It appears you already have.....all over this board.........nm

• Obama Scores Victory of Historic Proportions. - Boo Hoo
  • Thanks for the funny! Almost thought you were - GhostMom
  • why in the WORLD are you proud of this??? - WRONG
    • The stimulus was this big because it has to be BIG. - maggie
  • I thought Obama was going to unite Washington - It is more divided than ever thanks to awful plan.
    • More divided than ever because of - uhuh
  • Coming from the W Post????? - Pulleese - Tsk tsk tsk
    • messiah? - sm
    • Time to think for OURSELVES! You are so right,but the problem lies, I think, in....sm - Cyndiee
  • "Read it and weep, pubs!" - sbMT
    • They are quoting Nancy Pulosi from her - MTfromLA
      • We have to work to get rid of people like NP. - Backwards typist
        • I love Nancy Pelosi! - Sonny
          • Nancy P. - really?
          • NP has something up her sleeve. - Backwards typist
            • She is more than qualified, so what is the problem? - Sonny
              • Huh??? You're kidding right? - Backwards typist
                • Nancy Pelosi - SM
                  • That's absolutely scary!!!(nm) - Backwards typist
                • No, I am not kidding. - Sonny
                  • I find it unbelievable that they keep bringing this up. - Backwards typist
          • She is the biggest fake there is. She truly looks - like plastic too. -makes me want to vomit.nm
            • It appears you already have.....all over this board.........nm - sm
    • I'm a "dem" and I am already "weeping," have you even looked into this whole.....sm - Cyndiee
      • Ditto. I am with you. --and independent too. - The plan is so full of junk -a shame.nm
      • .....um... - sbMT
        • Oh yes, definitely, I am agreeing with you, goes to OP! :-)....nm - Cyndiee

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

has threatened Americans again in a new audio tape, saying President Barack Obama inflamed hatred toward the U.S. by ordering Pakistan to crack down on militants in Swat Valley and block Islamic law in the area. 

You just can't win with terrorists.  No matter how nice we try to be to Muslims.....the extremists are still going to hate us and want to kill us.

You crash this board and admonish my behavior, yet you can't see the same behavior on the other board.  You're over there kissing up to them. 

Yeah.  You call them as you see them.

With your right eye closed.

You're just another lying phony crashing this board.

Disclaimer:  I am neither a Demican nor a Republicrat.  I have always voted for the guy/gal based on their stated policies, compared to actual prior performance which agrees with my mostly conservative views.  (I have sort of a peripheral friend who, about four months before the election, called herself an Obamacan.  Wonder how she's feeling right now.)

Having said that, I will add that I do know they all use the TelePrompTer and give speeches mostly written by professional speech writers. I get it.  I do not believe that any of them just make spontaneous utterances inspired by God.  Even Lincoln wrote it down on the back of an envelope on the way to Gettysburg.  But I bet he did not just READ it straight off the envelope, but extemporized a bit without getting himself in trouble.

I always liked Bush's more folksy way of speaking.  When he would veer from his canned text you could usually tell, and it appeared genuine to me.  Example: He addressed criticism of what some were calling his 'cowboy swagger' saying 'In Texas, we call that.......walking.'  Sorry, it just broke me up.  I don't even mind a few malapropisms, as it only adds to the impression that this is a genuine guy.

I compare that to Obama, Mr. Smooth.  I get no sense of warmth from the man and when he gets away from his canned text, I can just see his handlers cringing.  Example:  Why didn't he get a dog for the Whitehouse as he had been talking about during the campaign?  'Guess that was just another campaign promise. Heh, heh, heh.' 

I believe that it is in those unguarded moments, off script, you get a glimps of what's inside of a person.  What do they consider funny?  What do they poke fun at?  Themselves?  Or Special Olympics?

So my puppet remark was directed toward Obama, sorry if I was too indirect. 

