Look LVMT, you look up all the little definitions you want. You are still wrong. sm
Posted By: Brunson on 2007-02-01
In Reply to: Anyone who supports Bush is a neoconservative sm - LVMT
Very very wrong. Christopher Hitchens is hardly a neoconservative. Neither am I and neither are most of the other conservative posters 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
It worked for me. It worked for LVMT. Must be something wrong with US, right?
From your attitude on this board, though, it's unlikely you would enjoy it anyway.
Definitions....see inside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal
There's much more. Just Google for different sites for unbiased definitions. Go to reliable sources, not opinions of the other side, to see definitions.
Then decide for yourself.
learn the definitions
Since you apparently don't think you're paying enough in taxes, here's an idea. Instead of my paying even more in taxes, why not have you go ahead and do it? You seem to think that gov't can run your life better than you can and that you would obviously make wrong/poor decisions otherwise.
Look up the words in the dictionary. Donald Trump said the same thing last PM on Greta about taxing us even more, and how it'd ruin things even more.
Just take the cash out of your wallet and hand it over to those who can make it just fine w/o living under socialism. Your naivity is just scary.
Do us all a favor. Go look up the definitions of tax cut
The only way anybody gets money back more than what they pay in is if they earn very low wages and have many children. The income bracket they are in refunds all revenues back to them that they paid in. In addition, they get a tax CREDIT only if they qualify for earned income tax credit or child tax credit. For example, lowest bracket tops out at $7825. Their tax rate is 10%. Whatever they have paid in over $782.50, they get back and ONLY what they have paid over that amount, because this is based on the tax rate. They get more back only if they have qualified for EIC or CTC.
It you get a tax rate cut, you cannot benefit from it if you do not earn wages. These guys also will not get any additional refundable tax CREDIT as that is paid against tax liabilty. If you take issue with this, show me how I am wrong here.
Economic definitions.............
Recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
Depression is when you lose yours.
Recovery is when Obama loses his.
Oh please humor me. Have you pieced together some definitions?
x
Has nothing to do with "humoring you" or "my" definitions.
It's important for you to discover the complexities for yourself (Google is all you need), and "my" definitions don't matter unless I am the one doing the analysis.
But I'll start the ball rolling.
1. "Prenatal care" starting at what point in the gestation (1st trimester? 2nd? etc.)?
2. Involving what different features or services?
3. Does the study adequately filter out other coincidental factors that tend to characterize some populations that do not receive prenatal care, but which also might impact infant survival, such as poor nutrition, smoking, alcohol and drug use, squalid living conditions and even low educational levels?
4. What time period after delivery will be used to define a relevant "infant death"?
5. What causes of infant demise will be considered relevant to the question?
6. Will all "modes" of delivery be included?
7. Will "high-risk" pregnancies be included or excluded?
8. Will premature deliveries be included or excluded?
The list of problems that have been identified in the design of studies that look very scientific and conclusive, and have been published in respected journals, has proven to be considerable.
Some have tried to get around these problems using a technique called "meta-analysis", which tries to reconcile and synthesize the findings from multiple studies, but this hasn't been very successful either.
The problems worsen when you simply use empirical evidence - say, by comparing birth/mortality rates in different countries with different "levels" of prenatal care. One study "showed" that the mortality rate in the US was higher than that in one of the Baltic states (I've forgotten now which one), but failed to take into account that in the US we try to deliver and save infants who are much more premature than they try to salvage in the other country - so naturally, our "failure" rate would look worse.
The other problem is really more or less endemic. "Prenatal care", however defined, will represent some set of services and characteristics. We may assume that all of them do not contribute equally (and some, perhaps not at all) to infant survival. This means that even if you can resolve all of the study design problems and show that prenatal care contributes to survival, you haven't said very much that's useful. It might be, for instance, that a simple regimen of multiple vitamins has as much impact on survival as all of the other factors combined. If so, have we presented a case for purchasing "prenatal care" as a constellation of services (from the standpoint of healthcare economics), or should we focus on finding ways to see that pregnant women get the multiple vitamins?
When we see "studies" of complex issues - especially those involving an interplay between myriad scientific and social or cultural factors - we should always put on the brakes and find out more about how the study was done, what assumptions it made, and keep a sharp eye out for flaws in the design of the study (which, I am sad to say, crop up more frequently than you might suspect), even or perhaps especially in the field of medicine. People who study things do have agendas, and sometimes the agenda amounts to grants of $millions in research funds, or sponsorship of the study by an organization that has a "mission", etc. A lot of what masquerades as "scientific proof" in the field of medicine, unfortunately, is nothing of the sort. Let's see now - are eggs good for us or bad for us?
I guess our definitions of a Patriot differs
and I guess that's okay, but the truth will come out in the wash, eventually. All the media filters in the world will not keep the truth coming from coming out eventually, and we may all be surprised at what the truth actually is which may be drastically different than either one of our points of view.
