Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

No, I was talking about the recent Wounded Knee. sm

Posted By: sm on 2005-08-29
In Reply to: When you say Wounded Knee is nothing to be proud of.... - Gadfly

It would be an insult to say that the original Wounded Knee was nothing to be proud of.  It was a ghastly tragedy, one of a long line, against the American Indian. History books don't do justice to the injustice and horror of the original Wounded Knee.  


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

When you say Wounded Knee is nothing to be proud of....
You primarily mean the original Wounded Knee, right?
Wounded Knee/Reign of Terror

 I think you are confusing The Siege at Wounded Knee beginning in February 1973 with the Reign of Terror as it was called by the indians the following three years. During those 3 years 64 tribal members were unsolved murders, 300 harassed and beaten and 562 arrests made of which only 15 were convicted. The seige ended after 71 days. In 1975 the FBI was following a red pickup truck to the Jumping Bull ranch where many AIM members as well as nonmembers were present..AIM having been asked there by the family for protection. What ensued ended in the death of 2 Federal Agents and 1 indian man. The red pickup truck was never seen nor heard of again. What happened is sketchy at best. Three indian men were tried in the deaths of the Feds. Two were acquitted and Leonard Peltier has been in prison for 27 years, although there is little evidence to support his incarceration...or I guess I should say, there was evidence at the time of the trial but at least 4 of the witnesses have recanted their testimonies. They state they testified out of fear. If nothing else, Peltier deserves a new trial and that has been proven and reproven, yet he does not get it.  During the 1973 Wounded Knee, 2 AIM members were killed and 12 others disappeared. There is quite a bit of information on this topic available for your perusal. Aho.


 


P.S. The reason indians (traditional) would rather be called indians than Native Americans is because the land we lived on was not America until the white man came. Indians called this place Turtle Island. The Native Americans were, in fact, the first Europeans to arrive and name this place America, ergo, they were the first or Native Americans. We are the indigenous peoples, the indians.


At Wounded Knee, two federal agents were shot to death. sm

One was killed while going for his gun after being shot at.  The gun was so high powered, it severed his hand. He was married and a father.  I don't think Wounded Knee is anything to be proud of. 


The typical knee-jerk (wrong) reaction. No one's been talking censorship.
nm
We have never failed our wounded before.
Federal disaster relief has arrived within hours at every other national catastrophe as far back as 1912. All they had then was wagons and horses and a lot of strong backs - and they did far better than Bush and his cohorts with all their (our) money and modern machinery. There's nothing wrong with America or Americans - what's wrong sits squarely in the White House, a big rotten sore on the otherwise healthy fruit.
Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal - if you don't sue.
Halliburton to Wounded Employee: You'll Get a Medal -- If You Don't Sue

Halliburton will help its combat-zone employees get the honors and recognition they deserve -- if they promise not to sue the company. That's according to new documents released today by Senate Democrats.


Ray Stannard was a truck driver in Iraq for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2003, he was part of a fuel convoy that was ambushed by insurgents. Seven Americans died in the attack and 26 were injured, including Stanner. He is suing the company.


His company knew the convoy's route was dangerous and unprotected, he says, but sent the convoy through anyway. What they did was murder, Stannard told CBS News recently. And I stick by that.


The circumstances of his injuries qualified Stanner for the U.S. Defense of Freedom medal, the civilian equivalent to a soldier's Purple Heart. In offering to forward Stanner's medical records to the Department of Defense so they could confirm and appove his award, KBR required him to sign a release form. (You can see the document here.)


The document, sent to Stannard in November 2004, appears to be boilerplate -- but for one curious paragraph that appears to indemnify KBR from any wrongdoing that may have led to Stanner's injuries:


. . . I agree that in consideration for the application for a Defense of Freedom Medal on my behalf that. . . I hereby release, aquit and discharge KBR, all KBR employees, the military, and any of their representatives. . . with respect to and from any and all claims and any and all causes of action, of any kind or character, whether now known or unknown, I may have against any of them which exist as of the date of this authorization. . . . This release also applies to any claims brought by any person or agency or class action under which I may have a right or benefit.

