OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2006-06-08
In Reply to: Still not illegal - ???
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
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
On a serious note...
....I thank you for your response. While I agree boxes probably arent' the best idea sometimes they make complicated ideologies a little simpler to understand, I guess.
Actually I would be very interested in learning all the posters on these boards beliefs/ideologies/hopes for the future. I think we could do this without undermining each other or bashing. Perhaps I'll post it at the top of the board some time as a new topic.
and on that note...
Who gained the most benefit from keeping it a secret, and/or keeping the rumor afloat that he is still out there somewhere?
Note to sam
Sam, just wondering if when you post a legitimate question on the board could you please change your name. It seems like anything you ask anymore people are bashing you. You put up some very good questions (sorry can't answer this one as I'm not knowlegable enough to know what the outcome would be -it's all too confusing), but it seems as though people are going to attack you for anything. Now if there is an argument you want to make that's one thing, but its not right that you put up a question and people are attacking you for that. - just a suggestion.
One more note
Was curious to see what people would say to my post. I expected the O supporters to bash me for my opinion. That's the way this board is run, but I was curious so came back. For all of you thinking this is one sided - I voted for Obama! I supported Obama! I donated money to his campaign. I fought tooth and nail on this board to defend Obama. I got into some rough ones with some of the republicans on this board. But as time has gone on I have researched and learned more about Obama and I do not like what I am finding out. I come to this board to hopefully get some insightful information and it IS mostly the democrats bashing and attacking posters who are for McCain. I would say 95% dems bashing republicans and 5% republicans defending themselves by coming back at the posters who originally bashed them. Facts are facts and its in black and white on this board. And they bash Palin without cause. I just say it like it is (sorry you don't like to admit it). Like the poster below said - guess only half the pixels on your monitor work.
If you had any type of open mind you would read through every single post and you would see the Obama supporters bashing the McCain supporters more, calling them every name in the book while in the same breath saying its all them against you (and the posts below are proof of that). The posts below show you don't have open minds, you don't search out facts. You are blindly led around like a bunch of sheep.
God help us if Obama gets in there. I for one don't want to live my life with the likes of Farrahan, Wright, Resko, and Ayers (to name a few) dictating how we should be living. Farrakan's the creepiest of all, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to live like that.
Please note....(sm)
I think Phelps and his daughter were banned back in Feb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm
There are also a number of people on the list whose names have not been published. I would love to see the entire list.
Note, what I said was
You prepare for what an opponent might do, not what he appears to be doing at the moment. Situations change in an instant, stuff happens, appearances may be misleading. You don't encumber both hands when you could be attacked, especially if there's more than one. Doesn't mean attack them first, but you stay ready for the possibility that they might attack you. Military training and just plain common sense.
Please note....(sm)
We are talking about Obama here, not Bush the war monger.
"There will always be a war that he needs them for and if there isn't one he will create one."
You do realize that Obama was one of the few senators who voted completely against the Iraq war? What makes you think he wants to stay in a war when all he has done is talk about how we need to get out of it? That is just completely irrational.
"Why do you say the GOP is not funding the troops."
Ummm....because the vast majority of pubs in the house just voted against a funding bill?
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
Note to gt......off topic
It's me - the one who's been posting under all the gt alias joke monikers. I just had to blow off steam after the conservative board debacle last night. Don't know why I get involved in it. My fall equinox resolution will be to inform, not condemn.
Thanks for tolerating my not-that-funny-ha-ha little joke.
note: this was in no way gay-bashing, as i am gay too,
but i just had to laugh at the mental image of a pitbull with lipstick, trying its best not to look like a 'klondyke'.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
just a note from factcheck.org
A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
On a lighter note.....sm
Stuff I didn't know about.......
Meet Obama's bodyman: The White House 'Chief of Stuff' who caters to the President's every whim
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127223/Meet-Obamas-bodyman-The-White-House-Chief-Stuff-caters-Presidents-whim.html
Agree and just want to add to your note that
that Bush WOULD NOT meet with those of the fallen. He out-and-out dissed them. So, even though none of this mess is Obama's making, he met with those who mourn and actually listened to their views. He did so much more in that 45 minutes than Bush ever did.
