A "different approach". Go ahead, be weak.
Posted By: Watch your own country fall off map.nm on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: No, we take a different approach...(sm) - Just the big bad
nm
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
No, we take a different approach...(sm)
we torture continuously such that the victim's heart beat goes down to what...35 beats a minute? Or how about that guy that had bone cancer that they beat continuously and withheld medication....he died by the way.
As we approach this anniversary, please do what you can
http://youtube.com/watch?v=se1xMPresLg
Your approach to promoting your cause is like
nm
I agree. I think there was a better way to approach this...
and posted an idea from Dave Ramsey that seemed like an excellent one. I do think we have to do something...it has gone way too far now.
But ... but ... that's the sensible approach. What are you doing on this board? LOL
nm
Now why doesn't McCain take that approach?
I've been leaning in favor of Obama these last few weeks and I have to say it's because McCain isn't offering me up any reasons to choose him. Why isn't he attacking Obama's "socialist" viewpoint instead of just trash-talking. I don't want to live in a socialist country, but I also have had enough of the Bush years. Why isn't McCain taking a stronger stance than what he has been.
While I don't want Obama overseeing our healthcare, I also don't want to pay McCain's taxes on it. We're already going to see a hike in our taxes from this bailout, which I think both candidates unwisely supported. Furthermore, I think we need to bring some of our troops back home, unless the Iraqi govt wants to start paying us for having them there. That war alone is costing us millions. On the other hand, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And don't even get me started on Roe versus Wade. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not pro-mutilating babies that survived abortion. I believe abortion is a decision that needs to be made before 12 weeks' gestation. That's just my feeling and I know many will disagree.
And let's not kid each other about Palin. I personally don't care to be spoken to like I'm a redneck. It's very patronizing and I don't appreciate it. When it was first announced that she was the VP pick, I was very interested in learning more about her and also kind of psyched to get a woman in the White House. But after listening to her address the country, I felt like a kindergartener. She should find a better way to speak to us as American citizens, not rednecks from the backwoods.
The school yard bully/"I was here first" approach
is pretty juvenile, don't you think? Besides, it does not hold water. I hate to break this to you, but the Philistines showed up in the region around the same time that the Hebrews did, around the 12th century BC. The history of civilization did not ensue with the Biblical Hebrews and Palestinian presence predates your Moslem invasion era reference. In fact, since the habitation of the region predates recorded history by nearly a million years, there is no way you can gain any traction with that ridiculously juvenile line of thinking. There is no such thing as paleolithic, neolithic or chalcolithic squatters. So, you see, my view of history is not as short-sighted as yours, which does not go back quite far enough, unless you have some special license to begin it "whenever it suits your purpose."
In any case, that is why no viable debate can be had outside the context of modern (i.e., nationalist/political) times. Like I said before, please leave God out of the ungodly. The fact remains that the geographic regions populated by Philistines/Palestinians have stayed relatively intact under all sorts of invasions and occupations, including the Persians, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Roman, Byzantine, Arab Caliphates, including Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rule, the Crusades, Mamluk, Egyptian and Ottoman eras....all the way up until the Brits got their hands on it in 1917 and even beyond that for a few decades, until the Partition Plan was instituted. This represents approximately 3147 years of continuous residence. Your finder's keepers thingy applies to both the Hebrew Biblical era as well as modern day fascist Israel. Palestine does not belong to you. Never has. Never will.
Who failed to honor cease fire preconditions by failing to lift the blockade, braniac? Do not try to pretend we are talking about the red rivers of blood from (how few is it now?) the 9 (?) Israeli fatalities. Israel sits on top of generations of their very own road kill.
Bush considered taking Obama's approach last summer
efforts to forge peace in Israel/Palestine.
Bush floated the idea of re-establishing a diplomatic US interests section in Tehran last summer which for the time being has been shelved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_no_deal
Here's the no-brainer rule-of-thumb on this topic. If you wwant war, you don't negotiate with opponents. If you want peace, you sit down aat the table.
When evaluating the credibility of this ad, as yourself that basic question..."Who stands to benefit the most" by taking this position? As they have demonstrated over the past 60 years, it is in Zionist's best interest to perpetuate war in their region. They have been able to enrich their nation immensely with US taxpayer dollars and enjoy an uncontested nuclear bully status in the region as the US's most favorite global puppet. The notion that the US would promote peace or stability in the region would diminish their status exponentially and are the last nation on earth that would like to see the US play the disarmament card.
