Excuse me, but he did meet with her
Posted By: Reality check on 2005-08-17
In Reply to: dumb statement - gt
I mean, if she's hated him for so long like she now claims then why didn't she tell that to his face the first time. Oh, the first time she was singing his praises. That's just blatantly odd. Most of us never get one appointment with the Pres., but this chick thinks she deserves a second one just because she's changed her wishy-washy mind because her son died in the military service he SIGNED UP FOR!! As John Stossel says, "give me a break!"
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
Nice to meet you too! Welcome...nm
pot...meet kettle....
Whether I'm **ready to meet him** is something
and it's none of your business.
Meet the Press at 6 pm EDT. Watch
for the answers to these allegations.
Apples meet oranges. (nm)
xx
Again, apples...meet oranges!
Unlike common garden-variety pedophiles, Priests are in positions of power within the church and take vows of celibacy. I am sure you are aware of the major upheaval in the Catholic Diocese because of the extensive number of cases where priests have sexually molested children. Exorbitant payouts have been made by the Catholic Diocese to the many children who are victims of Priests who are practicing pedophiles.
You do if you continue to meet and scheme with
@
Apples...meet oranges! (nm)
:p
Logic + Big Bad - Never the twain shall meet.
There you go trying to be all logical and realistic and everything.
Those who are in the 'ignorance is bliss' camp will never believe that radical Islam is anything to worry about. They will continue to blame 9/11 on America. They will continue to blame Bush for everything else. They will continue to praise their annoited one every time he jogs shirtless or plays with a puppy or eats a piece of pie.
They don't want to see his radical agenda, his blatant mistakes, or his real (and really dangerous) lack of leadership skills.
My folks used to raise hunting dogs. Once in awhile, you'd come up with a dog that simply couldn't learn. No matter how much time you put into training and coaching the poor little thing, its head could never seem to get in the game. They were lovable, attractive, but totally useless for the job they were meant to do.
I can't wait until we get another chance to find the pick of the litter, because when it comes to Obama, as my dad might say, "That dog can't hunt."
Glass house...meet stone!
Let's just communicate in cliches from now on!
He also had time to meet with Lady de Rothschild...sm
Oh yes. He urgently had to get to Washington to work on the financial crisis! Riiiiightt! -
>> You remember her, the lady who called blue collar voters "rednecks." McCain thought meeting a beautiful filthy rich member of royalty was more important than focusing on the economy today. Yet he now suddenly wants to cancel everything to focus on the economy. >>
It never stops....meet the moderator for the VP debate...
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/10/01/a_debate_moderator_in_the_tank_for_obama
Valerie Jarrett on Meet the Press-Did you know?
Born in IRAN. Worked for Richard Daley, was her mentor? She is co-chair of the Obama-Biden transistion team. She hired Michele in 1991.
She will not give any info on whom he may choose for his team. "Everything is a possibility." She is not ruling out anything. "Obama is selecting the best team for the job."
Rahm Emanual: She knew him for over 15 years. He embraces O's philosophy.
Will she take the Rich Daley model and implement it? Roundabout answer.
What are his flaws? "That's what is nice about being his friend. I can talk about his strengths, not his flaws."
Conservatives that I meet are common sense
nm
First, they were invited by O to meet with him "without their lawyers." SM
They never had to approach President Bush because he was tough on terrorists and they knew he would give them the justice those sailors deserved! The O administration are going to be timid with terrorism and terrorists. Closing Gitmo is the first step towards completely castrating America in the eyes of the world. He is weakening this country with every passing day of his administration.
He wants to make peace with terrorists and it simply will not happen. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
This is insanity! I don't understand how we as Americans can completely forget the loss of the lives of fellow citizens on 9/11? How do we simply disregard the lives those on the USS Cole gave with that terrorist attack? How can you people devalue these Americans and their families? What happened to the righteous outrage and the promise of justice for the dead?
All of sudden, O comes along with his pretty speeches and we are supposed hold hands with these people and forgive and forget?!?!?!?! We're supposed to close Gitmo because we are violating the rights terrorists with our mean interrogation tactics? What about the rights of the people who died, the families who lost loved ones? What about their rights?
If someone killed your child would you stop at nothing to find the truth and stop it from happening to someone else?
I am disgusted with you O lovers here! You care so little for the lives of your neighbors. You care so little for the fate of your Country, for your Constitution. You deserve what you get.
I love, too, that Joe Biden is going to meet with him next week.
Joe - white person with blue eyes. Can't wait to hear what this guy has to say to Joe!
John Murtha to appear on Meet the Press today!
I set my VCR! 
Well I work two jobs to make ends meet
and I will be very happy to get another stimulus check. I might take part of the check and go to Chili's, so I guess there is such a thing as a "free lunch" occasionally. So "don't look a gift horse in the mouth" as my grandmother used to say.
Meet The (White) Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon
I was reading on ABC.com and found this article in the comments section. I don't know much about the Huffington Post, so this may be taken with a grain of salt. I thought it was interesting though.
Meet The (White) Man Who Inspired Wright's Controversial Sermon
Sam Stein
The Huffington Post
March 21, 2008
Meet the man who inspired Reverend Jeremiah Wright's now famous tirade about America's foreign policy inciting the terrorist attacks of September 11.
His name is Ambassador Edward Peck. And he is a retired, white, career U.S. diplomat who served 32-years in the U.S. Foreign Service and was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under Jimmy Carter -- hardly the black-rage image with which Wright has been stigmatized.
In fact, when Wright took the pulpit to give his post-9/11 address -- which has since become boiled down to a five second sound bite about "America's chickens coming home to roost" -- he prefaced his remarks as a "faith footnote," an indication that he was deviating from his sermon.
