All libs, please read.
Posted By: VH on 2005-09-16
In Reply to:
There are a number of trolls on here. The best thing to do is not give in to the temptation to feed them. If they are simply ignored, they will find somewhere else to go. Get it? I ask that you not respond to their posts. It is even helpful to do a google and get the real definition of an internet troll and how to best deal with them.
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
And, of course, the libs never do that to anyone do they? sm
and we don't have to be *tolerant* of libs
pushing their ideals down our throat or down our children's throats in public school either....
Oh, that's right, the libs are NEVER belittling...
you have had too much kool aid.
That's right, the libs never say anything inflammatory about anyone...nm
//
Just out of curiosity, where do all you libs think (sm)
the GOP folks you think are dying away or leaving are going? Do you honestly think they're moving to the Democrat party? Really???? Don't you realize that over the course of history the GOP and Dems have always had course corrections in their parties? You do remember that MLK was a republican in the 60s, right?
I am proud to be a republican, but I know that my party is changing. We don't have a solid front-runner. Palin (while I personally liked her) needs more experience before taking that high of an office. Most of our most public figures are older white men.
Obama got elected on style. He's a smooth talker, acts cool, and was different. A slightly higher majority of Americans (and trust me, the election was not a landslide, only about 10% difference which ain't much) voted him in. I don't like him. He's obnoxiously arrogant, and I don't like him apologizing for our country. Yes, Bush was arrogant too, but it was a different kind of arrogance. He knew he was the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and I believed he did what he felt was best for our country. While you all hated his reasons, I trusted him.
Obama, on the other hand, his arrogance is that he thinks he's better than the rest of us. The attitude that comes across is one of we should just be happy to be in his presence. He's book smart. But his inexperience is obvious. He's a puppet. Just like you libs thought Chaney was pulling the strings, Obama is just the same. It's obviously not Biden (good Lord, what an imbicile), but there are plenty of others behind the scenes pulling those wires.
All I'm saying is that I'm just going to watch and wait. My party will rebound and the Dems will eventually implode as is going to happen because each party always does. You're partying now after your so-called 8 years of hell, but I'm just waiting.
I love it when the libs are wrong! NM
Libs cons. It's just an abbreviation. sm
We can help that their abbr. fits their party the best - cons. Nina may have convinced herself that she comes in peace just to debate, but there was no reason for her to blow up in response to your post here.
And the others are propaganda machines for libs...
to each his own, as you say.
Libs talking about themselves here, no doubt...sm
can you say....mud sling fest. all night long ????
The libs hate Ann Coulter because.....
She is thin, blonde, wears fur, and has a brain to go with her good looks. No fool that woman.
Right, funny to you, but hurts the libs
nm
You libs are as predictable as the tides. LOL nm
xxx
The old double standards. Libs hate it. sm
no way PR is on the WH staff, but just keep on talking. You just look more foolish all the time. Chavez has been accusing the US of trying to off him for a long time. PR was just echoing that, but who really cares.
Not in the real world of dems/libs who are
nm
Oh well. Looks like libs have fallen back into favor.
is how we stage our revolutions. This one is long overdue and while lamenting this cruel turn of events, you might want to ask yourself why all this is happening. Could it be that W, his cronies and right-wing fringers have overplayed their hand and the voters are fed up with lies, deception, misinformation, politics of fear, division and the culture war, and yet the McCain camp keeps right on keepin' on. When you do a poor job, you get fired. That's the way it works. Change is what they want and change is what they are going to get. We are getting ready to write a new chapter in our history that will move us far beyond that mentality and will thrust us onto the threshold of the post post-911 era. I can't wait to get started and thank God I have managed to live long enough to watch it all unfold.
That would explain why the libs were single-handedly
the rise of the Beat Generation, the counter-culture revolution of the 60s, the success of the civil right's movement and the VietNam, Gulf War and Iraq anti-war movements, not to mention the fact that they have been champions of all sorts of dissenting opinions/movements. Advocating for Palestinian statehood comes to mind.
Four libs against 1 conservative...wow....how biased can that show be...sm
...that show is a joke.
Do you know how silly the libs sound by blaming everything
that happened in the last eight years on Bush?
I predict, that Obama will not take responsibility for anything that happens in next two years at least, maybe four....it will all be Bush's fault in some way.
And those won't be my words. They will be Obama's words.
Wait and see.
How much confidence can you have in president who takes no personal responsibility, or a Congress that takes no personal responsibility in their own legislation, blaming Bush for their own bailout legislation that they wrote?
Dems always change the rules.
It's happening again, slowly and surely.
If you don't think libs hold the dems accountable
They are harsher in their criticisms than the conservatives.
Libs always attack messenger instead of message.
They forget that this is not Bush’s porkfest, it’s Obama’s, all trillion of it, and yes, there will be more.
They don’t want to be educated on the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues increased between 2003-2007.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8792/11-2007-MBR.htm
Go to the 'Receipts' table. This is a table showing how tax revenues increased between 2005-2007.
But I guess Democrats would say Dick Cheney sneaked into the CBO and changed the numbers.
How is it that Liberals claim to be able to read our minds? I would try to read a Liberal’s Mind, but I don’t like short stories, comic books, or things written in crayon. LMAO! HIC!"
Fox is the leader of the pack and it cheeses libs off.
CNN pays for ad time during O'Reilly's show. That just cracks me up.
Fox Rocks. Even CNN knows that. They're desperately trying to attract a few viewers by advertising during the Fox lineup.
You know how you hate it when conservatives paint libs with the same brush? sm
We don't like it either.
Sounds like you libs....can hardly wait for Monday revelations....
.
Who put the libs on this board in charge of free speech?
Joe has the right of free speech too. He asked a simple question, which Obama freely answered outlining socialism 101, and what did Joe get for that? A background check! And you can hail free speech and be okay with that in the same breath? Your hypocrisy is showing...and showing...and showing.
And you keep trying, and unsucessfully, to deflect from the true point. Understandably, because your focus is the big "O", the truthgiver, the one who will save the world. LOL. Free speech indeed. You don't believe in free speech unless it benefits you and the big "O."
Nothing in my post said anything about free speech. It just tried (and in vain I understand)...to stay on point...Obama's ANSWER.
Never mind, the no name posts explain it. You're just here to take a DUMP on the libs...nm
x
I know it's hard a concept for the dems/libs, but Rush says what he means.
He doesn't sugar coat. He's got his problems, but he owns them. He doesn't dance around them, sweep them under the carpet, double talk his way out of it. I mean, we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and find out Rush has been hanging with terrorists, is a closet muslim, or the antichrist.
There's a certain honesty to Rush that some people like and others don't.
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
|
