It was a reply to the post directly above it...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-11-20
In Reply to: Your 1st post in this thread had NOTHING to do - with the topic at hand, so....
"In his private career, seems like he did a lot of work for the poor and several civil rights cases. I guess that would make some conservatives a little afraid of him :-)"
It is the taunt I was replying to. Democrats have not in the past had a stellar reputation for championing the civil rights of African Americans and I pointed that out. And they became interested in the poor African American AFTER they finally got the right to vote. Coincidence?
Again, respectfully...replying the the taunt.
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
Post directly above this
x
I did address it directly. In the post above....
and you proved my point about the attacking. Typical dem.
The moderator asked you to stop directly below this post.
You don't know the meaning of the word *respectful.* You want to come here and censor this board and lay down the law about what is *newsworthy* and what isn't, the same way you people want to control every aspect of every American's life. How ya makin' out in that regard? Not too well, eh? 
You and your other sidekick(personality?) below don't come here to debate.
You come here to incite, and regardless of your promises, you'll never leave. Nobody is bothering you on your board, and you have to release your evil vile hatred somewhere or else you will explode, so you come here.
If you want to see vicious, consult the nearest mirror.
See me reply to your post.
nm
Your reply does not seem referable to my post.
What you cite as your concerns in your post does not correlate to what I talked about in my post. Perhaps you are referring to some other posting.
Since I post in reply to other posts...
it would appear I am not the only one who has time to spend on a computer, though that has somehow escaped your attention. Monica moniker...cute. LOL.
Thank you for your reply - good post
It's been awhile since I've been able to get back and read the response. I feel the same exact way. A woman's health issues to include pregnancy and everything else about her health should not be an issue in politics. Makes me wonder, what other part of our personal health are they going to make into political issues.
Good response on the job question too. I think I worded my original question wrong but this answered it. Thanks
Just in case you missed the reply to your other post...
Perhaps it was the ministries at the Trinity United Church that attracted Obama...much like the ministries of other Americans attract them to their churches? Ya think?
1. Can-Cer-Vive support to cancer patients and caregivers.
2. Churh school and youth church.
3. Counseling services, both individual and group.
4. Emmaus Road Ministry, which provides companions, prayer partners, helpers and friends for grieving persons, months after the passing of a loved one. Ongoing contact with the family is maintained.
5. Girl Scouts.
6. Teen choir.
7. Computer classes.
8. Assistance to physically, mentally and emotionally handicapped.
9. Marriage enrichment seminars.
10. Workshops on building and maintaining Christian homes.
11. Men's chorus.
12. Men's fellowship.
13. Bible study.
14. Sanctuary choir.
15. Stewardship.
16. Women's chorus.
17. Women's drill team.
18. Yoga.
19. Youth drill team.
20. Active seniors.
21. Adopt-a-Student.
22. Athletes for Christ.
23. Career development.
24. Church in the community.
25. Domestic violence advocacy and support.
26. Drug and alcohol recovery.
27. Food share.
28. Grandparent's ministry.
29. HIV/AIDS support.
30. Housing workshops.
31. Health and wellness.
32. Legal counseling.
33. Math tutors.
34. Prison ministry.
35. Reading tutors.
36. Drama.
37. Fine arts and literary guild.
38. Quilting.
39. Adult dance.
40. Music.
These ministries seem to be awfully consistent with Obama's life experiences, political agendas and campaign platforms. That's all the explanation I need.
It's your reply to the post about Obama Aunt from
You always have a way of posting a view (on illegal immigration) with which I disagree, but always am able to better understand because you have that uncanny ability to strip away all the fluff and get down to the nitty gritty...sort of like Lou Dobbs, who I actually like to listen to except for his illegal immigration crusade, in spite of the fact that I am a left-wing commie!
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.
My post ' I defend all innocent people' was a reply to the
question
'Do you also defend the innocent people in our local prisons because I'm sure that there are a few in there who are actually innocent..'
Well point to the law that directly gives
our military authority over the U.N.? Where is the AGREEMENT that says we have to approve military action through the U.N.? It was not covered in my college political science class or the numerous classes I took between high school and college. We have consulted the U.N. before taking military action AND consulted and worked with the UN for YEARS on the Iraq situation. Iraq/S Saddam consistently and constantly thumbed his nose to the U.N. authorities and broke inspection agreements. I know that not every one in the U.N. supported the war, but if I'm remembering the correctly there was not enough opposition to put up a direct U.N. declaration to oppose the war.
