What part of "you don't have a choice" don't you understand
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: Not forced. Not compulsory. - What's the problem?
"Obama will call on citzens of all ages to serve America" My God!!!! Don't you hear this. Don't you question this. Don't you know what the germans when through with Hitler????
Forced is forced. You can put any fancy name on it you want. It is still the same as military service. Once in you don't have a choice of what you do. I was in the military, I lived with a german couple who went through the holocaust and heard many stories. I KNOW the military. What starts out as civil service turns into military service. Heck call it the country club service if it makes you feel more important than the military. The truth is this is forced and you don't have a choice. This is how the Hitler youth started (by feeling more important than those who weren't in the Hitler youth). They then went on to be the SS and finally the Gestapo. Sure the Hitler youth felt very "patriotic" and wanted to serve the Fuhrer. They were made to feel privilaged and would receive things (i.e. tuition to college, etc). It later turned out to be a much different story and unfortunately they had no choice. You cannot just leave whenever you want to. I don't want to see my nieces and nephews have to go through that. I blame all who voted for the O for that.
P.S. - NOT voluntary! What part are you not understanding. Mandatory and forced do not mean you have a choice. Just wait til the uniforms come. It's going to be slow but when it happens maybe you'll remember what I said. But then again the parents of the Hitler youth's wanted their children to enter the Hitler youth so they too would feel privaleged and patriotic. I just can't believe people are buying into it without a second question. That is what is so "disgusting" about that!!!!
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
Wise choice on your part - and poor judgement on O's! nm
x
What part of he has NOT don't you understand
Are you referring to the forged certicate that has been redone a few times?
He doesn't keep showing the same piece of paper over and over and over. The only place I'm reading that is here on this board by the O operatives.
You keep saying he has shown this over and over and over. He has not. He posted a forged certificate on his website that has been examined by a forensic expert and it is a forgery (you can see his sisters information underneath). Of course you'll claim the forensic expert is not a "credible source" as do all the other posts that speak anything against the O.
It is also only on this board that the O operatives insist that nobody cares. You know what....half of America cares. The supreme court cares. District judges care, lawyers care, democrats care, independents care, republicans care, whites care, asians care, and blacks care. The people who want the constitution upheld cares. The patriots of the country cares. The only people who don't want to know and don't care are the Obamabots and the ones who will try and cheat, and the operatives on this board. Hense this board is filled with Obamabots trying to unduly discredit anyone who is looking for the truth.
Haven't you ever heard the saying Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting to get a different answer (in this case hoping to get a different answer).
Everytime I read these posts cutting down those who are trying to get to the truth it just amazes me how many people are asleep and just don't care.
I've even read the posts that say we should change our constitution just so the O can get in.
Insanity is not waiting until the SC has made a ruling.
Goodnight!!!!
What part of socialism do you not understand?
Or better yet, please educate yourself. If you don't understand what socialism is, then you will never get that Obama is putting us on the path to just that. I sadly enough realize so many actually believe their government is supposed to take care of them, which it is not at all supposed to do. Socialists believe government should help pay for them because without government the citizens can't function. A socialist believes more social programs is a necessity of life. Obama has said with his own mouth more taxes, more government, more social programs. How many more facts do you need? Why do repubs keep coming up? Why do people like you always think there must be a repub on the other end of a concern or there should be no concern. I AM A DEMOCRAT but I can GUARANTEE you I know a socialists when I see it and this man is a socialist. I do not want to TAKE CARE of any more people. He should be preaching get up, get an education, take care of yourselves.
Tell me one time you have heard him say LESS GOVERNMENT, SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN YOUR LIFE? Go ahead....prove me wrong. Where has he actually said those words.
What part of "if and when" did you not understand?
Please go back and read the post slowly and pay attention.
What part don't you understand - see message
I went back and read your post. You said "If and when Barack Hussein Obama wins". So thought I missed something and read my post again which said "yes he may win and the key word is may". I also admitted it does look good for him. But I also said people should not presume to think it's all sewn up as the election is still 4 days away, and we should remember the Bradley effect and that everyone thought Hillary, Gore & Kerry had won those elections and they didn't.
So I'm not sure what you are not understanding. Unless your just trying to be rude and insulting to me by say "read slowly and pay attention".
