How about being a bit more specific?
Posted By: SCHIPS is administered just like on 2009-01-14
In Reply to: I do. Leaves the door wide open for blatant health care fraud.. - liberals won't want to acknowledge that though.
Medicare and Medicaid, but what I want to know is why bother to post if you can't back yourself up with a logical argument, examples, sources for your info or something....ANYTHING? Otherwise, these sweeping generalized predictions of failure are just more sour grapes cat calls.
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
I should have been more specific
Maybe "reformed' would have been a better choice. I would not consider the Southern Baptists mainstream anymore. There have been many changes in that denomination pushing it much further right, and it has changed a lot over the years.
Can you be more specific?
What is your impression of his "drug policies?" What poor black man ever went to jail for getting some doctor to forge prescriptions for him? It sounds like you are talking about someone caught dealing for personal gain (money), not because they were addicted. Most dealers don't use. I would say 95% of them don't use and less than that are addicted. So could you be more specific on what you think John McCain had to do with putting poor black men in jail for forging prescriptions or using political clout to get someone to forge them for them. Because that is what Cindy McCain did. I am just trying to understand here.
Could you be a tad more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
I am interested in how Obama smoked the Constitution (what's left of it) and just when he stood by while the flag burned? While you are at it, please provide your sources. Otherwise, I can't reply to the rest of your post since I gave my Magic 8 ball to my neighbor's little sister when I was 11 and never replaced my Tarot cards after my college roommate stole them back in ྈ.
Can you be more specific, please?
1. Exactly which "19th century" principles should the Republicans abandon or "modernize"?
2. What evidence is there that "evangelicals" are "running the party", please?
Thank you - and I hope you'll provide something cogent for discussion instead of supporting your talking-points with more talking-points, so that we can have a good discussion about this.
Could you be more specific? Or maybe . . .
you're talking about the part where he talked about his father being Muslim and you misunderstood that he said it was his religion. It would be most helpful if you could post the exact portion of that speech, please. I pretty much listened to the whole thing, and I don't believe there was any part in there where he professed to be Muslum.
No,actually, they are more specific in their bias...
they are definitely more biased toward the clintons than democrats in general. But it is obviously that the mainstream media are all Obama adorers. That's why I take what is reported there with a grain of salt. And if I want to know ANYthing about conservatives Fox is my only choice.
I am sure no one here can deny with a straight face that the mainstream media has a left bias. lol.
not specific enough to draw
an inference from your post. Vague.
I was trying not to be gender specific
Care to be more specific?..(sm)
You might want to look up his voting record before you go there.
That is not what I said. I will have to search for the specific case...
in this case, the school had a rule banning any kind of religious symbol. A girl wore a cross to school and she was told to take it off and not wear it again. The same school tried to ban a Muslim student from wearing a head covering on the same basis. The ACLU took the school to court (actually I think it was settled out of court) on behalf of the Muslim student to be able to wear her head covering. They did this without being hired by the Muslim student. They did not argue on behalf of the Christian girl at the same time. The Muslim got to wear the head covering but the other girl still could not wear the cross. That is what I am talking about. I did not say that the ACLU sought to ban it. I am saying that they took on the cause of the Muslim girl, but not the Christian girl. And to me, that is discrimination.
I don't know it to be a fact, but I think if that Christian girl specifically asked the ACLU to support her case they would have refused. The last thing the ACLU wants to do is argue on behalf of a Christian to practice Christianity, even in something so small as wearing a cross to school.
And yes, there are many schools who ban religious symbols because of that gross misinterpretation of the first ammendment...the free exercise thereof totally left out, and the words separation of church and state supplied, which do not even exist in the constitution.
Where does it give a specific age in the Bible? nm
I would really like to see this scripture if you can refer me to it.
The question was specific to marijuana
but frankly, I do not care what anybody else consumes. That includes maryjane, and so my vote is yes.
Not necessarily any specific speech
that changed the trend in Europe, but what those countries see happening in the US the last 6 months.
For decades, whenever there was trouble anywhere in the world, a natural disaster, an epidemic, an out-of-control dictator, a genocide, they could always count on the US to send money (more than any other nation), materiel and personnel to bail them out and fix the problem. Now the rest of the world sees our government bankrupting itself (Obama's mouth writing checks his wallet can't cover) and they must realize that they're going to be pretty much on their own from here on out. They have to get ready to take care of themselves, and rein in their own out-of-control governments.
Nope, not any specific speech he gave, but I think everyone in the EU must see the handwriting on the wall. They are starting to take measures to protect themselves. About time. It's just ironic that we are not moving into the place they are abandoning.
