what a very positive and involved post!
Posted By: Kendra on 2009-04-29
In Reply to: Hardly... - YOU are the only one who thinks that
By the way, how does one "speak" loudly on an internet board?
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
He was involved though
and anyone who is planning on voting for him should understand just what happend back then. The facts are out there.
Every state is involved in some way
with political corruption, just not everyone is caught.
There is a sociopath involved, but it is not Bush. nm
Things that go against Obama being involved..(sm)
I think they nipped it in the bud this early so they could hold a state senate hearing to see if they can put the senate seat up for a vote instead of allowing him to make that decision.
Also, in the transcripts there was a part where the Gov said that Obama, that &*(@#$!, was not working with him.
See you can still talk smack without God's name involved. nm
x
There is no force involved whatsoever. I do it
because I "choose" to do what the Bible commands. I love the Lord and want to do what His Word says. There is nothing forced about. If you don't think it's a sin, that is your perogative. I, however, feel that it is and that is my perogative, too. 
The last time I looked we were NOT involved
.
Bush involved in leak scandal
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
This would explain why Bush http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/index1.html>spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.
I am personally involved and communicate with my senators...sm
and represenatives. However, I have talked until I am "blue in the face" to people who believe everything they are told by their church, their husband, their wife or their parents, etc. Unless I am talking to someone who has an open mind and not willing to follow the pied piper and check their facts, I am wasting my breath. Of course, I keep trying. LOL.
The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.
Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm
Didn't know she had any positive qualities
Nice to see positive posts about her.
nm
Funny! The only one with a positive net worth is the bum. :) nm
x
You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.
There you go. At least counter the argument with something positive about Obama. That is if there is anything. Otherwise its all just blowing smoke.
you're posts aren't positive either
x
I prefer to keep my focus on the positive measures
give the process a chance to unfold. Had enough of the prophets of doom.
intelligent, true patriotism, positive
not talking about the Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Not the one that gets a shiver up his leg for Obama? He is nothing but an Obama, DNC butt-kissing, too far lefty for any hope and I shudder of the thought of him having anything to do with this country's government. All he knows how to do is report one side of any issue and get a shiver up his leg for doing it.
so many attack - no real reason AND no positive info on Obama
The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone. No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan. It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin. Let's see. I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?"). So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion). Let's see...what else. She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc. Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay). Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done. I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty. And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain? He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair. I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds. He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?) But you know what? At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played.
You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.
And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use. He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day. He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name. Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same. His policies and voting record proves differently. You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote. Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress. Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush. Why???? McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done. Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain. If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.
So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false. Stick to issues and no rumors.
Joint Chiefs Chairman "Very Positive" After Meeting with Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
-
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.
There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.
But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.
Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.
"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."
Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.
Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.
Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.
"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."
Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.
But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.
Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.
In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.
In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.
Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.
"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.
But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.
The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.
These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.
Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.
Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.
Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.
A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.
One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.
Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.
"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.
But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
Thanks for the post. I think I will look up that
article.
And thanks for pointing out all the other "results" of his administration that, as you say, benefit nobody but the rich and/or the corporations or, as he himself once publicly bragged, "his base."
I know for a fact that when he ran for President in 2000, I told every single person I knew that if he becomes President, we're going to go to war with Iraq. (Nobody's gonna treat his daddy like Saddam did and get away with it.)
I didn't have a crystal ball. I had common sense and a good memory from the Gulf War when his father was President and how he didn't "finish the job." Seems a lot of other Americans forgot about that.
I really enjoyed reading your post and all the facts you raised that I failed to raise in mine. Thanks for the mention of the LA Times article. I'm going to try to look that up on the web. 
I know they don't. I said that in my post. NM
//
Actually, that post is right on. sm
You sound like a total lunatic, out of control and full of hatred. You sound like someone who could do just what "vs" says. You had best take a look at your behavior. YOUR posts are the ones who should be reported. You are one frightening person.