I think we are reading different versions of history and the laws of the land.
Huh? Two of the posters are directly below
_
Really? A lib posted directly under here
and presented an interesting challenge to sm about the Bloomberg article in "while analyzing those millions." Instead of claiming that liberals "always attack the messenger," talking about how they don't want to be educated, making wisecracks about mindreading and trying to belittle them for ALWAYS being on the attack, why don't you pitch in and help sm answer that little puzzler about the FDIC funds referred to in the article? So far, we see no one stepping forward to answer that challenge. It's not that hard. She gave 2 clues.
Well I actually do believe he was talking directly
about the O when he was addressing their failed PM. Two failures in charge of countries. I think if the PM can come sliming here begging for money, this guy should come over and explain to our congress (cos they don't evidentally get it) what they have done to the economy of the world. But the speach he gave might as well been talking right to the enlightened one.
To answer your question directly
Would I accept less to save a MTSO, no I would not, but then we're not making near what the auto workers are making, apples and oranges. I feel I pesonally have to take a stand regarding ASR and pay for such. What they're asking us to take is ridiculous. Regardless of global economy, we still live in the good ole US of A and have a certain standard of living to uphold. As long as it is possible I will not do ASR nor will I edit reports being typed abroad. I left MQ last year, refusing to put up with their nonsense. Thankfully I only have a few years til retirement.
Took your advice - went directly to the source -
Okay, went to the source. Says the same thing - Obama 49, McCain 47 with likely voters.
Drudge shows the facts. You were okay with them when they favored your candidate.
What I am hearing is if Obama was so much better than McCain he would certainly have a much larger lead (like 20 points or more), but he doesn't, which goes to show that it is a very close race and you need to prepare yourself that either candidate could win.
Thanks for that info. I did go directly to this man's site...
and he talks about his email there also. I don't put much stock in any web-based sites; too much can be fabricated through the guise of anonymity.
I am talking Palin directly
That person who protrayed herself to be so righteous, so godly, Miss Goody-Goody has lots of skeletons in her closet yet to be all shaken out. It was really, really important when all just held onto every little word or piece of clothing that did not belong to her in the first place discussed. I am glad to see her falling off that high horse, yes I am.
Bravo Zauber..well said and directly to the point..
I will never understand how people think that opposing an erroneous(in this case fictional and delusional) government policy is unpatriotic and a detriment to our troops. I don't want to see any more die for reasons that do not nor have ever existed.
If someone ever posts something directly about one of Obama's children...
like that nastiness posted about Sarah Palin's daughter, I would be criticizing that as well. THere is absolutely NO reason for bringing a candidate's children into the political battleground. I have seen nothing posted here about lies about Obama's family other than some posters taking shots at the way the two women dress, and Cindy McCain got it as bad as Michelle Obama. I think that is pretty silly on both sides. I saw someone post what Michelle said about being proud of her country. It went away pretty quickly. I saw a lot of worse things about cindy Mcain winning her battle over prescriptin drug addiction, but the posts were much more hateful, mean, and personal.
Michelle Obama was out stumping for her husband and she said something in public people thought she should explain.
Barack Obama used drugs in his youth and was open about it. No one here condemned that. yet they tore the hide of Cindy McCain in strips because she admitted an addiction to prescription drugs because of an injury. do you find that fair? At ALL fair?
Why can't we at the very LEAST leave minor children out of this???
That should read: McCain directly denied
then continue reading the above post. time for another cup of coffee.
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
Evidently, pubs didn't care that McC directly denied
tried to diffuse all the scare tactics fall-out. What I want to know is why would McC supporters and their campaign turn a blind eye to a frightened senile old woman and keep right on pushing agendas that will produce more such embarrassing moments for their own candidate? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect under a McCain regime? How disconnected is this candidate from his own campaign management and supporters? Is that really the picture you want to paint for him? How much more fuel do you guys intend to use to stoke the fires of ignorance, division and deceit?
McCain seemed really sad last night when he tried to reassure that shaking, frail, senile old woman, but instead of looking presidential, he just looked like a beaten down has-been. Congratuations on an utterly moronic campaign strategy. Enjoy the fall-out.
Yes, the chips exist honey. I was speaking directly to the hysteria evoked
It shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the world and the peoples who inhabit it.
