I agree with you too - okay I'm soooooo confused
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-09-15
In Reply to: Don't agree. His economic plan will... - sam
I'm way too confused in all this.
I do know since the beginning of time the democrats have always spent and taxed citizens (middle income to help pay for their programs. Bill Clinton was doing it, Jimmy Carter did it. They don't know when to stop spending. He used to say he considered middle income 200K, now he says middle income is up to 250K. I don't trust a democratic present to give us a straight story. This can be a very confusing time. Maybe I just won't even vote. Then at least I won't be blamed if the wrong one gets put in there.
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
He is soooooo right, the less government does,
http://www.eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=3304&title=Ron_Paul_on_Fox_Business_Oct__3rd__2008__Pre_Bailout_
Soooooo true!!!! nm
nm
We'll see how it plays out....like I said and like I have seen soooooo many of you post regarding
I am not letting any of you naysayers rain on my parade!
Ok - still confused
I'm reading all these posts to the original poster and I am just lost. I have no idea what all this means and don't know what it has to do with politics. Guess I am just dense tonight.
You got me confused with sam. I really
nm
I'm a little confused.
I watched Bush's blurb last night. Can someone clearly explain to me how what he is proposing will get us out of trouble? I'm being sincere, I just don't get it.
I'm a little confused...
what happened? I'm sorry I haven't been watching the news lately... :(
I'm confused . . .
You respond to one divisive post with your own divisive post, but you agree with me? I am an independent who has actually voted for Republican, Democrat and third-party candidates, so I am certainly not closed minded. I am just bored reading the same arguments over and over and over.
ok, am way too confused
too many posts, too late in the day, not enough caffeine, think I better take a break from this. My apologies if I offended you. I just have very strong beliefs and I get defensive when people bash me and I defend myself and they turn around and say its all my fault.
Anyway...again apologies if I offended you and many apologies if I've been replying to the wrong person.
I'm Confused SM
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight . . .
* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're
'exotic, different.'
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American
story.
* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become
the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter
registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12
years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State
Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become
chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee,
spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a
state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving
on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's
Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city
council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000
people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000
people, then you're qualified to become the country's second
highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while
raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches,
you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left
your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're
a Christian.
* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education,
including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the
fiber of society. |
|
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with
no other option in sex education in your state's school system
while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very
responsible.
* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position
in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner
city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's
values don't represent America 's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one
DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to
vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated
the secession of Alaska from the USA , your family is extremely
admirable.
OK, much clearer now. |
|
I think you are a little confused sm
It's not about giving part of my money to you, it's about fairness in taxes. Right now, GW Bush gives a great deep tax cut to people making over $250K and he is just going to take that tax break and apply it to those making less and who are now struggling with their salaries trying to pay for gas etc. A lot of the time, the rich aren't even asking for the greater tax break... GW just applied it across the board. They will still be rich but the middle class needs a break. This isn't about welfare. It's about working families like you and your husband. You will not get a handout. You will still pay taxes but you will not pay a inordinate amount that is out of proportion to your income. That's all it is.
I'm confused...
in your original post you were talking about minimum wage earners and then you say you paid them very well - which is it? Not trying to argue, just trying to understand who thinks minimum wage is paying very well?
I'm confused. Her? Him? Who?
nm
I think you are confused.
You contradict yourself in your own post.
you must be confused
My previous post said PEOPLE were to blame for not living within their means. Nobody forced them to take out loans they knew darn good and well they would never be able to pay back.
It really burns me that I am going to pay for THEIR stupidity. I live within my means. Everyone else should too.
I seriously don't think you mean to say that they were forced into taking these loans out. If that's what you meant, you must be delusional.
I am NOT confused.
I did not say they were forced to take them out--I said that lenders were forced to give them out. Had that not happened, this mess would not have happened. It does NOT just affect the people who live outside their means, it affects the whole economy; therefore, I hold those responsible for forcing the loans to be given more responsible than those greedy enough to take them! If you see it differently, perhaps you are delusional.
you are confused
America is very unusual in that if you are born here you are a citizen. Most other countries are NOT like that! You are a citizen of the country of your parents! Please look this UP!
Oh, I am NOT confused, but I would be if I
nm
I think you have me confused
with another poster. I have 3 kids, all teens. My husband and I both work 2 jobs. The last vacation we had that was more than a day's drive from our home ---- oh yeah, never. We live in the midwest and have never even seen the ocean.
I disagree about the minimum wage hike being the answer. The problem is the huge percentage of the population that has zero work ethic. Even if you raised the minimum wage, those with the entitlement personality would still only work to get enough for their immediate gratification. They won't do the math and see that if they stayed in this higher-minimum-wage job for an entire year they would finally get ahead of the game. They only want to get ahead of the game on somebody else's blood, sweat and tears. I don't feel sorry for them if they are not willing to work.
It's not fair for the young teen who is busting his butt at McDonald's or some other minimum wage job to sock it away for college or his first car to get let go because the minimum wage was raised.
