Are you not able to answer a simple direct question?
Posted By: Of course not. on 2008-12-29
In Reply to: not bitter................. - rightie
It's obviously over your head.
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
Still waiting for a direct answer to a simple question.
nm
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
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.
Simple answer...
#1. Anything that passed Congress required votes from both sides to carry. So both parties did.
#2. Obama voted against. Biden voted for.
#3. Obama, according to his website it was January. Trouble is, Gen. Petraeus said to commit to some kind of a line in the sand date was the wrong thing to do. I vote with Gen. Petraeus.
#4. I imagine several Republicans lobbied against it...I think David Petraeus knows more about whether a timetable will work than Barack Obama does.
#5. Gen. David Petraeus said: WASHINGTON: General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, has said that US forces could hand over control of the entire country to the Iraqi military by the end of next year.
That could coincide with Obama's withdrawal timetable. If you are saying General Petraeus is trying to highjack Obama's timetable...I don't think so. It is his recommendation that drives what the administration says. Since he is the architect of the surge, which has worked "beyond anyone's wildest dreams" (Obama quote), he is in the best position to know what is feasible. But even he does not call it a timetable. COnditions on the ground dictate how something plays out. Or it SHOULD.
And that is the rest of the story.
Simple answer
The diet industry rakes in the big bucks because it is human nature to look for a shortcut. A segment of the American public is like this.
Tell somebody they can lose an entire person's worth of weight by drinking some glop for six months and they will buy it. Tell them that they can learn a foreign language in six weeks by listening to tapes while they sleep, they will buy it. Tell them they don't need verifiable income or means to repay to buy a house, they will sign anything.
Tell us we have to actually WORK at something - losing weight, building our credit to get a mortage, whatever, we will just look for the guy who says we don't have to.
Simple answer. Because there is no money in...
providing contraception. There is money in abortions. With 200 mill from the feds (your tax dollars and mine) and all the abortions they perform (it was 200,000 a year in 2005, no telling how many now)...that is where the money is. It is the only thing in Planned Parenthood they won't take a check for...cash or insurance up front. No checks for abortions. That is their cash cow. People complain abot high oil company profits but profiting from killing babies is okey dokey in their books. Good grief.
There is a simple answer to that, anon....
again, when you think something has been distorted or made up, say so. I for one, when I am proven wrong on something I have posted as fact and not opinion, I have apologized and owned up to it. I am assuming I am one of the ones you are talking about, so please...if I post something as fact (not opinion) and you prove to me it is distroted or made up, I will certainly own up to it. Thanks.
Closing Gitmo is not as simple as simple
nm
simple exercise or simple mind
ever heard of thyroid dysfunction, ever heard of drugs that cause weight gain (such as steroids) or any other cause for obesity? Don't be so self-righteous.
I do believe that there is a direct
response to the OP with the title of "You're Whack." The inside message said, "Who cares? So what? Get a life."
Seriously...if you have nothing constructive to add, why waste your time responding with that?
I guess I just don't get why some of you hate Christians so much? I admit that there are those who try and force their religion upon others. I don't do that. If someone doesn't want to believe in what I do, like my husband, I don't push my views on him. However, he doesn't ridicule me for believing either.
It just seems like every time someone mentions something about religion the bashing and name calling, etc. starts. I'm beginning to think that maybe Christians should be placed on the hate crime list because it sure sounds like a lot of people hate us.
Can someone direct me to a site (sm)
that states the candidates' detailed respective platforms at a glance? I've watched most of the debates, as much as I can anyhow, but I've not been able glean and distinguish a lot of specifics.
I'm in FL and vote on Tuesday. Believe it or not, I am undecided. I liked Dennis, but he pulled out today and probably wouldn't have voted for him... won't go into why, but I'm sure I don't have to :-)
Dennis says to go Obama.... not sure if I want to. What I want is to have a Dem president. I like Edwards...
My demographic falls into Hilary's (female 45 and over lol).
Input appreciated.
that was a direct quote from
Ronald Reagan. How SHAMEFUL that you make fun of a dead man and one with Alzheimer's to boot. I am appalled at your lack of manners.
I believe this is a direct quote from big O
'The buck stops here.'
May I politely and respectfully direct you
back to God's word? Obviously a little more study and maturing will do you no harm.
You know, I hate hypocrisy. You want to direct me
back to God's Word?
When you can show me in God's Word where He approves of what Osambo approves, then we can talk.
Let's talk abortion, gay marriage, taxes, lying, cheating, subversion of government, indoctrination of preschoolers, redefining marriage, etc., a whole litany of what Osambo stands for and compare it to God Almighty's Word.
I warn you in advance. You are up against an adversary you do not want to tackle with because you are ill prepared to defend your comments and beliefs in the light of Scripture.
Ready to go for it, old girl?
Please direct me to the bible verse where it is written
about the right to bear arms. I missed this.
"They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms..."
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
Don't want to direct quote, can't stand to watch it again sm
The point being, cutting unnecessary procedures to seniors who "would not get any better anyway." I was so fuming angry that I would like everyone to hear it, but I for one could not stand watching it again. We are bailing out all these losers and he's going to deny our seniors. If he touches their benefits, I will march on Washington. Most of them paid their way all their lives and now they're being "cut" because he thinks it's frivalous as they "wouldn't get any better anyway." Who the blazes is he to make that decision???? Everyone deserves a choice of care, even Gramma and Grampa. I don't care how old they are!
Yeah, direct me to some homosexual "scientific"
site. Believe me, if that were the case, it would be well publicized, especially in the New York Times.
Don't you even know that the first "scientists" who "came out" with a gay gene were homosexuals? You don't think they have an agenda, my dear?
Nan-ism post was in direct reply/rebuttal to the two posts above it.
Surely you would agree that when accused of something we should have a chance for rebuttal? And that our rebuttal would surely include proof/evidence of why we took a particular stand? Would you deny the liberal board that right? SOME of us may be tolerant (or as Nan put it, "sissies") but some of us are very capable of speaking up for ourselves.
I have read Nan on this board (and others as well) for almost two years so I think I have a pretty fair grasp of her opinion and style of posting.
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com. As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum.
Hardly. Consorting with vs direct quote? Supports succession
The quote thing, whether SP or her husband is not the only example of the problems SP will be facing once the convention is over and the campaign goes into high gear. So far, this morning, you have managed to dodge every single effort to elicit a response to SP's OWN words. Dismiss the pastor, but not her own preaching on video. That just won't fade away no matter how much spin you are able to produce. These are land mines waiting for detonation.
With regard to the "got not use for America's damned institutions" and support of succession question, these issues will not play well for yer in terms of country first, in the context of ethics (can't practice what is preached) and when it comes to change versus same old stuff.
Before pronoucing this as a nonissue, suppose we give this a little time to play out in the political arena? Your guilt by association campaign has already run its course, and Obama managed to clench the nomination. In the light of the blaring negative publicity that will be issuing forth in the weeks to come with SP being the newest rock star on the block, how much political mileage do you really think that empty tank is going to give you?
The huge emphasis on tomorrow is in direct proportion to
Finally. A President we can all be PROUD of, instead of hide-your-head-in-a-bag EMBARRASSED.
Paying close attention. Sidestepping direct debate.
nm
Must also be hard for some people to give direct answers after making a statement like that.
nm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)...sm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today said the U.S. needs to follow up on Iranian offers of direct negotiations in order to resolve peacefully their dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
``I've asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify their diplomatic efforts to find a solution,'' Annan said at a briefing in Vienna. ``I think it's important that the United States comes to the table.''
The U.S. has let French, German and U.K. diplomats lead talks with Iran over the atomic dispute. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a meeting of the Developing Eight group of Islamic countries in Indonesia, said Iran is ready for direct talks and will comply with any UN decision on its atomic program based on international rules. A U.S. State Department spokesman in Vienna declined to comment.
The U.K. and France, backed by the U.S., have proposed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter to compel Iran to stop its nuclear work. A Chapter 7 resolution can invoke economic sanctions or military force against ``any threat to the peace'' of other countries. Iran says it's developing nuclear technology to generate power, while the U.S. and European countries accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons.
China and Russia, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, oppose a Chapter 7 resolution for Iran.
Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said he didn't have any information about an Agence France-Presse report that inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium in his country.
Uranium Particles
``I haven't been informed of any such findings,'' Aliasghar Soltanieh said in a telephone interview.
Particles of weapons-grade uranium came from sample swipes that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors took at the Lavizan-Shian site in Tehran, where a physics research center was dismantled and topsoil removed in 2004 after suspicions were raised about activities there, AFP said.
The IAEA reported to the Security Council on April 28 that inspectors took environmental samples at suspected nuclear sites in their most recent visit to Iran. The samples were to undergo testing for uranium particles at IAEA laboratories. IAEA spokespeople declined to comment.
The Iranians won't ``put everything on the table'' until the U.S. joins the European-led negotiations, Annan said. Negotiations should be around a ``comprehensive package'' including economic and regional security concerns, he said.
`Engaged in Dialogue'
Annan's call for direct talks between Iran and the U.S. followed those of Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA. ``Once we get to security issues, the U.S. should be engaged in the dialogue,'' ElBaradei said March 8.
The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet in London May 19 to consider new incentives for Iran to renounce its atomic program, AFP reported, citing unidentified diplomats. The permanent five are the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China.
The U.S. and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1979 after Islamic revolutionaries overthrew the government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and kept 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. |
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 12, 2006 10:33 EDT |
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
Here, here!!! It sure isn't that simple.