Weak and willing?
At least she is well-versed on the issues and doesn't bash like some "radical" posters out there. Gimme a break. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you too weak and willing? Didn't think so.
Yes, we are weak. nm
x
That's weak...
The laws do not affect you. The only way that law would affect anyone is if they chose to marry their partner of the same sex. You have always had the choice to marry whomever you choose as long as they are of the opposite sex. HOW WOULD IT AFFECT YOU PERSONALLY? No one seems to be able to answer that.
weak
and ineffective.
Be weak?....(sm)
Since when has showing restraint and exercising morals been weak?
indeed, other than a few weak
statements from a few muslims that *islam is a religion of peace* where are the denunciations of the actions of radical muslims?
i think jews, christians and muslims probablyy all worship the very same god by different means and with differing degrees of zealotry or tolerance. try explaining the trinity to a jew or muslim, and how that actually does not mean there are 3 gods.
just as that god did not step in and stop some of the horrors committed in his name by christians, he will not do so when muslims commit them. it is up to us to police ourselves. don't be looking for god to smite anybody real soon...
How much more weak
can you get than to not care about the unborn on this planet? I don't believe God makes any of us suffer. I believe most suffering is brought on by ourselves. Drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy diet, along with multiple other abuses all in the name of "doing what feels good." We suffer because of our own choices which God gives us freely. He didn't create robots. So why shouldn't the unborn be allowed to have the privilege of suffering like the rest of us? ;-)
Like I said, weak enough to follow
"
We are weak - see message
I believe we are weak because people would rather sit around and watch Survivor, American Idol and other reality & TV shows than to do something and stand up to government. I have a 32yo BIL who believes that his 14 year old niece should go to war and not him because he works at a hi tech company and is too important and too intelligent to be in the military, and there are literally thousands of people in this country who think like him. Americans (not all but a majority) will not do without. They live in the now (gimmee gimmee gimmee, I want I want I want). As for our government I honestly do not know what to think. These are the same people who gave a 700M bail out the other week and now upon finding out the companies who received the bail outs are not using them to help the people (the reason they were intended for), but instead they are pocketing the money for themselves and taking lavish holidays at resorts with thousand dollar "spa" retreats, and walking away with $90M bonuses. And the government is not demanding the money back or for them to use it for what it was intended for. I think a lot of democratic politicians think the same way Obama does (or close to it) and they will give Obama whatever he wants. My grandfather who was in WWII told me that when war started up everyone signed up. They all wanted to serve and they knew it meant the could be killed in action. Now adays nobody feels the same patriotism they did back then. He said patriotism is a lot more than hanging a flag from your car or in front of your house. So I do believe a lot of America (not all but a lot) is weak.
Right. This seems a very weak choice.
nm
just fodder for the weak
truthfully, no ill will intended. It's so easy to manipulate the weak - they get all bound up and ATTACK. Do I care? Not in the least. Do they pay my rent? Not this month. I enjoy the bitter nastiness of those who have nothing else to offer. Nobody REALLY wants to have polite discourse, they just want to attack anything that does not meet their idealology - quite amusing, really. All it takes is an inane comment......
Pretty weak charge if you ask me.
It'll probably be dropped in a few days but not until the media is allowed to have their way with them, and the liberal bloggers tar and feather him. Does anyone remember travelgate and the Clinton land deal scandals. I'm sure you dems/liberals don't recall that at all....
Before you start condemning one Republican politician to hell you better take a look into your own party's closet.
Hmm, this confuses me. It is the meek (not weak)
Difference in meaning, with meek meaning humble, docile, compliant and weak meaning no strength, vigor, or spiritually lacking strength.
This post seems written by someone else, someone who believes in God and the teachings of Jesus, but your other posts are borderline mean toward conservative voters, many of whom are Christians with Christian ideals very much like the ones you claim to possess in the above post. This seems very contradictory and as such, almost disingenuous.
What you are seeing below is a weak attempt at damage control 101...
That announcement sucked all the air out of the big speech, everyone is talking about Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama. And the best they can do is take potshots at Alaska and that she was in a beauty pageant...and oh I thought the rampaging moose thing was REALLLYYYYY funneeeee. Obama is not the only one front and center that people are excited about...and if these folks think the PUMA folks are going to fall into line because the DNC tells them to....they have another think coming. Just my opinion of course....
i agree. It makes McCain look weak and
what a great leader he would make...McBush...
sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
It shows you have a biased opinion and a weak mind.