Re your post
From your post:
"Did you read Mein Kampf? Would that be good enough evidence for you, because he wrote about it in there."
Wrote about what? That the Jews were socialists?
This is an entirely different post.
Really wasn't directed to you anyhow.
your post is just sad
I'm actually feeling sad for you right now gt. You obviously don't know what Christianity is about. Pat Robertson does not speak for me, and I don't endorse what he said. I'm sorry you are so bitter and hate filled that you would wish anyone to burn in hell. There are some evil people in this world but my first wish for them is that they find Christ and turn from their evil ways with His help. I too hope one day you find Christ, gt, and quit letting misguided Christians and Christian leaders keep you from HIM. Their blunders are not worth your eternal soul.
thank you for your post
What a great post, so heartfelt and I thank you for it.
Yes I do. see my post below. nm
x
The post.
You think there is only one patriot here? Get a trip on your sour shrivled heart and try not to speak.
Whoops! I made a mistake. My bad.
This is the post where the NEOCON tells the LIBERAL not to speak ON HER OWN BOARD!
They can't show a post of a liberal telling Army Mom not to speak because it doesn't exist.
Where did you get that from my post?
Really? I did? Where do you read that in my post? I talk about taking care of the middle class and that the rich really dont give a darn about the middle class. I talk about a friend who is quite smug and out of touch with real America. No where do I mention anything about Kerry or Kennedy.
please post
I would appreciate it if you could post statements from Black Americans that they are okay with Bennetts comments.
What does that have to do with gt's post
I said if we had posted something like that we would have been castigated. You're just proving that point. I'm not in a pissing contest with you...really
And another *right-on* post!
I agree with every single word you said. America is becoming a very scary place indeed. I believe, as you do, that there are people who are eagerly awaiting the *Rapture* and indeed believe they have the *inside track* to heaven. Unfortunately, it look as if this country might actually suffer from their self-fulfilled prophecy if it continues going backwards in time under Bush's completely inept leadership.
Please keep posting. I really enjoy reading your posts.
Thanks very much for your post.
It makes me feel a lot better to hear someone say they're against this. When express outrage at my posting about the issue, instead of expressing outrage about the issue itself, it truly makes me wonder.
I honestly do not recall any threads on the conservative board about this issue. All I recall is total silence (or attacks) when the issue is mentioned.
I also wasn't trying to imply that the crime of child molestation is more prevalent in one political party or another. Obviously, that's irrelevant, and I have a hard time even associating a criminal like that with any political views one way or the other.
It's just that this seems to be a no-brainer, an issue on which virtually everyone can agree, yet the right seems to be eerily quiet when this topic comes up.
Thank you for this post!
Thanks for this post!! I heard about it somewhere but in the chaos that has become my life lately, I probably would have completely forgotten about it..so glad you submitted this..
Please see my post to you above.
I made a mistake and posted my reply in the wrong place. Sorry.
This post had nothing to do with the US...
being a guiltless superpower. It had to do with devaluation of life and a moral decline and what that can inevitably lead to. As to your post, yes, many bad things have happened in many countries...yet if you stack up the dollars, the American lives, that we have poured into human rights issues around the world, you will see that we are far, far ahead of the rest of the world. Nobody can do it all, but America as a country has been the least likely to turn its head in those cases. As a side note, I am of Cherokee and Choctaw descent and I do not believe, nor have I ever, that America as a country has thought my ancestors subhuman. There are always, within any culture, those who set themselves above others. Even among Indian peoples they enslaved other Indian peoples. No one, no culture, is blameless; and no one, no culture, can fix it all. However, as a country, America's record in giving of aid in money, human technical support, human military support, etc., far surpasses any other nation. And we continue to do it, even when we the hand are bitten by those we feed. Because that is what America is as a country. That is why I love this country, what she stands for, and while I am proud of every bit of my ancestry, I am also very proud to be an American.
|