Note to mythbuster...(sm)
Off our meds, are we? - Mythbuster (Views: 33, 2009-03-10)
You might want to clean up your own backyard before you start on someone else's.
I think the thing to note here...(sm)
is not so much that he had an affair. People do that all the time. I personally think it's nobody's business, and that's how I felt about Clinton as well. However, what we have here is a guy who has been preaching "family values" as a campaign slogan for how many years? and then this comes out. It's the blatant hipocrisy that I can't stand.
Also, this guy was supposedly a good candidate for VP next time around. If something like this had been found out about Biden, the rght would have had a field day with it, just like they did with Clinton.
More on that note....France, that non...
judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.
In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.
And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol
I answered you below -
I've got more important things to do than to continue this argument you want to have. You are wrong!
Thanks to you who have answered...
I may be a dem to the core, but I do appreciate your input.
I answered this below......sm
When you can come up with something different, let me know.
Please note that American Woman is not AG
Thanks Brunson for you objective views....it is refreshing. You know how to respectfully post and carry on an adult conversation.
The only reason I am posting here is to state this even though it's blatantly obvious American Woman is not me.
I read here, but I don't post here. I might post my responses to posts here on the C board....but other than to clarify like I'm doing now I don't post here....I made a mistake on Friday posting here, but I got my boards mixed up. Have a great day!
Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m. Humor is lost on you all...
Please note sources within this article...
http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/oil-drilling
Here's a funny for you. Note the date.
James I. Blakslee
"Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"
"Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"
"Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."
"Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."
I get a kick out of that.
A note about your socialism comment sm
We do not have socialism except for that big bank bailout that was under Bush's leadership, (lack of leadership). All your sorry arguments of months ago are now moot points. Stop being a sore loser. Nobody cares about the birth certificate, about Ayers, about Rev Wright, about fake socialism, about your phoney crooked republican manipulations. Suck it up and be a real American and follow the new president.
You never answered my question.
I asked how many troops our ally Israel sent to Iraq. I would truly like to know. It might help to change my mind regarding their commitment to being our ally.
Answered in all honesty...
the entire thread was about the Plame case and whether or not she was covert. I posted the court document where the media outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc) filed to try to stop the judge from compelling the reporters to give their sources (their aim was to protect whistle-blowers, which is definitely not a bad thing). In that brief it was stated: "We do not believe a crime was committed as she was not covert at the time of the incident." CBS acknowledged that they believed that Plame was not covert...supported by the fact that she was openly working at a desk job in the CIA offices and had been for some time. I thought it was hypocritical of CBS to now bring Plame on and in effect say they believe that she was covert. Then some, not all, of the usual posters piled on questioning the integrity of the court and how decisions can be influenced...when it really had nothing to do with the court, but with the filed brief. CBS et AL actually lost the case. If they had won it, there would have been no Libby prosecution. That is what makes what the liberals posted that much harder to understand. It just seemed like just because a conservative posted it, it could not possibly have any merit, and then when they had to admit it did have merit, suddenly the court had no integrity.
Honest answer.
First of all, I don't see that she answered the question. nm
.
Asked and answered...
...ad nauseam! 
Despite the fact that this has been answered over and over,
x
He has answered the questions
by what authority do you determine he has not answered the questions truthfully?
You just answered your own question
about "what critism" when you said Missouri MT said something and then said she didn't say it.
You answered your own question.
My assessment was in line with "most of the world," who laid responsibility for the massacre squarely at the feet of the Israelis, where it belonged, especially since the Shaba and Shatilla refugee camps were under the control of the IDF, not the Lebanese Phalangists, whom the IDF gave access to the refugees in the camps. Do not try to rewrite history that I unfortunately was around to experience directly, at least in its aftermath some 16 days later.