"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday," Wright declared. "He was on Fox News. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true: America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Wright then went on to list more than a few U.S. foreign policy endeavors that, by the tone of his voice and manner of his expression, he viewed as more or less deplorable. This included, as has been demonstrated in the endless loop of clips from his sermon, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nuking "far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye."
"Violence begets violence," Wright said, "hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."
And then he concluded by putting the comments on Peck's shoulders: "A white ambassador said that yall, not a black militant, not a reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open and is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice... the ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them... let me stop my faith footnote right there."
Watch the video (the relevant material starts around the 3:00 mark):
So it seems that while Wright did believe American held some responsibility for 9/11, his views, which have been described as radically outside the political mainstream, were actually influenced by a career foreign policy official.
Who is Peck? The ambassador, who has offered controversial criticism of Israeli policy in the West Bank but also warned against the Iraq War, was lecturing on a cruise ship and was unavailable for comment. But officials at Peck's former organization, the Council for the National Interest, a non-profit group that advocates reducing Israel's influence on U.S. Middle East policy, offered descriptions of the man.
"Peck is very outspoken," said Eugene Bird, who now heads CNI. "He is also very good at making phrases that have a resonance with the American people. When he came off of that Fox News, a few days later he said they would never invite me back again."
And what, exactly, did Peck say in that Fox News interview that inspired Wright's words?
Here are some quotes from an appearance the Ambassador made on the network on October 11, 2001, which may or may not have been the segment Wright was referring to. On the show, Peck said he thought it was illogical to tie Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, and that while the then-Iraqi leader had "some very sound and logical reasons not to like [the United States]," he and Osama bin Laden had no other ties.
From there, Peck went on to ascribe motives for what prompted the 9/11 attacks. "Stopping the economic embargo and bombings of Iraq," he said, "things to which Osama bin Laden has alluded as the kinds of things he doesn't like. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the United States to be doing, from his perspective, all the terrible things that he sees us as having been doing, the same way Saddam Hussein feels. So from that perspective, they have a commonality of interests. But they also have a deeply divergent view of the role of Islam in government, which would be a problem."
Well now when he shows up on Meet The Press like that I'll start to worry!
x
T.Boone PIckens will be on Meet the Press tomorrow morning (nm)
x
Maybe they should use corn cobs for toilet paper to meet your fiscal requirements, eh?
nm
Bush won't meet with border officials despite evidence of Middle East infiltration through Mexico
Article Launched: 6/16/2006 12:00 AM
Bush declines to meet with border officials
Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.
In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.
Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.
The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport, Poe said. We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States.
Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.
The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them, Poe said. We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them.
In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.
Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.
The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs, said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time.
Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.
It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues, Glancey said. He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes.
The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.
Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.
We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late, Poe said. We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction.
Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.
The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security, Ramirez said. It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border.
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
That's the best excuse you have for the
nm
Please excuse me....(sm)
I saw scripture quoted and many references to God on here, so I assumed this must be the faith board. Funny how you didn't have a problem with that.
Excuse me?
Of course, we have the enigma of being home to some of the biggest crooks in the world (Bush, Cheney, Delay, Perry, etc.) but this is a beautiful state. Do not associate this beautiful state with the ugly criminals.
Excuse me, but I think YOU are the one with the
Whenver someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to jump on and insult them. You have a very nasty attitude and if you don't believe me, go down the board and read some of YOUR comments. You are the one who invites attacks by your nasty attitude and name calling.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Excuse me.
Most of us have 401Ks and are anything but "gleeful" that 50% of the value has been wiped out. Pointing out that Obama and his Treasury chief had a significant role in the enormous drop in the market since inauguration day has nothing to do with "glee". It's just simple fact.
And even the Dems wondered when Geithner was going to get off his bony a$$ and show us the "boy wonder" that he was said to be - and isn't. Meanwhile, the markets continued to tumble. There's no disputing any of this.
And the markets have a very, VERY long way to go before any of us get back what we've lost, so I would kindly suggest that you save any and ALL market-related comments for that moment. You should know, thought, that it might be a very long time coming.
It took decades for the market to recover what it lost in the Depression. Meanwhile, of course, there were "up days" and "down days" and "up months" and "down months"...and if you had been living then, it would have been extremely foolish for you to make anything at all out of the little rallies that occurred. Don't make the same mistake here or you'll only make yourself look foolish.
Excuse me again. A little boy wants a
boyfriend and that makes him gay? Little boys have need of friends, maybe not so much as little girls, but they do have need of male friends. Where was the little boy's father at that age?
excuse me but....
This midwesterner wants to know, did you just lump people who do vote Republican and those who read the Bible with people who are illiterate, who do not get past 6th grade and do marry at age 16???
They had been looking for an excuse....(sm)
to do that anyway....and this would have been it.
excuse me?
What do you mean get back to draft registration? Draft registration is still enforced..... illegally I might add. In this state,whenever a male registers for a drivers license, unknowing to him, he is automatically registered into the draft.....ILLEGAL! ILLEGAL!
That is called forced servitude. Have you forgotten Vietnam? All that forced servitude didn't do a d@mn thing but cause the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent BOYS!
No, your military will not be good! You want people sent to war that do NOT want to be there and do NOT believe in whatever war our government has gotten us into this time? Pleeeze! Where do you come up with all this crap! I would much rather have individuals that have signed into the military of their own free will...which is exactly how legally it is supposed to be. Forced servitude is illegal and I certainly don't want someone out there that doesn't want to be!!
|
