I believe this is a direct quote from big O
Posted By: A.Nonymous on 2009-04-01
In Reply to: Here is my problem with this. - Trigger Happy
'The buck stops here.'
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
that was a direct quote from
Ronald Reagan. How SHAMEFUL that you make fun of a dead man and one with Alzheimer's to boot. I am appalled at your lack of manners.
Don't want to direct quote, can't stand to watch it again sm
The point being, cutting unnecessary procedures to seniors who "would not get any better anyway." I was so fuming angry that I would like everyone to hear it, but I for one could not stand watching it again. We are bailing out all these losers and he's going to deny our seniors. If he touches their benefits, I will march on Washington. Most of them paid their way all their lives and now they're being "cut" because he thinks it's frivalous as they "wouldn't get any better anyway." Who the blazes is he to make that decision???? Everyone deserves a choice of care, even Gramma and Grampa. I don't care how old they are!
Hardly. Consorting with vs direct quote? Supports succession
The quote thing, whether SP or her husband is not the only example of the problems SP will be facing once the convention is over and the campaign goes into high gear. So far, this morning, you have managed to dodge every single effort to elicit a response to SP's OWN words. Dismiss the pastor, but not her own preaching on video. That just won't fade away no matter how much spin you are able to produce. These are land mines waiting for detonation.
With regard to the "got not use for America's damned institutions" and support of succession question, these issues will not play well for yer in terms of country first, in the context of ethics (can't practice what is preached) and when it comes to change versus same old stuff.
Before pronoucing this as a nonissue, suppose we give this a little time to play out in the political arena? Your guilt by association campaign has already run its course, and Obama managed to clench the nomination. In the light of the blaring negative publicity that will be issuing forth in the weeks to come with SP being the newest rock star on the block, how much political mileage do you really think that empty tank is going to give you?
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.
I do believe that there is a direct
response to the OP with the title of "You're Whack." The inside message said, "Who cares? So what? Get a life."
Seriously...if you have nothing constructive to add, why waste your time responding with that?
I guess I just don't get why some of you hate Christians so much? I admit that there are those who try and force their religion upon others. I don't do that. If someone doesn't want to believe in what I do, like my husband, I don't push my views on him. However, he doesn't ridicule me for believing either.
It just seems like every time someone mentions something about religion the bashing and name calling, etc. starts. I'm beginning to think that maybe Christians should be placed on the hate crime list because it sure sounds like a lot of people hate us.
Can someone direct me to a site (sm)
that states the candidates' detailed respective platforms at a glance? I've watched most of the debates, as much as I can anyhow, but I've not been able glean and distinguish a lot of specifics.
I'm in FL and vote on Tuesday. Believe it or not, I am undecided. I liked Dennis, but he pulled out today and probably wouldn't have voted for him... won't go into why, but I'm sure I don't have to :-)
Dennis says to go Obama.... not sure if I want to. What I want is to have a Dem president. I like Edwards...
My demographic falls into Hilary's (female 45 and over lol).
Input appreciated.
May I politely and respectfully direct you
back to God's word? Obviously a little more study and maturing will do you no harm.
You know, I hate hypocrisy. You want to direct me
back to God's Word?
When you can show me in God's Word where He approves of what Osambo approves, then we can talk.
Let's talk abortion, gay marriage, taxes, lying, cheating, subversion of government, indoctrination of preschoolers, redefining marriage, etc., a whole litany of what Osambo stands for and compare it to God Almighty's Word.
I warn you in advance. You are up against an adversary you do not want to tackle with because you are ill prepared to defend your comments and beliefs in the light of Scripture.
Ready to go for it, old girl?
Please direct me to the bible verse where it is written
about the right to bear arms. I missed this.
"They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms..."
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.
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
Are you not able to answer a simple direct question?
It's obviously over your head.
Yeah, direct me to some homosexual "scientific"
site. Believe me, if that were the case, it would be well publicized, especially in the New York Times.
