Apparently, you're good for one-liners only.
Posted By: Zauber on 2005-09-02
In Reply to: Your ignorance and hatred know no bounds. nm - sm
Sort of like flatus...over in one little emotional gust, nothing much of subtance produced.
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
Apparently, you're not following this. Never mind.
X
I missed a good post apparently!
Heh - I love a good frenzied tirade too. Dang. Leave it to Observer! :::::whistling:::::
Then you're apparently listening in the wrong places. nm
nm
One-liners. Oh...you mean like
X
As Mrs. Bridger is also known for snappy one-liners,
I figured she was a big girl, and could play catch with the big kids. I was not disappointed, as she fired one right back about lighting up the fattie. Far cry from hollering back that I was a cowardly, racist, slime-sucking swamp dweller [which I may very well be, but that's another subject.]
No, but we're so DAM' good at it.
-nm
Good grief! You're right.
This IS scary!
I keep hearing how our soldiers are fighting so Iraqis can be free like Americans.
I wonder if anyone bothered to tell them what the Bush definition of freedom really is. Obviously, nobody really bothered to tell Americans. 
If you're an example of a good Democrat...
God help this country if Obama wins.
You are a truly scary person.
I doubt anyone could read your post without picturing you as a crazed, red-in-the-face delusional street person with a whole shopping cart full of crazy and a rat on a string you call 'Willie.'
Oh, good. Nice to know you're not too far.
in the light of day.
Because they're greedy. What's good for the
middle class; i.e., us struggling to make ends meet, is not good enough for them.
And you're very good at shooting the messenger.
It wouldn't matter what I posted here. You've already made up your mind that you hate me, and that's all there is to it. I could come in tomorrow and say I think Bush is the best president we've ever had, but you'd still attack me personally.
If you look at every single thread I have started here, I have never ONCE personally attacked a poster. I have always attacked an administration that is incompetent, dishonest and downright dangerous. The responses I have received have been attacks directed personally at me. Yet, when I respond in kind to those attacks, I'm crucified. If you're going to start the personal stuff, be prepared to get some of it right back at you.
If you disagree, why can't you discuss the reason you disagree? Why must you and the others always personally attack a poster? Must be because you simply can't defend your position, which is understandable.
I hope you have a very nice day. It would be very nice to have an intelligent, legitimate debate with you someday, one directed at the issues and not at a poster you have decided to hate.
That's all fine and good but you're not running
]
Good point, if you're going to support something, you should be able to look at it (sm)
and still think you're right, right?
Swiftboating continues; you're in good company.
Walter Cronkite may be next...
Cronkite: Time for U.S. to Leave Iraq
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterSun Jan 15, 6:47 PM ET
Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.
It's my belief that we should get out now, Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.
Now 89, the television journalist once known as the most trusted man in America has been off the CBS Evening News for nearly a quarter-century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them.
Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.
Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.
The best time to have made a similar statement about Iraq came after Hurricane Katrina, he said.
We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States, he said. Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home.
Iraqis should have been told that our hearts are with you and that the United States would do all it could to rebuild their country, he said.
I think we could have been able to retire with honor, he said. In fact, I think we can retire with honor anyway.
Cronkite has spoken out against the Iraq war in the past, saying in 2004 that Americans weren't any safer because of the invasion.
Cronkite, who is hard of hearing and walks haltingly, jokingly said that I'm standing by if they want me to anchor the CBS Evening News. CBS is still searching for a permanent successor to Dan Rather, who replaced Cronkite in March 1981.
Twenty-four hours after I told CBS News that I was stepping down at my 65th birthday I was already regretting it and I've regretted it every day since, he said. It's too good a job for me to have given it up the way that I did.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
*****************************
AND MURTHA:
Web Site Attacks Critic of War
Opponents Question Murtha's Medals
By Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 14, 2006; A05
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.
In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.
David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service, said the issue of Murtha's medals from 1967 is relevant now because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement. Thibault said: He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach.