Aaah, so you do understand the part
about the price of carbon emissions will rise too high, and so cripple the economy...........
Or is that over your head?
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
.
I don't know about "you all" but
I don't judge people by what they wear. I don't shop at Neiman or Saks and I'm not overly impressed by those who do. I wouldn't care if she did her shopping at Good Will if I thought she had enough brains to turn this country around. With her foreign policy knowledge being that Russia flies over Alaska and she can see Russia from her front porch on a clear day, The odds are highly in favor of her running this country at some point if McCain is elected.
"You better" ....
:)
The "you's" are the judiciary committee....
never meant to imply anyone else. And I frankly don't care how many are exposed, be they Republican, Democrat or polka-dotted. What I think would happen is that there would be a lot of people exposed, a lot of ties between people that might shock people, and that it will never get to the impeachment process. Ever think that it might be to the advantage of professional politicians tha America stays split? The end result, "we the people" will be more disgusted with politics than ever and with both parties. Of course there will still be the hard-liner tunnel-visioned on both sides who won't believe what comes out anyway if it does not fall in their belief system that the Democratic party (or the Republican party) can do no wrong. Some things never change. Sigh.
And there is that segment of the population, the professional politicians, who who don't really believe anything other than what it takes to advance their power base. As I have said ad nauseam, I only register as a Republican in primary years because I HAVE to in order to vote in them. Otherwise, independent because neither of the major parties interest me in the least and it is getting worse by the day.
And no, I don't necessarily think more republicans would come home to roost than democrats in republican administration. Especially since this republican administration kept over so many from the Clinton administration (so much for trying to bipartisan and reach across the aisle. He kept more people over from the last admin in his first term, I think, than any other Pres has. Most of them clean house when they come in). And not much of that went well (Armitage, Tenet, and how many others?). I think anyone honest can say a lot of the problems we face today were in part brought about by those very folks. They at the very least had both hands in it.
And when I said I wanted to know the truth...I meant that. I said the same thing during the Clinton impeachment...and everyone who watched any of that knows the man is guilty of both perjury and obstruction, no matter what he was lying under oath ABOUT, And THAT congressional montage let him walk. So I don't have faith, personally, in ANY professional politician. It is all about power and keeping it.
However, if all this ranting and raving and posturing does inadvertently prove that both parties were involved perhaps this two-party system we have basically been forced into will finally get shaken up enough to listen to "we the people" because they have not in a long time.
Piglet, I think this is a political exercise and I think those starting it have no interest in justice, just like those who started against Clinton had no interest in justice. If they had, they would have convicted him. It was an exercise, this is an exercise. But it has gotten so hatefully, bittery partisan that maybe some of them may not see that they perhaps would be hammering nails into their own political coffins (save Pelosi and a few others who are trying to keep it from happening). And by they, I mean any and all of the resident politicians in DC.
So I say let them have at it. And when the dust settles, we might actually have enough disgusted rank and file in America that who might get elected at that point? Ron Paul? I am at the point now where the whole thing is just ridiculous.
Pelosi is using her power the only way she knows how...in an effort to KEEP it. That is what they are ALL about. If she cared about the truth or justice and really felt in her heart of hearts that anyone in the administration was guilty of impeachable offenses she SHOULD go forward. The fact that she does not, and even tries to keep her fellow Dems from going forward, tells me all I need to know.
That being said...I have not had faith in much of any congressional montage period since Clinton walked and not only walked, continued as President. And even if WE the people push for it, we are not going to see anything done unless the professional politicians weigh the pro's and con's and if they think it will help insure winning the White House, they will go forward. If they think it will not, or will in any way hinder that goal, they won't. That is, sadly, the bottom line and because of that, we may never know the truth. It is in their best interest to just have the innuendo out there...because seeking the truth sometimes finds it, and that might not be the most opportune thing for getting the White House back. Politics.
