?

    Over and over again?


    YOUR TV screen?


    And finally, what the hell are you talking about when you say an entire city?

    Is this Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" you're talking about?

    I need to know these things.

    I am big brother!

    (But shorter! )
    http://arrowheadjunkies.com/pictures/PhotoShop/sig_pics/NFL_Players/kansas_city_chiefs/tyson.jackson/062009/tyson.jackson.500.png

  4. #883
    Member Since
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,768
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 183
    Given: 51

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by hermhater View Post
    The towers?

    Really?

    Over and over again?


    YOUR TV screen?


    And finally, what the hell are you talking about when you say an entire city?

    Is this Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" you're talking about?

    I need to know these things.

    I am big brother!

    (But shorter! )
    I'm talking about a nuclear/bio attack.

  5. #884
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RIGHT NEXT TO ARROWHEAD!
    Posts
    18,752
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by texaschief View Post
    I'm talking about a nuclear/bio attack.
    Me too.

    (Edit for TC (cuz I did f up)

    How is using all our military and intelligence in a part of the world that is unstable (and has been for all history) when we have problems in other parts of the world.

    I can't have the rest of this argument with you because if I say anything negative about the way the US is handling things you will make it sound like I am not patriotic or I said something wrong.
    Last edited by hermhater; 03-13-2008 at 05:52 AM.
    http://arrowheadjunkies.com/pictures/PhotoShop/sig_pics/NFL_Players/kansas_city_chiefs/tyson.jackson/062009/tyson.jackson.500.png

  6. #885
    Member Since
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    3,768
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 183
    Given: 51

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by hermhater View Post
    Me too.

    I also think that having all our soldiers in the wrong place during a war is poor planning.


    How is that stopping that from happening?

  7. #886
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,841
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Personally the government has my permission to listen to whatever phone call, read whatever e-mail or scan any other communication I might have. They won't find anything illegal. However I don't like the principle of the Patriot Act as it is currently devised. I do feel that their needs to be more judiciary oversight of wiretaps, etc.

    I am a conservative (not a Republican)...I do like small government. Every time the federal government tries to solve a problem outside its domain, we end up with 2 or 3 new problems. The federal government should stick to security, immigration and military. Everything else should be as it was designed a STATE or LOCAL government issue. The design of the founding fathers creating a united republic of individual states was largely a check and balance on "big government" which most of them had fled from back in England. The idea is that if each state can govern itself within the foundation of the Union, then the idea of say "social programs" could fly in California, and if you don't like paying for it, you can head to Nevada, or Arizona. Conversely if you feel that it is the "right thing for the government to do" then you flee to California. However when the Federal Government started getting into these types of issues back in the early 1900s (largely FDRs New Deal era in the 30s) the option to protest such concepts became minimized.

    I'm all for state governments having the right to create welfare programs, or retirement programs, disability programs, subsidized education, etc., etc. However when the federal government steps into this arena, not only do they historically mismanage funds and run inefficient programs, but they also over extend the budget and either run up national debt, or worse they increase taxes and stiffle the economy.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 49ers own my heart, but the Chiefs will always hold a better than neutral spot for giving my favorite player a place to leave with grace...

    Resident Comedian/Statistician/Researcher/Diplomat

  8. #887
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,152
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by rbedgood View Post
    Personally the government has my permission to listen to whatever phone call, read whatever e-mail or scan any other communication I might have. They won't find anything illegal. However I don't like the principle of the Patriot Act as it is currently devised. I do feel that their needs to be more judiciary oversight of wiretaps, etc.

    I am a conservative (not a Republican)...I do like small government. Every time the federal government tries to solve a problem outside its domain, we end up with 2 or 3 new problems. The federal government should stick to security, immigration and military. Everything else should be as it was designed a STATE or LOCAL government issue. The design of the founding fathers creating a united republic of individual states was largely a check and balance on "big government" which most of them had fled from back in England. The idea is that if each state can govern itself within the foundation of the Union, then the idea of say "social programs" could fly in California, and if you don't like paying for it, you can head to Nevada, or Arizona. Conversely if you feel that it is the "right thing for the government to do" then you flee to California. However when the Federal Government started getting into these types of issues back in the early 1900s (largely FDRs New Deal era in the 30s) the option to protest such concepts became minimized.

    I'm all for state governments having the right to create welfare programs, or retirement programs, disability programs, subsidized education, etc., etc. However when the federal government steps into this arena, not only do they historically mismanage funds and run inefficient programs, but they also over extend the budget and either run up national debt, or worse they increase taxes and stiffle the economy.
    Great post, I'm left center but agree with most everything your saying.


    "Everybody underestimates the kick in the groin." - Bas Rutten

  9. #888
    Member Since
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,841
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by royalswin100games View Post
    Great post, I'm left center but agree with most everything your saying.
    Most of the issues I addressed in that post had more to do with history and common sense than politcal idealogy. The facts are out there...the government is a slow moving bureaucacy (sp?) that is not an efficient manager of time, money or any other resource. So the fewer programs that are put in the hands of the Washington central powers, the less they waste. State governments would then be held to a higher level of accountability if the option to get up and leave presented itself with 49 other states.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 49ers own my heart, but the Chiefs will always hold a better than neutral spot for giving my favorite player a place to leave with grace...

    Resident Comedian/Statistician/Researcher/Diplomat

  10. #889
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gardner
    Posts
    2,834
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Smaller government and more freedom for the individual states to decide.... maybe that would get people off their bums to vote on local issues.

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/

    I don't agree with everything this party has to offer (all but 2) but I do like the ideas as a whole.

  11. #890
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,091
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 23
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by rbedgood View Post
    Personally the government has my permission to listen to whatever phone call, read whatever e-mail or scan any other communication I might have. They won't find anything illegal. However I don't like the principle of the Patriot Act as it is currently devised. I do feel that their needs to be more judiciary oversight of wiretaps, etc.

    I am a conservative (not a Republican)...I do like small government. Every time the federal government tries to solve a problem outside its domain, we end up with 2 or 3 new problems. The federal government should stick to security, immigration and military. Everything else should be as it was designed a STATE or LOCAL government issue. The design of the founding fathers creating a united republic of individual states was largely a check and balance on "big government" which most of them had fled from back in England. The idea is that if each state can govern itself within the foundation of the Union, then the idea of say "social programs" could fly in California, and if you don't like paying for it, you can head to Nevada, or Arizona. Conversely if you feel that it is the "right thing for the government to do" then you flee to California. However when the Federal Government started getting into these types of issues back in the early 1900s (largely FDRs New Deal era in the 30s) the option to protest such concepts became minimized.

    I'm all for state governments having the right to create welfare programs, or retirement programs, disability programs, subsidized education, etc., etc. However when the federal government steps into this arena, not only do they historically mismanage funds and run inefficient programs, but they also over extend the budget and either run up national debt, or worse they increase taxes and stiffle the economy.
    Nice post Rbed.
    THAT quarterback is NOT a Pro Bowl quarterback. Never was and never will be.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •