Do ya think lithium would help here? (only kidding, doesn't make sense, but this is Capitol Hill
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-02-13
In Reply to: Judd Gregg....(sm) - Just the big bad
nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Judd Gregg....(sm) - Just the big bad
- Do ya think lithium would help here? (only kidding, doesn't make sense, but this is Capitol Hill - Cyndiee
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
Huh?? This post doesn't even make sense
.
yeah, but could care less really doesn't make sense if you think about it -nm
x
Doesn't hide behind fakery? You are kidding, right?sm
I am surprised lightning has not struck the man for all his lying, never mind all the blood on his hands.
Well that does not make sense because
Her daughter is an adult and able to make her own decisions on what she wants for her life. Unless your going to lock her inside the house and accompany her every single place she goes to outside the home its impossible.
Here's some examples. I joined the military without asking my parents. Would you hold my parents responsible for that. My cousin grew up in strict Christian home (church 3 times a week, sang in chorus, taught in their sunday school. And she was 17 years old. She also got pregnant (and this was in a town of less than 10,000 people so her parents knew where she was at all the time. My aunt and uncle should not be held accountable for what their daughter does. A lot of kids are getting pregnant at earlier and earlier ages. There is a point where they have minds of their own and decide what it is they want to do with their lives and a lot of them want to have families. Gov. Palin's daughter evidently did too. She's an adult and do not need to tell or get permission from her parents on that.
As for Gov. Pailin dealing with her issues at home? There are no issues to deal with and she is doing just fine.
U don't make sense.
.
That does make sense...... thank you. sm
but I really want to know WHY the post was moved when it related to a topic that had been discussed here.
You make little sense
for someone claiming to have a triple digit IQ, or at least I think that's what you mean.
You miss my point altogether.
And then have to resort to outhouse jokes to boot. *sigh*
I was trying to figure out what you meant by calling me a potty mouth, and I just couldn't get it....must be my low IQ showing...or maybe it's yours.
Anyway, if you're referring to my comment about your initials, that's a term of endearment in my family, as well as a favorite movie candy from our youth. You probably don't remember them. Nothing else was meant or implied. Apologies, if you took it any other way.
Thank you Thank you! You make so much sense.
nm
Can't make sense of your respone.
No, I haven't got the picture. The picture is incomplete. So you suggest that anyone can look at the ISPs to see if a poster has more than one alias but then you say only the administrator can do it. You don't make sense. Is the administrator giving out ISP information to certain people, or just you, or no one? Please explain
Can't make sense of your post.
Are you saying that the conservatives believe only videos portray the truth? Then wouldn't the videotape of soldiers being interviewed for 60 MInutes also be the truth then?
Military Times is not a military newspaper and does not speak for servicemen? Who does it cater to primarily if not the military? Hairdressers?????? Medical transcriptionists???? Yes, it is privately owned and is a Gannett publication. While their survey may not be the most scientific thing ever done it still has merit. See below:
A poll for the Military Times newspapers, which questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members, gives us a much better sense. In case the myth that military personnel still widely support the president's policy hadn't been debunked enough, these results should do the trick.
Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all. [...]
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.
As for the escalation, only 38% of those surveyed believe more troops should be sent to Iraq, while 39% think there should be the same number or less than there are now. (The rest said they didn't know.)
Other plans out there make more sense
I've been researching other candidates and their plans.
On the Dem side - Kucinich has a plan for only one insurance provider to everyone. Sends all the bloodsucking insurance companies and their "preexisting conditions" and "not medically necessary" straight out of business. I kinda like that plan, as I used to do billing and it would sure cut through a ton of red tape for doctors, hospitals, their staff and the patients.
On the Rep side - Huckabee has a plan that does away with employers providing insurance. That's kind of scary, as "pooling" to get better insurance rates has always been the cheaper way to go.
But any plan I've seen doesn't worry me as much as Hillary's!
Anybody else who has heard of a candidate with a good plan, please chime in!
Let's see if we can make a little sense out of this mess....
You said:
The subject is not the name of the proceedings, the intent of the inquiry, whether or not you think he should or should not be impeached or any of the other distractions you have thrown up in this thread.
Answer: I know what Dennis Kucinich says. It is not new. I have heard it. I have heard it from any number of Democrats. All I am saying is if they think they have the evidence to impeach him, why the heck don't they do it?? That is not a distraction, it is a valid question. I don't care what they call it...all I said was, what they are doing now, even the chairman said was not an impeachment hearing. HE said it, I didn't, so why don't you accuse HIM of throwing up distractions and circling around, yada yada. Perhaps because when Democrat throws up distractions and circles around that is fine in your books??
You said: You circled around the subject when you thought you could gain some traction/advantage when trying to refute the accusations against Bush regarding lying about WMDs/yellowcake uranium intelligence, trying to make it appear that total exoneration would be a piece of cake..as if that were the only thing the democrats have on the table.
Answer: Geez, stop putting words in my mouth and assigning agendas to me I don't have. In going and doing some of the research you shouted at me to do, I found excerpts from the impeachment-trolling-factfinding-whatEVER the heck makes you happy to call it committee, I found where one of the lone Republicans on the committee made mention of a document recently declassified by the CIA that supposedly corroroborates (and I said supposedly because I don't know, because I haven't seen it, because it is part of the blacked out stuff) Bush's story about Niger and yellowcake and exposes Joe Wilson's story about the same. I did not say it myself, and I did not make it up. One of the committee members said it. Yes, I would be interested in it. I would be interested in any evidence Kucinich has other than speechifying about it. That is why I would be interested in a real impeachment trial, if that is what they want, so we can hear from ALL witnesses, see ALL the documents, and make our OWN decisions. I want more that Kucinich's word and Vincent Bugliosi's book. I want the CIA declassified document and the whole ball of wax. I want people under oath when they testify. Although, after Bill Clinton, even that is not always helpful since he chose to lie anyway, but still...not everyone is willing to perjure himself/herself. If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. LOL.
YOU SAID: The subject is the CONTENT of the hearings, otherwise known as the ISSUES. It makes no difference where you get them from. DK is the best when it comes to explaining the positions concisely. The prosecuting parties are all amazingly consistent in their identification of what their contentions are and how they back them up.
ANSWER: Well excuse me, but didn't I read the hearings were closed and blacked out? So how do you know what the content is??? As I said, I have heard what Kucinich says. It is not new with him. I just need more than his word for it.
YOU SAID: What you are refusing to do is examine the other side of the story (that is to say, the specifics as laid out by the democrats)...that side of the story that takes you out of that safe place where you always stay...
ANSWER: Look that that finger in the mirror, points right back at you. You are completely unwilling to entertain any thought that you, and these Democrats, might just be wrong. If I was terrified, as you state, or did not want to hear anything about Bush maybe being guilty, I would not be hawking for his impeachment. What you are doing is make me the enemy, classic attack mode. Turn that mode off and try to hear me this time: I DON'T KNOW if Bush lied. NOBODY does. I don't know if he did or he didn't, but I DO KNOW that I need more than Dennis Kucinich's word or interpretation of whatever evidence he has to believe that Bush lied. You are so consumed with hatred for the man and the so-called right wing that you are ready to move right to "you're guilty." You believe he is guilty and you have not heard any of the defense. You do not WANT to hear any of the defense. How, pray tell, is your attitude any different from the one you accuse me of? If this was a Democrat president instead of a republican president, would you be on here righteously indignant presupposing his guilt based on a Republican-dominated committee and a lawyer's book who was not even close to the events that took place? Of course you wouldn't! You would be here saying it was a railroad hatchet job. Don't bother denying it. It would ring pretty hollow.
YOU SAID: that support your arguments, making nice with those who agree with your ideas, the condescending "let me enlighten you" instructions (i.e., "read up on Marxism, but let me interpret it for you if you don't see it my way" passages) and the inevitable name-calling, innuendoes, half-truths, misprepresentations, statements taken out of context, jumping to far-fetched conclusions when making degrading statements about democrats, and the vitriol that issues forth in your endless Obama bashing.
ANSWER: Talk about throwing up a distraction. As to condescending, when that tone is used with me I respond in kind. If you don't like it, don't condescend to me.
As far as that other litany, it would apply to Dennis Kucinich and Vincent Bugliosi as well. If they have documentation and not opinion to back up what they are saying, then why (and please stop dodging this fundamentally important question as you have so artfully what, three times now?): If they have the evidence, all these "prosecutors," why don't they go to trial?? That is a simple question. Answer it, please. As I said, I would WELCOME a trial, where BOTH sides are heard, under oath, all the documents in evidence, and no opinion, just fact. I mean that. And if it was proven that Bush lied, that he cooked intelligence, abused executive privilege or whatever and they convict him he should be thrown out of office (which would be largely symbolic, doncha think, since he has what, about 3-4 months left? Sheesh). I have no problem with that. My question is why don't they do it?? And if they are unwilling to, why are you so incensed at me? It is not MY fault they won't impeach him.
You can sure see the splinter in my eye, but the timber in your own seems to escape you.
As to Obama bashing, I gave opinion on what are known facts. His association with Reverend Wright...his church's association with Louis Farrakhan...his church's black liberation theology...his radical way left pro abortion stance...all facts. There is plenty of McCain bashing going on too. I don't hear any righteous indignation on your part concerning McCain bashing. So it is okay to bash Republicans? I see.
YOU SAID: Obstruction is something the right-wingers have down to an art. You have mastered well.
Answer: Ahem. Seems like the Democrats are the obstructive ones. Last time I looked, Pelosi was a Democrat, and she is obstructing an impeachment. Take your rant to her where it might do some good. I would tell them if you think you have the goods, bring it on. Ms. Pelosi is obstructing that.
You said: At the same time, it is an extremely transparent and ineffective way to address issues that are vital to our country.
Answer: Issues vital to our country? Impeaching a president who only has 3 more months in office is vital to our country? For everyone to just assume dennis Kucinich and these prosecutors are telling the truth and the accused has no opportunity for defense? That sounds more like Russia than America.
You said: Clearly, you are unwilling to attempt to look at, let alone participate in any kind of real debate that excludes the tactics you use in these posts.
Answer: Debate involves both sides being willing to hear both sides. You are not willing to entertain the thought of Bush not being guilty. In fact, absolutely will not entertain it. I, on the other hand, said let's have the impeachment trial and get it all out in the open once and for all, both sides. That sounds like I am very willing to hear both sides. Unlike you.
YOU SAID: That would involve actually knowing what you are talking about...and the only way to get that is to peek inside the hearings and focus on the ISSUES under discussion. Somehow this seems to terrify you. No problem. There are plenty of places beyond this forum where really informed discourse is available.
Answer: Peeking inside hearings where only one side is presented is NOT debate, and it is NOT the way to find the truth. Anyone with a reasoning OPEN mind sees that. Impeachment would be televised. We would hear testimony first hand. We could see documents first hand. None of this behind the door whispering stuff. Get it ALL out in the open. THAT seems to terrify you, not me. Seems to terrify Democrats, otherwise Nancy Pelosi would not be blocking it. That is common sense.
As to knowing what I am talking about...you only know what Dennis Kucinich is talking about and what little leaks out of those closed hearings. One-sided without anything from the other side. That is decided UNdemocratic for someone who calls himself/herself a Democrat. I am just amazed that you cannot see that everything you accuse me of, you are in spades. LOL. Amazing.
You said: Go head. Stick your head in the sand, and keep it there, if that's what makes you happy. That's what a comfort zone is...a world where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know.
Answer: Sheesh. Dial it back a notch will ya. You just described yourself to a tee. "Your comfort zone where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know." You have basically been lecturing to me paragraph after paragraph that you know all there is to know, YOU know the truth, and I just refuse to see it. You say honest debate, yet you have no intention of entertaining any such thing. If you did, you would want to hear both sides in an open forum. You don't. You want a select committee comprised of majority partisan Democrats calling witnesses they know are going to support their aim without asking anyone who might refute any of it...come ON. Talk about transparent. Lynch mob mentality, hang him and ask questions later. All this drama over a man who is leaving office in 3 months. All this anger....
I will try to say this again, and maybe you can dial back your disdain and condescencion just long enough to hear it...I have stated emphatically and will state it again: I DON'T know all there is to know. I have heard stuff from both sides, both sides equally convinced of innocent and guilt, but neither able to prove it definitively. Which is why I said...impeach the man. If you feel like they have the goods, then you should be lobbying the Democratic leadership not to block impeachment, little obstructionists that they are. Let's get it ALL out in the open. Both sides. ALL of it. And if they are not willing to do it...then in my opinion, they should fold their tent and HUSH. And that is the difference between you and me...if this was a Democratic President I would be saying the same thing to a Republican committee...if you aren't going to do anything other than a political exercise, fold up your tents and HUSH.
Yes, I agree with that, this make sense...nm
nm
does this make sense? Surely,
the CIA knows the truth or Scotland Yard?
You and Myth make sense
I had forgotten to look at it that way, but on reflecting on it, that does make sense. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter when I was a young wild-child. I, too, have grown a bit more conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle. It also does make sense about the celebs. Much like back during the red scare when McCarthy had anyone with suspected communist sympathies blacklisted, the pendulum has swung to where anyone with a conservative viewpoint would probably have a hard time finding work.
Thanks for 'splaining, Lucy!
Your rants make absolutely no sense
none at all....
No, honestly it does not make grammatical sense
no it doesn't
Who says Obama doesn't have a good sense of humor?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_correspondents
At the bottom of this article, there's a link to watch the video - it's a hoot!!!!
Who says Obama doesn't have a good sense of humor?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_correspondents
At the bottom of this article, there's a link to watch the video - it's a hoot!!!!
Perhaps if you would try to make sense people could answer your questions. nm
x
Don't bother...... you'll never be able to make sense of ignorance
--
Lithium might help Gregg but
NM
doesn't make me look bad
duh
not it's not, but that doesn't make it right.
It is possible that change could go both ways.
Doesn't make it right. nm
x
It doesn't make it right but
obviously it shows that in that instance Obama agreed with Bush or he wouldn't have voted for it. Now Obama ridicules Bush for doing such a sucky job and saying we shouldn't repeat things that didn't work and now we have this stimulus package? He says Bush doubled the deficit and part of the deficit added was the bailout which Obama voted for. So shouldn't he be held accountable for adding to the deficit during Bush's term since he voted for it? These double standards by you O worshipers just kills me.
Doesn't make it right.......... sm
Have you ever noticed that certain behaviors have a stigma attached to them by society?
Have you never wondered why homosexuals stayed in the closet for the most part even 30 or 40 years ago?
Have you ever wondered why, if there is nothing whatsoever wrong with homosexuality, so many people choose to hide that part of their lives from their families and friends for fear of disapproval?
The answer to all of the above questions is because homosexual behavior is not natural and considered deviant behavior. Before you call me homophobic, let me tell you that I have 2 gay cousins, 1 on each side of my family, and I love them dearly but I do not approve of their sexual preference.
Still doesn't make it right that
they have no clue where the money is.
Capitol Police say they *screwed up* when arresting Sheehan
Sure they did. Some lowly rogue Capitol cop decided on his own to arrest Cindy Sheehan.
Just like the lowly rogue soldiers in Iraq who have been arrested and convicted and punished because one of them had the bright idea that they should torture prisoners. None of these people could possibly have gotten orders from the Oval Office, right? Of course not. Bush hates torture, right? LOL!
Sometimes the lies are so transparent and ridiculous, all I can do is laugh.
 MSNBC.com |
NBC: Charges against Sheehan to be dropped
Antiwar mom removed from State of the Union for wearing protest shirt
NBC News and news services
Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Charges against antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested after an incident involving a T-shirt she wore to the State of the Union address, will be dropped, officials told NBC News Wednesday.
U.S. Capitol Police took Sheehan away in handcuffs and charged her with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, when she showed up to President Bush’s address Tuesday night wearing a shirt that read, “2245 Dead. How many more?” — a reference to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.
But Capitol Police will ask the U.S. attorney's office to drop the charges, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported Wednesday.
“We screwed up,” a top Capitol Police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws.
Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq, was not the only one ejected from the House gallery. The wife of a powerful Republican congressman was also asked to leave, but she was not arrested.
Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida — chairman of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee — was removed from the gallery because she was wearing a T-shirt that read, “Support the Troops — Defending Our Freedom.”
The Capitol Police official said officers never should have approached Young.
Criticism from Rep. Young
Holding up the shirt his wife wore, Rep. Young said on the House floor Wednesday morning: “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support our troops, she was kicked out of this gallery.”
“Shame, shame,” he scolded.
Beverly Young was sitting about six rows from first lady Laura Bush and was asked to leave. She argued with police in the hallway outside the House chamber.
“They said I was protesting,” she told the St. Petersburg Times. “I said, ‘Read my shirt, it is not a protest.’ They said, ‘We consider that a protest.’ I said, ‘Then you are an idiot.”’
They told her she was being treated the same as Sheehan, who was ejected before the speech. Sheehan wrote in her blog Wednesday that she intended to file a First Amendment lawsuit.
She did not issue an immediate response to the charges being dropped.
“I don’t want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government,” Sheehan wrote in her blog.
Sheehan was invited as a guest of Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. She later was released on her own recognizance.
Told she could not wear shirt?
Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said police warned Sheehan that such displays were not allowed in the House chamber, but Sheehan did not respond, she said.
Sheehan, however, told a different story in her blog.
“I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress,” Sheehan wrote. “I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things, ... I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later.”
She said she felt uncomfortable about attending the speech.
“I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket,” Sheehan wrote. “I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her.”
She said she had one arm out of her coat when an officer yelled, “Protester.”
“He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs,” she wrote in her blog. She was then cuffed and driven to police headquarters a few blocks away.
Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.
The Associated Press and NBC News contributed to this report.
![src=http://c.msn.com/c.gif?NC=1255&NA=1154&PS=69718&PI=7329&DI=305&TP=http%3a%2f%2fmsnbc.msn.com%2fid%2f11120353%2f]()
![src=http://msnbcom.112.2o7.net/b/ss/msnbcom/1/G.9-Pd-R/s83197986163419?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=1/1/2006%2020%3A0%3A8%203%20300&pageName=Story%7CU.S.%20News%7CPolitics%7C11120353%7CNBC%3A%20Charges%20against%20Sheehan%20to%20be%20dropped%7C&g=http%3A//msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/print/1/displaymode/1098/&ch=U.S.%20News&c4=U.S.%20News&c5=Politics&c7=handheld&c8=N&c15=11120353&c16=Story&c18=17&pid=Story%7CU.S.%20News%7CPolitics%7C11120353%7CNBC%3A%20Charges%20against%20Sheehan%20to%20be%20dropped%7C&pidt=1&oid=javascript%3AprintThis%28%2711120353%27%29&ot=A&oi=576&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=644&bh=484&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]]()
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/
That's nice but it doesn't make any
Bush has promised to veto the bill, so this country will be stuck in backwards mode until 2008 when we have a competent president.
Bush doesn't care what 75% of Americans want. He only caters to one narrow unreasonable religious group. He doesn't care that a cure might be on the horizon that might save countless children from juvenile diabetes or cure Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or who knows what else if it can't be researched.
All he wants to do is send our kids to die in Iraq. He's a disgrace. 
Doesn't make it true.
For everyone of these, I can produce two in opposition.
It appears now that the surge is working, eight months afterward; however, because conditions are slowing getting better in Iraq is not because of the surge. It is a combination of things, the first and foremost that the United States is finally coming to the realization that the only way to get the country of Iraq back on its feet is to ALLOW the Iraqi's to take control in their OWN way and not under the strict edicts of the United States. Now that we are loosening the noose, things are coming together.
To solidify my point:
"All of Petraeus’ work on the subject of counterinsurgency, however, along with the things he himself was saying somewhat subtly, all pointed toward the conclusion that peace in Iraq required not a “surge” but political reconciliation between a sufficiently large set of Iraqi factions as to represent the overwhelming majority of Iraqis. The “surge” was, in some vague way, supposed to facilitate that, which it hasn’t, it was never a realistic method of securing the country on its own, which is why it hasn’t worked.
The “surge” was always part of the puzzle; it wasn’t supposed to solve everything by itself. War remains, as it has always been, a means of forcing people to make political concessions that they would not otherwise make voluntarily. Classic counterinsurgency doctrine requires securing large population centers, killing insurgents, and applying political pressure. All those things, and more, are happening."
and furthermore:
"Despite recent trends, 2007 is the deadliest year for U.S. forces since the war began in March 2003. Even on a day like Monday, considered a relatively quiet one with no reported coalition casualties, at least 33 Iraqis were killed and an equal number wounded in violence around the country.
While declining, the fighting in Iraq has just returned to levels seen before the February 2006 bombing of the Shi’ite shrine in Samarra by extremists — an attack that sent violence between Sunnis and Shi’ites soaring. And ordinary Iraqis say the streets are full of danger, even with the improvement in security." This little tidbit was just written 2 weeks ago by OTB.
This supposed truth is only the truth as HE sees it. Not necessary the TRUTH at all, and considering that he probably was only allowed to visit certain sections of Baghdad doesn't lend much validity to his statement.
It doesn't make any difference. sm
You can not buy gas for a week and it won't make a difference. They will just raise the prices even more to make up the difference. Neal Boortz had a great explanation on how this works on his show the other night. Big oil just bides it's time and then raises the cost again after people get tired of being stuck at home or not going to the movies, or out to eat, etc. That is his explanation in a nutshell.
Doesn't make him my leader.....
__
Doesn't make a difference
Whether they are men or women. They all voted in a pay raise for themselves (both crats and reps) while the rest of the country is suffering, so don't just point out Sarah Palin.
Wow. Doesn't this post make you want
your chair and rush down to the nearest GOP headquarters and sign up as a life-long loyalist? Hope there's a box on the form I can check to become affiliated with the furthest right fringe that they have to offer. What class. What style. What charisma. Oh, please, can I be just like you? I'm getting really tired of that sugary sweet Kool-Aid I've been guzzling and can hardly wait to take a healthy slug of that bitter acid foaming out of your mouth. Thanks for sharing.
It doesn't make a difference...
guess that's what makes it all so sad. I think too many people thought of Obama as the man that was going to make things right and he's just making things worse - even sadder.
Being a POW doesn't make you qualified to run a country
Especially when you don't know the economy, have no ideas (or even care to) help the Americans through the hard times, and especially when you plan to stay at war for the next 100 years. I could go on and on but it would be too long.
Just 'cause he denies it doesn't it make it
!!
I just hope Obama doesn't make use of them...
for political dissidents. You can't tell me that Congress, including Mr. Obama, do not know they exist. Come on now.
Then don't come here if it doesn't make you feel "proud"
If coming to this board and listening to people who voice their opinions and concerns of what is happening in the country is so upsetting to you and takes away from you feeling "proud", then I would say not to come here. We listen to the concerns on this board and everyone that trashed McCain and Palin (and still do), and anyone else who is a not a liberal and voices their opinions - they get trashed, but we listen to it.
Then we give our concerns about Obama and the incoming administration. If it's that upsetting to you to know that not everyone in this country is in love with Obama and worships the ground he walks on then maybe you should find some boards somewhere where most all of the posts are just the jubilation, rapture, and ecstasy everyone has because we've elected the first black man to the white house no matter whether or not he knows what he's doing or meets the qualifications. Oh wait - that is this board.
You know what I get sick of seeing. The utter disrepsect that people give to those that don't join in the rapture. We are attacked and called names for it, but the moment we respond back we are criticized. Even the people who said they voted for Obama but are having some concerns about the people's he's picking for cabinet members they are attacked too because they are not dancing in circles drinking the Kool-Aid chanting Obama's name over and over and over.
Everyone has different opinions. Everyone has different concerns. Everyone has the right to voice those opinions.
I wouldn't worry too much, however, the way America is headed is that nobody will ever be able to say or write the truth about Obama because already in Missouri the "thought police" are monitoring websites of who's writing what about Obama and if it is the truth or not gushing with love they are being reported. They are also trying to silence the conservative radio shows so that it will only be liberal viewpoint that everyone hears. So soon all you'll hear is happy happy joy joy about Obama and those who don't agree with thim will be on their way to one of the hundreds of re-education camps in this country.
Of interesting note, Obama won McCain by 9,522,111. Out of 129,391,683 people who voted, that's not very much. Less than 8%. And there are over 303,824,640 people in America so that means 174,432,957 people in America did not vote (that's more than those who did vote). According to statistics only 25% of the country's population are children under 20 years old, so that still leaves over 9,847,679 people that didn't vote. So to go around acting as though every single person living in America voted for Obama gets a bit old. I'm also thankful that there are enough American's in the country to know right from wrong and a lot of them know their rights as Americans and they still believe in the constitution and what our founding fathers fought for (definitely NOT what is happening today) and they are not joining in the newest cult to come to this country.
So if coming to this board just depeletes all your "proudness" I'd find somewhere else to go.
Doesn't make you a racist, just misinformed.
I grew up in the 60s when racial tensions were extremely high, and we knew what was racist and what was not racist, and this cartoon is definitely racist. You really don't want to go back to that horrible time and place, so if we can inform others to show just a little bit of compassion and/or respect to others, it will go a long way to soothe the underlying tensions that still exist.
I stick by my statement - doesn't make it right
And the lady who set fire to him is just as bad as he is.
Doesn't it kind of make you laugh and...
...shake your head when they accuse you of being somebody else? They accused me and "gourdpainter" (sp?) of being the same person in the past, and all I could do was laugh and wonder how their thought processes work. 
that doesn't make him white...my son is half black
He's not a white man, I don't know why you would even bring that into the conversation.
Not agreeing with your almight edicts doesn't make
brainwashed right-wing robots.
Voting for McCain doesn't make you a republican
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=2805&name=Bush-Family-Bankrupt-Companies
Did anyone notice the voice doesn't match the video? How does that make her (sm)
a witch hunter? So ridiculous. The voice didn't even match the minister who was praying with her.
Commentary: Voting against Obama doesn't make you a racist...sm
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/beck.issues/index.html
Going to a Muslim school doesn't make him Muslim
And point of fact is that it was 2 years in Catholic school, 2 years in a "Muslim" school. He was living in Indonesia. He had to attend school in Indonesia. His mother, doing what mothers do, wanted him to get the best education available. She tried 2 years at the Catholic school and then determined at that point that the quality of education provided was better at the Muslim school. There was some teaching of Muslim philosophy but this more emphasis was paid to standard educational requirements, what's referred to as the 3 Rs (Reading, wRiting, 'Rithmetic).
Attending a school with some affiliation does not automatically confer the same status on you. Jews can go to Catholics without converting. Whites can go to those schools thought of as primary African-American without becoming black. Sometimes, folks, a school is just a school, and 2 years in an extremely secular school at the ages of 8-10 does not turn him into a radical Muslim.
Frankly, his education and family life seems like it makes him almost the perfect president to be able to understand and empathize with a much wider range of American citizens than any president before him.
fool on the hill
We are at war, in the middle of a war so we cant talk badly about our president or administration..Oh please. I will talk and shout out how awful this little jerk is in the WH and anyone else who sees the TRUTH, please speak out too. To be quiet about this warmonger and what he is doing to America is a major crime. No, I wont be quiet..I will scream out what this chickenhawk has done to America. You can sit meekly by and take whatever the fool on the hill shoves your way.
What in the sam hill are you talking about?
Get the groove on sister. Let's get some real talking going here.
|