Don't you even know that the first "scientists" who "came out" with a gay gene were homosexuals? You don't think they have an agenda, my dear?
Nan-ism post was in direct reply/rebuttal to the two posts above it.
Surely you would agree that when accused of something we should have a chance for rebuttal? And that our rebuttal would surely include proof/evidence of why we took a particular stand? Would you deny the liberal board that right? SOME of us may be tolerant (or as Nan put it, "sissies") but some of us are very capable of speaking up for ourselves.
I have read Nan on this board (and others as well) for almost two years so I think I have a pretty fair grasp of her opinion and style of posting.
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com. As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum.
Still waiting for a direct answer to a simple question.
nm
The huge emphasis on tomorrow is in direct proportion to
Finally. A President we can all be PROUD of, instead of hide-your-head-in-a-bag EMBARRASSED.
Paying close attention. Sidestepping direct debate.
nm
Must also be hard for some people to give direct answers after making a statement like that.
nm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)...sm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today said the U.S. needs to follow up on Iranian offers of direct negotiations in order to resolve peacefully their dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
``I've asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify their diplomatic efforts to find a solution,'' Annan said at a briefing in Vienna. ``I think it's important that the United States comes to the table.''
The U.S. has let French, German and U.K. diplomats lead talks with Iran over the atomic dispute. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a meeting of the Developing Eight group of Islamic countries in Indonesia, said Iran is ready for direct talks and will comply with any UN decision on its atomic program based on international rules. A U.S. State Department spokesman in Vienna declined to comment.
The U.K. and France, backed by the U.S., have proposed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter to compel Iran to stop its nuclear work. A Chapter 7 resolution can invoke economic sanctions or military force against ``any threat to the peace'' of other countries. Iran says it's developing nuclear technology to generate power, while the U.S. and European countries accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons.
China and Russia, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, oppose a Chapter 7 resolution for Iran.
Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said he didn't have any information about an Agence France-Presse report that inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium in his country.
Uranium Particles
``I haven't been informed of any such findings,'' Aliasghar Soltanieh said in a telephone interview.
Particles of weapons-grade uranium came from sample swipes that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors took at the Lavizan-Shian site in Tehran, where a physics research center was dismantled and topsoil removed in 2004 after suspicions were raised about activities there, AFP said.
The IAEA reported to the Security Council on April 28 that inspectors took environmental samples at suspected nuclear sites in their most recent visit to Iran. The samples were to undergo testing for uranium particles at IAEA laboratories. IAEA spokespeople declined to comment.
The Iranians won't ``put everything on the table'' until the U.S. joins the European-led negotiations, Annan said. Negotiations should be around a ``comprehensive package'' including economic and regional security concerns, he said.
`Engaged in Dialogue'
Annan's call for direct talks between Iran and the U.S. followed those of Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA. ``Once we get to security issues, the U.S. should be engaged in the dialogue,'' ElBaradei said March 8.
The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet in London May 19 to consider new incentives for Iran to renounce its atomic program, AFP reported, citing unidentified diplomats. The permanent five are the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China.
The U.S. and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1979 after Islamic revolutionaries overthrew the government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and kept 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. |
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 12, 2006 10:33 EDT |
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
That's not the whole quote.
Quote of the Day
The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too. ~Oscar Levant
Quote of the Day
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. ~ Theodore Roosevelt
Quote of the Day
If the person you are trying to diagnose politically is some sort of intellectual, the chances are two to one he is a Democrat. ~Vance Packard
Quote of the Day
If you can't convince them, confuse them. ~ Harry S. Truman
Quote of the Day
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Quote of the Day
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. ~ Harry S. Truman
Quote of the Day
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. ~ John F. Kennedy
Quote of the Day
Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair. ~ George Burns
Quote of the Day
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross ~ Sinclair Lewis
Quote of the Day
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves ~ Edward R. Morrow
Exactly where did you get this quote from me?
 Tally, add 1 nasty for the republicans.