Stannard didn't sign the form. He received the medal. And he filed suit against the company the following May.


Republicans want amnesty for terrorists who killed or wounded US troops.

The following is a compilation of Senate Republicans defending the proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded US troops. These statements were made on the Senate floor yesterday.


TED STEVENS - IF THAT'S AMNESTY, I'M FOR IT: I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward... if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven? - Sen. Ted Stevens



MCCONNELL SUGGESTED A RESOLUTION COMMENDING IRAQIS FOR GIVING TERRORISTS AMNESTY. ...might it not just be as useful an exercise to be trying to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi government for the position that they've taken today with regard to this discussion of Amnesty? - Sen. Mitch McConnell



ALEXANDER COMPARED IRAQI AMNESTY FOR TERRORISTS TO NELSON MANDELA'S PEACE EFFORTS. Is it not true that Nelson Mandela's courage and his ability to create a process of reconciliation and forgiveness was a major factor in what has been a political miracle in Africa...Did not Nelson Mandela, win a - the co-winner of - a noble Nobel Peace Prize just for this sort of gesture? - Sen. Lamar Alexander



CORNYN: IRAQI AMNESTY DEBATE IS A DISTRACTION. It makes no sense for the United States Senate to shake its finger at the new government of Iraq and to criticize them... it really is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have. - Sen. John Cornyn



CHAMBLISS: AMNESTY IS OK FOR EX-INSURGENTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE NOW. Is it not true today that we have Iraqis who are fighting the war against the insurgents, who at one time fought against American troops and other coalition troops as they were marching to Baghdad, who have now come over to our side and are doing one heck of a job of fighting along, side by side, with Americans and coalition forces, attacking and killing insurgents on a daily basis? - Sen. Saxby Chambliss




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/15/gop-senators-defend-propo_n_23083.html


P.S. Please don't let the recent

influx of rudeness on this board change your mind about coming here.  As you can see by reading the whole board, most of us don't treat each other rudely.


I don't agree with the present administration in this country, but I'm basically a very happy, cordial, friendly person.  Most of the other posters on this board seem to be very friendly and easy going, too.


So don't let a few bad apples spoil your experience here.


seen both recent ones

Excellent movies.  Should be required viewing in high school civics class.  If, like Mrs. Palin wishes, creationism be taught along side science, then Michael Moore's beautifully patriotic films should be too.


 


Knee-Jerks
Quoting a biased article reveals only mimickry and calls for absolutely no knowledge (parrot). You'd be more credible if you had actually read the plan. I suggest that instead of inciting, you investigate.

Seems that there is an underlying agenda on your part. I'd bet a month's salary that you're a bitter, middle-aged Caucasian Republican, more than a little ticked off at the outcome of the election for non-altruistic reasons.
Now there's a knee-slapper if I ever heard one!
Hard to convey sarcasm in a written message!
Recent Russo interview ...sm
With Conscious Media Network. Of course, it wasn't on CNN, etc. I have seen the trailers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=aaron+russo
Well that most recent 67% approval rating
How credible do you think you are by passing judgment on Obama administration 6 weeks before he is even sworn into office?
he addressed that issue in a recent

interview.  There is much more to the story that the article does not include.  Biden's explanation seemed reasonable when I heard it.  You can, of course, disagree with me on that point.


