Meant to add "sm"
Posted By: Behind the name. nm on 2008-08-18
In Reply to: Wow. This is impressive. I agree. - An important read for both parties.
xoxoxoxo
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
meant "sm" not "nm"....
1
should be "sm" for above post....
x
Why do you sign yourself "sm"??? If you want to ....sm
You really should have the guts to sign a moniker and not just shoot out comments with "sm" or "nm."
Sorry, I should have signed this not "sm" but
x
I was speaking to you, "sm" not oldtimer. (nm)
Alleged post of "M"/"SM"
Vie:
As it has been stated SEVERAL times before, you are getting your people mixed up here, and to accuse someone of saying something they DID not say is rude, chicken$*** and just plain WRONG.. AS Kaydie stated, people on this board have differning opinions regarding various topics that are discussed; and if there is something that you find offensive - it us YOUR CHOICE to read it or NOT. There are people that I do not totally agree with here at times but I have enough RESPECT for them and myself not to blatantly, hatefully insult someone if I do not agree-no need to become personal because someone voices an opinion that does not coincide with yours. Speaking of insults: The post that YOU typed regarding what "M/SM" allegedly posted re abortion - your comeback was pretty nasty, i.e., "you are probably a woman who cannot conceive and are just jealous", etc. As it is said in the BIble - "He who is wihtout sin cast the first stone" and as far as I am concerned YOU do not have the right to bend your back to pick up a rock and throw it at me or anyone else here. Period.
look who's talking....our very own daily "sm".....
talking about you liberal "sm" who....
.....those "sm" stereotypes do it every day, and there is at least one in particular, maybe you, maybe not, maybe the other liberal "sm" poster...you know who you are.....and the posting style is unmistakable, as well as the demeaning manner towards conservative posters. It's an almost daily occurrence, look in the archives if you doubt it.
Bush's "moral calculus."sm
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1033.shtml
Vie...."sm" means "see message" sm
Just like in this post, I put 'sm' IN MY SUBJECT LINE to indicate that there is a message in here. If there has been no message, I would have put "nm." Obviously you either don't understand the workings of a message board or you are just having a really bad day. Please get some rest.
Just for you GP...I am not a paid "sm" I am an MT...and if you would have bothered to read...
the links I provided you would have understood why I said it is not over:
Curt Wrotnowksi's case, Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State, has been denied by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Docket #08A469 -- The application for stay and/or injunction addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.
Update: Judicial review is allowed only after the Electoral College vote and Congressional Certification.
The Justices denied the "stay' but have retained the "certori." It isn’t dead. They’re waiting for the Electoral College to actually elect him. Obama is not President Elect until after the Electoral College "elects" him. Then Congress must approve the Election. Only one senator AND only one representative are needed to stop Obama’s election approval.
Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify.
Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.
Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review, if any, should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.
The federal government does not take official notice of the presidential election until the current Vice President opens the ballots on January 8th; the court is simply acting on this legal fact.
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
Yep, you're right....it was probably that pesky "sm" poster typed in wrong....my bad.
.
I see the liberal left on this board...save one "sm" could care less for your post....sm
Dems everywhere want total control, and obviously could care less what happens once that is obtained.
What I meant was....
why can we not protect the unborn children first? Are they not as deserving as homeless, poor, etc.? That was my point. I do not see, nor do I ever expect to see, liberals exhorting us to take care of unborn children as a part of taking care of the least among us. I have seen Conservatives exhort to take care of the least among us, including unborn children. Conservatives just want to put a limit on it, and regulate it a little more closely (as far as welfare, etc.). I don't have a problem with that either. And I give privately to Christian organizations that DO take care of the least among us. It does not have to go through the government to be effective. I guess that is where we differ.
What I meant was...
He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing. At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.
I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said. I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush. Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura. I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.
I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary. I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far. I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America. I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.
I meant
In the last paragraph I meant to write posting "false" information, not "fall".
Not quite sure if it is a pub or a dem who meant DNC....lol nm
nm
Sorry that was meant for OP nm
x
I think you meant that some
or maybe even many Obama supporters are educated. Just like McCain supporters.
Meant I wonder......
.
Her's what I meant
Not true meant that I'm not a rabid Republican (I'm a conservative). That's why the RINOS need to get the heck out of the RNC. They've ruined it. Also, they're frauds.
yes, that is what I meant
I have no idea why I typed Otis Small?? Good night GP
Not what I meant.
What I meant was that I hope he has the opportunity to serve out the full four years and/or that this election isn't contested for some reason resulting in the involvement of the Supreme Court. For example, I see the GOP is filing a lawsuit against Obama, alleging he used campaign funds when he visited his grandmother for the last time.
I hope we can all get along and not be as divided as we have been for the past few years, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause such division.
Again, I thought the post you wrote was very classy. Thanks. 
I meant...
As O's father is Muslim and O's mother Christian, they had to decide how they were going to raise O.
That what I meant.
I am roman catholic.
What? Oh, you must have MEANT to say
nm
I only meant where did it come from?
WHY the OP posted it
but aren't you classy
obviously he meant that he wants
to win over the moderates and fight the terrorists with his strategy.
I believe what you meant to say was
the hard working class of people that this entire country was founded on is going by the wayside, instead being replaced by an invasion of another country and their people to add to the already overwhelmed small population of people that work to pay for those who have spent generation after generation mooching off of the working class.
If not being lazy makes me self righteous, then so be it.
That is not what I meant.
Out of all the earmarks in the bill 60% were dems and 40% were pubs. I didn't mean the whole bill was 100% earmarks.