Your Quote from Joe
"The media's worried about whether I've paid my taxes, they're worried about any number of silly things that have nothing to do with America," Wurzelbacher told the former Republican presidential hopeful on his show, "Huckabee." And your quote:"This is what is so funny. In Joe's eyes "taxes" are silly things."
If you notice, he did not say taxes were silly things. He said they're worried about any number of silly things. He didn't specifically say taxes are silly things.
This whole election is out of hand. The media is whipping everyone into a frenzy over a bunch of stupid crap that has no place in the election. I have never seen such garbage spewing from everyone, every newspaper, and you-name-it.
People have to be level-headed and think and decide for themselves and stop the name-calling just because others don't agree!!!!!
I would also like to add this quote.
I posted this below but will post it again.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -- Thomas Jefferson
there was a lot more to that quote
"my muslim faith" If you listen to it in context, he is not saying he is a muslim, he is refering to people talking about his muslim faith, which he doesn't have.
quote
"Our democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who
are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
quote
"Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself."
—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825
If you are going to quote me............ sm
please at least do it in context. "Obama is flying on the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty and the hope that his puppeteers have enough money to keep his guilt from being discovered, which they very well may have."
Our Constitution does provide for presumed innocence until gult is actually proven. That much I agree with. HOWEVER, what I was saying here in the context of my message is that Obama is betting that he has enough financial backing that will grease the palms of those who are in charge of the decision-making process, as they have done in the past to get him to this level, that he will not be found guilty. Money runs politics, Marmann, and I think you would agree with me on that. You don't see very many poor people in national politics.
Once this issue is laid to rest by the SC, then I will let it go. I may not like their decision, but I will let it go because, as the highest court in the land, their word is law and we must abide by it. It would not be the first time that I would disagree with their judgment and probably not the last, but as an American I have, at least for the time being, the right to disagree with them.
As to what other issues may arise that I would voice disagreement with and "pound him into the ground" on, that remains to be seen. I am watching several issues right now very closely, and if his decision on said issues disagrees with mine, then you can bet I will be on here screaming. If he proves me wrong about him and brings this country back from the brink of total destruction, then I will cook up a pot of crow for me and anyone else who wants to join me. If we don't have enough crow to go around, I have quite a few old hats around here that could supplement the meal. 
Quote of the Day.....
The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005) offered the following observation several years ago and it bears poignant significance today:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it. "
Quote from this site. sm
“heatherb” a Soldier from OK, submitted 9-6-04:
“You cannot tell me that we are not doing the right thing when you watch little kids run, literally run from their one room mud hut a mile away from the road come running as your convoy is passing just to wave, not to beg for food or water, just to wave. Or to be a woman and invited to sit amoung the Iraqi men and share their Chai with them and listen as they share their stories of the days when their country was oppressed. To have shared such time with the people of tha t country and to have learned about their culture and that they are such a powerful proud people. And to know that I was a part of liberating that, makes me proud to have gone over there to give those kids that run up to us all those times the chance to never have tell the stories that the men sharing tea told, but listen to them as I did. We are doing the right thing regardless of the disillusion of our politicians. Be proud of what you've done. I am."
God Bless them.
quote from 1946
As true today as it was when spoken in 1946.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship ... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Hermann Goering April 18, 1946 - Nuremberg trial Taken from "Nuremberg Diary" by G.M. Gilbert
Read quote
Rush Limbaugh quoting excerpt from article by Rick Moran:
But even a victory by 'The Laughing Goat' ( La Cabra que Ríe) couldn’t possibly gladden the hearts and warm the cockles of liberals like the prospect of celebrating…what? Well, there’s that drop in the President’s poll numbers. And then there’s…let’s see. Oh! Did I mention the drop in the President’s poll numbers? Yes, these are heady days for our left wing friends. The fact that their celebrations are taking place as a direct result of the distress, suffering, anguish and death of tens of thousands of their fellow citizens seems to not be of much concern to our morally superior betters. In fact, it has emboldened them to advance every crack pot theory on race and class that has poisoned American politics for going on forty years. One could say the left is dancing on the graves of black people, celebrating the exploitation of a political opening brought about by the incompetence of relief efforts in the largely black neighborhoods of New Orleans. Except for one thing: most of those graves are empty at the moment because the future les habitants haven’t even been plucked from the floodwaters yet.
quote above from Voltaire
I never heard that quote before. sm
Please provide a link. I would like to read the entire article.
