It is creepy to read this
Posted By: Lurker on 2005-09-22
In Reply to: Gulf of Tonkin. (see inside). SM - MT
post and see the similarities to what has gone on with Iraq, all the lying, the imminent danger part, the threat that they (Vietnam at that time - Saddam Hussain at this time) posed to us, etc. You are right, Iraq is not the first time we have been bamboozled by our elected officials. At any rate, this is off point. I was not posting to discuss the Johnson presidency's failings of which there were many. I merely pointed out that it is possible, as the president of these United States, to be at a site of natural disaster in your own country PDQ. That was something he did right, that and the civil rights movement. On the domestic scene he did some good things and he did them in spite of the fact that he knew he had, in his words - lost the south for democrats from this point on - that being in reference to his civil rights legislation. But again, I do not wish to debate Johnson's legacies, the good, the bad, the ugly. I simply said that 40 years ago it was possible for a president to Be There for his people.
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
Creepy is as creepy does.
You have a post on the conservative board detailing how you saved a certain poster's posts, plus you have another post saying how creeped out you are by us.
WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU?
Not near as creepy
as the great unwashed passed out all over the Washington mall this weekend.
This is creepy.
http://barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/
What's creepy?
Seeing artists create an image of Obama with a halo around his head.
That's creepy.
Too creepy!
Next thing you know the kids will be wearing brown uniforms, saluting Obama and telling on their parents!
anon
Wow, talk about creepy. sm
First of all, the above poster failed (I am sure it was a honest mistake) to say why I left the board. Context certainly means something. You remind me of the creep who was stalking me and was keeping a running tab of all my posts (much of what is posted above are not my posts). That's just weird. As far as serving, I was a military brat for a whole lot of years and I believe it is service. But of course, anything to label someone a liar. You are sad little people. I won't bother you anymore because obviously, your brain has limited capacity for anything except hatred, bitterness, and all that goes with it. Have a nice evening accomplishing nothing but your little hate party and bitterness regalia.
I think you nailed it. And they are VERY creepy.
And I agree that it's best to just ignore them and not even read their posts. It's obvious we're dealing with a person (doubtful people) who's very seriously disturbed and is in dire need of professional help.
I did not find it creepy at all -
If you look at any of my videos of my children in their school programs when they were young, they were always staring at the director and trying so hard to make sure they got everything just right and yes, they looked "glassy eyed" and robotic. The hand gestures?
Well for anyone that knows any sign language, that was what that was all about and yes, when you start learning signs you look scared and uncomfortable doing them, not sure if you are remembering right.
You can make anything "creepy" if you want to - this is just another example of trying to find something somewhere.
And as usual, I am going to say I am not democratic, I am not republican - just stating my opinion.
This is very creepy. I just wish more people could
nm
ewwww - creepy - nm
x
this talk is CREEPY
All this Sue Ann admiration and adoration is just sick, sick, sick and oh-so CREEPY. You act like she was Mary Mag or something. EEEEECCCCH. !!@@$%$%$$$%$%$
You sound like Big Brother! Creepy!
Obama song - way too creepy
Anyone seen the kids singing the Obama song. It's way way creepy. They're all dressed in their little uniform and doing hand gestures and you can definitely tell the kids do not know what the lyrics mean. It was on the Obama website but after so many negative comments they took it off. One commenter on AOL wrote "it is eerie. What on earth are children doing praying to a candidate? I'm not sure what bothers me the most: Is it their glassy-eyed stares? Is it their Children of the Corn-fed good looks? Their hyptonized vibrato-less tones? Someone else wrote "This has more than a little whiff of Havana and Moscow about it". And another commenter wrote "These kids are already being taught to worship Obama as if he were some kind of god. That's what kids in North Korea, Cuba, Saddam Hussein's old Iraq, and other totalarian regimes were taught to do as well. The purpose is if they grow up seeing their leaders as god-like they're less likely to rise up against them." (now that's one of the best observations I've read).
Anyway...here is the link and you can see for yourselves. Don't watch it before bed unless you don't mind nightmares.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrtppY2Dc
I find statements like this creepy!
Just for the record, Obama is not a messiah or the messiah, he is not our savior, though he tries portrays himself as just that. He is not operating some elevated, enlightened plane on which the rest of us are not fit to tread. He is merely a man wrongfully elected into the most powerful position in the world. Forgive me if my fears and concerns aren't assuaged by the fact that he ordered a chili dog for lunch!
He wasn't "wrongfully elected." The majority of the people spoke and, for once, their votes were counted honestly. He didn't need to be selected. He was rightfully elected.
The Bushies are the "worshippers." Those who voted for Obama are "supporters" of better futures of their children and grandchildren. It just so happens that that hope -- yes, HOPE, the new Neocon four-letter curse word -- is coming in the form of a man who can, at the very least, form complete sentences, for whom English is not a second language, someone who doesn't claim the "have mores" are his "base," and someone who hasn't claimed to have a direct line to GOD.
Oh, yeah, and he just happens to be BLACK, as well. So he carries even a higher burden than any other white man would be forced to carry. He's intelligent enough to know that this is a historic moment in the USA, which is another reason I believe he won't mess it up.
I've seen the look in his eyes when his wife and children are in his presence. He is truly humbled by them. It would take quite a lot to convince me that he would endanger them (or their futures) in any way. He isn't arrogant. He doesn't publicly say he doesn't CARE what people think because he's the "Decider," and I'm pretty sure he is aware that fish and man CAN and HAVE coexisted for quite some time now.
