Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
Posted By: Administrator nm on 2005-11-28
In Reply to: Here is the post..sorry it didnt come through - gt
t
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
Please copy the post you're referring to that says she's not
I can't find it.
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.
Nan-ism post was in direct reply/rebuttal to the two posts above it.
Surely you would agree that when accused of something we should have a chance for rebuttal? And that our rebuttal would surely include proof/evidence of why we took a particular stand? Would you deny the liberal board that right? SOME of us may be tolerant (or as Nan put it, "sissies") but some of us are very capable of speaking up for ourselves.
I have read Nan on this board (and others as well) for almost two years so I think I have a pretty fair grasp of her opinion and style of posting.
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
I think I see now what you're referring to about my post.
I don't find one thing funny about it. I'm outraged about it because blaming anyone BUT the priests is giving a green flag for that behavior to continue.
And I totally agree with you that it's gone on too long, with the church's apparent blessing. They know what these priests are doing, and they just transfer them to another parish so they can continue with a new set of children.
As far as the "headline" comment about my post, see what you mean about it coming up as a "headline" when you log onto this site. I didn't realize it was going to come up that way.
Please rest assured that I'm outraged by all this. Our children in this country are molested and killed every day in what seems to be an epidemic, and nobody is doing anything about it.
which post are you referring to
specifically? Which one of my posts were lies?
I agreed with your post! I was referring to the
I'm on YOUR side!
M, did u write the post Vie is referring to?
just wondering
I wasn't referring to you as the "pot" it should have been under the gourd's post
x
post the link only, not the whole article and the link. See rules for posting.
x
No need to post a link. I believe you. SM
I just wanted to know.
Hey, post the link gt....nm
x
Can you post a link?
I've somehow missed this one. Thanks!
Sorry, just had to post this link
This is why people are voting for the O.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8
So you post a link you don't believe
And you expect no one to comment on that? Really?
Show me the post. Link please. sm
We may have in the past, but not lately, Teddy. Lies? Gosh, you like that word. A lie is an untruth. You just ordered someone from the board. That is a board moderator's job, not yours. Hardly a lie. A factual observation I would say.
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/
I tried to post the corroborating link...
but it didn't work.
Here it is, dated June 24, 2008, entitled "Terror Strike Would Help McCain, Top Adviser Says":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301979.html
Sorry, the link didn't post.....
In a nutshell, Hawaii has passed "Islam Day" law....
Where is their "Christianity Day"?
Where's the loud mouth ACLU on this?
This country is heading to he!! in a handbasket!
click on the link previous post
It's alive, it's alive..Why, Dr. Frankenstein, it's alive!
Oops, meant to post link also
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898_pf.html
You should check your facts before you post - see link
Anyone looking for Barack Obama's real sentiments about whites, blacks and Muslims won't find them in this scurrilous collection of falsified, doctored and context-free "quotations." The e-mail claims to feature words taken from Obama's books, "The Audacity of Hope" (2006) and "Dreams from My Father" (1995, republished in 2004). But we found that two of the quotes are false, and others have been manipulated or taken out of context.
We have received many inquiries about this from readers whose suspicions were aroused, with good reason. Aside from the fact that the e-mail incorrectly cites the title of Obama's book as "Dreams of My Father," rather than "Dreams from My Father," you may have noticed that none of the quotes in this e-mail contain page references. This should be a sign to any reader that the author is trying to pull a fast one, betting that you won't take the time to read through all 806 pages of Obama's books to get to the facts.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
Well, then post a link to YOUR local news!
Can you post the link again? I couldn't bring it up.
I'm from coal country and I heard about this but want to see it with my own eyes.
I'm just sort of in shock. I'm not even going to post a link. nm
x
Oh boy. WAKE UP. Follow the link before you post.
Both bills referred to here involve Equal/Fair pay remendies for WOMEN, not Congress.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
You can click on any of the brown places in the post and it will take you to the link.nm
x
Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to
.
Post a link for verification please. Against board rule to
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
Post where this link is. Doesn't apply anymore, don't think...sm
If it does, post the link to the rule
Excuse me. All I did was post a link to a CBS news story
the ideas you brought up in your original post trying to imply that O's AG nominee was somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I think that kind of inaccurate accusation deserves some sort of defense. You evidently have a tough time digesting data that in any way contradicts your thinking, so now we have gotten to the place where I am a pouncing, bug-squashing know-it-all who slaughters innocent insects with my windshield? For posting a link to a reputable news article written directly in the aftermath of 9/11 (YEARS before Mr. Holder's nomination). Really? Don't you think you may be over-reacting just a tad?
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
I didn't post a link, I posted a smard alek
reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly. It was dripping in sarcasm. LOL I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it. I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.
We can all agree to disagree. What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves. I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.
I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration. I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies. I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration. What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand. AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty. That didn't work too well under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it. That's an issue to me. No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that. Why? I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.
Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
Hi, Your llink did not show up, only 'page not found.' so I post my link inside...sm
NewsWorld newsIran
Tehran braces for crackdown as protesters vow to defy KhameneiSupreme leader warns Mousavi supporters against bloodshed
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 June 2009
Iran's opposition faces a critical test of resolve and the country an uncertain future tomorrow after the Islamic regime's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a blunt warning to those involved in mass protests over last week's "stolen" presidential election that they would "bear the responsibility" for any bloodshed.
