No, I was responding to the past above yours, sorry,
Posted By: MAX on 2008-10-10
In Reply to: Max, are you talking to me? I said it was unacceptable - nm - Amanda
did I get it wrong? yikes - I meant that for the 'first of all' post...
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
Thanks for responding.
1) Agree with the point about Afghanistan. If our troops weren't burdened with fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, we might be able to have a stronger presence in Afghanistan, as well as protect ourselves at home in case of a disaster (terroristic or natural). Our troops are spread too thin, and the military keeps raising the age limit and lowering physical standards for enlistment as a reseult.
2) I agree with this.
3) Bush has recently admitted that Iraq had no WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you think he is lying?
4) Tony Snow has made some really stupid statements, including blaming 9/11 on Bush 41.
5) Bush was the only leader who held out so the war could continue longer when the rest of the world pleaded for it to end.
Regarding your last sentence, whether I agree or not doesn't matter. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't feel you wasted your breath or your time. Thank you for responding.
I believe she was responding to the
the exclamation point abuser, and not referring to teabaggers in general.
I don't think I was responding to those posts
I was responding to gt's, and no, I was not around when those other posts were made, and that's why I didn't comment on them.
I was responding to the "drunk" comment that gt made which was totally off par and shows what that gt is here for only one reason and that is to incite fighting, because calling someone a drunk without knowing them at all is definitely fighting words.
I don't know how you can render me a phoney, because I have told you nothing of my self. That is again, a baseless judgement. GT was typing nonsenical stuff right after telling someone their posting habits sounded like those of a drunk. If posting habits are evidence of drunkeness then gt needs to look at his or her posting style.
If you'd stop responding, so will the OP.
The more you carry on with posters like this, the more they will continue.
Moderator
Huh? No. I was responding to the post
above that stated man and woman were created with the purpose of producing offspring. It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
I don't understand where you got the idea I meant anything else.
Do you think you've been responding to
just 1 person all day - LOL.
enclosed the post I was responding to
Below is the post I was responding to:
*But can a parent sacrifice their child to the military
that was the question...
and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.*
Maybe you should actually read the post before responding.
Bush is claiming they are working on nuclear weapons.
Iran has always claimed they are working on nuclear energy.
Who's lying? Which country has the track record for lying when it comes to reasons for declaring war on a country that didn't attack it first??
Agree and I do not plan on responding to them either
I have better things to do than squander any more of my time responding to the troublemakers posting on this board. When someone here has something worth responding to, I will. There is no point in explaining, defending, or arguing with the people who are only here because they can't find any intelligent discussions on their own board.
You're the one who keeps responding. Just quit your...sm
harassment.
I was speaking to you, no matter how you try to twist the converation, and say I can't follow the thread. Period.
My apologies... I thought you were responding to
I usually don't read her posts, so by the time I checked to see if you were responding to her or me, it was too late. Sorry about the hasty reply, but I what I wrote still stands, just in case anyone DOES mis-quote me.
Anyway, a great big OOOPS!
:-/
Just tired of responding to hatred....nm
x
Responding to you is a waste of my time.
I do not waste my time responding to your political posts, and I will not waste my time arguing semantics with you. I would not associate with you in my personal life, and you are not worth my time and energy on this forum. I am afraid you will have to find someone else to listen to your nonsense.
I am responding to the above post with my opinion
and am not interested in over-aggressive fights about such silliness. It is my opinion in answer to the question above.
Wasn't responding to your post.... but the sow's ear
--
Did I stop anyone from responding to your post?
you haven't answered mine.
the problem with responding too fast
...is that you end up leaving out important phrases!
The $72 an hour figure quoted in the article, I should have said, isn't made of *just* the wages and benefits of current employees--it's also including those paid to retired workers, the ones who paid into the retirement fund their whole lives, and are now living off those benefits.
In other words, you take the wages/benefits paid to the current 180,000 or so autoworkers, PLUS those paid to the 400,000 or so retirees and the 120,000 spouses of dead retirees, then divide that by the 180,000 current workers, then say, LOOK HOW MUCH THOSE GUYS GET PAID! It's an incredibly artifically inflated number.
And noooo one in the media ever seems to question it.
You did not follow who I was responding to!!!! YOU READ IT
dip
Also I was responding to the person who wrote that
say the opposite. BT stated it correctly.
Now nuff said.
