My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
Posted By: Observer on 2007-02-13
In Reply to: You assume too much - ExMQMT
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
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 the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
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.
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
Are you not able to answer a simple direct question?
It's obviously over your head.
Still waiting for a direct answer to a simple question.
nm
I do believe that there is a direct
response to the OP with the title of "You're Whack." The inside message said, "Who cares? So what? Get a life."
Seriously...if you have nothing constructive to add, why waste your time responding with that?
I guess I just don't get why some of you hate Christians so much? I admit that there are those who try and force their religion upon others. I don't do that. If someone doesn't want to believe in what I do, like my husband, I don't push my views on him. However, he doesn't ridicule me for believing either.
It just seems like every time someone mentions something about religion the bashing and name calling, etc. starts. I'm beginning to think that maybe Christians should be placed on the hate crime list because it sure sounds like a lot of people hate us.
Can someone direct me to a site (sm)
that states the candidates' detailed respective platforms at a glance? I've watched most of the debates, as much as I can anyhow, but I've not been able glean and distinguish a lot of specifics.
I'm in FL and vote on Tuesday. Believe it or not, I am undecided. I liked Dennis, but he pulled out today and probably wouldn't have voted for him... won't go into why, but I'm sure I don't have to :-)
Dennis says to go Obama.... not sure if I want to. What I want is to have a Dem president. I like Edwards...
My demographic falls into Hilary's (female 45 and over lol).
Input appreciated.
that was a direct quote from
Ronald Reagan. How SHAMEFUL that you make fun of a dead man and one with Alzheimer's to boot. I am appalled at your lack of manners.
I believe this is a direct quote from big O
'The buck stops here.'
May I politely and respectfully direct you
back to God's word? Obviously a little more study and maturing will do you no harm.
You know, I hate hypocrisy. You want to direct me
back to God's Word?
When you can show me in God's Word where He approves of what Osambo approves, then we can talk.
Let's talk abortion, gay marriage, taxes, lying, cheating, subversion of government, indoctrination of preschoolers, redefining marriage, etc., a whole litany of what Osambo stands for and compare it to God Almighty's Word.
I warn you in advance. You are up against an adversary you do not want to tackle with because you are ill prepared to defend your comments and beliefs in the light of Scripture.
Ready to go for it, old girl?
Please direct me to the bible verse where it is written
about the right to bear arms. I missed this.
"They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms..."
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
Don't want to direct quote, can't stand to watch it again sm
The point being, cutting unnecessary procedures to seniors who "would not get any better anyway." I was so fuming angry that I would like everyone to hear it, but I for one could not stand watching it again. We are bailing out all these losers and he's going to deny our seniors. If he touches their benefits, I will march on Washington. Most of them paid their way all their lives and now they're being "cut" because he thinks it's frivalous as they "wouldn't get any better anyway." Who the blazes is he to make that decision???? Everyone deserves a choice of care, even Gramma and Grampa. I don't care how old they are!
Yeah, direct me to some homosexual "scientific"
site. Believe me, if that were the case, it would be well publicized, especially in the New York Times.
Don't you even know that the first "scientists" who "came out" with a gay gene were homosexuals? You don't think they have an agenda, my dear?
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com. As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum.
Hardly. Consorting with vs direct quote? Supports succession
The quote thing, whether SP or her husband is not the only example of the problems SP will be facing once the convention is over and the campaign goes into high gear. So far, this morning, you have managed to dodge every single effort to elicit a response to SP's OWN words. Dismiss the pastor, but not her own preaching on video. That just won't fade away no matter how much spin you are able to produce. These are land mines waiting for detonation.
With regard to the "got not use for America's damned institutions" and support of succession question, these issues will not play well for yer in terms of country first, in the context of ethics (can't practice what is preached) and when it comes to change versus same old stuff.
Before pronoucing this as a nonissue, suppose we give this a little time to play out in the political arena? Your guilt by association campaign has already run its course, and Obama managed to clench the nomination. In the light of the blaring negative publicity that will be issuing forth in the weeks to come with SP being the newest rock star on the block, how much political mileage do you really think that empty tank is going to give you?
The huge emphasis on tomorrow is in direct proportion to
Finally. A President we can all be PROUD of, instead of hide-your-head-in-a-bag EMBARRASSED.
Paying close attention. Sidestepping direct debate.
nm
Must also be hard for some people to give direct answers after making a statement like that.
nm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)...sm
Annan Urges U.S.-Iran Direct Talks in Atomic Dispute (Update3)
May 12 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today said the U.S. needs to follow up on Iranian offers of direct negotiations in order to resolve peacefully their dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
``I've asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify their diplomatic efforts to find a solution,'' Annan said at a briefing in Vienna. ``I think it's important that the United States comes to the table.''
The U.S. has let French, German and U.K. diplomats lead talks with Iran over the atomic dispute. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a meeting of the Developing Eight group of Islamic countries in Indonesia, said Iran is ready for direct talks and will comply with any UN decision on its atomic program based on international rules. A U.S. State Department spokesman in Vienna declined to comment.
The U.K. and France, backed by the U.S., have proposed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter to compel Iran to stop its nuclear work. A Chapter 7 resolution can invoke economic sanctions or military force against ``any threat to the peace'' of other countries. Iran says it's developing nuclear technology to generate power, while the U.S. and European countries accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons.
China and Russia, veto-wielding members of the Security Council, oppose a Chapter 7 resolution for Iran.
Iran's Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said he didn't have any information about an Agence France-Presse report that inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium in his country.
Uranium Particles
``I haven't been informed of any such findings,'' Aliasghar Soltanieh said in a telephone interview.
