Your last sentence tells it all
Posted By: gt on 2005-08-25
In Reply to: Goodness seems to be routing me right back to the board - Reality check
Your last sentence concerning ammo, in my opinion, sums up your beliefs, i.e., republicans, versus democrats. Everything to you righties is fight time, attack time, war time whereas we lefties post something for people to read or debate, not to fight. I cant speak for all, but I believe negotiating, talking out problems, trying to understand each other works better than slinging insults, attacks, and using ammo. A nonpartisian person reading these posts would be able to see, the attacks more often than not are from the right wingers.
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
Your first sentence says it
It's a question of who is shouldering the burden. Well apparently you're a billionaire,'cause I know many hardworking, responsible, professional middle-class people (no one looking for a handout)working pretty darn hard just to stay afloat...people with degrees who are delivering pizza. Our local food pantries can't keep up with the demand and this was before Katrina. There are Meals on Wheels volunteers, who pay for their own gas, have had to stop because they simply can't afford it. And the meals that WERE being delivered weren't even hot, because THAT was cut back. Go, good for you on your shiny throne passing judgement on who is or isn't looking for a hand-out, but I can tell you that even with every kind of insurance and adequate income, I pray my husband or I don't get sick or have some unforeseen catastrophy, because in many cases that is all it takes.
You said it all in one sentence...
Hindsight IS 20/20, something Democrats tend to forget. The pre war intelligence was very ominous, and it was international intelligence, not just ours. If an attack had come our way which was then traced to Iraq, you would have placed the blame squarely on the back of GWB. Of course, now that we have hindsight, he's blamed for the war being not worth it, wrong war, ad nauseum. Apply a little logic and you can see that it's a no-win situation. I believe the man did what he had to do, AT THE TIME. You can't play Monday morning quarterback. The prominent Democrats were all on the same page before the war, just read some of their quotes.
It also tells me
he may have a back alignment problem....big difference in the wear pattern! LOL
I think the last sentence says it all..sm
Either way, even if you believe McCain's health plan is a train wreck and that none of his math adds up, he proposes to fix that with Medicare savings, not with $882 billion worth of "cuts."
Tell me what the difference is, one says medicare savings and one says medicare cuts. Both mean less money for medicare, no? Semantics on both sides I think.
That's what he tells us isn't it?
x
Someone tells you how to think?
How unfair and unbalanced.
We can sum all of the above in one sentence:
LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!
me neither......Your sentence that
I quoted in my former post reminded me so much of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, therefore I swerved away from the issue at hand.
Ahmadinejad should step down and give his position to Mousavi. Same with Khatami.
On what are you? In your last sentence
of your post you contradict what you wrote in your subject line!
Hahahaha! LMAO !
You are a joke, 'Backward typist,' are you really .....?
Confused or imbibed?
article tells it like it is
Yes I am sure that is why this article was written, to bring the whole republican party down. It is about false information on buying uranium, Mr. Wilson and his wife are being used to try to undermine the real story, the lies that got us into Iraq. I do not care if a person is republican or democrat, when there is a question of lies that got us into war, it deserves being investigated. Thankfully, the prosecutor is republican, that way if some are found guilty, it cannot be twisted into a partisan decision.
I do believe that the last sentence is especially true.
Isn't it amazing. So many here with ties to Vietnam veterans and so many differing viewpoints. Nearly every male in my family has served in the Armed Forces and this down to third cousins. Many of them served in Vietnam. Every one of them has bad feelings towards the peace movement in the 60s and 70s.
I will finish your sentence. sm
an impossible thing for YOU.
regarding your list sentence
your body might not be there anymore.
is there a subj in that sentence?
just does not make sense. Please proofread what you post so you don't look illiterate.
try not to believe everything the media tells you to....
x
I think she tells untruths
and I don;t like that in anyone. Bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc. Don't like a hypocrite. What I really do not like, which is not actually her fault, is the fact that she is being foisted on us like she is so exceptional and we are lucky to have her. I don't think a woman whose main goal in life was to a sports reporter on TV has the brilliance and love of country we need in a leader. To be able to state with a straight face that she can see Russia from Alaska qualifies as foreigh policy experience is an insult to my intelligence. She entered a beauty contest and then wanted to coast along on her looks by looking pretty and reading a teleprompter on TV. That is just not a combination worthy of such a high office.