Dont even bother responding to her posts -
() is most definitely NOT playing with a full deck.
I agree, I was responding to some of the ugly remarks made below nm
x
You just don't have the capacity to understand I'm afraid... see ya, not responding anymore nm
to you
I am responding to all the posters who have made a living on this board denegrating everything that
new President does, even though he has just taken office, give me a break. George had 8 years, and each year was worse than the one before it.....I am not "whining" about Bush, the past is the past and I am trying very hard to focus on change, on a new future, on how we can all help, etc., not waving the Democratic flag, but the AMERICAN flag, I am just referring to history, nonpartison history.
I heard today Palin is responding to Levi's charges
by throwing the dirt back at him. I say that is how every woman her age should behave, right? Tit for tat.
And I think you have to read all of my posts, I am responding to arrogant inflammatory remarks, whic
Substantiation, no real substance, and yet these people are CHOOSING to start devisive threads with divisive remarks on this board, even making statements that historically are 100% inaccurate. Yes, I pray for unity, compassion, wisdom, etc., but the rabid Republicans on this board (and I do not mean all Rep., just a few loud ones), want to harshy judge and condemnn the new administration without giving things a chance, what would you call that? What about the "hit and run" posts by right wingers who continue to stir the pot with incorrect, slanted, and inflammatory remarks here? Fair is fair, I try to back up each statement I make with historical facts, I try to see both points of view (wow, I have actually agreed with Republicans on certain subjects!), but this board is not about me, or you, it is about all of us trying to hash out all the many struggles this nation now has, and with restraint, intelligence, and care look at each problem and try to help fix it. America comes first. Period.
They certainly have in the past. sm
but their headline didn't intentionally mislead like the one posted above. Oh, let's face it, the media is just not what it used to be. I don't trust them at all.
from the past
I am so-o-o sick of the party bickering, finger pointing and verbal barbs blaming the other guy, I am remembering a line from my past "Alfred E. Newman for president." Back then it was a joke but it is starting to sound good again!
That's because most do not look at his past tax
//
You mean once we look past the
seas of humanity jumping for joy on November 4th, the rafters-busting crowds that are descending on DC for the inauguration and the hordes in the global bleachers cheering him on? Four years is sufficient time to build a slam dunk of a track record but in the absence of worthy GOP opponents, all he has to do is stay alive between now and then to get re-elected. Personally, I hope that they put SP, Hasselbach and/or Coulter up there, the dream team of certain defeat. Sure doesn't look like they have much more than that to offer at the moment.
Yes, definitely ignore the past if it does not...
fit your agenda. It clouds nothing. Somehow I cannot see you blasting JFK for Viet Nam. Just cannot see that happening...though you swear you would. You just can't bring yourself to be disguated about something that is not happening NOW? Wanna talk about Carter and Iran? Oh no, we can't do that, that was in the PAST.
Well hang in there piglet...as soon as Congress pulls funding, the troops are brought home because of it, Viet Nam revisited, the horror that will become Iraq when that happens making NOW look like a walk in the park...you will be able to ignore THAT as the past also.
Must be nice.
There is nothing in McCain's past...
of radical leftwing socialist politics. Nor does he think there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion, up to and including allowing babies who survive abortion to be left to die. Tell me...how do you reconcile your Christian principles with that? Do you think the Jesus you know would condone that? For ANY reason?
we have now gone way past rude..
to downright disgusting. It probably also take a MENSA brain to call someone else pathetic, little, loser because they don't think the same as you. Give it a rest already people.
I have felt in the past...
that I was being attacked for saying something that was never really meant to be offensive. I feel that we should all be able to act like adults and refrain from personally attacking anyone. I just thought that the response was unnecessarily nasty. I hope you have a great evening! I hope the other person does, as well.
I think JM was up past his bedtime.
Past and future
Stop dwelling in the PAST.
Look into the FUTURE.
The last past 8 years did not work for anybody.
What we need is change. REAL change.
Summon it up, we do not need
your pagelong lectures. Who has time for this?
The election is tomorrow, thanks God.
Go, Obama!
Can't live in the past - have to look to
The PAST says a lot about what you are today.
nm
past that point
http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory
It's not the past administration?
What color are your eyes? Brown? Thought so.
They can't see past anything..... easily led!
nm
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.
In order to smear it.
No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush. 