I remember when I used to be 18 and the world was black and white, and I thought I knew everything.
The older I got, the more gray I saw, and the less I knew.
I figure at this rate, in a few years, I'm not gonna know nuttin!!! LOL
I know exactly what you mean about screaming out at the TV, too!!! LOL. (I wonder, if I turned down the sound on the TV and opened the windows, whether I'd hear a bunch of other people screaming, too.)
I still don't know if I can bring myself to watch him. I just hope that every single soldier, whether seeing him personally at Fort Bragg or watching him on television somewhere, is able to return to their families safely and without injuries. I have a feeling it's going to be the soldiers who really attract my attention, and I always cry when I see them, knowing how they've been betrayed by their "commander in chief." Our military deserves much better than "chimpboy." (Laughing at and agreeing with that term.)
It isn't that simple. sm
When Chavez held Chomsky's book up at the UN, the headlines the next day said his book was selling out. Exactly who has the power here?
Yes, very simple.
Plainly speaking, why do you post in a political forum if your posts are not politically motivated?
Look, it is very simple....
Bush has not broken the law. Clinton did. He committed felony perjury. I don't care that he jumped Monica Lewinsky. Ihate it for her and I hate it for Hillary but that is nothing to impeach a man for. What he was impeached for is obstruction of justice and felony perjury. If Bush had done that you would be calling for his head on a pike. So let's not pretend you wouldn't...waste of time. That is the difference between you and me. Nixon, a Republican, broke the law. But he had at least one iota of integrity left and resigned. Clinton lied through is teeth, broke the law. If he had just said, yeah, I jumped Monica, sorry, no harm no foul, it would have gone away. But he chose not to. And even after the impeachment hearings proved him guilty, they all ADMITTED he was guilty, they did not (Congress) have the guts NOR the integrity to convict him, and I mean Dems AND Republicans. That is the difference, again, between you and me. If it is wrong, it is wrong, and the political party of the person makes no difference to me. If George Bush committed perjury on national TV I would be calling for his resignation as well. One would hope he would have the integrity to resign BEFORE he was impeached if he did so.
Bashing Clinton? Did I lie? I stated the truth, in response to someone posting, for no apparent reason, that Bush was a dumba$$ and an embarrassment. I countered and said that I felt like a morally bankrupt lying perjurer was just as embarrasing.
Why aren't you getting on the other poster for bashing Bush? Ohhhhhh I understand...okay to bash Bush, NOT okay to bash Clinton. What is that again about liberal tolerance, no bigotry, freedom of speech, we love everybody doctrine? How does that go?
Simple as that.
It's very simple
Obama is the #1 most liberal Senator, which you can check. He leaves Ted Kennedy and the rest in the dust by comparison. Many Democrats fear him. John McCain is pro-life, regardless what you think of him. I'm no cheerleader for McCain, but holy hanna would freeze over before I either voted for or sat idly by over something this serious, and I don't even have kids.
If you want to try to spin it so someone you think maybe, kinda could sorda be for this barbaric procedure, so ahead and either not vote or keep your head in the sand.
My guess is that you could track down this nurse if you really wanted. It's possible that she could no longer take it and then said "enough."
Like the old saying goes, if you don't vote, then don't complain.
When is enough enough?
Simple
Check his voting record. He voted with Bush 90% of the time on important issues that he VOTED on.
Simple...
He isn't a white flag waving wimp, he doesn't want to censor the media, he has experience, he can speak without needing a script, though he probably has some questionable associates, none are like the Obama associates, most military people respect him, and most importantly, he is not a Marxist or Socialist hiding in sheeps clothing in order to get everyone to follow him.
But still not simple enough
Many people refer to the SS system as a pyramid/Ponzi scheme for the very reason that the money paid to retirees now is not from the money they paid in, but rather the money current workers are paying in. In addition, your benefit payment is determined by what you earned, not what you paid into it. Wikepedia, while I'm not a big fan, does a good job of explaining this is in fairly simplistic terms. Theoretically at least, SS moneys cannot be used for anything but SS and even investment of it is limited to government-secured bonds.
And just to be clear, I don't want to take anyone's benefits or even end Social Security as we know it now. All I'm saying is that there is no money to fund an increase at this time and that at this moment in time, I would rather see each recipient's $30 SS increase go toward putting people to work so that next year, the increase can be funded without bankrupting the system further.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
Just that simple. No problemo, yea right!
Unfortunately, some of us do care that the prez would appoint a person to a position of that magnitude with a whopping NO EXPERIENCE. The leader of this organization has the ability and is required to make decisions that can save American lives, and many, and NO EXPERIENCE is just a no biggie to ya! Oh, OK.
Why I am relevant...very simple!