I have not forgotten about the assassination of Bachir Gemayel (Phalangist leader and president-elect, who never took office, BTW) just 2 days before the massacre and the history of hatred between the Phalangists and the Palestinians. If I was aware of it as a young, naïve, ill-informed American, it is only logical that the Israelis were aware of it too and had drawn the conclusion that giving access to the Phalangists was the perfect opportunity for them to commit massacre by proxy, which adds the specter of cowardice to the already atrocious and horrendous act and its outcome.
Trying to belittle me will not effectively disguise your not-so-artful attempt to dodge direct discussion of ISREAL'S invasion of Lebanon, the death of 3000 women, children and elders in the camps and another 30,000 Lebanese they killed during that campaign. So, no, it is pretty easy to distinguish between Israelis, the killers and the Lebanese, the dead guys.
I am not in the habit of giving direct answers to dirt, filth and blatant lies such as yours. Your preposterous notion that Arabs didn't give a flip about the massacre of 3000 Arabs is beyond absurd and speaks for itself, but comes as no surprise from a Zionist who would actually try to gain credibility by discounting 2550 corpses of women, children and elders by disputing fatality figures. The only odd thing here is that your delusions would allow you to believe that anyone in their right mind would accept this callous dismissal as the basis of a credible statement. Evidence of the ice water that flows through you veins can be easily surmised from your bigoted and hateful statement blaming the "Pakistanis" (I am guessing you really meant Palestinians) for somehow inviting the slaughter of the Shaba and Shatila refugees. Yeah, right.
Read my lips. The IDF WAS IN CONTROL of those camps. It was their responsibility to keep them secure. It also would not be the first time they failed to live up to Geneva Convention war conduct imperatives and instead, commit horrendous war crimes. They were the invaders, after all, and Lebanon, the invaded. This seems to be a pervasive affliction of yours, not being able to distinguish between the occupiers and occupied, the invaders and the invaded, the killers and the dead.
My 3000 dead figure is extracted from Sabra and Shatila: Inquiry into a Massacre, penned by ISRAELI journalist Amnon Kapeliouk in June 1984...2000 bodies disposed of by official and Red Crescent sources and another 1000-1500 he documented by investigative reporting and interviews with Phalangist officials. BTW, the findings of an Israeli govt study that Israel was only guilty of not foreseeing the future is like accepting the fox's report about the disappearance of the chickens from the coup. You are more stupid still to say that 3000 "sounds better" than 450, unless you are presuming that I take the same pleasure you obviously take in stacks and piles of Palestinian bodies in mass graves. NOT.
Sorry. I am not able to decipher your last parting shot. What are you referring to when you ask about the [square symbol] attacks on Palestinian refugee camps? Please clarify and I would be happy to comment.
I answered your question.
I provide examples of the current administration's bragging of how effective their policy has been in keeping us safe all turned out to be untrue because the threats were not credible.
I believe you just answered your own question
It's administered just like Medicare and Medicaid.
Lots of fraud within those two organizations, both from users and providers. We all know that from being MTs.
You asked, I answered.
I don't think fairy tales make for good foreign policy. Pre-emptive war under false pretenses that kill over 100,000 people waged in the WRONG COUNTRY to avenge daddy's honor and advance mythical global hegemony. No, Lu, the shrub has not made us safer, though you are free to give credit where you see fit. I would never try to talk down a blind Bushie but I can state with unwavering certainty that there are better, smarter, more honest and less deadly approaches to foreign policy, which you are about to witness first-hand on the dawn of this new era.
No just the poster you answered.
I'm beginning to feel the same way. He's pouring good money after bad. He should get wise and stop it RIGHT NOW.
After giving AIG more money yesterday, I feel all O knows is how to spend and that seems to be his cure-all for what ails the country. You would think he would get the hint by now with the market tanking and everyone losing their pensions and 401Ks.
Yes, you are a bit confused. I answered
your posts - this is a free forum, isn't it? - and you referred to me as JTBB.