 


Recent history lesson....(sm)
Before Prop 8 gay marriage was legal in Calf.....therefore, a RIGHT.  Prop 8 took that RIGHT away.
That's a real knee-slapper. Thanks for the chuckles.
x
Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and..
and again, if you will actually read my posts before attacking, I said we had more social programs than others...I would also like to know if they are comparing apples to apples...meaning countries the same size as ours with the same population as ours. You also quoted from 2001. I am sure the number of people in worst-off houses increased...they probably had more children. Does not make sense to me to have more children when you are already struggling to feed those you have. But that is what the welfare system in this country encourages. When you have second and third generation families on welfare, there is something WRONG with the system. Again...read what I actually post and then come with your rebuttal, and come with a rebuttal that has substance and not cut and paste from some old statistics (probably Wikipedia, right?).
read recent newsmax article








Take a look at the date...


Olbermann Still Lying About O’Reilly, Fox Ratings










MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann has won the Worst Liar in the World Award once again.


His latest big fib is not a new one.


He continues to claim that he is beating “The O’Reilly Factor,” the longtime king of cable news programs hosted by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.


But the numbers show otherwise. But that apparently doesn’t bother Olbermann.


MSNBC took out a full-page ad in The New York Times proclaiming “A Sweeping Victory” for its ratings and declared “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” the No. 1 cable news program.


Independent ratings consistently show O’Reilly gets about twice the ratings Olbermann does.


Although Olbermann frequently leads his viewers to believe he has overtaken “The O’Reilly Factor,” in this case the numbers really do speak for themselves.


O’Reilly’s program, which Fox airs at 8 and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, averaged about 4 million viewers a night during the month of October, compared with Olbermann’s average of about 2 million, according to TVbytheNumbers.com, a leading Web site that analyzes the Nielsen ratings.


Olbermann not only overlooks the fact that O’Reilly trounces him but also claims the opposite is true.


Olbermann wrote on MSNBC’s Web site on Oct. 24 that O’Reilly “has seen the ratings spike here at MSNBC and decided that it is the result of a fraudulent conspiracy . . . ”


So how can a news network tout ratings that actual Nielsen research doesn't support?


The explanation is an almost-invisible line of fine print at the bottom of the ad, stating it refers to the 8 to 9 p.m. time slot for the dates Oct. 27 through Oct. 31, for viewers between 25 and 54 years of age.


In other words, MSNBC is touting one time period or ratings category, which is the exception to the overall ratings.


Consider: According to the Nielsen ratings, show on Thursday was the single most-watched program on cable television that week, other than Disney’s “Hannah Montana” and “Monday Night Football.”


The second-most-watched program the week of Oct. 27 was O’Reilly’s program that Tuesday.


And by the way, O’Reilly also hosted the fourth-most-watched cable program that week.


The highest any of Olbermann’s programs placed that week was 19th. (It was the only Olbermann show to crack cable’s top 40 programs that week.)


“O’Reilly’s lead in average viewers is large and has never been challenged by Olbermann,” Bill Gorman, co-founder of TVbytheNumbers.com, tells Newsmax. He points that “Olbermann has substantially increased both his average viewers and adults 24 to 54 substantially over time.” But data shows Reilly continues to regularly outpace Olbermann even in that key demographic group.


Olbermann appeared elated this past week with the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. But the win may be a Pyrrhic victory for the liberal news anchor. Olbermann had positioned himself as the anti-Bush, anti-Republican news source on MSNBC. With Democrats firmly in control of the White House and Congress, it’s questionable that his audience will grow.


Fox, meanwhile, may be a big beneficiary of the Obama win.


So far, the “early returns” suggest Fox may be growing already. On Nov. 5, the day after the elections, Fox kept about 12 percent more of its Election Day audience than MSNBC.


 


Recent article by Bill Mann
The scare ads and op-ed pieces featuring Canadians telling us American how terrible their government health-care systems have arrived - predictably.

There's another, factual view - by those of us Americans who've lived in Canada and used their system.

My wife and I did for years, and we've been incensed by the lies we've heard back here in the U.S. about Canada's supposedly broken system.

It's not broken - and what's more, Canadians like and fiercely defend it.

Example: Our son was born at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. My wife got excellent care. The total bill for three days in a semi-private room? $21.

