I decided to let it drop b/c it won't let me post sm
Posted By: Anony1 on 2009-06-03
In Reply to: Pay no mind - I think the poster was trying to - - just me
THE CUSS WORDS I WANTED TO ADDRESS TO THE IDIOTS. Thank you to everyone else who had kind words. I hope no one ever has to go through what I did.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I believe he did drop everything and go
and that says a little about is character to me!!!
oh drop the flag pin, will you?
x
I personally think that we should drop
everything except for American. We need to unite and come together and we need to drop the extra titles. That doesn't mean we should forget where we come from or our heritage. It just means that when we lose focus on us all being Americans and just Americans....we start to categorize and stereotype and segregate ourselves.
Besides, I really don't want to be call an Indian-German-Scottish-Hungarian-American. I'm an American and I'm proud of that.
This spending is just a drop
in the pocket at what they will actually have to spend to buy us out of this mess. We can't afford to spend our way out of this. They are going to have a spend a lot more money realistically do create the jobs they are talking about. Plus, all this money won't be going into the system right away. To me this package is crap.
At least with major tax cuts businesses could work their way out without government controlling them. I do not like the idea of our government controlling so much.
I bet it will drop as fast as it did
x
Drop the hyperbole. sm
Describing Bush as the "epitome of evil" is not intelligent discussion. It just makes you look ridiculous.
She can drop the messiah off in Chicago along the way...
//
what planet did you drop in on......no, all welfare
nm
Well, if they spoke, that means I drop
everything and bow to people who do not have the last word on what the administration does.
Your argument does not hold a drop of water.
Number one. No they wouldn't...journalists are like lawyers...they don't rat out their sources. It is a question of professional integrity. Furthermore, the LA Times went into great detail to describe precisely what was on the video. No cigar on that media bias whining. This is what happens when campaigns declare war on the media, keep their VP pick on a short leash, avoid one-on-one interviews like the plaque and squeal out loud when the rogue goes off script. The media would not be having a field day if there weren't such an abundant pool of news stories being generated daily by this pathetically mismanaged and misguided camp.
Since when is the International REPUBLICAN Institute, chaired by McCain, the REBPULICAN presidential candidate apolitical? Explain this to me, please. The Center for PALESTINIAN Research and Study...apolitial? On what planet is the subject of Palestine apolitical? Seriously, can you point out any Palestinian living either in OCCUPIED Palestine or in the diapora who is NOT political. If it weren't political, there would have been no exchange of funds. Not at all the same as what...a little incoherent here.
The "meeting" was a farewell dinner for Khalidi held at a Palestinian community center in Chicago for this American born, Yale graduate, Oxford University Doctor of Philosophy, former professor and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies at the University of Chicago, current professor at Columbia University. He is a member of the National Advisory Committee of the US INTERreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East...a national organization of Jews, Christians and Muslims. He is also a member of the Board of Sponsors of the Palestine-Israel Journal, a publication founded by prominent Palestinian and ISRAELI journalists.
Radical Israel hater? Sam, this may come as a shock to you, but Palestinians take great pride in crossing cultures and religions for the sake of garnering peace in their war-torn country. You need help interpreting what Obama meant by "showing me my own personal bias." This is what occurs when people cross cultures, talk to one another, listen to points of view other than their own and start the process of coming to terms with the ethnocentric bias they carry around from their own cultures. I know exactly what he means. It is precisely the quality an effective foreign policy leader need to have to make effective diplomatic inroads. If you want to make something suspicious and subversive out of that....be my guest. In the absence of the tape, Sam, just how is it that you claim to know precisely what transpired during that farewell dinner?
Notably absence from you post is any direct comment on the fact that Chairman McCain's IRI funded the organization that Khalidi founded for 2 years in a row. If he is the Jew hater you suggest he is, then wouldn't that mean that once again, Chairman McCain had a vetting deficit?
Well, I've decided not to
post on their precious board any more, even though they won't like it. They thrive on hatred and attacks. They've been baiting people all week with their constant, unrelentless, vicious attacks on liberals. When someone gives them a taste of their own medicine, they run to the monitor.
