For Taiga...sorry I did not answer your post about CBS and Politico...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-12-06
In Reply to:
as to I should let CBS know that the Iraq link in their article went to Politico....this is from the CBS news site:
From Our Partner:
soooooo I'm thinking CBS knows that the link went to Politico...ya think?? You falsely accused me, and you were wrong. I DID get my article from CBS.
Just keeping the record straight.
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 figures just further validate Taiga's post.
She said, "Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below." Your figures support that statement.
You mean reported by Politico
You couldn't possibly be quoting Fox as reliable, now could you???
Why don't you actually answer the post?
Mockery is great but what do you actually have to say about the point of Lurker's post? The article is right on. Would you defend Clinton to the death if he did any of those things? Of course not, you wouldn't have defended him if he single-handedly rescued 50 orphans from a burning building. So why are you so blind as to defend someone else who does those things?
your answer to the post was
vacuous. I was merely pointing that out. My post was not really to you, but for the benefit of the elite democrats on this board who enjoy seeing the silly posters in a smackdown left standing with their mouth in a big O.
The post was *so now you speak for God, gt* Her answer yup.
What is wrong with you? Time for new glasses????
Sorry, can't post an answer to your question
because I am not welcome to post here anymore
Do you have an answer for the inside post
nm
Why do you answer my post. then if you, as you state
'had nothing to do with these things...?'
I feel the need to answer on this board regarding this post. SM
You could not possibly have done an in depth research of the Protest Warriors. They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms, part of our Constitution, by the way. I know how deeply offended you must be by seeing pictures of those who own guns defying your agenda to take them away from them, despite what the Constitution says. They are pro-Israel and believe, as I do, in the Israeli state. They are Jewish. I am not. While doing your selective in-depth review of their web site, did you happen to view any of the videos. Two? Even one? I am thinking you probably didn't. Protest Warriors expose the left for what they have become. Shrill, violent apologists for terrorists. Anti-American shills for the very people who want us dead. If you viewed the videos, you would know that. But you don't want to know that I am sure. Please stop speaking about something you obviously know nothing about. I am the member you spoke about. I don't know anyone else who posts on the boards who has admitted to being a member.
Carla, I have to answer this ridiculous post. SM
I feel justified, since you make use of our board and post over there, though I have stayed off this board. In fact, most of us have. You are absolutely full of bull. First of all, Carla, the Salvation Army IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. They always have been. Second, prove to me what you are saying is true. I don't believe a word of it. Secondly, Carla, there is no connection between the Salvation Army, day care centers and the Republican Party. Your posts get more bizarre every single time.
I forgot to say, I will answer your post in more depth later.
I am most definitely a conservative, though. You are correct.
I will answer you just as soon as you address my orignal post
that question repeatedly and I think you and I both know why you have been running from it all day long.
Hi there Taiga! sm
I think both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are very intelligent and dynamic individuals. My only exception to Hillary was her yes vote regarding Iraq. As a woman I would be quite enthralled to see, for the first time in American history, a woman elected to the highest office in the nation. I'm old enough to remember when the political arena was strictly off limits to women, and if she gets elected this would be a historic first!!
Sheeeessshhhh, Taiga....
Do you like it better from Common Dreams? Pay special attention to the part out distancing himself from the antisemitic comments (McGovern).
Published on Saturday, June 18, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
John Conyers' Letter to the Washington Post
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor;
Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman;
Mr. Dana Milbank;
The Washington Post,
1150 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
In an inaccurate piece of reporting that typifies the article, Milbank implies that one of the obstacles the Members in the meeting have is that "only one" member has mentioned the Downing Street Minutes on the floor of either the House or Senate. This is not only incorrect but misleading. In fact, just yesterday, the Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid, mentioned it on the Senate floor. Senator Boxer talked at some length about it at the recent confirmation hearing for the Ambassador to Iraq. The House Democratic Leader, Nancy Pelosi, recently signed on to my letter, along with 121 other Democrats asking for answers about the memo. This information is not difficult to find either. For example, the Reid speech was the subject of an AP wire service report posted on the Washington Post website with the headline "Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight". Other similar mistakes, mischaracterizations and cheap shots are littered throughout the article.
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room and deriding the decor of the room. Milbank fails to share with his readers one essential fact: the reason the hearing was held in that room, an important piece of context. Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
In what can only be described as a deliberate effort to discredit the entire hearing, Milbank quotes one of the witnesses as making an anti-semitic assertion and further describes anti-semitic literature that was being handed out in the overflow room for the event. First, let me be clear: I consider myself to be friend and supporter of Israel and there were a number of other staunchly pro-Israel members who were in attendance at the hearing. I do not agree with, support, or condone any comments asserting Israeli control over U.S. policy, and I find any allegation that Israel is trying to dominate the world or had anything to do with the September 11 tragedy disgusting and offensive.