Cindy Abram, a spokeswoman for Murtha, said, We certainly believe that the questions being raised are an attempt to distract attention from what's happening in Iraq. As for how Murtha won the Purple Hearts, she said: We think the congressman's record is clear. We have the documentation, the paperwork that proves that he earned them, and that he is entitled to wear them proudly.
Cybercast is part of the conservative Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, who accused some in the media of ignoring the Swift Boat charges, but Thibault said it operates independently. He said the unit, formerly called the Conservative News Service, averages 110,000 readers, mainly conservative, and provides material for other Web sites such as GOPUSA. We won't run anything against anybody if we don't have the goods, he said.
Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), who was quoted in the article, confirmed his account to The Washington Post yesterday.
In a conversation on the House floor in the early 1980s, said Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, Murtha told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts. He recalled Murtha saying: Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek. Murtha's spokeswoman would not address that account.
Bailey, who lost a House race to Murtha after a 1982 redistricting, said Jack's a coward, and he's a liar for subsequently denying the conversation. That just really burned me, he said.
While saying he has only responded to reporters' questions and is not bitter toward Murtha, Bailey said the congressman's approach to Iraq is not responsible and that it just turned my stomach to see Murtha acting as a spokesman for veterans.
He said he shared the information with Republican William Choby, who ran against Murtha four times beginning in 1990 and made the Vietnam decorations an issue. Choby raised the issue again during Murtha's 2002 reelection campaign.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, citing Marine records, reported that year that Murtha was wounded during hostile actions near Da Nang, Vietnam: In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation. The Cybercast article cites a 1994 interview in which Murtha described injuries to his arm and knee.
The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was pretending to be a big war hero. Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts but was turned down because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics.
In November, when Murtha called for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the congressman was endorsing Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party and called his stance a surrender to the terrorists. Days later, President Bush called Murtha a fine man and said they simply disagreed about Iraq.
The Cybercast article appeared shortly before a segment scheduled for CBS's 60 Minutes tomorrow in which Murtha predicts that the vast majority of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO OPPOSE THE WAR:
Bush to use speech in Kentucky to promote Republicans
January 11, 2006
LOUISVILLE (AP) -- President Bush will have an eye on the fall elections Wednesday when he heads to Louisville, Kentucky, to give a speech on Iraq.
Tuesday, the president told a veterans group that voters should punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives comfort to our adversaries. He said loyal opposition is one thing, but defeatism is another.
Oh good, thanks for replying. Glad they're not just giving it to the right....lol...thx.
:-)
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm
Good grief! You're a rude, bitter person.
xx
apparently
he wanted Lieberman or Tom Ridge. he was informed that if he picked Lieberman, there would be a floor fight on the convention floor to prevent that selection. His campaign is stagnant, so he decided to appeal to the extreme conservative base. It has backfired on him because, in going for those voters, he chose a partner whose lifestyle shows the limitations and consequences of extreme right views such as abstinence only programs and not providing birth control info to teenagers.
apparently
that view is that the left is one big monolithic mind that works as one Kinda like bees.
And apparently they are not the only ones. nm
nm
apparently
one who posts an opinion that differs from the majority here is labeled a "troll." Labels do not deter me from expressing my viewpoint. I am certain that others will agree with my assessment before the day is over.
As far as giving liberals a bad name, pack-think is rather primitive.
Apparently more than you!
nm
Apparently...
Your reality is based on your brother and his friends and their friends and your friends at church. I have a news flash for you. There is a whole country outside of your little town with a much different reality that you know nothing about. So please keep your small-town reality to yourself and stop trying to tell us that we should all join you.
Apparently not who you think I am........ sm
since you seem to think I said you were no better than the rapist. I don't know where the heck you got that, lady, but I never said anything even CLOSE to that.
I did say "a rapist can only have as much control on the victim AFTER THE FACT as she allows." After the fact means after the rape. It does not mean that any woman asks to be raped or that she is on the same level as her rapist. It means that, if a woman allows herself to ruminate on the act for months or years afterward, the rapist still has control over her.
You asked if I feel you should have given birth, too, and my answer to that would have to be yes. I feel that you should have allowed your child to have life, and then if you decided you couldn't raise it (and I would totally agree with that since you were just a child yourself) I believe you should have allowed it to be adopted.
