Excuse my presence long enough to correct you. SM
Posted By: Brunson on 2005-11-28
In Reply to: It will never go away. - American Woman
MT never said she was going to Iraq. I know how much you like to twist her words, but she never said that. Never. I can put up with a whole lot but outright lying is something I won't tolerate. Having said that, don't worry. I have no plans to come here again. I feel like I need a shower now.
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
Your mere presence on this board is an insult
Why don't you have any respect for the administrator of this board?
Go crawl back under your rock on the cantservative board. You bring nothing of value to this board and you're violating the administrator's repeated requests.
You'll be waiting a long, long time, then, cuz she's going to do
He died a long, long time ago! (If he was ever
Don't force your beliefs on others. It further devalues your faith in the eyes of others.
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it? Certainly if she didn't McCain would have. Why do you suppose THEY let it go? Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that. As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together. Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US. Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people. I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage. Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)
If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims. And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything. But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.
You may be correct that not all
However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget. The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us. Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens.
Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century. And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves. Why didn't we get involved? Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades. Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us.
And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance? Like Ghostbusters: Who ya gonna call? And we are expected to step up and take care of it.
I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered. Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.
That is correct....(sm)
and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will. This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation. That's not the case now. They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger). They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay. It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.
Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics. It's not like that's been kept a secret. Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.
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.
|