I'm sure the Hitler Youth loved their newsletter just as much as you hate-festering libs love your Huffington Post.
And you really need to spend a second to look up the definition of "terrorist."
If a "terrorist" was anyone who commits murder, your Saint Tiller (may his stinking corpse rot in his grave) is the prime example of a TERRORIST. 60,000 infants executed. And yet all you can focus on is your hate for anything Christian.
How pathetic.
Pretty weak - Johnson was a product of Texas politics,
....just like Bush, Rove, Delay, and a slew of other Suite F-8 Texans now strangling our democracy. Kennedy didn't like him, and Johnson went into fits of rage over his brother, Robert Kennedy, who he never referred to as anything but that son of a b****. Johnson was financed throughout his unstoppable career by Brown & Root (today KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton). Politically he was a far closer match to the current Republicans both in ideology and political technique (woo them with money, destroy them if they won't cooperate with the agenda, and remember to feed that war machine at every opportunity).
Johnson was a Democrat because 60 years ago that was the Texan standard. But, he paved the way for the current breed of southern Republicans to take control. It's no surprise that Johnson leapt right into Viet Nam or collaborated with people who wished to deceive and manipulate the American people - that is what these people do. Kennedy was the true Democrat - but that just wouldn't do for either Johnson or the rest of his political soulmates who are, of course, Republicans.
While you are at it, why don't you go ahead and
nm
I think we should look ahead instead....
of continuing down the path that has led to our destruction. We need alternative energy. By continuing to depend on oil, we create the need for products that run on oil. We need to stop, think and listen. No more party BS. I am fed up. We can all call each other names, puke on our representatives and all that does is fuel (no pun intended) more frustration. There are some extremely intelligent entities out there who LOVE what is happening to our country and who have probably engineered our failure to a very great degree. I don't think we can depend on Washington. We will have to depend on our own ingenuity and sacrifice in order to regain ORDER. I restrict driving as much as possible - unfortunately, I am oil-dependent in that regard. We have to give up our old way of living (in excess) and resort to more practical means. Instead of buying that new IPOD, buy more groceries and hoard. You are still putting money into the economy, OUR economy, if you buy American.......which is getting harder and harder to do. Support your local butcher. Save-A-Lot is almost entirely US grown and packaged. Read labels. Anybody else have any suggestions to support our country?
You go right ahead,
we won't miss you a bit. Seriously.
We need to go ahead and whip a$$ and get out from over there.
x
Keep on, go ahead. Just keep digging....
you are digging a hole your candidate will not be able to climb out of. Do you not think that all the mothers of teens who are pregnant or have had pregnant teens or were pregnant teens themselves are going to vote for a man who they think feels the way you people are posting?
Go right ahead. You will kill his candidacy. More power to you. Put it on billboards. Chant it in the streets. Take out TV ads. I wish you would.
go ahead...continue...
....being rude.
Life's too short to be so full of hate, directed at every member of the opposite viewpoint.
But as you say, the silence is deafening....maybe you need a hearing aid??
he's currently ahead in Virginia, too -
What are you talking about? Go ahead
bigots, racists, and prejudiced because the RNC spent $$ on clothes and Obama told Joe he wants to spread the wealth.
OMG! Are you serious? Go ahead, elect O
nm
I say go ahead if that's what works for you.
x
Go ahead continue to talk about which you know nothing about
Go ahead, then, continue to talk about what you know nothing about other than news reports and slanted history books and we, who truly know a bit more about jewish issues and Israel will sit back and continue to smile and, of course, like I said in my previous post, there are always courses in the local synagogue that you can take. Join a jewish discussion group either in the net or in your home town, that is if your home town even has a jew in it, and learn the truth. Not what is being put out there by radical orthodox jews. Those are the ones that you see fighting in Israel to stay in Gaza. The radical orthodox jews. Sharon, as much as I dont like him, is right in what he has decided. It is unfortunate but it is just and right.
Go ahead and defend a racist
even if it's so out of character for a liberal.
Go ahead Ann whine with dignity...sm
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote HANDS DOWN!
It all came down to Florida where Bush took the state with a mere 500 votes more than Gore. Had the disqualified ballots were counted Gore would have took Florida. This did not stop conservatives from ranting and raving about their percieved *epic* victory. Matter of fact, conservatives picked their heads up high and boasted so, one would have thought it was a landslide win calling democrats whiners.
So go ahead Ann and whine with dignity, Nov 7 was a victory for dems nonetheless.