To LVMT
I just saw this for the first time today. If you haven't seen it, I'd definitely recommend it because I think you might find it interesting.
http://freepressinternational.com/FPI/nfblog/mit-engineer-breaks-down-wtc-controlled-demolition
LOL! Thanks, LVMT.
I had missed that one. Amazing. Seven guys who study the BIBLE and don't have enough money between them to buy a Happy Meal. Softball team would be a start, no? LOL!
Thanks for the link, LVMT;
alone in wondering about the timing of all of this....just like when the terror alerts disappeared after the election. Fear in all its forms(including eternal damnation) has always been useful in pacifying/controlling/manipulating the masses, no?
Worked for me; thanks, LVMT
Thanks for the link, LVMT (nm)
x
Thanks for the nice words, LVMT.
But do yourself a favor. Don't say anything nice to me or about me on this board. If you do, you will be immediately hated and attacked, as well. I don't want to see anyone else have to deal with their crap. Life is just too short and they are just sooooooooooo not worth it.
Link is missing LVMT...nm
Hope you get up to speed soon LVMT... nm
Good luck, LVMT
All jobs take a while to get used to. I'm sure you'll do very well in a very short time. Hope you come back soon.
I'm sorry LVMT........ credit should have gone to you for posting! My bad! nm
x
Thanks, LVMT; yup, propaganda is the word, alright.
You just wonder how much more damage will be done before more people see through it.
Please refer to LVMT post on neoconservatism
You will have to scroll down a bit to find it. It kind of got lost in the debris of all the other posts. I think it is a very valuable piece of information and addresses a topic that gets brought up frequently by the posters on the other board and is something I was unclear about until I read this.
Thanks for your research!!
Oh so true, LVMT. Love the way you put that...El Duce the Moose!
Just had to let you know you gave me a big laugh which we all need these days. Also, since I'm on here, you are also exactly right about Colbert. As in the movie A Few Good Men, they can't handle the truth! It is what it is!
I agree. Great article. Thanks, LVMT for posting it.
To m: LOL. No problem. It's very easy to do on this board. 
LVMT, I love it! Forgot how good that scene was! nm...
//
wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm
nm
Wrong Woman - Wrong Message
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-wrong-woman-wrong-message
Wrong, wrong, wrong, clueless Lu.
Horse hockey
Sorry about that...wrong board, wrong name
nm
You're right. Something is definitely wrong
Not with the priests who do the molesting.
Not with the Senator who absolves the priests of blame and instead blames the Liberals.
No. Instead something is definitely wrong with ME for my outrage that a Republican Senator can make such an outlandish, IRRESPONSIBLE statement, instead of trying to SAVE these children and condemning what the priests are doing. Unfortunately, this is typical of the Republican party these days. Typical of the "We are perfect and make no mistakes" mentality that's prevalent in this country. They couldn't be honest if their lives depended on it.
Well, tell us what's wo wrong about what he says?
 You can't, because he just pegged the lot of you like he always does which is why he has the top rated radio show in the country
You got it wrong....
Many of us liberals do not have delicate thoughts about terrorists. But get it through your brain, if you can, that many of us feel that invading Iraq for oil and power WAS NOT THE WAY TO attack or deal with the terrorists. Apparently they're mostly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and what are we doing? Messing around in Iraq. We are LESS safe and I think time will prove that.
WRONG. You know what is
Not everyone is a liar. Only the ones who have done it on this board before and don't deserve to be trusted or believed again.
It's quite simple. If you want to be believed, stop lying.
Then that was wrong
absolutely wrong, and the teacher and school administration were clearly in the wrong. Shouldn't have happened, period.
Wrong.
What posts are you talking about? Either I wasn't here then or you're wrong. I've read through most of the posts but don't remember seeing that. Prove it.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??!
You called her an elitist pig, claiming to mean it in a good way.
She replied with Yup, elistist pig here..Yeehhaaww~~
And now you’re claiming she said she speaks for God.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??!
So was I wrong? And if not...
...what are you getting so huffy about? Just for the fun of it? There's no arrogance in assuming you aren't one of the 1% of the richest people in the country. It's a natural assumption considering you spend so much time here, and why would you bother if you could be off doing whatever pleased you with money being no object? I'm certainly not one of the 1% and you bet I'd be doing something rather than putting up with your petty indignation if I had a virtually limitless income. So I didn't assume a thing about you that you were not free to assume about me in return. What's the big deal -? Are you ashamed anyone might think you're not in the top 1% of wealthiest Americans? Mighty fragile ego, that. Better face reality and get a grip - that's a pretty exclusive club.
What is WRONG with you? sm
Seriously what IS wrong with you? This has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Except yet one more occasion to use the word LIAR.
WRONG!
I corrected myself. I admitted to my mistakes. I always admit to my mistakes, and believe me, I make a lot of them. I'm even harsher on me than the neocons are.
If the neocons could just admit to theirs, the dialogue might be more productive.
and *what if* you are wrong?
We both could be wrong. I find debating what if's a waste of time.