Apparently you did not look far enough for the quote...
This is from the Washington Post, transcript of the conversation:
Vice President Cheney: Dec. 9, 2001 -- Meet the Press
RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: "The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out."
And this from James Woolsey, former CIA director: "We know that at Salman Pak, on the southern edge of Baghdad, five different eyewitnesses--three Iraqi defectors and two American U.N. Inspectors--have said--and now there are aerial photographs to show it--a Boeing 707 that was used for training of hijackers, including non-Iraqi hijackers trained very secretly to take over airplanes with knives." And we have photographs. As you can see that little white speck--and there it is, the plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers. Do you still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?
There ya go. Meet the Press only has transcripts on line back to 2003. I checked. If you look hard enough, there are other publications who published the actual transcript. Russert said it.
As to the fuselage in the desert: Charles Deulfer, former Deputy Head, U.N. Special Commission for Iraq, told NPR, "There were lots of places in Iraq where training of non-Iraqis, or things, which by our lexicon would be considered terrorism, was taking place. That's why Iraq is on the terrorist list. Having a large aircraft, a 707, in a peninsula, completely visible from the air or from satellite, with no airline runways nearby, that's not there by accident."
As to the smartalecky crack who was in the "meeting"...I posted that I heard him say it during the 9-11 commission meeting hearings and I DID. They were televised and there were certainly more than 3 people present. They asked him about the "slam dunk" comment regarding the intelligence and WMD, and he replied: "I thought it WAS a slam dunk. We ALL did." I don't know what meeting you are talking about with only three present. I am talking about what he testified to before the 9-11 commission in their hearings, which I did hear. And, frankly, I think out of the man's own mouth is a pretty reliable source.
Yes, I agree it is hard to get the real story, especially since the story tellers change their stories like other people change their underwear. Tim Russert is just one of them. Richard Armitage is another. So which time do we believe them? Which time is really the truth? No way to know.
I said the source of the reporting does not matter if the information can be substantiated. I don't discount everything I hear on a liberal station if I can substantiate it. A very simple example: If Fox News printed the sun was shining, and you looked out and the sun was shining...you could pretty well believe it, even if Fox is the one who printed it. That was my point...if it is a fact, who prints it does not matter. Who declines to print or report it though...that also indicates something.
Have a good evening, Taiga!
Your statement, and I quote....(sm)
"A half a Xanax works just as well as a full one."
NOT TRUE. A half a Xanax will take the edge off. An entire Xanax will afford you the opportunity to take a 2-hour nap.
To quote the poster above....
I have a right to be here and you have no right to tell me where I ought to be.
I understand that you have a hardened heart and nothing I can say or do will change that. Anyone who thinks abortion is a valid method of birth control and is okay with that has a hardened heart. But, your right as an American to hold any opinion you want to hold.
But it is my right as an American, and my moral right as a human being to state my opinion. And my opinion is that a developing child has as much right to life as YOU do. And I will continue the struggle. If that offends you...I'm sorry.
mcCain quote - but do we
From his book “Worth the Fighting For.”
“Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”
What a wonderful quote!
Thank you so much for sharing this timeless quote with us today, zoesnana. It seems so fitting in light of our current economic status. President Jefferson was a very wise man!
Biden 's quote
Or, to quote JOE BIDEN:
"I think he CAN be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
I do not agree with Biden's statement. It is not clear to me what motivated Biden to say this after Obama chose him as running mate.
And Biden said this some time ago.
|