And in the end...I am wondering if THAT matters, because we knew the truth about Bill Clinton and it didn't matter..he still was not convicted though they all knew he was guilty. Not of multiple affairs, against which there is no law, but lying under oath before a federal grand jury. There is no question he did it, we all saw him do it on national television. So it is not a question of guilt. The perjury automatically proved the obstruction count, he lied to keep from being caught, thereby obstructing "justice." And he not only walked on perjury and obstruction, he remained President. The Arkansas Bar Association knew he was guilty...said so and disbarred him. I believe that soured me (not because it was Bill Clinton...sheesh...but because the law should be applied equally to ALL and certainly that should include the President of the United States no matter what party he is a member of). And those same people who bemoan Clinton being impeached are thirsting for impeachment of someone else for the SAME crime. I don't understand that. I do not understand the incapability of some to grasp the concept of equality under the law. I thought that was a founding concept of America. Equal application of the law to all, no matter how high up the chain it goes. Guess that is just asking too much of people, to put down partisan politics and just look at the facts, guilty or not guilty. Didn't happen with Clinton. I don't have much faith that it will happen this time either, though the same people who want to excuse Clinton want to fry Cheney and use that to jump start frying Bush. They really don't care if it is true or not. Sigh. Almost laughable.
And I think that the powers that be in Washington just don't want us to know everything that would come out in impeachment hearings. Which are televised, so it would be HARD, HARD, HARD to spin. And the American people, I believe, are in a place where certain kinds of information would have very long-reaching effects. because I think there are more people toward the middle of the spectrum that the hard right or hard left.
So, I still say bring it on, have the hearings if they think they have the goods, and let it all come out. If the evidence points to guilt of Cheney, them impeach him, and if it is proven he is guilty, then remove him from office. And if others are in the process found to have committed crimes, then prosecute them and throw them in the cell next to Libby. Be they Dem, Repub, or polka-dotted. Let's try to get it right this time. Put the criminals in jail, not back in the White House. We can't go back and put Clinton in jail where he belongs, but we can get it right this time (yeah right, like that will happen, but one can hope).
If I sound disgusted, I am. As disgusted as kam but in a totally different way.
"you're" oops.
i hate spelling errors! :)
It should be "you're welcome" not "your welcome"
oh my
Oh, he knows. "You elect me", I will find
nm
"You're answer"
If you don't want discussion and/or argument, don't post. Simple as that. If I know something related to someone's post, I'm gonna post a reply.
And you never argue on this forum, do you?
I am not one of what you call "you people."
I didn't state any number or any guesstimate of how many people attended tea parties. I can speak for my town, which is a small town, and there were about 300 people at our court house yesterday.
Final counts aren't in from some of the larger cities, but even that won't be a fair representation of the numbers because of small towns like mine that might not be added in the mix - those numbers do add up.
All I was wondering from you is why you chose to quote a Canadian article - you answered that it was because it would be an unbiased source. However, it would be a biased source because they would really have no first-hand knowledge of how many parties there were, where they were, how many people attened, etc.
Personally, I attended not because I'm a conservative or republican or anything like that. And it wasn't a front for some big corporation so the rich could keep their taxes low (and I'm far from being rich!) I attended because I don't think Congress is doing a very good job spending my money. When people like Chuck Schumer stand up there and say things like the American people don't care about the pork, that's when I get upset. And for them to get all up in arms about the AIG bonuses, only to find out it was all right there in black and white in the stimulus package, but none of them even bothered to read it, that's when I get upset! If you and I did something like that in our jobs, we'd be fired on the spot!
This sort of thing should have happened years ago because the spending in DC has been out of control, even when the republicans were in charge (that's when I started voting democrat for a while.)It just makes my blood boil to hear the republicans in DC spout off about all the spending the democrats are doing - why weren't they doing anything about it 8 or 10 years ago? But it makes me madder still to hear them all (republicans and democrats) DEFEND spending all this money now and then leaving our children to have to pay for it later.
I just don't think it's right for the government to think that it can live by one set of rules while the rest of us have to live by another.
Okay, enough of a book, just needed to get that off my chest.
I am not one of what you call "you people."
I didn't state any number or any guesstimate of how many people attended tea parties. I can speak for my town, which is a small town, and there were about 300 people at our court house yesterday.
Final counts aren't in from some of the larger cities, but even that won't be a fair representation of the numbers because of small towns like mine that might not be added in the mix - those numbers do add up.