I'm glad you want to help people - I do too. It's just not the right solution to the problem. Dear.
I don't think they are the ones who are confused, here.
You must have me confused with
someone else. I have never quoted the bible.
You must have me confused with
someone else. I have never quoted the bible. 135? Really? I would think that'd help you keep posters and their messages straight.
You must have me confused with
someone else. I have never quoted the bible. 135? Really? I would think that'd help you keep other posters and their messages straight.
I'm doing okay, just a little confused (LOL
I'm starting to get some rather worrisome, more classic symptoms of my cystic fibrosis, so I might not be around as much for a while again.)
As far as JTBB, I hope she's okay, but I doubt that anything could hold her back. Same with "m". And I'm glad. You and those two are my favorites on this board, and if there weren't polite, decent, "follow the Golden Rule" type on this board, I'd have no reason at all to visit here.
Don't know if you'll be seeing me in the next few days. If not, I hope you have a great week. You're definitely a class act. 
By the way, you're welcome, but the way I see it, it wasn't even a compliment, it was merely the truth!
Poor kid, he is confused, isn't he?
This is exactly what I mean when I say America is very confused.nm
z
These people are obviously confused
The U.S. is not Israel. Shouldn't they should be demonstrating in Jerusalem. 
I'm confused. Who do you hate more...
nm
I'm confused - can somebody explain
Okay, I don't have a fancy law degree. Did sit on jury duty for a week some years ago, but this I don't understand. I thought there was something about rumors and gossip was not a legal basis in a case, but today I heard this (on a more liberal station), that there is an investigation into what Governor Sarah Palin did to her ex-brother-in-law, and the lawyers on Obama's side are having people testify under oath to what they've heard as rumor and gossip and it will be included in the investigation.
Can they do that? Like I say I'm not a lawyer, but I always thought rumors and gossip were not allowed in testimonies.
Hey, i think you have me confused with that other poster!
I was being sarcastic about conforming. I see what Bush has gotten us. I'm on your side!
sorry, my little brain got confused by all the
If my grandma, mother, etc died today, I wouldn't say any of those things because I would be with my family grieving the loss. Obviously, Obama doesn't care that much or he'd be there with his family.
You are a bit confused, dear.
I also bike, so spare me your suggestions, especially since it is quite evident that it has not really done a whole lot in the way of relieving your frustrations. You might want to bump it up. Perhaps you could try doubling your current schedule. It might start to make a dent in all that resentment you exude.
I'm not the sm who posted the article or ditzil (both of whose posts contained nothing but upbeat sentiment) which YOU decided to take issue with (and in your next breath are now trying to promote "positivity.") When you got all snippy, ditzil called you on it in no uncertain terms, with which I agree with because she described the tone of your post most accurately as sounding profoundly miserable and alienated. I simply chimed in to lend her my support and did not start anything here. In fact, you might want to look at the thread and notice it did not turn south until you showed up.
Your third paragraph has confirmed what I originally suspected. You sounded rather disingenuous in your other post when trying to claim to be supportive of Obama "for all the right reasons." My post to you has nothing to do with "whirling," little to do with your opinion and everything to do with your stinky attitude, so your attempts to belittle "crats" is a nonsequiter.
Your fixation on the chili dogs and cheesey fries perhaps can be explained by some unrequited calorie envy you harbor as you maintain that svelte 118-pound perfect bod. It certainly would explain why you are in such a bad mood. In any case, the point of the OP, ditzil and some of the posts that appear below was to talk about the difference between O and W, i.e., getting down with the public versus keeping above the fray of the hoi-polloi and the relief they feel to have a Prez who is more down-to-earth.
Guess you are just one of those folks who would rather gnash your teeth and regurgitate a whole bunch of ugly than to try to follow a thread and understand what the posters are really trying to say.
You are a bit confused, dear.
I also bike, so spare me your suggestions, especially since it is quite evident that it has not really done a whole lot in the way of relieving your frustrations. You might want to bump it up. Perhaps you could try doubling your current schedule. It might start to make a dent in all that resentment you exude.
I'm not the sm who posted the article or ditzil (both of whose posts contained nothing but upbeat sentiment) which YOU decided to take issue with (and in your next breath are now trying to promote "positivity.") When you got all snippy, ditzil called you on it in no uncertain terms, with which I agree with because she described the tone of your post most accurately as sounding profoundly miserable and alienated. I simply chimed in to lend her my support and did not start anything here. In fact, you might want to look at the thread and notice it did not turn south until you showed up.
Your third paragraph has confirmed what I originally suspected. You sounded rather disingenuous in your other post when trying to claim to be supportive of Obama "for all the right reasons." My post to you has nothing to do with "whirling," little to do with your opinion and everything to do with your stinky attitude, so your attempts to belittle "crats" is a nonsequiter.