The specific issue is irrelavant to my point
I was in no way arguing the whole abortion issue. Passionate feelings on both sides. I'm staying out of that. What I was trying to say is this bill is typical future-ammo stuff done by both sides. Here is an example: I am a legislator and draw up a bill (the idea of which was probably pushed on me by a lobbyist). I call it the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act. The bulk of the bill talks about harsh punishments for pedophiles, one strike and you're out, life in jail, that kind of thing. But there is a little clause in there that says that at trial the pedophile victims have to come face-to-face with the pedophile and describe in detail what happened to them and be subject to the pedophile's lawyer's cross examination. I know my opponents are all for harsh punishments but don't want to subject the victims to that kind of trauma in court, so I know they will vote no. Then when election time comes I can say my opponent voted against the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act and thus must want to let peophiles walk the street. I know this is not true, but I knew they would vote no due to wording that left out would have changed their vote.
It's all politics and it happens all the time.
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
George's Interview with her on this specific subject
I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html
Aacks Cyndiee - I guess I should have been more specific
in my message because I've read a lot of your posts and I agree with you most of the time.
There are however other people who don't watch a variety and only listen to the words of Olberman and Matthews and don't even listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh but put them down. Those are whom I was talking about.
You have always presented yourself very well versed in a lot of different topics and sometimes I wish I could articulate myself as well.
Say what?? I am talking about a specific person whom I personally think...sm
is over-the-top, an embarrasmment to the President in many ways because of her ultra-liberal stance, but I am not "bashing" any Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else in particular here except Ms. Pelosi herself, and I was trying put a teensy tiny bit of humor on the board, sorry I did not pass it by you first, and you make no sense here because I am generally Democratic, not that that has anything to do with this?????? Wow, I honestly gave you more credit for intelligence and fairness than that.
If there already exist specific written policies
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
Don't know which board or which specific Iranian you're referring to.
If you want me to read something, then post it, so I can, but please don't suggest that I go on some kind of wild goose chase on some other unnamed *board* for a post by some unnamed *Iranian.* I simply don't have that kind of time.
If you don't think the Iranian president is nuts, then blame the media and the administration because that's he way he's been portrayed by both, and his actions sure suggest that he is. Please post his redeeming qualities as you see them.
I posted this because I thought it was humorous, yet dead on accurate in the way a lot of Americans feel.
Get the picture? 
It is not the same at all, not picking on a specific group,race, or ethnicity....sm
as a matter of fact, some of my worst dictators are AMERICAN, they hate dictating and so act like little kids and speed talk, trip all over their words, slur everything together, mispronounce without correcting themselves, chew, burp, rattle papers and x-rays, etc., and then will correct several paragraps because they "forgot" this or that. At least foreign docs have an excuse, and many try to enuniciate clearly, spell things, out, etc. There is no comparison here...complaining about high percentage of difficult docs in your queue is not the same as drawing a "cartoon" that points directly in one direction, is poorly disguised, and is dispersed and disseminated in a national, hugely circulated newpaper.
yes, I asked you...but I asked you a specific question...
about the peace movement. I asked why you did not take your ideals to the real enemies of peace...and your answer was that you leave them to God but will instead preach to us not to fight them, even when they bring the fight to us. So be it.
We will agree to disagree.
I did not personally call you a whiner. As to who sent the military...I will say one thing. When you join the military, you take an oath. That oath has been posted here. You are under no illusions. You know that you may be called to war. It is an all voluntary army over there now. There is no draft. No one is over there because they were forced to go.
As to the people sending having never been...what has that got to do with anything?It was not just George Bush and Dick Cheney, Lurker. It was Congress. Many in Congress do have relatives, even sons and daughters, in Iraq. Have you read the resolution? It is very clear. They knew exactly what they were signing and exactly what it meant. I do not buy the lied to hooey. The Senate and House intelligence committees got the same briefings, or at least enough briefings to vote for the resolution. If they did not (in their own words) use due diligence before signing off on that resolution, whose fault is that? Certainly not Dick Cheney's or George Bush's.
Where were all these people when Clinton was calling for regime change? Because he was a Democrat they will follow him to war? You will see why I do not buy into their rhetoric.
And while I understand your big picture, as I have said over and over and you have never addressed, that will work only if the others in the big picture wish it to work. And if you honestly feel that God wishes that you lay down and let this country be overrun by terrorists, then so be it. I am not of the same mind.
The big difference is that I believe, as did Americans at the time of the Revolution, and that Americans did at the time of the Civil War...and that even some Americans did at the time of Viet Nam...some things are worth dying for. Most of our volunteer military feels the same.
When that is no longer the case, if you are successful in robbing that sense of patriotism from the generations to come without changing the minds of the enemies, where they feel that nothing is worth dying for...in my mind that will only bring death quicker, not keep it at bay, and the loss of the greatest nation on the face of this earth.
So, we agree to disagree.
God bless.
|