U.S. and past civilian deaths
U.S. and British forces bombed Dresden, Germany with the death of approximately 225,000 civilians, and it was intended as a purely civilian bombing.
From a history publication (with references to LeMay also made by Robert McNamara in The Fog of War):
When news concerning the bombing of Dresden got out, it led to an uproar that had to be quieted by cynical denials that this was U.S. or British policy. But it was, and it continued, now against Japan. In March 1945, more than 100,000 Japanese were killed in a firebombing raid on Tokyo as “canals boiled, metal melted, and buildings and human beings burst spontaneously into flames” (John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War [Pantheon Books, 1986]). By August 1945, 58 Japanese cities had been firebombed and the bomber commander, General Curtis LeMay, had to curtail his raids because he had run out of incendiary bombs. After the war, Le May remarked “I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” Instead he was promoted, eventually heading the Strategic Air Command, where he advocated a pre-emptive nuclear “first strike” against the Soviets. During the Vietnam War, Le May notoriously called to “bomb them [the North Vietnamese] back into the Stone Age.”
It is nice to look to the future and not the past.
You are quite wrong about my stance on Vietnam. Don't make the presumption that you know me at all.
One thing that I do know is that you cannot change the past. You want to bog yourself down with useless information knock yourself out. Our government tends to not pay attention to those details of the past in the way they operate today. If they did, Bush would have never invaded Iraq. Perhaps you are making your speeches to the wrong audience? You will never convince a liberal that war is just.
As I have stated before, I am strictly anti-war, no matter who, what, where, and why. War does nothing but fund hate and line pockets of men who profit from them and kills the innocent as an after thought, and it's excused because, hey, that's war isn't it?
The longer our troops stay in Iraq, the more hate it is going to foster. This military pseudo occupation has to stop and the humanitarian effort needs to start, period.
Or better yet, why don't you go there and explain to the Iraqi people and our military men and women who are doing their fourth or fifth tour and tell them why they are still there. There's your audience, try and convince them.
Umm...2003...isn't that the PAST, piglet....
I thought you were interested in NOW. :-)
No need to go past the Malkin byline.
su
Look at his past political career....
while he was an organizer in Chicago he pushed through legislation with earmarks beneficial for his benefactors...Tony Rezko and the Daley political machine, because that is what it takes to get ahead in Chicago politics. He made a somewhat meteoric rise...and that only happens when you have the right kind of political support and you repay that support.
One of the first things he did as senator was steer over a million dollars in earmarks to his wife's employer...who had just previous to that DOUBLED her salary.
He has a long-standing relationship with William Ayers...a man who hates this country. Among his advisors are people on record as saying Hugo Chavez is a great champion of Democracy.
That is what I am talking about regarding his history. He is not going to change anything. He is a consummate politician, the most liberal senator in the senate, to the left of Ted Kennedy even. It will be politics as usual. He personifies Washington politics as usual, and so does his running mate...been there 30 years.
Sorry...I see past the bio the media has created and look at his political career. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
I invite you to get and read the book "The Case Against Barack Obama." It lays it all out there for you with verifiable facts about the earmarks, the Daley machine, William Ayers, the whole thing.
But only if you are interested in both sides. I am not trying to fight with you. Just offering a source.
Have a good night!
There has been a big swing in past few days of
nm
I would not put it past an extremist republican to put something...sm
like that out there and make it look like the democrats had something to do with it. Anyone who truly had the democratic party at heart would never think of lowering themselves to these kinds of tactics.
The truth about his past associations....
would be a good start.
sam's right on this one. Mainly the dems in power through the past several...sm
years have abused their power and positions, and taken advantage of the situation.
While I believe a few of the republicans stood by and let it happen, they are not the majority in this.
Rich liberal democrats on Wall street and in Congress/Senate, not to mention Bill Clinton and his cronies, are the ones that bear the most blame.
And some of them are crying the loudest blaming George Bush, when it's their own fault.
Sam has posted the names and dates and all. It is the truth. Research it yourselves. Just because you don't like what she has to say, means that it's wrong.
Ran this past my brother who is a lawyer and...sm
a republican I might add (much to my chagrin) and he said it is a frivolous lawsuit. He added, which I already knew, it does not matter where he was born, who his father was, who he was adopted by, or where he went to school. His mother is an American citizen and he is therefore an American citizen, period. This is all just smoke and mirrors, lies, diversions from the real issues.
|