Do not try to justify your insensitivity with 'I was just joking', this is lame. Because you were NOT joking. You find all the torture and cruelty done to prisoners amusing and entertaining, as you decorate your comments with .. 'LOL, ROFL, Geez etc....'
And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.
On the whole religion note, I just read yesterday
about how McCain people are calling Jewish neighborhoods and making false statements about Obama. They start out saying they are polling or something, and then it gets into their religion - making false statements about Obama. The people that were called from McCain's people were very upset about this, that they would call and say these things. One woman even asked a question about it and the person on the other end of the phone said they wouldn't qualify for the poll if they weren't Jewish or they wouldn't have been called if they didn't live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood. I think that is disgusting.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.
This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.
The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).
The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
You asked a question, I answered it. I'm not sure what you want. nm
He already has answered tough questions and without a
teleprompter. Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.
Re: "associations" -- you never answered a prior
Jes' curious............
I agree, was very good. -and she answered with
nm
Maybe no one answered the two previous posts...sm
becuase they're tired of getting jumped on by your side, you know, the anti-fanatic fanatics...lol....but true.
I've refrained from commenting on this issue, even though I feel as if Obama is hiding something. Wonder what it could be?
I answered you above - you are making things up
You accused me earlier of being a racist and posting racist posts. I challenged you and you can't find one. You tried to use something I said after you accused me. I also read through all my posts and there are none. When I referred to Michelle not talking like a black woman I was referring to your typical stereotyping us because we don't always talk or write the way you think all black people do. I'll say it again. Michelle Obama is one classy lady.
You know one thing I was taught growing up is if I'm ever wrong to at least have the decency to say I'm wrong and am sorry, but I guess not everyone is like that.
I saw the snopes link first and have answered
x
If someone had posted the post I answered, yes...
It would be racist if a white person voted for someone just because he was white. It would be racist for a black person to vote for a black person just because he was black. It would be racist for a white person not to vote for a black person just because he was black. It would be racist for a black person to not vote for a white person just because he was white.
Does that clear it up for you?
please note...the title line of the previous post were....
sim's words, not mine. Refer to her/his post.
Please note the words "Glenn and McCain's involvement...
was minimal."
Abscam and the Keating Five
In 1978, the Federal Bureau of Investigation embarked on a sting operation, labeled Abscam, in which agents posed as Middle Eastern businessmen offering bribes to senators and congressmen. The FBI targeted 31 government officials in total during the operation, including state officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Six congressmen, Democrats John Jenrette of South Carolina, Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania, Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, John Murphy of New York and Frank Thompson of New Jersey, and Republican Richard Kelly of Florida, and one senator, Democrat Harrison Williams of New Jersey, were convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges in 1981.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania also was indicted but not prosecuted because he gave evidence against Murphy and Thompson. Only one lawmaker, Republican Sen. Larry Pressler of South Dakota, refused to take the bribe, saying at the time, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal."
Kelly initially had the conviction overturned when a judge ruled the sting amounted to illegal entrapment, but in 1984, a higher court sentenced Kelly to 13 months in prison. Kelly was famously caught on videotape packing his pockets with $25,000 in cash, asking the undercover agents, "Does it show?"
But as opposed to Abscam tarnishing Congress, it was the FBI that dealt with much of the long-term scrutiny as investigations into their probe brought up the entrapment issue. After Abscam, there have been no published accounts of efforts to catch lawmakers in the act, rather the focus became investigating wrongdoing after the act.
The Keating Five scandal from 1989 implicated five senators in another corruption probe. Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and Alan Cranston of California, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, were accused of strong-arming federal officials to back off their investigation of Charles Keating, former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan association. In exchange, the senators reportedly received close to $1.3 million in campaign contributions.
The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation.
DeConcini and Riegle did not run for re-election in 1994 and were succeeded by Republican Sens. John Kyl and Spencer Abraham.
Looks to me like the Democrats were on the majority wrong end of both of these scandals.
|