This is the liberal board and I am a liberal. You are not. You and your playmates enjoy degrading the liberal posters on this board. It gets really tiresome. You and your bully friends need to find a different group to pick on, as it obviously brings you very much perverted pleasure as you CANNOT seem to stop and you REFUSE to quit bashing the posters on this board even when asked to by the moderator multiple times.
It would be wonderful if it was that simple....
so let's just make it REAL simple. If you want on SCHIP, you have to pay an additional 3% off the top in your income taxes. Democrats in Congress want to expand it, 3% off the top of all their salaries from now on to fund it. That would probably take care of it for years to come. If not, then start down the registered Democrats' tax rolls and if they favor the program, 3% off the top of their salaries to pay for it. Don't force it on people who are not going to use it, who pay their own premiums, to pay for it. Let those who want to expand it fund it. Simple as that. Sounds fair to me.
yes, you sound simple.
nm
simple remedy
like someone posted earlier. Open. Close. Open. Close. Then you can read what other posters have to say because new posts are in blue.
Simple ? What does it say about a man's character when he
1. Dumps his crippled wife and mother of his children to have affair with wealthy heiress, then turns around to apply for marriage license before his divorce is final.
2. Calls his wife C-word.
3. While speaking at a biker's rally, volunteers his wife as a contestant in the "Miss Buffalo Chips" topless modeling contest, including it's legendary banana competition.
4. Tries to blame his wife for the Keating 5 scandal when it becomes public.
5. Screams at and thoroughly humiliates a young pub volunteer who set up his podium at a rally.
6. Jokes about ape rape and killing off Iranians with cigarettes and "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb."
7. Describes Arizona's elderly as "seizure world."
8. Throws temper tantrums, punctuated with the casual use of the F-word.
9. Calls fellow senators Aholes and sh-heads.
10. Ignites a culture war to get elected.
11. Questions the patriotism of his opponent and fails to renounce his supporters who question his faith, endlessly insinuate he lies about it and portray his wife as a militant with hidden agendas to stage a socialist/Black Power takeover of the country.
12. Embraces endorsement from a pastor who disparages Catholics, women, African Americans, Muslims and LGBT Americans, believes that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God because "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God," announced a "slave sale" at the church to raise funds and believes that "the coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty,"
13. Overlooks the Bush-Rove campaign strategy of unleashing a landslide of racist attacks on him, including calling his own daughter an illegitimate half-black love child, turns around in 2004 to campaign for W's second term, throughout it all supported 9 out of 10 of his disastrous policies that has brought the nation to it knees and then embraces Rove as senior campaign adviser in 2008.
14. Stood silently by while fellow war hero/veteran John Kerry was swift-boated without mercy.
Before any rebuttal ensues that would seek to deny, dodge and deflect, keep in mind that character assassination has been a benchmark of JM's campaign and of his supporters, so no whining allowed. Finally, this is legitimate inquiry, given that 90% is striving so diligently not to be 90% and has hawked character as his main qualification for presidential leadership.
A simple poll, sm
Who Would You Hire
You are The Boss... which team would you hire?
With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an ***unusually critical*** election year.
Let's look at the educational background of your two options:
McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
(verified through Anchorage Daily News adn.com 1981-1987. 5 schools in 6 years!
vs.
Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)
Now, which team are you going to "hire" ?
for simple god-fearin'
salt-of the-earth christian folk, you and your alter egos certainly disdain and/or hate many people.
Let's keep this simple this time around.
Here's a staight answer: Go here first and read the extensive fact check information and view detailed copies of the HAWAIIAN birth certificate which you can blow up and inspect if you like.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Naysayers will decry the source as biased. You can make up your own mind.
Mr Phillip Berg does not accept the authenticity of this valid birth certificate. We can go around and around about dual citizenship, age of mother, etc. Irrevalent. Certificate has been submitted and disputed. Bottom line. As in all legal actions heard in US courts, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the prosecution, not the defense. Berg now needs to prove not only that the BC is a forgery, but that Obama was born in Kenya. Good luck with that.
BTW, my husband is a foreign national. I was automatically given naturalized status from his country of origin by virtue of my marriage to him...did not even have to apply. Does not make me any less of a US citizen. Just got back from early voting. In terms of qualification to run for office, the dual citizenship arguments center on the Indonesian side of the assertions...another irrevalent point. What matters is whether or not the US recognizes dual citizenship. I am living proof that that argument is false. In fact, if you examine how many inconsistencies and irrevalant points have been raised during the course of this legal action and the contoversy that surrounds it, you may draw your own conclusions about the pattern that will emerge. Frivolous lawsuit.
See how simple the truth is. :-) nm
nm
Here is a simple equation
Sex = babies. Birth control = 99.9% chance of no babies. Don't want babies? Get on birth control. Don't want to take a chance of having a baby even on birth control? Don't have sex.
It's pretty simple
x
It isnt that simple. What you do is the same as
nm
It's simple. Because they're not.
x
|