I have my shield up so go ahead FLAME AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nm
McCain ahead according to Gallup...
Gallup Daily: McCain Moves Ahead, 48% to 45% September 7, 2008
go ahead, dig the hole deeper for him...
don't you pay attention to your own candidate? He DOESN'T want to run against sarah palin. He is saying it, Axelrod is saying it, and their followers keep right on attacking her, which invites comparisons to HIM. LOL. Perfect.
obama ahead by 15 points
Talk is cheap. See, I can just pull statements out of my bellybutton also.
obama is ahead in all major
polls. Sympathy not required.
Go ahead and ignore it, and vote to put the fox in...
control of the chicken house. I verified each one of those facts. Why don't you do the same? Look up the bills that were blocked. Listen to what the people were saying? Music was all you got out of that? Lord, no wonder we are in the shape we are in. Bless your heart.
Go ahead and trust Obama, then.
nm
Not to worry. Obama is ahead
The sky will not be falling on December 15th.
Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency.....sm
Looking Ahead to the Obama Presidency
Written by John F. McManus
Wednesday, 26 November 2008 00:40
Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's own records and agendas show the direction they have in mind for the nation.
Without doubt, the election of Barack Obama is historic because he is the first Black American selected by voters for the highest office in the land. Indeed, the election of an African-American to the presidency by a nation with a majority white population may be unprecedented, and the fact that this is possible should be a source of pride for all of us, regardless of whether Obama himself was a good or bad choice.
An articulate and confident young man, Obama's presence in the White House will be welcomed by many. Along with his oratorical skills and appealing vitality, his family will remind older Americans of the John F. Kennedy era when a telegenic and appealing wife and two charming youngsters accompanied the newly elected president into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
What will the Obama presidency be like? Throughout a campaign stretching back for almost two years, the Illinois senator regularly employed the word "change," and the word even morphed into "change we can believe in." The posters, oratory, television ads, and pronouncements of several Obama staffers repeatedly issued unspecified pledges that this new and different candidate would alter the course America was following.
"Blueprint for Change"
But how would America's course be altered? Even though the American people could have read online what an Obama-Biden administration promised, most failed to do so. Much of the agenda, albeit without a lot of detail, is contained in Blueprint for Change, the 83-page document subtitled "Plan for America" issued by the Obama-Biden team. As we shall see, the "change" envisioned by the Blueprint includes more government at home and a continuation of our interventionist foreign policy abroad.
Of course, America has been moving in the direction of more and bigger government for decades, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat has been in the White House. Obama hopes to move us even further in the big-government direction. What kind of change is that?
Even many Americans who recognize that Obama will push for more government at home believe that he will end our interventionist foreign policy because of the opposition he has expressed to the Iraq War. But this conclusion flies in the face of his proposal to transfer troops to Afghanistan (in essence transferring the Iraq War to a different theater) and his support for international arrangements, including expansion of NATO.
Please consider the following positions as they appear in the pages of the revealing "blueprint" document and judge for yourself how much change there will be and whether the recommended "change" would be a good thing. (Comments following each quoted item are ours.)
• "Emergency Economic Plan to Inject Immediate Relief into the Economy." Both Obama and Biden voted for the $700 billion bailout (along with John McCain). More bailouts will likely follow.
• "Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families." Government giving money to everyone, as was done with the 2008 rebate, doesn't solve any problems. These funds either have to be printed (the root cause of inflation) or borrowed, likely from China, which puts our nation's neck in a noose. The interest that is compounding on our already enormous debt is a toxic time bomb. The government will eventually resort to massive inflation to pay the debt or collateralize the debt with American assets; in which case, those now holding our bonds will end up owning America.
• "Invest in the Manufacturing Sector." America's manufacturers need relief from the stifling array of taxes and regulations, and from the steady erosion of the dollar brought on by debilitating inflation, not government handouts that are always followed by government control. A 2006 study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute entitled "Ten Thousand Commandments" found that the federal regulatory burden on U.S. businesses amounted to $1.13 trillion. This burden is killing American businesses, productivity, innovation, and jobs.
• "Create 5 Million New Green Jobs." This will be done, says the Blueprint, by investing "$150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy," etc. In other words, politicians and bureaucrats would create government jobs and subsidize private-sector jobs that should be financed by the private sector (and would be if they were economically viable). Government should get out of the way and let free Americans create jobs.
• "Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank." This promise includes an infusion of $60 billion more in federal spending.