All I was wondering from you is why you chose to quote a Canadian article - you answered that it was because it would be an unbiased source. However, it would be a biased source because they would really have no first-hand knowledge of how many parties there were, where they were, how many people attened, etc.
Personally, I attended not because I'm a conservative or republican or anything like that. And it wasn't a front for some big corporation so the rich could keep their taxes low (and I'm far from being rich!) I attended because I don't think Congress is doing a very good job spending my money. When people like Chuck Schumer stand up there and say things like the American people don't care about the pork, that's when I get upset. And for them to get all up in arms about the AIG bonuses, only to find out it was all right there in black and white in the stimulus package, but none of them even bothered to read it, that's when I get upset! If you and I did something like that in our jobs, we'd be fired on the spot!
This sort of thing should have happened years ago because the spending in DC has been out of control, even when the republicans were in charge (that's when I started voting democrat for a while.)It just makes my blood boil to hear the republicans in DC spout off about all the spending the democrats are doing - why weren't they doing anything about it 8 or 10 years ago? But it makes me madder still to hear them all (republicans and democrats) DEFEND spending all this money now and then leaving our children to have to pay for it later.
I just don't think it's right for the government to think that it can live by one set of rules while the rest of us have to live by another.
Okay, enough of a book, just needed to get that off my chest.
Meant like "YOU GOT BEHIND BUSH"
nm
Olbermann: "You owe this country an apology." sm
Another great special comment from Keith Olbermann.
"You're not forced to read this" is what I was
nm
who are "you guys". I'm a democrat and ashamed of
xx
Who are "you guys">>>>I couldn't care less about Ewards
00
"She" made it easy for "you" to lose control of yourself? sm
and end up writing that trash you wrote?
Only you are responsible for how low you sink. Anyone can see that.
I no more understand it than I understand the extremely poor taste and blasphemous sm
post with pictures on the other board. Are we clear now?
only part saved was the ignorant part
You can read the whole article. This quote was saved to show what she said that was so stupid.
Choice
The three posters chose not to post anymore. No one ran them off.
Pro-Choice
I am pro-choice and here is why. My dad was a big city cop before Roe v. Wade. He told me true stories of woman dying from botched illegal abortions. Many times, they found women who had bled to death because they tried to abort the babies themselves with coat hangers. Other times, they found women dead from sepsis. This was in the days before ambulances when the cops answered all the medical calls.
He was anti-abortion but seeing all these dead young woman haunted him. He saw a lot of awful, gruesome stuff where he worked and eventually became somewhat hardened to it, but these cases he could never forget.
I am not pro-abortion but it is going to happen. It can either be legal and somewhat safe, or illegal and dangerous.
my choice
would be change with demonstrated ability to appreciate the complexity of situations and the willingness to listen to all views on the subject. precisely why I am an ardent Obama supporter.
Again, for those of you who are pro-choice...
and against hunting, fishing, etc, could you please explain the difference between killing something for food or because it is a menace to livestock as opposed to killing a child because it's not the right time for a baby, oops I got pregnant by "accident", oops I don't want children, etc. Again, it is rather ironic that one can be selective in their definition of killing.
whose choice?
seriously, where do you draw the line? i mean a 2-year-old is not old enough to make a "choice" of life or death, so you think it's okay to rid of them too?
choice
I do not think there is a person on here who is in favor of 3rd trimester abortion, etc. The thing is folks, that if abortion is abolished, it not only effects those who haven't learned of birth control use (and I don't feel sorry for them) but those in real need such as rape victims, maternal distress, etc. That is the trouble here, you can't do away with abortions entirely, though a lot of people have abused it. We don't need women resorting to butchers as they did in the past. Look, if someone is wanting one, they are going to have it, legal or not. We have to make it the same as any other medical procedure in this country.. you see your doctor, you make arrangements for the procedure to be done in the hospital through a referral.
what choice
When Obama wins, the repubs will no choice but to accept that fact. I cant wait to get out of the Bush admin and have a change. The last eight years has sunk our country.
There is another choice.....sm
for president. Check out Chuck Baldwin and the Constitutional Party. Warning: He is VERY conservative, so all you liberals need not look. ;o)
http://www.baldwin08.com/
Actually under O you will have no choice
The dems are talking about a draft. O has already starting talking about it being a requirment for college students. Yes REQUIRE, not option.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-new-youth-corp-requirement.html
Going to war is your choice...not ours.