As to those that perpetuate this mythos...well, if you allow anyone to prey on your fears, you give them power over you. People need to investigate all sides of an issue, not just the perspective they agree with or the one spoonfed to them.
Not to mention that the "Jihaad" holy war itself was caused directly from Daddy Bush having to
rush in with Desert Storm in order to secure the oil wells, securing the oil for all his oil baron friends and himself. Bin Laden himself said that when we rushed in, we had "tainted" Muslim soil and felt he had to retaliate. Of course, these are the ravings of a madman, but Bush policies directly inflamed the already hostile Taliban fighters. Also, the Bush and Bin Laden families have a long history in the business world, and the night of September 11th, the government made it pssible for Bin Laden family members in this country to flee and not face retaliation........please look it up in the newgroups, I have seen many amazing documentaries about these facts on Discovery, History Channel, Military Channel, and some of the news channels.
Reply
Any so-called knowledge can later prove to be wrong. There are very few absolutes in this world. I do know that the 1990s saw a dessimation in our human intelligence gathering. We need to get back to being good at that. If a threat is there, I'm not willing to wait until people die to do something about it. If you are, then I hope it's not one of my loved ones in the next airplane or subway or building. As for Al-Qaeda, there has been much damage done to that organization. Of course the news doesn't play that up very much, but it's happening. We're still looking for Bin Laden, we're still chasing Al-Qaeda, and we're planting a seed in the middle east that will hopefully someday (and it may take longer than your of my lifetime to accomplish) make a change in the middle east that will hopefully keep the horror of terrorism at least under control. We fought the Japanese, we fought the Nazis... I think we can handle Iraq and Al-Qaeda. As for N. Korea, you can't do anything there because they already HAVE the nukes. At least we can cross Iraq off the list for sure in the nuke department.
Thanks for the reply. (nm)
nm
Reply....
You missed my point also, because you are still harping on abortion "against God's will." No matter how many times I say it, you will not hear it, because it does not further your agenda to hear it.
I am not against abortion because it is against God's will. I am against abortion because it is murder, and it is murder of the most innocent life that exists. That is a deeply moral issue, and it does not stem from what or what is not God's will. You said you and God parted company a long time ago, but I am willing to bet your morality did not part and go with God...you kept it, right? Of course you did. Because we all have basic morality, whether or not you choose to believe in God. Belief in God validates and enhances that morality, but even those of you who do not believe in God have morals...right? Of COURSE you do. There are people who are NOT religious who oppose abortion on a strictly moral level. As that article said that I posted, if I lost my faith today, I would still morally oppose abortion. Yet it is more comfortable for you to claim that I am against abortion "in the name of God." I am against abortion because it is morally wrong. PERIOD.
Being pro choice does mean being pro abortion. If you vote for the right to choose, you are putting the okay stamp on it. You can spin it however you like, but the truth remains. It is your choice to do so, yes, but at least have the guts say so.
I have already said that I work toward supporting women who decide to make a choice for life. If they decide to go ahead with the abortion, they do not get condemnation from me, but they certainly know were I stand, and they also respect what I am doing and understand why I am doing it. Much unlike you ladies.
Again....try to let this sink into your closed mind. I am trying to give the CHILD a choice. The CHILD has no voice. You are taking that away from them. They have no recourse, no place to run, no place to hide. All they can do is endure being sliced and diced to have their brain sucked out. You want the MOTHER to have the choice, the voice, the power. I am merely saying that the CHILD deserves SOMETHING here, doesn't it? Doesn't something in your moral structure scream out to you that the CHILD deserves SOME consideration in all this?? That is where I and others like me come in. Because we believe the child DOES deserve consideration, DOES deserve to have a voice.
You say "I have intolerance for those who cannot take another's opinion or perception without tearing it down." Is that not EXACTLY what all your posts do to my opinions and perceptions? Including completely ignoring what I am actually saying and trying to put words in my mouth to suit your anti-God agenda.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
my reply
was meant in a humorous, light tone. Sorry you are so unhappy with current events.
reply
As far as who can accomplish all these goals -- a journey begins with a single step. Barack is willing to start the journey. McCain stubbornly refuses to change course. If he does not live up to his hopes - another election in 4 years.
Experience -- time and time again current events have proven Barack's thoughtfulness and judgment have proven true. Even the current administration is following the course for a time-table that Barack proposed so long ago.