I'm really sorry for your pain as I would not wish that on anyone, and yes, I would go hunting if I had a daughter who was raped. I obviously struck a deep, long buried nerve with you, and I'm sorry for that.
Apparently they don't
However, I think they're dead wrong. There are a lot of voters on both sides (Dem and Repub) who see a major problem with one party having too much power and will vote accordingly to even things up.
You are an ignoramus...apparently you don't know of
anyone who was Viet Nam. There were plenty of problems caused by the war itself....not just what you "read," but then again, I doubt you understand the written word!
Apparently she was covert tho
or none of this would be happening AND the only reason everybody and their 3rd cousin knew where she worked is because someone leaked it. It may be much ado about nothing, but if thats true why take two years to investigate it? From everything I read, Fitzgerald is not a partisian hack for either side, but a real honest to goodness good guy who loves to take down bad guys, politicians or mafia or whoever he is after. I realize that last sentence was a bit simplistic, but you get the general idea. And if indictments do come out of this and they are of anyone in the White House, it is going to be a very very big deal. And in the periphery of all of this, is the lead in to possible mismangement of intelligence in order to lead us into war. THAT is why all the pundits are salivating and why Fox News and Rush L are gettin so upset. It may end up to be a tempest in a teapot or it may bring down the Bush Administration. Only time will tell. Either way there will be a lot of upset people out there, whichever way it turns out.
Apparently you did not look far enough for the quote...
This is from the Washington Post, transcript of the conversation:
Vice President Cheney: Dec. 9, 2001 -- Meet the Press
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."
And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: "We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. Inspectors--have said--and now there are aerial photographs to show it--a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives." And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck--and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
There ya go. Meet the Press only has transcripts on line back to 2003. I checked. If you look hard enough, there are other publications who published the actual transcript. Russert said it.
As to the fuselage in the desert: Charles Deulfer, former Deputy Head, U.N. Special Commission for Iraq, told NPR, "There were lots of places in Iraq where training of non-Iraqis, or things, which by our lexicon would be considered terrorism, was taking place. That's why Iraq is on the terrorist list. Having a large aircraft, a 707, in a peninsula, completely visible from the air or from satellite, with no airline runways nearby, that's not there by accident."
As to the smartalecky crack who was in the "meeting"...I posted that I heard him say it during the 9-11 commission meeting hearings and I DID. They were televised and there were certainly more than 3 people present. They asked him about the "slam dunk" comment regarding the intelligence and WMD, and he replied: "I thought it WAS a slam dunk. We ALL did." I don't know what meeting you are talking about with only three present. I am talking about what he testified to before the 9-11 commission in their hearings, which I did hear. And, frankly, I think out of the man's own mouth is a pretty reliable source.
Yes, I agree it is hard to get the real story, especially since the story tellers change their stories like other people change their underwear. Tim Russert is just one of them. Richard Armitage is another. So which time do we believe them? Which time is really the truth? No way to know.
I said the source of the reporting does not matter if the information can be substantiated. I don't discount everything I hear on a liberal station if I can substantiate it. A very simple example: If Fox News printed the sun was shining, and you looked out and the sun was shining...you could pretty well believe it, even if Fox is the one who printed it. That was my point...if it is a fact, who prints it does not matter. Who declines to print or report it though...that also indicates something.
Have a good evening, Taiga!
Apparently the truth over yours as well...
but with your head buried in the sand, no wonder.
Apparently, so does more than 1/2 the country.
nm
Some people are against it, apparently....
there are those on this board who are against it.
And, respectfully, I beg to differ. The "guilty" will never be held accountable. Pelosi has already said the democrats accept no responsibility for this situation. I rest my case. She knows better, Frank knows better, and they get right up there on TV and lie through their teeth. Both of them morally bankrupt if you ask me. And I would be saying the same thing if they were Republicans and the same evidence existed pointing to them. This is not partisan. This is about integrity, about serving the people who elected you. In my opinion, she and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd...have absolutely none. Zip, zero, nada.
