Meaning what?
Posted By: Sirpercy on 2006-06-08
In Reply to: Better brush up on your French, Sirpercy. - See you there! - nm - Starcat
is this a veiled suggestion I move to France?
If so, I got a hot news bulletin for ya, pal: THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!
Vive la France!
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
The meaning -
the woman said it was the shadow of death behind Obama...
Is there a meaning in there somewhere? nm
nm
I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??
Then let's get out of there and let them control their government. Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them. As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own. And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it.
And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this. The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS. What a wonderful plan. 
There is more than one meaning for jihad...nm
I didn't come away with that meaning......sm
I read it to mean that if a woman wants an abortion and goes to a doctor or hospital to have it performed, the doctor or hospital cannot not refuse to perform it based on their own religious beliefs.
Very hypocritical, if you ask me (and not direted at you in particular), to say "keep the government out of my uterus because I can do with my body what I want" and then demand a doctor who does not believe in abortion to perform an abortion on you, in essence dragging him into your uterus where he does not want to be doing something he does not want to do.
If this is truly the meaning of the whole thing
fine. I could never have an abortion because I personally believe it is wrong. However, if people are bound and determined to terminate their pregnancy, I'd much rather it be done by a professional instead of these girls having babies in bathrooms and throwing them away, going to some whack job who does permanent damage or have some girl take poisonous things into their body to try and get rid of the pregnancy.
There are pros and cons to abortion whether people want to see it or not. Abortion will not be stopped and so I have to look at it like population control and just go on about my business.
I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM
*No more of a radical than Jesus* IS a comparison.
True meaning of Christmas...sm
I have been watching the discussion on the conservative board about Christmas, it's origin and how it is celebrated. While there are a lot of charitable things that go on during the holiday season that are commendable, like Toys for Tots and food drives, I think it is sad how materialistic this season is. If you have kids it is hard to explain to them why one of their classmates got a Playstation 3 (600 dollars), games for the PS3 (200 dollars), laptop (1300 dollars), namebrand shoes and clothes (500 dollars), jewelry (200 dollars), etc, etc, when you can not, or have better sense than to spoil your child (and finances) like this.
My children know the value of a dollar. They also know that this season is about the birth of Christ, the spirit of giving, whether that be love or gifts.
I said all of that to ask this question. Do you think the majority of people who celebrate Christmas know the true meaning of Christmas or are they caught up in the hype of the latest best technology, the best decorations, the most expensive tree?
"present", meaning he showed up, but could not
nm
Hate to say it, but they aren't well-meaning at all s/m
They're blatantly peddling socialism..."spreading the wealth around?" So if you make more than I do, Obtama will take from you & give some to me. How can people NOT see this?
As far asa I'm concerned, these Obama fanatics can move to Canada, Cuba, etc. Look how well that's workin' for them.
Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Kruschev said they (meaning, their philosophy) would take us over from within.
One only has to imagine: Would Kruschev be laughing or crying over the direction the current administration is taking?
Not a tough question to answer, so there's no prize offered.
The real meaning of happy holidays.
Ever since I can remember, and I am 50, everyone said Merry Christmas AND/OR Happy Holidays and no one gave a flip either way. However, in my youthful naivete, little did I realize what happy holidays REALLY means. It is a code. It means that anyone who says it is really saying, I want to take Christ out of Christmas, and by the way, I hate America and I want the communists/terrorists to win. So if you hear someone say happy holidays and the other person answers back happy holidays you know you have 2 people of interest who require, at the very least, a wiretap or two and surveillance for an indeterminate amount of time. They should be reported immediately to the FBI. Happy Holidays is a serious threat and a Code Orange.
God save us from well-meaning people as my mother
.
Plus - does the Republican party understand the meaning of MAVERICK?
Agree with you - what did they expect with her zero experience (in foreign policy) AND the fact that she's under investigation?
Re: maverick. There are subtle variations of this word like "eccentric" that could apply to just about anyone, but the central meaning is 'nonconformist'
When you look at someone who has VOTED WITH GEORGE BUSH 90% OF THE time, where do you see 'nonconformist'?
And this from a man who was hammered by Bush when they went toe to toe. Please sir can I have another?
I see REPACKAGED MATERIAL, not 'maverick.'
That said, I have TONS of respect for his POW experience - all the MORE reason for him to NEVER ALLOW AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN WARS BASED ON LIES!!!
What's nonconformist about his support for our current fake war?
He should under the banner of HYPOCRITE, not maverick.
Meaning, I read and try to find informative sites
xx
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
A 9-letter word meaning "Thinking 'Everyone's out to get me'" 'Paranoiac.'? Nop
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.
Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.
About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Advertisement
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:
Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.
Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of “If you want, coordinate with him.”
Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.
The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.
The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister’s plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.
Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.
The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush’s visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.
However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel’s “offensive” requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.
During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.
The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.
A senior security official said the Americans were preparing “with the greatest speed” to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.
The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.
At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.
However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html
Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
meaning=history repeats...the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE will be tested...no matter which one wins...nm
=)
|