I do not see Barack as a savior -- I see a fine man with a vision for our country that matches my own.
Reply...
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both of these claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where McCain called Alaska the largest state in America, he could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MORE FACTS: She is responsible for negotiating any drilling of those resources. "Primary power" may be taxation, but she also has to oversee environmental issues, etc. She cracked the monopoly and forced oil companies to bid again, and she made a necessary portion of the bid that they address environmental issues. That was left out of the FACTS. While the population of the state may not be in proportion to the size of the state, her latest approval rating is 86%. That is unheard of. None of the other candidates enjoy that as senators from their respective states. That was also left out of the FACTS.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
MORE FACTS: When the National Guard is called up within a state, the governor does have the primary responsibility of mobilization and oversight. Since she is 50 miles from Russia, having control of the National Guard in that state is certainly central to our national security. And the operative word is AFTER the unit is deployed. Making the decision to call them up and send them to war IS her decision, and DOES affect national security.
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January of 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
MORE FACTS: This is true. But if Democrats truly believe in hope and change, they have had since January to actually do it. Have seen zip, zilch, nada. Got news for you...Bush is not a true conservative, especially fiscally obviously. McCain is.
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama voted "present" dozens of times, among the thousands of votes he cast in an eight-year span in Springfield. Illinois lawmakers commonly vote that way on a variety of issues for technical, legal or strategic reasons. Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.
MORE FACTS: Nice spin. He still voted "present." If he can't make a decision on those bills, he is going to be able to make the big ones to run the country? You can't vote present in the oval office. However, he did show up to vote NO to the Infants Born Alive act...twice.
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MORE FACTS: Look at this and digest it. First paragraph...Obama's plan will raise income for middle income taxpayers by 5% by 2012...he does not define "middle class." McCain's plan is going to CUT taxes across all levels and still raise the "middle income" by 3%. I think I will take the tax cut and the 3%. No brainer.
Obama wants to provide 80 billion in tax breaks to people who already pay almost 0 taxes. Where, pray tell, is that $80 billion going to come from?? Taxing the "rich" which will trickle down to loss of jobs and depression of the economy. Won't work. Never works. Case in point..small businesses that make more than $250,000 would see taxes rise. That is about every small family business in this country, who employ a lot of people. Just throw them all under the bus in order to cut taxes for people who pay the least taxes of all of us ANYWAY.
NO THANKS.
Reply
You know what truly amazes me? EVERYONE srcutinizes Obama for EVERY LITTLE THING from the b/c issue to his education, whether he is muslim, is he a terrorist, does he believe in this or that,etc but while GWB did pretty much whatever he wanted especially outside of the law whether it be national/international and the level of scrutiny bestowed upon him when he was first elected to office up until now has been been pretty much nonexistent.. or people saying 'i don't trust him', ' he frightens me' 'he is scary'. Should have been afraid of Bush and truly fear what you MAY NEVER know regarding the true state of this country of the last eight years..truly amazing
reply
Throw that hood in the wash, its getting dingy. 12 year olds, we know what you are saying there.
I made no "moral judgment" on SP's premarital pregnancy - merely pointing out the historical precedent she set.
I did reply, it is below....but I will reply again here...
I cannot find anything where Republicans voted for this issue before they voted against it. If you can, present it. I looked. In the case when McCain co-sponsored the bill that I have posted information about, where he predicted this exact thing happening, it never made it out of the committee. All the Republicans on the comittee voted for it, all of the Democrats on the comittee voted against it.
This is what the bill would have done:
1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Sounds like the bailout bill doesn't it? Would have been nice if they had not blocked the legislation that would have fixed the problem and not stuck us with it?
I did not reply to it because I have not seen it -
I have not been on the news or TV today so am not aware of what you are talking about. Will, however, before I go to bed, find out what is going on so that I can discuss it later...
reply
poster says duh? Exactly. Overwrought rhetoric destroys the validity of any discussion.
In reply...
Let me just address a couple of points:
Science isn't a "numbers" game where if you line up 1000 scientists on your side and I line up 1500 on my side, I win. The history of science is rife with examples of the majority of scientists being wrong. It might even be argued that at the moment any scientific discovery is made, the person who makes the discovery is, DE facto, a minority of one. The majority of scientists once thought the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that human disease was caused by invisible gases or by imbalance of the "four elements", and scoffed at the notion of "germs". If we left science up to a vote and counted heads to determine what is true, we'd have never moved one inch beyond the stone age.