Apparently your friends must be among the better off...
Q: What are the current concerns among healthcare workers in the country?
A: The Canadian Healthcare Association, and other concerned bodies, such as the Canadian Nurses Association, have put forward a Common Vision for the Canadian Health System document. It argues that four key areas need improvement in the country's healthcare system: patient waiting times; overall healthcare funding; shortages in personnel and improvement of medical technology; and the expansion of the healthcare system to include home, pharmaceutical, and long-term care.
Moreover, Canadian nurses have expressed particular dissatisfactions with the healthcare system in recent years. In 2002, the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee delivered a report which recommended increasing the number of nurses, improvements in education, and maximizing the scope of practice of nurses.
The lure of more lucrative salaries has also led to a "brain drain" of professionals to the United States in recent years. Although overall emigration has been relatively small, healthcare professionals constitute a significant proportion of the public sector workers who have chosen to leave Canada for employment in the United States.
Q: What are the current concerns among patients?
A: Waiting times to see specialists and for diagnostic tests have become a point of issue for Canadians. According to a study by the Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, such waiting times have increased from 13.1 weeks in 1999, to 17.7 weeks in 2003, to 17.9 in 2004. Long waits to undergo elective surgery have also become an issue in recent years, as have crowded emergency rooms in the country's largest cities.
One response to these concerns on the part of patients has been to seek treatment in the United States or overseas. While "medical tourism" is derided by some in Canada as queue-jumping, others see it as a legitimate means of dealing with the healthcare system's shortcomings. The province of Alberta currently reimburses patients who have sought medically necessary physician, oral surgery, and hospital services not immediately available in Canada.
The frequency of adverse events, or errors in treatment that might harm the patient or the outcome of their treatment while hospitalized, has also raised concerns in regards to the country's healthcare system, both among healthcare workers and patients.
Q: What are the current challenges in providing healthcare?
A: In 2004, the federal government and the provinces struck a C$41-billion (US$34.2-billion), 10-year agreement to improve Canada's healthcare system.
At the center of this agreement is an attempt to reduce waiting times. A Wait Times Reduction Fund has been instituted to help the provinces accomplish this. The fund allows the provinces to increase the hiring of healthcare professionals, clear backlogs, increase capacity, and expand ambulatory and community care programs. The provinces have themselves agreed to set targets for acceptable wait times, and have also agreed to cooperate in establishing a common set of criteria to measure wait times across the country.
Tell me, when the long waits to see a specialist, elective surgeries, etc., happen here...where will the canadians go? Where will WE go?
Just asking.
Yes! Of course they should have done that all along - apparently now they can't afford it ...lol
x
Apparently yet another rumor
Update: The McCain campaign hasn't heard anything about the report of a bus being attacked. This makes the following report seem highly unlikely. Neither Raton police nor state police have received reports about such an incident.
The blog item below was posted by Mark Williams, former talk-radio host turned spokesman for Our Country Deserves Better PAC, a group committed to working against an Obama quest for the presidency. He has been on the group's Stop Obama tour, which arrived in Raton about a day after a McCain/Palin bus came through, he said. Williams said he heard the story from several residents of Raton, who said the bus had a shattered window when it arrived in town, and that it had been shattered by some kind of shot during its trip up from southern New Mexico, but he never saw the bus.
A Raton Police spokesperson, who said he's been on his phone all day long with reporters, said if the incident happened, it happened far south of Raton. Several calls to offices south, such as Chavez County Sheriff's Department and the Roswell Police, however, turned up nothing. Looks like this one is firmly in the debunked rumor pile for now, and not likely to move anytime soon.
A report from New Mexico:
We learned at this morning’s Stop Obama Rally here that the McCain/Palin Straight Talk Express came through town yesterday. It arrived with a window shattered by a .22 caliber weapon. It had also been hit by an unknown number of paint balls from a paint ball gun or guns. There were reportedly no injuries and neither candidate was on board.
Get ready for the media saturation! The wringing of hands, the concern about "incitement," the indictment of Obama and Biden for daring to criticize McCain and Palin in such a way that would drive their supporters to this.