• "Give the Federal Reserve Greater Supervisory Authority." The Federal Reserve, which already wields enormous, unconstitutional powers, is a destructive engine of inflation and should hardly be given greater authority. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has recommended, it should be abolished, not enhanced.
• "Pressure the World Trade Organization to Enforce Trade Agreements." Granting the UN's WTO even more authority is another step toward global governance. The WTO is already exercising judicial jurisdiction over sovereign nations, overruling national laws and legislatures, including the laws and the Congress of the United States. Congress and President Bush have weakly protested these usurpations — and then meekly accepted them.
• "Guarantee Affordable, Accessible Health Care for Every American." Healthcare costs have risen dramatically because of already existing government intervention. A national healthcare system would swell the cost while making healthcare hard to obtain, as such plans have done everywhere they have been instituted.
• "Barack Obama has fought for comprehensive immigration reform." Ultimately, what this means is amnesty for as many as 20 million illegal aliens in our nation.
• "High Quality Zero-to-Five Education." The Obama plan actually calls for "early care and education for infants in a Zero to 5 Plan," more government for K-12, federal support for afterschool programs, and more grants for those who move on to college.
• "Double our annual investment in foreign assistance ... to $50 billion.... Invest at least $50 billion [annually] by 2013 for the global fight against HIV/AIDS." With record deficits and a soaring National Debt, America is, in effect, giving away borrowed money.
The above constitute only a sampling of the pledges for more programs, more spending, and more government powers contained in the 83 pages of the Blueprint for Change. And the official Obama-Biden Internet website provides several hundred more pages of details, all pointing toward plans for a vast expansion of the federal government. Less than a week after the election, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun (R) told an audience in his district the president-elect shows "signs of being a Marxist." Perhaps Broun had read the Obama-Biden Blueprint, a rather obvious call for socialism in the United States. And perhaps Broun knows that, in addition to Marx's well-publicized association with communism, Karl Marx is also the godfather of socialism.
Although he didn't mention his own party, we should point out that Rep. Broun's criticism of Obama's apparent Marxist bent applies also to many Republicans. In fact, in October, President Bush and many Republican members of Congress rolled out the Socialist Express to push through the bailout package. Take it from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed socialist, who congratulated Bush for joining the socialist club, and then chided him and his allies for applying a double standard. "How many times have they criticized me for nationalizing the phone company?" he asked. "They say, 'The state shouldn't get involved in that.' But now they don't criticize Bush for having nationalize[d] ... the biggest banks in the world. Comrade Bush, how are you?"
Expanding the UN
The United Nations Association of the United States is the most determined promoter of the UN within our nation. Early in 2008, its leaders sent a questionnaire to all presidential candidates. Barack Obama displayed his strong commitment to the world body and to its various sovereignty-compromising programs in his responses, some of which follow:
• "No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States."
• "I have pledged to create a [UN-promoted] cap on carbon emissions in the United States."
• "I fully support the [UN] Millennium Development Goals."
In the year 2000, the 189 member nations of the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals, a program of eight goals to aid developing countries. Our share of funding these goals could total hundreds of billions of dollars in just a few years. Senator Barack Obama introduced S. 2433 in 2007. Labeled the "Global Poverty Act," this proposal seeks to require our nation to "achieve the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of the people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than one dollar per day." Five months later, Senator Biden offered minor amendments to the bill as he co-signed it. Obviously, these two senators — and the handful of others they have enlisted to back their proposal — believe the American people should pony up enormous sums of money sought by the UN in another program that would empower the world body and further enrich corrupt foreign dictators while doing little to improve the plight of the world's poor.
Based on their stated positions and track records, it is reasonable to expect that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the team they will select to staff the new administration won't even consider less government and a mind-your-own-business foreign policy to be options. Their agenda, if implemented, would speed the growth of the federal government, accelerate the surrender of America's independence, and hasten our nation down the path toward submergence in what internationalists euphemistically refer to as "global governance" by various supranational institutions, of which the UN, the WTO, and the IMF are among the most noteworthy. For more information about the power brokers who have helped formulate Obama's agenda and who will be running the Obama-Biden administration, see "Behind the Obama Agenda."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/543-looking-ahead-to-the-obama-presidency
"Oh, please".. yourself. O said, "yeah, go ahead".
nm
Go ahead and spout gt if makes you feel better
however, you are only making a fool of yourself along with the namby pamby liberals who write stuff like this.
I put the person (& country) ahead of the party - so this
|