The simple answer to any what if question is:
If you're right then I'm wrong. However, I find dealing in knowns a better way to logistically deal with any scenario. You can what if yourself all day long and never get anywhere.
Wrong. nm
 Richard Cohen was right. Sad.
You are all three wrong. TI
Despite the UN ruling that Israel completed its withdrawal from southern Lebanon (UN, June 18, 2000), Hizballah and the Lebanese government insist that Israel still holds Lebanese territory in eastern Mount Dov, a 100-square-mile, largely uninhabited patch called Shebaa Farms. This claim provides Hizballah with a pretext to continue its activities against Israel. Thus, after kidnapping three Israeli soldiers in that area, it announced that they were captured on Lebanese soil. Israel, which has built a series of observation posts on strategic hilltops in the area, maintains that the land was captured from Syria; nevertheless, the Syrians have supported Hizballah's claim. According to the Washington Post, the controversy benefits each of the Arab parties. For Syria, it means Hizballah can still be used to keep the Israelis off balance; for Lebanon, it provides a way to apply pressure over issues, like the return of Lebanese prisoners still held in Israeli jails. For Hezbollah, it is a reason to keep its militia armed and active, providing a ready new goal for a resistance movement that otherwise had nothing left to resist. In January 2005, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution condemning violence along the Israel-Lebanon border and reasserted that the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area is not compatible with Security Council resolutions.
Wrong. I did not.
I never said this person was sent to SHUT DOWN down the board, as I was accused of saying by the rude, rabid person you're defending.
I said this person was sent to crash the board (as in INVADE the board, as in someone who would CRASH A PARTY).
Yes, I made the mistake of posting on the other board twice before I read further and realized the nature of these boards. I haven't repeated that mistake since.
I suppose I can expect 3,869 more posts from you to make us even for my two posts.
After reading some posts by you on your board (such as Prophecy certainly is being fulfilled. So much of the world has turned their back on Israel.), I can totally understand your blind, unquestioning loyalty to Israel. You obviously believe the end times are near, and if you don't support Israel, you won't get to spend eternity with people like Ann Coulter. People like you scare me because I believe you will do anything it takes to self-fulfill that prophecy. That is yet another reason why religion and politics don't mix; I can't help but wonder if God told Bush to bring the end times about, which he seems to be intent on doing with his bomb first, ask questions later tactics. After all, God told Bush to go to war with Iraq, and Bush obeyed that order.
I was wrong....sm
He said Fox was off his meds or *acting.* {{same thing}}
Enjoy your show! (and all its *cough* facts).
You are wrong. sm
Noam Chomsky and Ward Chamberlain both made comments that we got what we deserved on 9/11.
you got this one wrong.
I have been to the boards in the last 2 or 3 weeks once. I did not post whatever you are referring to and when I do post I always use my name. I have yet to come up with a reason to hide behind another. It was not me.
Wrong again...
I don't know what other liberals are doing or if they are mad about TV coverage. Secondly, I am reacting to a 1-hour broadcast, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe the new War Czar will see the necessity of administration presence at soldier's funerals. I agree with Democrat that this convocation was quite a bit more pomp and circumstance than Katrina where he showed up in shirtsleeves, made promises and left. I am not mad because liberal causes are not on TV...this has not a thing to do with liberal causes or TV coverage. It was my response to an event.
Wrong AGAIN....
President Bush declared a national day of remembrance for the Katrina victims and there was a great bit of pomp and circumstance as I remember it. I have never seen any administration order half-staff for a natural disaster, no matter who was in power.
you are just wrong
your facts and thoughts are so twisted and convoluted that further discussion with you is futile. Step aside. Next.
Okay, that's just wrong, wrong, wrong!
I'd say that is right up there with Hillary attacking Obama's kindergarten essay. What's wrong with these people and their campaign? Isn't anyone telling them when they have stepped off the deep end into the abyss of bull....
when I'm wrong I'm wrong
Everyone is wrong at one time or another...gotta suck it up and admit it. That's what makes us human. My MIL...she will never admit that she's wrong - infurates DH. When he tries to tell her the truth about certain things if she doesn't want to hear it, mysteriously something will be on the stove burning and she'll have to hang up immediately. Then she doesh't have the decency to call back. LOL
I'm sorry....but you are wrong.
Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury and obstruction of justice, with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment.
So....even though he was not convicted and not told to step down from office....he was still impeached. Only one president has been impeached and told to step down and that was President Andrew Johnson...I do believe. President Nixon chose to resign rather than be impeached.
wrong, wrong
True "feminists" are going to vote for Obama, issues over politician. Any true Hillary followers who followed her for issues will follow her to Obama instead of McCain. Only those few who followed her solely because she was a woman and no other reason will vote for McCain now. Fortunately they will be cancelled out by what one journalist called the "caveman" vote, in this case voting against McCain or just not voting at all because he has a woman on the ticket and no other reason. Oh yeah, they're still out there.
|