Apparently, you are not as clever as you think you are! (nm)
:p
apparently I can't use the little icons so......
;o)
"gay" as such apparently has been around
since bibilical days, since the Bible mentions in layman's terms that men should not sleep with men, also remember Sodom and Gomorrah???
Well, since you are apparently my poodle.. sm
Do you want pink bows or red ones? HAHAHAHA
And apparently humorless ones
x
But apparently, we care very much
about every aspect of their lives. Go through the grocery line and scan the magazines and tabloids. We apparently MUST know the latest about Brad and Angie, if they are going to purchase their next child or breed another one. And since Madonna's latest bid for a kid was rejected, what will she do? I mean, I think she was looking to complete the set and now she's been thwarted. And is Brad calling Jen late at night to cry on her shoulder, and will they maybe get back together if Jen breaks up with what's-his-name? This stuff is on the covers. Lord knows what's in the story! Don't get me started on Jess or Brit. Brad, Jen, Angie, Jess, Brit, Sean. I love that first names only are used, often shortened names, to make these folks seem like your best buds.
So it follows that a certain sort of person will lap up the celebs' opinions on political issues. Actors talk real good (it's, like, their JOB) and obviously these actors are rich and successful and so must know lots of stuff the masses don't. The actors start believing their own press, and so think that their opinions actually have value.
Reminds me of the parental warning about show-offs: Don't look. It'll only encourage him.
Apparently you do define yourself that way.
By your own description, sex is determined by gender. Therefore, by your definition, describing yourself as female describes your sex life. So quit talking about your sex life with us. We don't want to hear it, and, if your postings are any indication, it's either really really boring or, more likely, probably kinkier than I could stomach.
I was referring to the fact that you apparently
think your opinion is the only one and you know all.
I'm on the board I belong to and I rarely post but you just seem like a board bully.
Apparently, from the posts above, I'm not the only one feeling that way.
Apparently food is not the only thing she
She has no class whatsoever...maybe she is the love child of Pat Robertson and some cheap hooker?
Check this out: http://www.bettybowers.com/coulter.html#Anchor-Thi-12323
A little over the top but funny.
Apparently you have not been wartching the dates...
or the snippets of the Democratic candidates...lol. They curl up their lips like Elvis when they have to say the word "Republican." It's all politics. It is a political season. They say "The Republicans" the same way you would say "the pillaging raping dregs of society." LOL. Funny how you don't see that or hear that from them? Some of the Republicans do it too, of course they do. It is politics. They will say that on camera and then hug each other and laugh off camera. All politics. I don't believe a word ANY Of them say, and laugh at the jokes on both sides. It is so juvenile and ridiculous, and we all just yuck it up like the future of the country was not at stake..and it is. I would like ONE reasoning adult in the race. On either side. Just one. Tell me what is good about YOU. Not what is BAD about the other guy. Don't keep saying "hope" and "change." Tell me what you are going to do, and how you are going to pay for it without hitting my paycheck harder than you alreaedy are. Don't dangle issues in front of people with promises of the "big fix" like universal health care. Tell me how it is going to work...tell me how we are NOT going to be like Canada or France or England...and tell me how you are going to do it without taxing me into poverty (that is how the middle class is disappearing!!). Tell me THAT without lying through your teeth.
Tell me what your agenda REALLY is.
THAT is what I would like. From EITHER side.
apparently i totally agree
but it threw me off cause the first sentence in the reply to me said "so it is your business right"? SO yea i was a bit confused :)
Apparently you turn a blind eye
nm
Apparently abstinence and no sex-ed are not working.
More failed policies?
Apparently this post went right above your head!
Either you are just plain ignorant or you have been drinking a little too much Sam Kool-Aid these days if you interpret the above post as proving Sam's point.
Get on the net and search. Apparently there are a lot of schools...
who ban such things.
Apparently NOT. Your claim. Your citation.
no credibility. Got it? Just wondering what other verifiable examples you can come up with to support you claim of "Christian discrimination."
|