You know, the whole concept of "their" thinking the three of us is only one person is very interesting. A very intelligent person told me a long time ago that if someone accuses you of doing something, it's probably something they are themselves doing. Maybe all three of these "people" is really only just one person with a severe personality disorder. The more outlandish things I read that "they" write, the more I'm inclined to think that might be true. One thing for certain, there are some very sick people out there, and they probably deserve pity more than disdain. "They" certainly do have some startling, somewhat scary traits, and I kind of wish now that GT hadn't put her email address out there for some of these nuts to have access to. I hope they don't begin to stalk her, but hatred is a very strong emotion, and some of these "people" clearly don't seem to be very stable.
Like I said, I'm staying away from their board. It's much easier to breathe on this board, and the intellect is certainly better.
Decided, but if
I have been an ardent supporter of Senator Obama since February of this year. I have donated $25 a month to his campaign since then. First time in my life that I have felt that level of committment to a candidate for any office. If I were still undecided at this point, the thing that would sway me to vote for Obama would be the tone of his campaign. As in the primary, Senator Obama makes it very clear what his policies are. He is able to uplift his ideas without constantly talking in a negative manner about his oponent. He does not get personal in his attacking of his opponents' ideas and stances. His way of waging his campaign makes it possible for him and his opponent to come together and work for the benefit of our nation when all the politicking is over....as he and Senator Clinton are now doing. Senator McCain is so harsh and personal in his attacks on Obama. Senator McCain has said things that he knows are not true of Senator Obama; he has allowed Governor Palin to utter comments that would made it very difficult for them to work with a Congress and Senate that is composed of both Democrats and Republicans. I know that his back is to the wall, but he should be mindful (as it appears to me Senator Obama is mindful) that the end goal here is successfully governing our nation. Senator McCain's torched earth policy on the campaign trail would make it impossible for him to govern in cooperation with others. So, if I were still undecided at this point Senator Obama would have my vote because he is playing the election game with dignity, respect and the realization that whoever wins, we all still must be able to work together.
I've decided too
I've made my decision too but for different reasons. I believe nothing I read and only half of what I see. I decided on what I heard directly from the candidates own mouths. Palin is a simpering airhead in my opinion. I will drag my feet to the polls and cast my vote for Obama hoping that he will do less harm than McCain. I say no McCain/Palin. I think that once the new wears off Palin we'll see a lot of people who will agree with me. Surely the American people are more intelligent than to put someone in power that only knows that Russia is her neighbor.
I have decided to vote
for all the republicans I can. I've always been the type of person to look at all candidates in both parties and decide which is the better of the two. However, I'm voting straight republican this election. My grandma always told me that you never want the oval office and the congress controlled by the same party. I'm a middle of the road person and I don't want to go extreme left or extreme right so I think we need a little bit of both. So I will be voting for as many republicans as I can to try and keep the left side from totally taking over. We need some right sided people to help keep things in the middle of the road so things don't go extreme left.
I decided the same thing!
If we end up with O in the White House, we need all the Republicans we can to balance things out. I don't usually vote straight Republican, but I am this time around.
I decided to do some research
on the birth certificate. I believe any reasonable person can examine the birth certificate at this website and conclude that Obama's b/c is authentic. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Maybe you could stop trashing him until you see what he actually does and please....quit reading all those blogs that have not a shred of useful information in them. Learn to reason for yourself.....please!
P.S. Who decided he was the perfect one
to run for president anyhow? There were candidate s much more qualified than O that could have run away with the votes if they were "chosen" by the party...but they chose someone who was only a senator for what, less than 2 years? Why? I would love to know how the party choses their candidates to run for president. Something doesn't smell right here.
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976
Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down
By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01
A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.
In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.
The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.
With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.
"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.
Who Gets Abortions?
Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.
The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.
Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:
· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.
· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.
This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.
· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.
· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.
· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.
About the Data
There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.
Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.
Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.
Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.
Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·
Resources
For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."
For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.
Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
If he wasn't in the White House, though, Hollywood would drop him like yesterday's garbage.
NM
I agree. It was the TERRORISTS who decided...
...to attack on 9/11. Likewise, it will be the TERRORISTS who will decide when and how to attack again.
I don't believe this has anything to do with WHO the President is, so while Bush shouldn't take the blame, he also shouldn't claim the credit for what the TERRORISTS HAVEN'T done. It's the timetable of the TERRORISTS that controls what does or doesn't happen.
The Republicans felt that another terror attack would be helpful to McCain's campaign (they came out and said so). I don't recall any Democrat uttering anything so UGLY in regards to Obama.
Are you still here? I thought you decided to leave...sm
or are you already back again?
Obama is letting them drop charges against terrorists for this horrible sick crime???