Tells you something troubling is going on
xx
I don't believe everything the media tells me to...
I just went to the link and the first sentence
states it was from January. I am not even sure he is saying rates will skyrocket, but that will be the argument against his plan to cap greenhouse gases and retrofitting.
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
ADD time. The end of that sentence should be
shares in the responsibility at this point.
She can be harsh, but she tells it like it is.
nm
Don't need to explain to you, you explained yourself in your last sentence.
t
It tells me three things off the top of my head.
First, it tells me that he has an excellent work ethic. He worked very hard to be the best lawyer he could be, which leads me to believe if he were President, he'd work just as hard to be the best President he could be. In my opinion, Bush has NO ethics -- work or otherwise.
Secondly, it tells me that I don't believe in popularity contests. If he won or lost his own state is irrelevant to me. I respected what the man had to say, and the thought of a President Edwards over a President Bush has been looking better and better on a daily basis every day for the last year. If we can't have a leader who has firsthand experience as a combat veteran in a foreign war, then the next best thing is to have one who actually HAD to work for a living, someone who went from being poor to being rich by virtue of hard work and dedication, instead of someone being born, as Ann Richards once said, with a silver foot in his mouth.
As far as bankrupting any STATE, the most damage Edwards could have done was to decrease some PROFITS of insurance companies (easily recouped by raising malpractice insurance rates). I doubt he did any financial harm to the state. Because of him and his lawsuits, though, there might be a few more doctors practicing CARE now when they practice medicine. Don't forget. Million dollar verdicts are handed down by juries, peers of plaintiffs, in these matters. Maybe you think it's okay for doctors to get richer and richer as a result of getting sloppier and sloppier, but I don't. Negligence should be punished. That's what punitive damages are for. If the lawsuits were meritless, they would have been thrown out of court. Simple as that.
The third thing it tells me is that I'm entitled to my liberal opinion, on the LIBERAL BOARD, whether CONSERVATIVES like it or not.
Oh, something tells me you'd love to be at that judgment. ...sm
I think nothing would delight you more.
>> of all these babies aborted, could one of them have been the person that cures cancer? Or becomes the next great leader? >>
That seems wildly optimistic to me. I think it's just as likely that of all those babies aborted, one could have been the next Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh (sp?). Or, more likely, just your average low-life criminal, or not-so-productive drain on society. I mean, I don't mean to be negative, but most people are just, well, I think "average" is putting it nicely. Have you been to the mall or any other public place lately? Wow.
>> Abortion is an easy way out. If you can't make the correct choice to have sex or not, to use protection or not, then you should have to live with the consequences>>
You should have to live with the consequences? So... pregnancy and parenthood as punishment, then? You sound awfully vindictive. So, have sex without protection like when you're a stupid teenager, or even with protection and it fails, and be punished for it for the rest of your life and the child's? Yeah. That sounds like a great recipe for the neverending cycle of misery and poverty that some people get stuck in.
Former POW with McCain tells of war experience..sm
http://www.thenma.org/blogs/index.php/theveteransvoice/2008/07/05/former_pow_with_mccain_tells_of_war_expe
.....Though he seldom speaks of it, the only reason Knutson retells the horrific tale of his time in North Vietnam is to help people, especially children, realize the sacrifices others have made for their freedom. It’s a sacrifice he’s made, and it’s one McCain has made.
And that in itself tells Knutson what kind of president John McCain would be.
Thanks for the post. I was especially impressed by the last sentence...
of the article. At least they showed both sides (good for them), albeit three paragraphs on Palin and 1 line on Obama. Big sentence tho.
Can't ge past the ignorance of the first sentence here.
the constitution is not a static document and is, in fact, a living, dynamic, changing, vital document. To wrap you brain around this concept, consider this. The orignal Constitution contained 10 amendments. Amendments 11 through 27 commenced over time as such: 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913x2, 1919, 1920, 1933x2, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.
There. You see? The (progressive) authors of the constitution in their wisdom provided the mechanism of amendement, that would allow for change and growth. That makes it a living, breathing, dynamic document. Got it?
Next time you try to interpret Obama's book, watch your step.