My friend Art Finley is a West Virginia native who lives in Vancouver.

"I'm 82, and in excellent health," he told me this week. "It costs me all of $57 a month for health care, and it's excellent. I'm so tired of all the lies and bullshit I hear about the system up here in the U.S. media."

Finley, a well-known TV and radio host for years in San Francisco, adds,

"I now have 20/20 vision thanks to Canadian eye doctors. And I haven't had to wait for my surgeries, either."

A Canadian-born doctor wrote a hit piece for Wingnut Central (the Wall Street Journal op-ed page) this week David Gratzer claimed:

"Everyone in Canada is covered by a single payer -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system."

Vancouverite Finley: "That's sheer b.s."


I heard Gratzer say the same thing on Seattle radio station KIRO this week. Trouble is, it's nonsense.

We were always seen promptly by our doctors in Montreal, many of whom spoke both French and English.

Today, we live within sight of the Canadian border in Washington state, and still spend lots of time in Canada.

Five years ago, while we were on vacation in lovely Nova Scotia, the Canadian government released a long-awaited major report from a federal commission studying the Canadian single-payer system. We were listening to CBC Radio the day the big study came out.

The study's conclusion: While the system had flaws, none was so serious it couldn't be fixed.

Then the CBC opened the lines to callers across Canada.

Here it comes, I thought. The usual talk-show torrent of complaints and anger about the report's findings.

I wish Americans could have heard this revealing show.

For the next two hours, scores of Canadians called from across that vast country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia.

Not one said he or she would change the system. Every single one defended it vigorously.

The Greatest Canadian Ever

Further proof:

Not long ago, the CBC asked Canadians to nominate and then vote for The Greatest Canadian in history. Thousands responded.

The winner? Not Wayne Gretzky, as I expected (although the hockey great DID make the Top 10). Not even Alexander Graham Bell, another finalist.

The greatest Canadian ever?

Tommy Douglas.

Who? Tommy Douglas was a Canadian politician - and the father of Canadian universal health care.
Let's add knee-jerk Bible quotations to that definition.
ns
Pathetic is knee-jerk support of a concept
just as long as you think it will serve some sort of political gain. If you can't defend you, your party of its candidate can't explain or defend their viewpoints, how then can they expect to win an election. I'm pathetic because I am calling you and the rest of the posters here to simply explain what it is they are endorsing? NOT.
This is interesting, a recent journalist poll on Iraq.

This was pulled from journalism.org.


After four years of war in Iraq, the journalists reporting from that country give their coverage a mixed but generally positive assessment, but they believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived, according to a new survey of journalists covering the war from Iraq.


"Above all, the journalists—most of them veteran war correspondents—describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting. A majority of journalists surveyed (57%) report that at least one of their Iraqi staff had been killed or kidnapped in the last year alone—and many more are continually threatened. “Seven staffers killed since 2003, including three last July,” one bureau chief wrote with chilling brevity. “At least three have been kidnapped. All were freed.”


A majority of journalists surveyed say most of the country is too dangerous to visit. Nine out of ten say that about at least half of Baghdad itself. Wherever they go, traveling with armed guards and chase vehicles is the norm for more than seven out of ten surveyed.


Even the basics of getting the story are remarkably difficult. Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, most U.S. journalists must rely on local staff to do the necessary face-to-face reporting. Yet nearly nine out of ten journalists say their local staff cannot carry any equipment—not even a notebook—that might identify them as working for the western media for fear of being killed. Some local staffers do not even tell their own families.


Most journalists also have a positive view of the U.S. military’s embedding program for reporters. While they acknowledge the limited perspective it provides, they believe it offers access to information they could not otherwise get.


And most journalists, eight out of ten, feel that, over time, conditions for telling the story of Iraq have gotten worse, not better.