The real problem, though, is that it really doesn't take much information about the methods used by the "global warmists" (my term) for even a layman to recognize that they are far from conclusive, and in many cases their methods are highly questionable. And since there is an enormous cost to all of us (or, enormous flow of money to the "warmists") to do battle with this "problem" - if it is one - it only makes sense to get the science right rather than jumping off the deep end and starting a lot of things in process that might very well be entirely unnecessary. Before we get the villagers all up in arms with torches and pitchforks, let's bother to find out if there really is a dragon in the cave. So far, I'm afraid that the best we can say is that all we have is rumors and that no one has actually seen the dragon.
Let's not conflate global warming with alternative energy, though. Although there is some connection, they are really separate issues. If there is global warming, it seems now that some scientists think that worm flatulence causes more warming than hydrocarbons, so on that basis we should be attacking worms, not fossil fuels.
Certainly, we should be pursuing every realistic form of alternative energy, but for one simple reason which you have correctly stated: There is only so much fossil fuel of any kind in the ground. We're going to run out of it. This means that even if oil were clean and cheap as water, we must seek alternatives.
However, oil isn't as cheap as water, and we don't own most of it even if it were, so the second reason we must seek alternatives is that we cannot continue to send $billions to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us very much and who are using our own dollars to finance the operations of our enemies. It's simply madness to finance our own destruction.
Not even worth a reply -
Above was in reply to Hmmm (nm)
z
Thanks for your reply, Lurker
Thought I'd switch back over to this board.
Thanks for your reply to my question about your leaving Florida. It sounds like a big transition in many ways, both geographically and emotionally. I had inquired because I have similar thoughts myself and so far I keep moving farther and farther north and away from civilization. Anyway, good luck and it would be good to hear when you're settled in.
Thanks for your reply. I was thinking that the more...
moderate and even conservative leaning Independents might be swayed. Enough of them swayed to vote him back in as an Independent as a senator. I realize that is only one state, but there are others of like mind across the country who are pretty sick of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party...and McCain is more moderate, as is Lieberman...not hard right or hard left. That is very appealing to some people right now who are tired of the infighting and the extremes. I think Lieberman is VERY astute and realizes this.
As to the war in Iraq...both Clinton and Obama have said they would not be for immediate withdrawal of troops. The only candidate I have heard who said they would end the war immediately is Ron Paul. Which, I know is an unpopular stance you. The only thing I can say at this point is that for whatever reason we went...which we cannot change...we are there. And you can't unscramble eggs. We need to do the best fix we can in the shortest time possible, and Petraeus is doing that. Amazing strides have been made. Hopefully they will continue and we are able to get most of our forces out of there in a year or two. Which is better than the 5-6 years they used to talk about. And to me, that is an amazing stride.
At any rate, thanks for your answer. I won't hold my breath to hear you, DW, being criticized as a one-issue voter (you said that you would not vote for McCain because of his stand on the war). lol.
Have a great day!
short reply
So the success in Iraq apparently means nothing. Wow.
Typical lib reply
The name-calling. You wear it so well.... Classy, honey.
How many times are you going to reply
about my name, does it bother you this much? You really got too much time on your hands!
LOL! Good reply!!!
*
Just got a generic reply
lol go figure.
I got generic reply, too... sm
When I sent him an email of condolence on his grandmother's passing. Might not have been the proper place to send such an email, but I certainly didn't think I would get an email that told me where to go for answers about the "false and malicious emails" that were circulating about him. It even gave me a helpful link that revealed the "hidden attacks" of the McCain campaign. Very appropriate...NOT!
Thank you - just read your reply
Oh my gosh - I get so exacerbated trying to explain the same thing over and over. I can't understand what is so difficult to understand. Even my children who are in the 6th grade understand the situation and why it is important to defend and obey the Constitution. They said they like Obama(they think he's cute), but they said "Mom just cos your cute doesn't mean you can break the law". I guess the country is getting pretty bad when 6th graders understand right from wrong but adults do not.
P.S. - I don't have the patience to write anything more than what I do on this site.
Should be posted in reply to jm.
x
You should know a stupid reply...
How can Clinton by accused of something that didn't happen on his watch? I don't think being psychic is a job requirement to be president. Though I could be wrong...
|