That said, to give such emphasis to 100 seconds of a 3 hour and five minute hearing that included the powerful and sad testimony (hardly mentioned by Milbank) of a woman who lost her son in the Iraq war and now feels lied to as a result of the Downing Street Minutes, is incredibly misleading. Many, many different pamphlets were being passed out at the overflow room, including pamphlets about getting out of the Iraq war and anti-Central American Free Trade Agreement, and it is puzzling why Milbank saw fit to only mention the one he did.
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
To administer his coup-de-grace, Milbank literally makes up another cheap shot that I "was having so much fun that [I] ignored aides' entreaties to end the session." This did not occur. None of my aides offered entreaties to end the session and I have no idea where Milbank gets that information. The hearing certainly ran longer than expected, but that was because so many Members of Congress persevered under very difficult circumstances to attend, and I thought - given that - the least I could do was allow them to say their piece. That is called courtesy, not "fun."
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
FYI, I googled it because I had heard that Conyers tried to distance himself after the antisemitic rant of McGovern. The Front Page thing came up. First time I have ever read Front Page, had no idea it was a hard right wing site. From now on I will look for the far left wing sites, how's that? The truth is the truth, doesn't matter what "page" it is posted on. GEEEZZZ.
All righty then, Taiga....
we can finally put this to rest. You are posting as Taiga, and you close the post with:
"And if all this has grown tiresome why do you continue to read my posts and respond?"
So, Teddy, tell me again how you do not post under different monikers. Can we please drop this whole liar thing now???
Yup, Taiga has come out of the closet
Where did I ever say I don't post under other monikers?
Taiga is the name I have used on the Medquist board for just about as long as this board has been in existence. I had always thought it wise to keep a political persona separate from a work persona but with all these accusations of fraud and "untruthfulness" I will no longer be using Teddy and will stick to Taiga from now on with any posting I do on the MTStars board.
Actually my original moniker on the political board, going back several years, even back to when both libs and cons were put together under one grouping was "Observer." When you began posting as "Observer" I switched to Teddy for obvious reasons. So in the end, there really are more than one of us elitist, snobbish jerks out there!!
Bottom line, Taiga....
did Murtha or did Murtha not say "The surge is working?" Yes, he did. Why did CBS choose not to print all the disclaimers? You got me, I don't know. As to Murtha adding the disclaimers, he probably suddenly remembered he is going to have to talk to Pelosi come Monday. I don't blame him, I would be backpedaling too. lol.
For the record, Teddy/Taiga....
the rest of the post said when it wasn't in response to what had been thrown at me first. Methinks you are very guilty of what you always accuse me of....cutting and pasting out of context. Teddy is taking over again.
It does not matter who reported it, Taiga...
there are facts within it that are not in dispute. Take the Tim Russert thing for example. He had the pictures of the 747 fuselage at Salman Pak. He showed it on his TV show. He showed it to Cheney. Only at that time, it was RUSSERT who was saying to CHENEY "Can you honestly sit there and tell me you don't think there is a 9-11 connection?" That is a fact, Taiga. It happened. I can see why no one else would report it. And as to timely? You have to report it when it happened. And it did happen. All I am saying is...basically you can't believe ANYONE because the left wing and the right wing have been on both sides, top and bottom of this issue. They have all flip-flopped on it. So WHO do you believe? I tend to believe the picture. I have seen the picture. They showed the picture on TV numerous times (the Salman Pak picture). And as the article stated, none of those facts are in dispute, even from the 9-11 commission, except one.
As to the 9-11 Commission...don't get me started. Did you actually watch any of it while it was happening? Talk about a stacked deck and questions asked to get certain answers. What a JOKE that was. That being said, there is a lot of information that came out that never made it to the "assessment" they put out. I was watching it during the time George Tenet testified. He says in his book he never said slam dunk, but he darn well did, I HEARD him. And that never made it into the "assessment" either. I purposely watched as much of the 9-11 hearings as I could, because I knew a lot was not going to make the "assessment." Independent they were not. That was exceedingly obvious from the questioning.
I do not understand your penchant for "timely." If something happened, it happened. That is what I mean about selective memory. You remember it if it is germane to your discussion, and you dismiss it as "the past" (like it never happened) and use "timely" as an excuse. I really don't get that. But, I don't have to...whatever floats yer boat.
Not even close Teddy/Taiga....
not EVEN close. lol.
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......
'well, she made a mistake.'
But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
Nicely done Taiga, nicely done :)
Point well made. I still don't see what Observer's rant had to do with the topic of the thread though.  Oh well. Can't make sense out of nonsense I guess.
I can answer that. The answer is no. nm
Answer
I was frequently banned on the old forum format, at least once a week during the weeks I was actually posting (I would then get disgusted and stay away for up to a month at a time). Have only been banned once since the new format so I would agree with your analysis.