I was in Gulfport, MS before, during and after Katrina.  About a year after, all the rent on the coast went sky high (was paying $425 for an efficiency, raised it to $800).  I was working 7 days a week at two hospitals (many MTs had already left the coast), and I had to leave too, leaving them even more short handed.  There have been many articles regarding the majority of the rebuild on the coast is new casinos and high-end housing.  I have no idea how they expect anyone in the service industries to live there without affordable housing.  You cannot have tourist industry without people that support it - casino workers, fast food folk, maids, low-end hospital jobs.

What drove me nuts is the way they portrayed the people in the media - as if we were all illiterate crackheads.  I worked with many fine people at those hospitals, and it would take pages to descibe their suffering.  It disgusts me how there will always be money to accomodate the disposable income players, while the backbone of the community, hard working, serious, responsible people, were left with a trashed out house with no roof, a mortgage to pay and an insurance company that said they didn't have to give them a dime to rebuild.

college and everything......yepper, by golly

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

(08-05) 19:27 PDT DENVER (AP) --

A decade ago, John Roberts played a valuable role helping attorneys overturn a Colorado referendum that would have allowed discrimination against gays — free assistance the Supreme Court nominee didn't mention in a questionnaire he filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The revelation didn't appear to dent his popularity among conservative groups nor quell some of the opposition of liberal groups fearful he could help overturn landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which guarantees a right to an abortion.

An attorney who worked with Roberts cautioned against making guesses about his personal views based on his involvement in the Colorado case, which gay rights advocates consider one of their most important legal victories.

"It may be that John and others didn't see this case as a gay-rights case," said Walter Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Roberts' former Washington law firm, Hogan & Hartson.

Smith said Roberts may instead have viewed the case as a broader question of whether the constitutional guarantee of equal protection prohibited singling out a particular group of people that wouldn't be protected by an anti-discrimination law.

"I don't think this gives you any clear answers, but I think it's a factor people can and should look at to figure out what this guy is made of and what kind of Supreme Court justice he would make," Smith said.

On Friday, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released two memos by Roberts when he was as an assistant counsel in the Reagan White House. In one, Roberts argued that President Reagan should not interfere in a Kentucky case involving the display of tributes to God in schools.

In the other, Roberts writes that Reagan shouldn't grant presidential pardons to bombers of abortion clinics. "The president unequivocally condemns such acts of violence," he wrote in a draft reply to a lawmaker seeking Reagan's position. "No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals."

Meanwhile, the Justice Department denied a request by Judiciary Committee Democrats for Roberts' writings on 16 cases he handled when he was principal deputy solicitor general during President George H.W. Bush's administration. The department also declined to provide the materials, other than those already publicly available, to The Associated Press and other organizations that sought them under the Freedom of Information Act.

"We cannot provide to the committee documents disclosing the confidential legal advice and internal deliberations of the attorneys advising the solicitor general," assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote Friday to the eight committee Democrats.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, said Roberts made decisions whether to pursue legal appeals in more than 700 cases. "The decision to keep these documents under cover is disappointing," Leahy said.

The gay rights case involved Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment approved by Colorado voters in 1992 that would have barred laws, ordinances or regulations protecting gays from discrimination by landlords, employers or public agencies such as school districts.

Gay rights groups sued, and the measure was declared unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

Roberts' role in the case, disclosed this week by the Los Angeles Times, included helping develop a strategy and firing tough questions during a mock court session at Jean Dubofsky, a former Colorado Supreme Court justice who argued the case on behalf of the gay rights plaintiffs.

Dubofsky, who did not return calls Friday, said Roberts helped develop the strategy that the law violated the equal protection clause in the Constitution — and prepared her for tough questions from conservative members of the court. She recalled how Justice Antonin Scalia asked for specific legal citations.

"I had it right there at my fingertips," she told the Times. "Roberts was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue. He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Dubofsky had never argued before the Supreme Court. Smith said she called his firm and asked specifically for help from Roberts, who argued 39 cases before the court before he was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., in 2003.

Smith said any lawyer at Hogan & Hartson would have had the right to decline to work on any case for moral, religious or other reasons.

"If John had felt that way about this case, given that he is a brilliant lawyer, he would have just said, `This isn't my cup of tea' and I would have said, `Fine, we'll look for something else that would suit you,'" Smith said.

The Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which helped move the case through the state and federal courts, said Roberts' involvement raised more questions about him than it answered because of his "much more extensive advocacy of positions that we oppose," executive director Kevin Cathcart said.

"This is one more piece that will be added to the puzzle in the vetting of John Roberts' nomination," Cathcart said.

The Rev. Lou Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, said his support for Roberts' nomination has not diminished. "He wasn't the lead lawyer. They only asked him to play a part where he would be Scalia in a mock trial," Sheldon said.

Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said Roberts' involvement was "certainly not welcome news to those of us who advocate for traditional values," but did not prompt new concerns about his nomination, which the group supports.

"That's what lawyers do — represent their firm's clients, whether they agree with what those clients stand for or not," the group said in a statement.

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/08/05/national/w135401D98.DTL

some respect?

You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*

Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.

You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.

That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS.  Your posts don't show respect.  They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.

You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?

Please.  Some of us aren't as stupid as you think we are.

You're becoming quite a bore.  You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight.  You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board.  Maybe that should work both ways.

Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all.  You believe in SUPERIORITY.  Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else.  Sheesh!  You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.

You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred. 

In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate.  I've seen them.  (I hope you don't chase them away, too.)  But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.

Talk about stench. Just read your very own posts.

Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board – to share opinions of why we like our candidate.  Not bash and cut down others because they don’t agree with you.

I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc.  After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come.  Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.

I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates.  What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board.  Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin.  You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this “Geez, I’m allowed to have an opinion”.

Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin.  The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby.  Talk about just bizarre comments.  I thought what’s next, she’s an alien from another planet?  The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre.  Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations.  I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.

I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam.  Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics.  I’ve read “Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away”, “Sam, please let me know where you work” or “she must have her quota” or “sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the”  This childish rhetoric is getting old.  I’m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics.  If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate “fight and degrade” section.

I’ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming.  She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn’t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good.  Let people express his or her opinion and move on.  If you don’t like someone just ignore that person. “It’s not rocket science, you know” (I liked that statement)

I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right.  If you don’t agree with something and you post that you don’t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that’s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.

I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates.  That is how I’m learning about each one, but I don’t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason.  I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.

If you like to fight so much why don’t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face. 

Please keep all religious/faith topics and discussions on the Faith board.  This would involve your beliefs, whether Christian or atheist, etc. 

The Politics board is strictly for political topics and discussions. 

Moderator

no other comments will be made by me other than to straighten out the fact that I'm not posting here anymore.

it is not someone that I have any friendship with, so I was just questioning if anyone was getting these. If I was positive it came from this board, I would have reported it.

I try not to visit the bog of eternal stench. Funny though...sm

I won't post here again....it was a mistake.  If you want to answer the question or flame me that's fine.  I'm not on my own computer right now, and flipped me back to this board....sorry.

Actually, I'm not sure you went to the wrong board at all.  If you chose "Politics" in general and you saw the headline of the post and clicked on it, you automatically wind up there and don't necessarily realize that's where you're at.  Even Nan and American Girl have done that, and I believe those errors of theirs is still on this page.

If this post of yours is an example of how you post, I can't understand why in the world you would be banned, but then again, I can't understand why three certain posters on that board get AREN'T banned, so I guess I just don't understand much about this place.  I note that they kept Nan's post calling someone a "slimy bottom dweller," as well as all their other posts where they attack posters.

My personal opinion is that if you want to be free to think independently and express that opinion without being ganged up on and attacked, then maybe you should continue to post on this board.  I personally am interested in what you have to say.  Although I just visited the Conservative board, and for the first time in a long time, find it to be a peaceful place where people are starting to debate again without being attacked by those three.  Unfortunately, I doubt that will last very long.  They will be back if they aren't already, and whatever goodness is there now will be once again destroyed and people won't be allowed to express their opinions without being attacked.

Again, I can't even begin to understand why you've been banned in the past, and if your post is an example of what the monitor had to "put up with," by all means PLEASE keep posting because I think you're definitely a breath of fresh air!  Welcome!!