What orifice did you pull this out of?
The left has decided to make it about the teenager...
she is the one who is pregnant after all. It is each person's choice whether to take the high road or throw stones. If Sarah Palin's daughter had decided to have an abortion the left would have used that against her as well. Everyone knows that.
See...that is the problem here. The left thinks they know the common person, the "right," the middle class middle AMerica folks who have family values...anyone who thinks those kinds of people would attack a pregnant teenager in this fashion no matter what party her mother is in...does not know nor understand these people.
This perceived weapon that the left has picked up may well harm their candidate, because no matter how many times he cries foul, there are still his followers who want to go there. So we are left with two ways to view that. Either Obama is political posturing, does not believe what he said, and in the trenches is telling his people "sic her," or he is genuinely affronted by this and his followers are paying him no heed. Either way...it will reflect badly on his candidacy.
Guess that will be decided in the media circus
These links are not just guilt by association pieces like Rev Wright. They are containing words straight out of her mouth. Libs approach to research a little different than Christian Right.
Who gives a rip about local news in an already-decided state?
That's why the polls are NATIONAL polls, duh!
And I don't know what you're implying by your virus comment. Grow the he!! up already.
We've decided to sit back and watch
turn the forum back over to the tribal warriors. Our work is done here. For the record, he'll be raising taxes ON HIMSELF, for Pete's sake.
Has the country decided not to hold any more elections
Was 2008 the very last election? I thought every four years there is an election. I also thought, according to past elections, that people should not just assume someone will win. They assumed Gore would win and he didn't, they assumed Kerry would win and he did not. Hence I would not assume Obama will win a second term. If he turns out to be a good president and we still have elections in 4 years, and nothing happens between now and then, then and only then will he most likely be re-elected. But since the guy has not even been sworn in yet and made any major decisions I would not be so bold as to just go on like he's going to be in for eight years. There is that slight possibility that he could very well be a crappy president like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (especially with all the people he is picking for his cabinet). I know the country is ready for a change and GW hasn't been the best, but until a man serves in the office we don't know what kind of a president he will be.
Unless of course you have heard something that none of us have heard and there will never be any more elections in the future. I have heard and read that Obama is a socialist, and maybe we are heading toward the same thing Cuba faces. The leader just appoints himself to the office every time. So maybe that is what you are referring to.
I decided to stop posting on this issue,
because it's becoming a troll.
But Barack's mother decided to send her son, when he was 11
years old,back to Hawaii to her mother.
Since then Obama was educated in America.
How much did Barack Obama think about foreign policy before he decided to run...?
I would say...none. There is certainly no proof that he DID, that is why he chose Biden. So, if HE has to make a crucial decision that does not involve voting present or yelling at Michelle for spending $10,000 to send their kids to camp, or which Britney Spears designer to use for his next big speech...what's he gonna do? All I can say is, if he is elected, he better put Biden on speed dial or handcuff him to himself. You act as if your guy is ready!! And no one has to keel over for HIM to be in charge...he is in charge on day 1. Yeah, THAT IS scary!!
I don't know in what alternate universe you think Karl Rove is advising him. Karl Rove and John McCain detest each other. Have you not paid ANY attention these last few years??
The court has decided. The plaintiff just doesn't like the ruling. nm
.
Don't ya'll pay attention? The Popes (past and present) had already decided this.
...Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.
Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."
Yeah, just heard today he decided to cut his vacation short to deal with the
huricaine. Sheesh.
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
Thanks for the post. I think I will look up that
article.
And thanks for pointing out all the other "results" of his administration that, as you say, benefit nobody but the rich and/or the corporations or, as he himself once publicly bragged, "his base."
I know for a fact that when he ran for President in 2000, I told every single person I knew that if he becomes President, we're going to go to war with Iraq. (Nobody's gonna treat his daddy like Saddam did and get away with it.)
I didn't have a crystal ball. I had common sense and a good memory from the Gulf War when his father was President and how he didn't "finish the job." Seems a lot of other Americans forgot about that.
I really enjoyed reading your post and all the facts you raised that I failed to raise in mine. Thanks for the mention of the LA Times article. I'm going to try to look that up on the web. 
I know they don't. I said that in my post. NM
//
Actually, that post is right on. sm
You sound like a total lunatic, out of control and full of hatred. You sound like someone who could do just what "vs" says. You had best take a look at your behavior. YOUR posts are the ones who should be reported. You are one frightening person.
|