The same SP who tells Couric she is a feminist and
while she chafes and bristles during the Williams interview (when seated next to McC)? Keeping track of one's own stance on gender issues should not present such conflict and challenge to a VP pick. SP does doesn't blink and eye at McC's air quotes and sneering "mother's health" utterance, in view of her own stance on women's reproductive rights, whereby she cuts no slack, even in the case of rape and incest victims. In addition, she supports McCain's views on the issue of equal pay for women.
More than four decades after the Equal Pay Act made it illegal to pay men and women different wages for the same work, the fight over equal pay has not been put to rest. Although the wage gap has narrowed since the days when full-time working women made 58 cents on average to the dollar earned by men, women's wages have remained stuck at 77 cents to the dollar since 2001 (the shrub era).
McCain's contribution? In 1985, McCain voted against a study to investigate pay differences among federal employees, and determine whether they were the result of discrimination. His progress in the last 23 years? In April 2008 McCain voted against Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, stating it “opens us up for lawsuits, for all kinds of problems and difficulties.” "We do not need to put this burden of equal pay on business. Women need more education and better training.
Failin Palin is no suffragette. As a matter of fact, a McCain/Palin administration would set back the gains women have made toward equality at least 35 years. For many of us, we may as well keep right on going, straight back to the turn of the 20th century.
My conscience tells me that it is murder.....sm
and that is even apart from what my religious beliefs tell me. I believe in life at the moment of conception as I stated in my post above. I won't go into all that again.
As far as amounts and agencies and how monies from my taxes and every one else's taxes are distributed to help provide medical care for those who receive free (to them) medical care, of course I can't provide that. I am not privy to where each of my tax dollars go and how much of it is spent on various government agencies or governmental salaries, etc., and neither do you. Funny, though, you're not asking Obama to produce his birth certificate or from whom he received campaign contributions, huh.
That last sentence just didn't EVEN sound right! sm
And I think the missing sheep brains is the main thing in this picture.
Did you forget to finish our sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Did you forget to finish your sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Ann can be harsh, but she is so smart and tells
nm
Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...
... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people.
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough. 
He tells us who he is every single day. And it isn't pretty.
Your mother really was right, wasn't she? She always taught you to judge character by what people do and not what they say. BO exemplifies Mom's wisdom.
Interesting sentence construction.
I would have gone with the adjective ''grammatical'' to modify the noun ''mistakes'' rather than using the noun ''grammar'' to modify another noun, or perhaps ''bad mistakes in grammar.'' Then again, I might have linked ''bad-grammar'' as a compound modifier, but then that's just me (as well most who are truly English literate.)
The last sentence is particularly worrisome for Michigan.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804053.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Senate's Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama's 'Public Option'
By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 19, 2009
A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation's health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking.
The document, distributed among members of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday afternoon, addressed none of the funding questions that have consumed House and Senate negotiators in recent days. But it included an array of coverage provisions that were drastically scaled back from earlier versions, as lawmakers seek to shrink the bill's overall cost. The proposal, for instance, would reduce the pool of middle-class beneficiaries eligible for a new tax credit meant to make insurance more affordable.
The absence of a "public option" marks perhaps the most significant omission. Obama and many Democrats had sought a public option to ensure affordable, universal coverage, but as many as 10 Senate Democrats have protested the idea as unfair to private insurers. In its place, the draft circulated yesterday outlines a co-op approach modeled after rural electricity and telecom providers, subject to government oversight and funded with federal seed money.
Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with four Republicans, including Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking GOP member on the panel, along with two Democratic colleagues in an attempt to find bipartisan consensus. Baucus dubbed the group "the coalition of the willing."
Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats are exploring a range of funding options, including a surtax on the rich and an increase in the payroll tax imposed on all U.S. workers. The list also includes new taxes on sugary drinks and alcohol, along with broader levies, such as a national value-added tax of up to 3 percent.
The Senate's preferred option -- taxing the health benefits that millions of Americans receive through their employers -- is also on the House list. So is Obama's favorite idea: limiting the value of itemized deductions for the nation's wealthiest 3 million taxpayers.
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee charged with developing a financing plan, said lawmakers have not "embraced any particular source of revenue." But he confirmed that big, broad-based taxes like the payroll tax and a value-added tax are under discussion, mainly because they have the potential to raise "a lot of money" for an expansion of health coverage expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
The House will not unveil a financing plan until after the July 4 recess, Neal said, though House leaders were expected to release an outline of the rest of their plan today, with a goal of putting a bill to vote later this summer. The Senate is aiming to debate its legislation in July as well, and is seeking a bill that would cost less than $1 trillion.