Khamenei rejected accusations of fraud in the poll, confirmed the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as the winner, and gave no ground to the millions of Iranians demanding their votes back.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, who claims he beat Ahmadinejad in the race, was said by an ally to have no plans for unauthorised rallies tomorrow following the warning, but supporters vowed to go on protesting.
Fears grew tonight of an intensifying crackdown on media and opposition activists. Students at the fine arts faculty of Tehran University – where scores of students were injured and some reported killed after raids by security forces earlier this week – announced an indefinite sit-in starting tomorrow.
Khamenei's closely watched speech at prayers at Tehran University could hardly have been tougher. It had been hoped he might adopt a more conciliatory tone that would help defuse the gathering crisis, the worst in Iran's 30-year post-revolutionary history. But he warned: "If there is any bloodshed, the leaders of the protests will be held directly responsible. The result of the election comes from the ballot box, not from the street. Today the Iranian nation needs calm."
Tens of thousands of worshippers cheered as he told them: "It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it."
Mousavi, a moderate former prime minister whose "green" movement scared the regime with the support it was attracting, ignored a call to attend the prayer meeting and now faces a dilemma over his next step. Ignoring Khamenei's message risks bloodshed on a far larger scale than the eight people killed last week. Accepting it means surrender to the regime.
The reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, another candidate for the presidency, added to the pressure tonight by also calling for the election to be annulled. "Accept the Iranian nation's will by cancelling the vote and guarantee the establishment's survival," he urged.
Khamenei attacked opponents at home but also lambasted Iran's enemies abroad in hardline remarks that bode ill for any opening to the US, where Barack Obama is seeking talks to tackle worries over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Britain was attacked as "the most evil", but the US, Israel and "Zionist-controlled" media were also abused, as was Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state. "The enemies are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after [the vote]," said Khamenei.
The speech underlined the sense of profound crisis, since the supreme leader usually only speaks in public at the end of Ramadan and on the anniversary of the 1979 revolution.
Analysts and commentators were dismayed by its implications. Sadegh Saba, chief analyst for BBC Persian TV, said: "Mousavi wants the protests to continue but Khamenei is saying if they do there might be bloodshed – and it will be on your hands."
Issa Saharkhiz, a Tehran-based pro-reformist commentator, said Khamenei's speech had transformed the crisis from a conflict over the election result into a trial of his own political authority, which was now being openly questioned. "Now the issue is that the supreme leader's sense of justice, management and competence is under question," he told Deutsche Welle. "The leadership of the country cannot be left in the hands of such a person, who for the sake of preserving himself and his own power, threatens people with mass murder."
Crucially, Khamenei ruled out any cheating in the election, apparently dashing hopes that a partial recount ordered by the guardian council, a supervisory body of senior clerics, will mitigate the crisis.
Khamenei's call for Mousavi and Karroubi to confine their protests to legal avenues prompted mockery. "This means that Imam Hossein [the third most revered figure in Shia Islam], instead of making a last stand at Karbala, [should have] pursued his grievances through the legal process," one blogger said on the Farsi blogsite Balatarin.
Balatarin was flooded with messages voicing outrage at Khamenei's warning that opposition leaders would be held responsible for further unrest and bloodshed. One correspondent wrote: "Mr Khamenei, the direct responsibility for any damage to people's lives or property from now on lies with you."
In Washington, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators. It was the strongest message yet to Iran.
Excellent post! You're 100% right.
Liberals run in tolerant circles. The thought of others letting them *get away* with their own personal freedom of speech doesn't even occur to them. They don't demand that every single American follow in step and say the *right* words...or else. They promote truth and honesty and detest dirty tricks and lies that are designed to benefit the rich, while the poor work harder and get poorer.
I remember once upon a time when people like that were called Americans!
I don't know if you're talking about my post or not.
I think the subject line that All Americans Deserve to Live (or something like that).
I see that my post is gone, and if mine is the post you're referring to, I'm sorry. I can't repost it. It was just something I quickly wrote from my heart, and I didn't keep a copy of it.
I guess I'll have to start saving a copy of everything I write. :-(
You're putting words in her post.sm
Take it at face value.
You're right. It's just an incredibly tasteless post. Happy now? NM
You're a tad early in your post. It's still 17 days today..
ho hum....boring....
Was referring to original link about OOPE.
I did take look at her section about alleged McCain attack, where Obama was contrasting his tax policy to McCain's and simply stated the truth. This is not attack. It is a statement of the obvious.
Malkin is the poster child for PMS, trite and petty. That's what makes her articles so easy to overlook.
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.
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
Palin is substance, if that's what you're referring to!
x
Don't know which board or which specific Iranian you're referring to.
If you want me to read something, then post it, so I can, but please don't suggest that I go on some kind of wild goose chase on some other unnamed *board* for a post by some unnamed *Iranian.* I simply don't have that kind of time.
If you don't think the Iranian president is nuts, then blame the media and the administration because that's he way he's been portrayed by both, and his actions sure suggest that he is. Please post his redeeming qualities as you see them.
I posted this because I thought it was humorous, yet dead on accurate in the way a lot of Americans feel.
Get the picture? 
|