Otherwise as to other folks banned, I remember lots and lots of complaints/comments but can offer no specifics. I also remember seeing a lot of interesting posts go poof! Used to really really be bad on the old religion board. But hopefully that's improved also.
I would have bet it all that you would answer this way.
I suppose you also believe that poverty causes crime.
You would not like my answer
so I won't even go there...
So the answer is yes,
Where did the soldier in the article lie?
I come from a family with multiple generations who served and continue to serve in the military, including Iraq, so spare me your little lecture about troop morale.
Have a lovely day.
This should answer...
at least one of your questions. I found this site: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidGenInfo/05_SCHIP%20Information.asp
Which states that in general, states can not permit the implementation of preexisting condition exclusions.
However, in states like South Carolina, where SCHIP is run through BCBS, they can implement preexisting condition exclusions, but only in so far as HIPAA rules allow - which I would assume (have not researched) is the 12 month waiting period.
As for your other question, I have a muscle disease (big time preexisting) and I can't even get health coverage privately. I have to struggle to work full time, even on the days I feel like my whole body is on fire, just to get group coverage. I had the 12 month preexisting condition thing, with which they are denying everything - saying that it's all related to the preexisting condition - and I pay $260 a month. I should also mention that this coverage is just for me - no children/spouse.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the answer....
and you have a good one as well.
Right...there is no answer.
You want it your way or no way and want to squelch any kind opposition. Sounds more like the the old USSR than the old USA. There's that Marxist thing again.
answer...
Again you prove my point. And MSNBC, CNN, and the others are any different, except their slant is to the left? You really think people don't notice that? lol.
Dear...drop the condescencion. Demographics can have many meanings other than the one you describe.
I was talking about news outlets. I know there are other places to get the conservative view...but I want to get both sides. I don't watch the commentators much on either side...hard to find a point in the bashing, and that means both sides. Mostly I just turn them off.
you just know everything, don't you...have an answer for everything
no matter what anyone says, you (meaning the posters on here who continually try to bully everyone into their own way of thinking) will defend her - even if she was caught in bed literally with John McCain you would have an answer for that.
I heard an interview by Jodie Foster where she stated she literally hates weakness of any kind, in any thing. She said if there was a bird fallen out of a nest (to that affect) on the sidewalk in front of her she would want to kick it. That is the majority of what I see on these boards. Nastiness, aggressiveness, women toward women. Do you think kindness is a weakness, because I know most men do. I personally do not want to be a man.
That is okay, Jesus has said the weak shall inherit the earth - I will follow Jesus' teachings before I would ever follow people who think killing over 1 million innocent people is a good thing and are blood-thirsty for even more lives and souls, a majority of which comes right from the pulpits. I think I read somewhere those people will suffer most at the end of the world - as for me I am making sure I am not one of them.
Might is right, bigger is better - you can have all of it and women can get as aggressive as they want but you will find out it was wrong when men do it and it is wrong for women to do it.
here's the answer
I, too, am in a quandry about this election, but I do know that opening up drilling for oil in Alaska is just a temporary solution. We are spending 10 billion ($$$) a month for the war in Iraq. Why are we there? For oil. Think how far that money would go towards developing new alternative energy sources in this country in order to free ourselves from our addiction to foreign oil. Even in Dubai, where they currently have plenty of oil, they are cuttng edge in the development of alternative energy sources. Even they realize the oil is not going to last forever!!. The powers that be in this country are so ignorant and greedy that they refuse to see that this is the ONLY SOLUTION to this madness!!! Wake up, people. This is a change that will garner HUGE improvements in all matters of economy and environment, and showing the rest of the world that the US can be an example in leading the way to making these changes!!!
That's really the best answer
Don't talk to them about it. Judging by this board, things can get very heated and nasty and really, has anyone changed their minds after reading any of this stuff? I think at this point most of us know who we are going to vote for and arguing is just pointless.
Answer. sm
I realize what trouble we are in. That is why it frightens me that this bimbo is literally 1 heartbeat away from the presidency.
See answer above. Aha. nm
nm
Answer
The same number of Democrats as Republicans.
Looking for a serious answer...
I am looking for a REAL answer to this. Not a snide remark from either dems or pubs.
Why are the presidents, leaders, etc of nations we aren't "friendly" with supporting Obama?
Just real answers please. I think we are up to our ears in sarcastic remarks on this board.
Thank you for the answer - nm
nm
Got my answer
It doesn't matter and our vote will be counted.
You don't have to answer
Is it PA. That is the way it is here, God is still very much present in our schools and out, and that is a good thing.
answer this
BLACK? that's what i thought... uh... no and let me make this perfectly clear... I AM NOT INSINUATING THAT AFRICAN AMERICANS WILL RIOT.