Maintaining that tight schedule could prove difficult, though, because daunting issues remain in both chambers. One area of contention is the extent to which private employers must subsidize public coverage for their workers if the companies don't offer their own plan or if the premiums are unaffordable. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if lawmakers don't find the right formula, employees may flee their company plans for federal coverage, sending government costs soaring.
The draft in the Senate committee spells out one possible solution: It would require employers to pay 50 percent of Medicaid costs for workers enrolled in the low-income program and 100 percent of the cost of health-insurance tax credits for eligible employees. Workers could forfeit employer coverage only if the cost exceeds 12.5 percent of their income.
The draft, earlier reported on by washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein, spells out four options for requiring employers to provide coverage, with exemptions for firms with up to 200 employees. It would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage, though certain groups, including Native Americans and undocumented workers, would be exempted.
It also would loosen eligibility requirements for Medicaid, a proposal certain to alarm many governors who are grappling with budget crises.
Proves you don't read anything..Says in the 1st sentence he is Gov. Lynch of
x
God tells us not to publish our good deeds.
,
A separate issue entirely. History tells us that
nm
Life experience tells me 90% over 8 years =
su
That sure tells the story in no uncertain terms...
what is amazing is, KNOWING this, people will vote for him anyway.
We should send that link to everyone we know.
Well I guess if you pray to the same Allah who tells others
to chop off the heads of Americans and those who are not Islam, then yes. Somehow that's not the God I pray to. But if that's the one you do - more power to ya. There are different gods.
oops, ignore the last partial sentence....nm
Did you just use the name Rush and the word honesty in the same sentence? (sm)
Limbaugh lied about 9-11 Commission report
Limbaugh falsely claimed "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks
Limbaugh misrepresented Duelfer report on Iraqi WMDs
Limbaugh lied about AIDS
Limbaugh overstated the minimum wage
Limbaugh made false claims about the Democratic National Convention
Limbaugh distorted the Kyoto Protocol
Limbaugh falsely accused Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Limbaugh claimed Clintons are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Limbaugh lied to defend Swift Boat Vets
Limbaugh misstated Pew report on journalists
Limbaugh mischaracterized the federal deficit
Limbaugh misstated federal education spending
Limbaugh lied about Bush's false uranium claim
And that isn't even the tip of the iceburg for him. And by the way, what's with the *he owns his problems* junk? Does that mean that since he admits he's a drug addict then he's not a bad drug addict? Give me a break.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
oops...first sentence posted twice by accident.
:)
Agree! Rush can be harsh, but tells it like it is.
nm
Haha! I so agree, she summed it up in 1 sentence, there is nothing more to say!..nm
nm
Bush tells Larry King that Ken Lay was a *good guy*
Video at: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/07/bush-lay/
Transcript:
KING: The death of Ken Lay.
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: I know he was your friend. How do you feel? Were you shocked?
G. BUSH: I was. I was very surprised. You know, just — my hope is that his heart was right with the Lord, and I feel real sorry for his wife. She’s had a rough go, and she’s now here on earth to bear the burdens of losing her husband, a man she loved.
KING: Was that whole thing, the whole Enron story shocking to you?
G. BUSH: Yes, yes.
KING: Because, I mean, you knew him pretty well from Texas, right?
G. BUSH: Pretty well, pretty well. I knew him. I got to know him. This — people don’t believe this, but he actually supported Ann Richards in the ‘94 campaign.
KING: She told me that.
G. BUSH: She did?
KING: She liked him a lot.
G. BUSH: Yes, he’s a good guy. And so what I did — then did was we had a business council, and I kept him on as the chairman of the business council. And, you know, got to know him and got to see him in action.
One of the things I respected him for was he was such a contributor to Houston’s civil society. He was a generous person. I’m disappointed that there was this — he betrayed the trust of shareholders, but…
KING: Did you know him well, Mrs. Bush?
L. BUSH: I knew him. Not really well, but I did know him.
KING: Did you know his wife?
L. BUSH: And I know Linda and I’m sorry for her.
KING: Did you contact her?
L. BUSH: I haven’t.
G. BUSH: I haven’t yet. I’m going to write her a letter at some point in time.
|