All you Obama haters, to me, are truly the creepy ones. 
What is creepy is people following in lockstep behind Obama...
and not questioning anything about him. HIs associations, his Marxist leanings...none of that seems to matter to any of you. And THAT to ME is creepy.
I have posted several good things about McCain. I am 100% on board with a candidate who says he will appoint Democrats and Independents to his cabinet and try to get Washington working together again and remembering that they work for US, the people, not to promote their careers and line their pockets. You bet I am 100% on board for that. That is all that will fix that stagnation in washington. McCain has tried to do that his entire career. Palin tried to do it in Alaska. I am 100% on board for cutting pork spending, so is he. I am 100% on board for looking at all the entitlement programs and killing the ones that are not working. I am on board for keeping corporate America healthy because they provide 80% of the jobs in this country. I don't have anything against anyone who has worked their way up, had a good idea and it grew into millions (Bill Gates, Windows for instance). I don't think Bill Gates owes me a dime of what he worked so hard to build. But he is also a major philantropist and supports many worthy causes. The government does not need to extract money from him and redistribute it to people who do not pay taxes in the first place, which encourages them to stay where they are in the lowest economic class. If he really cared about those people he would be figuring out ways to elevate them from that class instead of putting his foot on their neck to keep them there. All socialism ends up doing is killing free enterprise and eventually the government controls everything, the middle class disappears forever, and all the money is at the top..in the government, who doles it out to the people like they are children. Cuba has not done so well under socialism. Venezuela has not done so well under socialism. But you are ready to put a man into office who wants that same thing for THIS country. To me, THAT is creepy.
Again with the Bush doctrine. You really need to read up on that. Even Democrat pundits are honest enough to say that was an unfair question.
As to his glasses...if you watched him interview other people...he does not do that. And he does not pull the chairs so close knees touch. That is all orchestrated. And we did not see the whole interview. I would like to see what is on the cutting room floor.
One thing I have to say...when they walked out by the lake, and he was more like Charlie Gibson, a person, talking to Sarah Palin, a person...actually smiling at her...yep, tho he would never admit it...I think Charlie was impressed by her too. lol.
I don't hate Barack Obama. That is ridiculous. You have to know someone to hate them. I think he is probably a nice person; he certainly has a beautiful family. That does not make him ready to be President. I just don't agree with what he wants to do to this country. I think his ideas are wrong for this country. He leans for far left...that yes, it's creepy.
We should all vote according to what we believe is right for the country. Another thing John McCain said that I truly appreciate...Country First. He and palin are the only ones doing so, in my estimation.
Am I the only one that finds all this Obama worship creepy? SM
A few days ago someone posted below how Obama was "just like one of us" because he ordered a chili dog and cheese fries for lunch with the mayor of DC! The idea, I guess, being that he isn't really like us, he's better than us, on a higher plane I guess, and that we should all swoon at his presence and revel in the idea that he could possibly be like us and eat a freaking chili dog! Am I right?!?!?!
And then there is the countdown to his inauguration. And can I just remind everyone it is an inauguration NOT a coronation. The man is not going to be king!
I've noticed this Obama worship for a while what with Oprah calling him "The One" on her show during the election race and the fervor at his rallies during the campaign, you know the swooning and fainting and the chanting "yes we can" like it was some sort of evangelical tent revival. It was as if all reason was lost in the euphoria of this "man." At first I tried to chalk it up to the excitement of the election. But it continues now even after he has won the election. Not only is it creepy, it is very, very dangerous.
Just a simple Google search of obama blogs, I find this and many others with similar sentiments:
"Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway... Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."
I'm not sure who the author is, but the author and this country has lost touch with reality and lost touch with God to the extent that people are looking to Obama as some sort of god. Not believing in God doesn't mean you believe in nothing, it means you'll believe in anything and look around you, there is a great many people ready to believe in anything, even a black man from a corrupt Chicago political machine with a nice smile and pretty words.
Just for the record, Obama is not a messiah or the messiah, he is not our savior, though he tries portrays himself as just that. He is not operating some elevated, enlightened plane on which the rest of us are not fit to tread. He is merely a man wrongfully elected into the most powerful position in the world. Forgive me if my fears and concerns aren't assuaged by the fact that he ordered a chili dog for lunch!
Actually, I find the Obama hatred creepy!
xx
This is creepy. Check out the date on this video clip.sm
I remember when all the christians were freaking out over this speech.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6012144166694761701
No more creepy than you to be fixed on her breasts - ewww back at ya.
.
This is creepy and making the hair on my neck stand up
This just sends a chill down my spine - and to think these are the kinds of people Obama "hangs with and belongs to"
Quote: This counter revolution (those who go against what "they" want) could best be guarded against by creating and establishing re-education centers in the Southwest where we would take all the people that need to be needed to be re-educated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked what is going to happen to those people who we can't re-educate that are die-hard capitalists and the reply was that they would have to be eliminated.
So that's what the person who could possibly be the next President believes???
Totally scary times lie ahead for us if he is elected.
Well, I gotta tell ya - nothing is more creepy to me than Ann Coulter - now that's plain SCARY!
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
Have you read it? nm
nm
We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:
Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm
Then you don't read enough.
nm
Should read 8 above - nm
x
|