Your answer is in the
x
Yes, see your answer above. nm
x
answer
into poverty, but you don't want the money it takes to care for these children to come out of your pocket???? Am I on the mark?
Answer: First of all, I wouldnt be forcing anyone to have a baby born into poverty. That would be THEIR choice. Yes, it is a CHOICE to get pregnant or not. If you dont want to get pregnant you should use BIRTH CONTROL, given out FREE to anyone who cannot afford it. Of course, you cannot actually shove it down someone's throat and make them swallow it, I guess. Second, I already DO pay for these unwanted children. It is called WELFARE.
I guess this is another so-called way to sling mud at Obama. The rich republicans can't have it both ways. You either care for the unborn (welfare for their mothers) or you allow the mother the choice... Which is it? Answer: First, I am not slinging mud at Obama. I would be against abortion no matter who was running for office. Second, I am not a rich republican but a poor democrat. Sorry to dissappoint! Third, I believe that education about birth control and sex should be funded more, there should be more support out there for teens on how to NOT GET PREGNANT in the first place. Second, there are NO unwanted children in the world. If the natural mother did not want the child, there should be, and I am sure there are, government funded programs to allow these girls to adopt out their babies to the MILLIONS of people who want to adopt. Also, our government should help fund would be parents to be able to adopt w/o having to spend thousands of dollars to do it. So that way people in the good ole' USA could adopt w/o having to go to third world countries to do it. Another thing, the government should reevaluate their priorities in that it costs almost nothing to have an abortion and commit murder versus spending thousands on adoption. Go figure that one!
Not all abortions are a form of birth control, ya' know. I knew a very religious lady that aborted her child due to hydrocephalus. The child would been born deformed/a vegetable. This would have put this lady at high risk. She prayed about it and soon after aborted the child. She had to live with that.
That is the child that God gave her. I dont have all the answers about why that would be, but murder is still murder. So does that mean because the baby was deformed that he was less of a baby, a human life? Not our call to make. As far as her having to live with that, this is true. However, as a Christian, we also have to live with whoever we put into office. They represent us, our beliefs. We have to answer for who we give the power to. We are all responsible.
Not all situations are the same. Furthermore, you can't force your child to have a baby or to have an abortion. Either way, it's her body.
In the OT of the Bible God speaks about the children of Israel. They were worshipping an idol and offering their children to it. He spoke about innocent blood be shed and he was angered by it. He speaks quite clearly that it is murder. Also, if anyone supports abortion, I think they should go to the faith board and click on the post not for everyone and find the link in there to a video, copy and paste and watch what happens to an aborted fetus. At 19 weeks what a baby looks like and see what happens to them when the are killed. I mean, after all, if you can condone it, then you should be able to watch it. |
answer s/m
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being Roman Catholic. There is something wrong when priests or pastors start threatening their parishoners with he11 fire if they don't do as they say. They need to stick with God's business and leave politics out of it.
Answer
When I first answered Amanda her post said that anchor babies by virtue of being born on American soil are american citizens. I said I was fine with that. The reason I am fine with that is because the 14th Ammendment of the Constitution, section 1 says -
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I have not yet found anything in the Constitution that talks about the parents of the child needing to be US Citizens.
There is a lot of info out regarding this subject. I did find an article from the Seattle newspaper that the republican party is talking about no automatic citizenship for kids born to illegal immigrants. Here's that article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004450665_gop01m.html
Here's another article that I just found interesting. This one talks about the people who knowlingly break our laws just to have their kids born in America.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4435.html
All I say is that if it is in the Constitution we need to follow it. The Constituion and Bill of Rights were written with a purpose.
If an child is born in America to illegal parents, and the constitution says that baby is a US Citizen then that child should be allowed to run for President just like all the other people born in America. If the person is born outside of US soil then no they are not eligible.
Obey the Constitution and stop trying to change it (no, not you personally, that's just my motto).
Answer...(sm)
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/orderly-bankruptcy-option-auto-firms/story.aspx?guid=%7B86C06032-FA65-4B0A-AC3C-EBA0CA835D11%7D&siteid=yhoof
There are numerous other articles about the bankrupcy thing. Just Google *orderly bankrupcy.*
As far as the ethics bill (keeping in mind that I have not been able to read the actual bill yet--can't wait to get hold of that one) employers are not allowed to reprimand employees for exercising thier rights under this bill. So, while some might be able to fire people *at will* others can't.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28304676
As soon as I find the bill itself I'll post it or post a link.
I already know the answer to that one...
nm
Sometimes no answer is all the answer
rhetorical questions seem to throw them into a real tizzy, so I'm not expecting anything more insightful than "whichever way our winds blow."
|
![](http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2007/09/14/image3260970.gif")