The survey, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism from September 28 through November 7, was developed to get a sense of the conditions journalists have faced in trying to cover the war over the last couple of years. It was not designed to poll their sense of the situation in Iraq at this one or any other particular moment in time, or to offer a referendum on the success of the surge. It will be followed, later this year, with a content analysis of coverage on the ground from Iraq.


The survey included responses from 111 journalists who have worked or are currently working in Iraq. The vast majority, 90 of them, were in Iraq when they took the survey or have worked there in 2007, and most have spent at least seven months in the country cumulatively since the war began.


The journalists are from 29 different news organizations (all of them U.S. based except for one) that have had staff in Iraq—including newspapers, wire services, magazines, radio, and network and cable TV. This represents, by best estimates, every news organization in the U.S. save one that has had a correspondent in Iraq for at least one month since January 2006.1


Nearly everyone surveyed also responded to open-ended questions – often at length – offering a vivid and sobering portrait of trying to report an extraordinarily difficult story under terrifying conditions.


“The dangers can’t be overstated,” one print journalist wrote. “It’s been an ambush – two staff killed, one wounded – various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure). It’s not fun; it’s not safe, but I go back because it needs to be told.”


Whatever the problems, a magazine reporter offered, “The press….have carried out the classic journalistic mission of bearing witness.”


“Welcome to the new world of journalism, boys and girls. This is where we lost our innocence. Security teams, body armor and armored cars will forever now be pushed in between journalism and stories,” one bureau chief declared.


The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is non-partisan and non-political, is one of eight projects that make up the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., a “fact tank” funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Princeton Survey Research was contracted to host and administer the online survey.



Doesn't much sound like the increased troops made things that much safer in general does it?  I think they have tried really hard to report it, but lends credence to the fact that much of what is really going on is not getting out.  I commend them. 

Recent history -- what started TODAY'S mess:

I agree that we should stay OUT of this, though I fear the timing of this all was purposely designed to drag us into it right before Inauguration Day.


Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen




A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.


Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm.


Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said.


One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon.


"This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation."


In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce".


"The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said.


The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government. It will be the first time the two sides have met at this level since fighting a near civil war more than a year ago.


Until now it had appeared both Israel and Hamas, which seized full control of Gaza last summer, had an interest in maintaining the ceasefire. For Israel it has meant an end to the daily barrage of rockets landing in southern towns, particularly Sderot. For Gazans it has meant an end to the regular Israeli military raids that have caused hundreds of casualties, many of them civilian, in the past year. Israel, however, has maintained its economic blockade on the strip, severely limiting imports and preventing all exports from Gaza.


Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians


 


We have good reason, kind of a knee jerk reaction. LOL.

We're constantly visited by the *compassionate conservative* trolls from the other board who come here only to be spew hatred, personally attack posters and to generally cause trouble, despite constant requests from the monitor that they not do that. 


I've always been in favor of stem cell research.  I believe in science progressing and helping people live longer.  I don't believe in forcing the personal religious beliefs of some down the throats of every American. 


In all honesty, though, here lately it's hard for me to get excited if I see America making progress in any area because it doesn't matter what bill Congress introduces, votes in favor of and presents to the President.  Bush will dismiss what he doesn't like and issue yet another of hundreds of his famous *signing statements.*  I don't know why we even bother to have a Congress any more.  They've been rendered impotent by King George.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14976584.htm


I apologize if you feel you were being treated negatively.  If you're someone who is legitimate and sincere about debate, then welcome to our board. 


But if you're only here to start trouble, like most of the elephants in donkeys' clothing invading this board lately, then I'd prefer that you just go away.  I won't feed any more hatred because I'm just tired of it all.  I've climbed down to their level too many times in the last few months, the stench way down there is just terrible, and I no longer wish to engage in their kind of communication.


What are your thoughts on the issues I've mentioned?  Please respond.  Thoughtful, intelligent debate, without the use of degrading personal insults, is very welcome here.