Those who choose to elect war-mongers should be the ones sent to battle. Those who choose to elect peace-loving Presidents should not be forced to serve. That is why there are conscientious objectors.
I think you summed it up when you described the lack of intelligence involved in being the first to enlist.
I don't think we will have any choice. (sm)
As you said, people will do whatever they have to feed thier families. I also think before it's over with, we'll have to get a board for gardening on this site...LOL.
Bad choice, but he had to do it (sm)
IMHO, Obama made a deal with the Clintons in order to get elected and now it's pay up time. Look at all the Clintonites he's got surrounding him - the positions have changed, but all the faces are the same. All we need is Madeline Albright in there somewhere.
It is my choice, and I don't believe it.
Scare tactics are a dime a dozen in religion.
No, I think the choice was hers...(sm)
but that's the point. She had the choice of either having the baby or not, as opposed to being forced into having the baby, which is exactly what outlawing abortion would do.
What exactly do you think Pro Choice is?
Pro Choice means you believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body - exactly how do you figure Obama is not Pro Choice?
And he is not saying that women are going to be required to abort their unborn - he is saying they are going to have the right!
That's your choice
and God gives you that right.
Christianity is very much based on fact just as it is on faith. The faith comes from having faith that Jesus' death was sufficient for all. The facts have been shown through archeology and even science.
If the Bible was scrutinized the way other ancient literature has been, it would be found to be true and consistent within itself, but because there is preconceived notions held by those who scrutinize, such as the "fact" that miracles cannot happen, it is believed to be incorrect, myth if you will.
I used to be just like you. I used to think that Christians were rude Bible-thumping bigots who tried to take the corner on Heaven. But when I finally dropped my bias and read the Bible as I would any other book and once I let people actually speak their peace to me, I came to the logical conclusion that Jesus was real, He was the Godman, and He was the Lord. Reading the Bible through you cannot help but notice the consistency and fluidness that runs through it. The OT is the story of the promise God made, and the NT is God fulfilling that promise.
I was not raised in a church, I was not taught about Jesus by my parents. I was not forced to go to Sunday School and I was not forced to be baptized. I made a decision. A decision has to be made with your mind, your emotion and your spirit. It's a three part deal. Many people make emotional decisions and once the emotion is gone, so is the decision. Many people make logical decisions, but the decision is never personal for them, so neither is the relationship with God. Many times the spirit tries to guide someone to the decision, but the person feels logically or emotionally that they cannot.
I may come off as brash because I don't take the "we are all on the same path route" as some do. I would be wrong in doing so, and I would be denying what my Lord explicitly said. To do so would have serious repercussions for me. Therefore, I choose to do what He says and have people not like me, rather than do what people would have me do and deny the One who died for me.
And that is your choice
You choose that belief; I don't. If you want to lead a life ruled entirely by Biblical law, maybe you could all band together and buy an island or something and call it Christganistan. This is a secular country, founded to get away from the idea that there is one true way to live one's life.
The more the so-called tolerant Christians write here, the less difference I see between Radical Islam and Fundamental Christian. It's two sides of the same coin, and it saddens me that this country, founded on principles of individual choice, has seemingly regressed in that regard.
It is NOT a choice.
You keep on with this ridiculous choice bit, but homosexuality is not a choice anymore than being blond or tall or having blue eyes is a choice. It is what the individual is born as.
Sure it's a choice.
God says it is. I believe Him not you. Sorry...
thank you and I like #2 choice. nm..
x
I don't know where they want to go with it, but abortion is a choice..sm
and last time I checked it was not limited to one race. Can that same one prove that more blacks abort than whites? There goes that theory.
A word about choice
I think we have probably said all that we can say on that matter, and we won't agree, but I enjoyed speaking with you.
I just want to add a word about women who support choice. It seems that many people are quick to judge a woman that supports choice, stating that she must have had an abortion or would be willing to have one. I can only speak for myself, a few friends, and family members, but I can tell you that in our case, this it entirely not true. My sister always states that she is, Personally conservative, but politically liberal. I do have a few friends who had had abortions, but I do not believe that I could ever have one myself, and though I would stand by my daughter if that was a choice she made, I would be devastated inside. So, while this is not a choice I would make, I will still support the right to choose for other women. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, but until there is, I will always stand for choice.