Your fixation on the chili dogs and cheesey fries perhaps can be explained by some unrequited calorie envy you harbor as you maintain that svelte 118-pound perfect bod. It certainly would explain why you are in such a bad mood. In any case, the point of the OP, ditzil and some of the posts that appear below was to talk about the difference between O and W, i.e., getting down with the public versus keeping above the fray of the hoi-polloi and the relief they feel to have a Prez who is more down-to-earth.
Guess you are just one of those folks who would rather gnash your teeth and regurgitate a whole bunch of ugly than to try to follow a thread and understand what the posters are really trying to say.
sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to GW
regarding historic precident?
Funny you should quote BJ. That was my argument against the Patriot Act.
No she is not confused, Beck has taken up
btw, I don't mean to offend you with the Colbert clip. It just came to mind as an example when I read the thread.
Yes, you are a bit confused. I answered
your posts - this is a free forum, isn't it? - and you referred to me as JTBB.
Do not try to justify your insensitivity with 'I was just joking', this is lame. Because you were NOT joking. You find all the torture and cruelty done to prisoners amusing and entertaining, as you decorate your comments with .. 'LOL, ROFL, Geez etc....'
That's where you're confused.... I don't care
you've gotten all your constitution gibberish from the news media. I can guarantee you YOU don't even know what the constitution says, 'cause if you did, you wouldn't be voting for Obama.
Shhh, they don't want to be confused with FACTS.
You're going to burst their fantasy bubble with those pesky facts! ;)
Are you literate or just dazed and confused?
The post you replied to mentions nothing about Bush. It does not refer to US elections. The OP is accurate to a T and is referring to the partisan election politics in ISRAEL, a subject I am sure you know next to nothing about, so even if you could read, you probably would not be able to make a coherent statement in reply. If you are trying to be cute, you are failing miserably.
Wait. I'm confused. Just yesterday we saw
NOTHING is more important from a president than - Natl Security. THANK YOU PRESIDENT BUSH. This appeared just three threads below this one.
So which is it, GOP? Natl security or the economy? Both? Neither? I am anxiously awaiting my next directive from on high.
Tired, confused, premenstrual?
"I used to be a democrat and I used to be a republican and I used to be an independent, and I used to be a green party/constitutional party."
Bipolar? Is that a party?
You're confused - she was raised in Idaho
x
This board is never peaceful,,, she's confused and rude nm
nm
What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Talk about special privileges.
Read older posts. If I'm confused, so are many others here who
know you change your moniker at will, Dutchess.
You seem confused, dear. Militant is a military concept.
As soon as you and your party sports its bigotry and hate toward an entire religious population and their culture, attempt to pass it off as some sort of twisted, chest-beating patriotism, add insult to injury by labeling that patriotism as an universal American value and then proceed to use that to justify defaming a fellow American of such extraordinary class and character, you have earned every single drop of anger that you receive in return.
Wanna know who is truly angry and bitter? That would be those "lower bracket" citizens who have lost their homes, are 3 months behind on their mortgage payments, are unemployed, have been outsourced and sold out by their own government and are not making a living wage in an economy of runaway housing, gas, food, drug and medical costs. They are the ones who will be giving the boot to the party that would expect them to endure 4 more years of being lied to about the obscene, senseless wars they wage, politics of fear, corporate corruption and bankrolling tax cuts to help their struggling rich upper crusts and prop up their their trickle up economic schemes. We are down to counting lame duck days in measures of months, weeks, days, minutes and seconds. We have jumped the Hope Train to a better, brighter future and our destination is just around the bend.
Wait. I'm confused. I thought the Maverick and Rogue
It's not so much change "into" something else...more like change "away from" where we've been. Chicken Little prognostications are prejudicial and unfounded. Judging the last 8 years and 90%...not so much.
Read this closely. You've confused me with other posters.
And you jump on me like I'm the other poster(s) that you were railing about.
Geez, at least try to address the correct poster when you go on your rants.
It's very unbecoming.
I agree, that goes for both sides. I don't agree with those starting trouble over...sm
on your board either, but then some of you come and take it out on the people who only post here and we have nothing to do with the fights over there.
I enjoy communicating with liberals and occasionally do learn something from conservative posters, so I refuse to let the driveby, no moniker, one-sided finger pointers, self-indulging posters drive me off.
Rush is right. I agree. Somebody's gotta agree.
....in many of his policies in his attempt to completely socialize America.
I hope he fails.
I hope he succeeds, however, in the office of president, and doing the right thing, and moves to the center.
However, it's not looking good. He's left of left so far, isn't he. Showing who he truly is, in his first acts as president.
I sure don't agree with
the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel. I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts. (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC. I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)
And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor. (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)
But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder. And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)
I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion. One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.
But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member? That sick stuff DOES happen in this country. What if she knows she wants an abortion? Should she be forced to have the baby? I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know. I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion. That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.
As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman. After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it. I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they? I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country. As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay. (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )
With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker." That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.
I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."
NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.
Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.
We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.
First, it's freedom of speech. Next, it will be freedom of religion. What about freedom of "thought."
I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them. 
|