When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO

 


who provides campaign funds.  Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines?  Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills?  Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head?  Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble.  God, I could go on and on here but I get tired.  The nation is in such trouble.  Serious serious trouble.  There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics?  did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference.  lol.  


Well I want you to know what fascism.  And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks.  Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself?  There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota.  You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice.  Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened. 


THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!  Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake! 


Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.


Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking
about the torture of prisoners, crimes against the Geneva conventions.

It seems that you did not read the last sentence in my former post.

Are you saying that crimes from the near past should all be forgotten?
Not really, you'd have to know what they were talking about
which I didn't know about the incident of the soldier accidentally killing other soldiers.

Thanks though.
Wow! what are you talking about???nm
x
What are you talking about?
.
I was talking about myself when I said that.
You might want to re-read my post.
What are you talking about?
I am sure I don't know.  I know your game though.
Not what I was talking about

Wasn't referring to WMD, as stated in my post.


Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs, said his son-in-law, quite a few years earlier.  If your theory of invading a country that no longer is a threat, then would you also advise invading Germany since they used to have a Nazi regime?


If you are talking to me...
which question did I not answer?
who are you talking to?
I don't understand the anonymous post... there are plenty I think it could be addressed to, why did you not point out what you mean? PS you are just stirring the pot more right?
Exactly what I am talking about. Think for yourself.

xx


Talking about yourself again, huh?
nm
what are you talking about?
straight out of left field... you random people!

Yes the baby has Down's syndrome...
He is so adorable did you see him when she held him on stage?
Babies are so amazing!
Okay, what are you talking about?

I just mean in terms of the baby being passed around.  That's what people do with babies.  They share the love. 


Doncha have any babies in your family?


What are you talking about??
And you still have nothing positive to say about Obama.

All I'm asking for is something positive and you can't even do that.


You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need
You'll just produce your own figures (be they real or imagined) to 'back up' your own claims. But if you truly think the number of priests who have turned out to be sexual predators isn't a little fishy, then maybe that blindness is part of the problem.
No, I don't think he is talking about ...
the same sex ed for high school as he is kindergartners. However, it did describe talking about "sexual intercourse" and how HIV-AIDS is spread. I don't know how that is appropriate in any case for a kindergartner. The bill was specifically intended to open it up to the lower grades...it was already being taught in the upper grades. Why would you open that up to elementary school kids, let alone kindergartners? That was my point. If you want to establish a program for elementary school children about right and wrong touches, I am all for that. But introducing sexual intercourse and how HIV-AIDS is spread makes no sense to me for elementary school children. If they did not intend to teach it to elementary school children and kindergartners, why pass a bill to open it up to them?

Apparently many in the state senate agreed, because the bill did not pass.

That was my point. He in essence did vote for sex education for kindergartners and it was not just right and wrong touching. Thankfully, at least in my estimation...it did not pass. You saw the video...if he meant limited to "right and wrong touching" he would/should have said so.
I was talking about
appointing new justices to the supreme court. I would love to have lots of liberal justices seated on the bench. Has nothing to do with put babies in a closet, but hey, whatever.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
x
This is exactly what I am talking about. nm
nm
Who do you think you are talking to?
from the experts to figure out tax structure, credits, cuts, deductions, incentives, etc, and certainly know myself, my beliefs, my principles and my values by now. I also know my party, their platform, my candidate and my choice.
Well am I talking to myself LOL
I meant this to go under the post of sm-m!
So, what will you be talking about
just curious
What are you talking about?!

Biden answered each and every question very completely and very eloquently.  They were more like accusations than questions, and the whole thing resembled an ambush more than an interview.  Please WATCH THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW (link below) and tell me just which question Biden DIDN'T answer.


I wouldn't waste my time being interviewed by this woman, either.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X346U109Chs


 


What are you talking about
"Fox news is barely legal"
He's right, we ARE talking only to each other now UH OH, what now?
Seriously, what do we do now?