Peace.
A word about choice...
And I enjoy talking with you. It is good to discuss opposing viewpoints without anger and condescencion. We will have to agree to disagree. There is so much more to this than just abortion. As I have said, and as I will continue to say, when we as a nation begin to devalue life at any stage, we are on a slippery slope headed downward. And to start that devaluation with the most innocent and helpless among us...is horrifying to me. The idea of murdering captive child in utero is absolutely horrifying to me. As I said, I will follow the law of the land, and just because some wingnuts have blown up clinics and shot doctors does not mean that all people of faith believe that. I believe it is wrong to do that and I would have no part of that. However, I will continue to call it what I believe it is, and that is murder. And in the end, the women who choose abortion and the doctors who perform them will have to answer for that one day, not to you or me, but to God.
God bless!
It is not our choice who becomes president
Whether we like or dislike someone, vote or not vote for them, they are not elected by the people. I totally understand when people say "so'n'so is not my President. I felt that way when Bill Clinton was in. He campaigned as one person and once he got in the office all the promises he made, all the "changes" he said he'd bring never happened. He was a totally different person than what he campaigned as and therefore he was "not my president". The same was with Hillary. All I kept thinking was great, here we go again...this country is going to be without another president for 4 years. I was hoping for the best and luckily it worked out for the country's best to not have her in there. In actuality the people who have the money control who is put in there. We saw that with the Bush/Gore campaign (even though I'm thankful Gore didn't get in). I highly doubt all of Obama's donations are from people who send in $5 and $10. Although I leaning more towards him over McCain. To call someone names (retarded, hillbilly, etc) is childish and an insult to the people who are actually "special" and hillbillies. Also calling them the antichrist is also another stupid remark put out by people who don't understand. Sure Bush is not among the brightest who have held the office. He should have been impeached a long time ago (but we have the dems Pelosi and others) who stopped that (why I don't know). So, no Bush is not the brightest, he has committed war crimes (IMO). But Clinton was no better. If there was a contest in the worst President I would not be able to decide between the two. Neither of them know or care what the regular person (me and my family and friends) are going through. They don't know we're struggling with paying bills, grocery shopping, paying for gas, etc. Hillary Clinton fortunately is out of the race. I sweated that one. We won't even begin to go into all the lies and crooked campaigning she did. Why people don't remember what it was like when she and Billy were in there I can't understand. Clinton's presidency was the worst ever. Each time a President gets in their the economy gets worse. We end up more in debt as time goes on. So to say its worse with Bush than Clinton, you also have to say it was worse with Clinton than Bush Sr, worse with Bush Sr than Regan, etc, etc. We just go further and further into debt and each campaign are promised that they have a solution to get the debt down. I'm no Bush fan, but one thing that is a fact is that people have been paying lower taxes with Bush than Clinton. I found a fact sheet that showed what people paid for taxes under Bush and what they paid under Clinton. Clinton was awful. It was a dark time for our country. He misrepresented our country and made us look like fools. I counted every day until he left office and then in those last few hours was rewarded with learning how much more crooked he was by giving out pardons like it was candy at a halloween party. I also think Bush is awful, but the country would have been worse off with Gore (the Bore), and Kerry (Mr. Lerch). John McCain would be the worse thing that happened to this country, but I always have to remember...my vote doesn't count. Whoever "big brothers" want in there they will put in there.
I approve of his choice. I also was...sm
impressed by Obama's statement that he did not want to choose a yes man.
I think that was a good choice also.
Biden has over 30+ years experience and isn't afraid to voice his opinion if he disagrees with an issue. Great choice and can't wait for them to WIN!! Be real people - can you see Cindy McCain (druggie) as a first lady? She's afraid of her own shadow and it's like watching paint dry when she talks! Okay, Michele needs to spruce up that wardrobe but she's got more brains then McCain and Cindy put together.
it was an insane choice
I certainly do not want to wake up every morning in a country where such mind-boggling choices are foisted on us by the president out of the blue.
|