Particles of weapons-grade uranium came from sample swipes that International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors took at the Lavizan-Shian site in Tehran, where a physics research center was dismantled and topsoil removed in 2004 after suspicions were raised about activities there, AFP said.
The IAEA reported to the Security Council on April 28 that inspectors took environmental samples at suspected nuclear sites in their most recent visit to Iran. The samples were to undergo testing for uranium particles at IAEA laboratories. IAEA spokespeople declined to comment.
The Iranians won't ``put everything on the table'' until the U.S. joins the European-led negotiations, Annan said. Negotiations should be around a ``comprehensive package'' including economic and regional security concerns, he said.
`Engaged in Dialogue'
Annan's call for direct talks between Iran and the U.S. followed those of Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA. ``Once we get to security issues, the U.S. should be engaged in the dialogue,'' ElBaradei said March 8.
The Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany will meet in London May 19 to consider new incentives for Iran to renounce its atomic program, AFP reported, citing unidentified diplomats. The permanent five are the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China.
The U.S. and Iran broke off diplomatic relations in 1979 after Islamic revolutionaries overthrew the government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and kept 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. |
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jonathan Tirone in Vienna at jtirone@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: May 12, 2006 10:33 EDT |
Why don't you actually answer the post?
Mockery is great but what do you actually have to say about the point of Lurker's post? The article is right on. Would you defend Clinton to the death if he did any of those things? Of course not, you wouldn't have defended him if he single-handedly rescued 50 orphans from a burning building. So why are you so blind as to defend someone else who does those things?
your answer to the post was
vacuous. I was merely pointing that out. My post was not really to you, but for the benefit of the elite democrats on this board who enjoy seeing the silly posters in a smackdown left standing with their mouth in a big O.
The post was *so now you speak for God, gt* Her answer yup.
What is wrong with you? Time for new glasses????
Sorry, can't post an answer to your question
because I am not welcome to post here anymore
Do you have an answer for the inside post
nm
Why do you answer my post. then if you, as you state
'had nothing to do with these things...?'
I feel the need to answer on this board regarding this post. SM
You could not possibly have done an in depth research of the Protest Warriors. They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms, part of our Constitution, by the way. I know how deeply offended you must be by seeing pictures of those who own guns defying your agenda to take them away from them, despite what the Constitution says. They are pro-Israel and believe, as I do, in the Israeli state. They are Jewish. I am not. While doing your selective in-depth review of their web site, did you happen to view any of the videos. Two? Even one? I am thinking you probably didn't. Protest Warriors expose the left for what they have become. Shrill, violent apologists for terrorists. Anti-American shills for the very people who want us dead. If you viewed the videos, you would know that. But you don't want to know that I am sure. Please stop speaking about something you obviously know nothing about. I am the member you spoke about. I don't know anyone else who posts on the boards who has admitted to being a member.
Carla, I have to answer this ridiculous post. SM
I feel justified, since you make use of our board and post over there, though I have stayed off this board. In fact, most of us have. You are absolutely full of bull. First of all, Carla, the Salvation Army IS A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. They always have been. Second, prove to me what you are saying is true. I don't believe a word of it. Secondly, Carla, there is no connection between the Salvation Army, day care centers and the Republican Party. Your posts get more bizarre every single time.
I forgot to say, I will answer your post in more depth later.
I am most definitely a conservative, though. You are correct.
For Taiga...sorry I did not answer your post about CBS and Politico...
as to I should let CBS know that the Iraq link in their article went to Politico....this is from the CBS news site:
From Our Partner:
soooooo I'm thinking CBS knows that the link went to Politico...ya think?? You falsely accused me, and you were wrong. I DID get my article from CBS.
Just keeping the record straight.
I will answer you just as soon as you address my orignal post
that question repeatedly and I think you and I both know why you have been running from it all day long.
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
Thanks for the post. I think I will look up that
article.
And thanks for pointing out all the other "results" of his administration that, as you say, benefit nobody but the rich and/or the corporations or, as he himself once publicly bragged, "his base."
I know for a fact that when he ran for President in 2000, I told every single person I knew that if he becomes President, we're going to go to war with Iraq. (Nobody's gonna treat his daddy like Saddam did and get away with it.)
I didn't have a crystal ball. I had common sense and a good memory from the Gulf War when his father was President and how he didn't "finish the job." Seems a lot of other Americans forgot about that.
I really enjoyed reading your post and all the facts you raised that I failed to raise in mine. Thanks for the mention of the LA Times article. I'm going to try to look that up on the web. 
I know they don't. I said that in my post. NM
//
Actually, that post is right on. sm
You sound like a total lunatic, out of control and full of hatred. You sound like someone who could do just what "vs" says. You had best take a look at your behavior. YOUR posts are the ones who should be reported. You are one frightening person.
Re your post
From your post:
"Did you read Mein Kampf? Would that be good enough evidence for you, because he wrote about it in there."
Wrote about what? That the Jews were socialists?
This is an entirely different post.
Really wasn't directed to you anyhow.
your post is just sad
I'm actually feeling sad for you right now gt. You obviously don't know what Christianity is about. Pat Robertson does not speak for me, and I don't endorse what he said. I'm sorry you are so bitter and hate filled that you would wish anyone to burn in hell. There are some evil people in this world but my first wish for them is that they find Christ and turn from their evil ways with His help. I too hope one day you find Christ, gt, and quit letting misguided Christians and Christian leaders keep you from HIM. Their blunders are not worth your eternal soul.
|
![](http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2007/09/14/image3260970.gif")