Meant what I put
knew such smart people here (I) could just get ......
still going at it, thanks for the snippy response.
I meant to say..
We already have laws in place that work to protect people from being harmed or killed.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew. Do you know Noam Chomsky? How about David Horowitz's parents? How about the Rosenbergs? Shall I go on. Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!?
I meant... NOW shoe...nm
But I know you'll stay because you need us to validate yourself. You're not at your best unless you are in your leftist/lib basher mode, eh. Keep it up, and people like you will expose the right brotherhood for what it's worth.
That isn't what he meant but there is no use debating you.
Maybe logical thought escapes you.
Wow, did I say Liar. I really meant sm
 deluded liar. Yes, that's much better.
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.
Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
I meant I felt like it was an act....
I believe it was theatrics. The Hollywood reference was meant to say they would be proud of the acting job...nothing to do with all of Hollywood being amoral, though I believe a good portion of it is. But that could be said for other areas as well. I am also aware of staunch conservatives in Hollywood and I think God for them.
I never meant to infer that
W should NOT have gone to VT. If that is how you read it, then you misread or I mistyped. Of course he should have been there; it is just that there was SO much publicity about this tragedy and it does not appear (to me) that there is much of that for the American soldiers in Iraq; nothing on a national level.
I also never said that conservatives did not care about the war. What I meant was that in a country where only 50% of eligible voters turn out it is not unusual that so many Americans are disconnected from this war. I remember hearing people talk about WWII and seeing movies (not valid verification but nonetheless) and it seemed that the entire country was aligned behind **the cause.** I don't see that now. I bet you the family farm that I could go down to one of the city high schools or middle schools and ask a group of teenagers what they know about this war, what do they think we should or should not do and I feel certain I would get pretty much blank stares. That is what I mean about Americans not caring...maybe that is not the correct term. Most Americans are not engaged and don't feel a connection or much of an allegiance to **the cause.** No one sacrifices anything for this war but then that is one definition of secularism I have heard **Secularism is a life without sacrifice.
You see staying in Iraq as creating some kind of democracy where the people will live a better life. I don't. I see that the longer we stay, the more people die, both Americans and Iraqis. Altho I did not agree with this war, or any war for that matter, the possibility that Iraq could have been changed for the better did probably exist 4 years ago, but not now. I really believe our being there will make no difference, aside from more death, than us not being there. It is not cut and run to me. It is cut your losses and in my opinion that would be loss of life.
As far as Clinton and Somalia; I don't know much about the details of that situation. He was concerned about bin Laden; a lot of people were for a long time. I don't think this country would have supported a war in the middle east before 9/11 happened and that played a part as well. There is quite enough blame to go around for not foreseeing (sp) 9/11.
Knew what you meant
Isn't it awful when your own relatives treat you like dirt. My sister is mormon and she actually thinks I'm on the same level with manson, dahmer, hitler, etc because I'm not mormon (we both grew up going to methodist services with 12 years of sunday school). Inlaws treated us like garbage cos we didn't go to their church when we lived near them. I am a deeply spiritual person but I am not a Christian and I count myself blessed not to be in their crowd.
Nope, exactly how I meant it
Pretty self explanatory.
You Meant to Say McCain, Right?
Obviously you've confused the 2 candidates. It's poor Senator McCain who can't think/talk at the same time.
you likely meant should "not" pay for it. nm
xx
I think what she meant by the last comment - sm
was that now McCain has nothing to say about Obama's lack of experience because Palin doesn't have much either. I didn't take it necessarily as a bash.
How can someone be pro-life and pro-death penalty? A life is a life right? Most of the pro-lifers I know, have listened to have made comments about God's the only one who can take a life, well if that is someone's stand how can you be pro-death penalty. I'm not saying that that is her reasoning, God, but just a question.
I'm all for cleaning up gov't too, including your party, but isn't what she is under investigation for a bit of gov't corruption too with the whole ex-BIL incident. I read that somewhere too about firing the guy because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex.
meant "depressing" LOL
nm
no, no, that's not what I meant - sorry, will try to explain myself
Ok, my bad....I did not "articulate" myself well with that statement. I don't believe Obama is linked with the Iranian president, all I was saying was either side could take an off the wall statement like that and say it. I guess I used a really bad example, but the statement that if one or the other is elected we are going to have another attack on our country or this or that. Nobody knows.
I do agree with you about the religion issue. I actually believe all religions are bad in that way, but I didn't really mean that if Obama is elected they will be "out to get us" (and I don't believe that), I just used a bad example. I just thought the original post was a huge faux pas. Hope that helped explain it a little.
meant to say "know by NOW". See, now
nm
meant meek - but either way it does not fit with what I see
:)
i knew what you meant
I took no offense, but I do get a little sensitive as I would have loved to have some children when I was younger (but then I look at the Menendez brothers and my own nephew and say - what a relief- smart decision for me) HA HA. I did understand your post as you intended it that if man and woman don't unite there is no offspring, but I was just saying I believe that we can all live together. Man and woman can off their offspring they want and the others who wish to pursue an alternative way just won't have kids. I'd rather be with someone of my own gender and be truly and blissfully in love and married to her and not have any kids, rather than have kids and be married to a miserable person just because he's the other sex.
It's likely she meant ELITIST. nm
I think he meant he wanted it available to everyone -
he never said he would require you to buy what the government offered - that was more Hillary's plan. He just says he wants it available if you don't have insurance.
what I meant was, this is being said from JM crowd? (NM)
ss
|
