No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm
Posted By: MT on 2006-07-02
In Reply to: 911 widow charges Bush in RICO suit.sm - LVMT
She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see.
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
My offense does not come from
the fact that Republicans did a very noble thing - they very much did and I am grateful that those people stood up for what was right -my offense comes from you using such a horrendous situation as a way to prove some point.
But it's done. The argument is going in circles, as kam and piglet posted below. In trying to make your view known, instead of saying it in a respectful way, you are pushing the idea that 'liberals' or 'Democrats' are racist baby killers. You don't stop at saying - no Democrats have not always been the liberal party. I am not FOR abortion or the enslavement of innocent people. Period. What Democrats did whenever does not have anything to do with what I DO and believe NOW.
no offense but
and I only spend about $100 a week!!!! how in the heck do you spend that much for just two people??? Maybe you should consider leaner options...?
Some of us take offense
anything remotely similar to a great, revered American leader and have a hard time letting such preposterious comparisons go unanswered. Does well researched commentary always make you so touchy? What happened to "on the light side?" Personally, I was happy to see someone step forward and take issue with that nonsense.
I take offense at that -
I am an Obama supporter and I do not sit on the internet, watching dancing with the stars, eating doritos and flipping through people magazine whlie waiting for their check in the mail.
I go to college, I work 2 jobs, I support my family on my own with no help.
I did have help at one time, when I was 19 and my husband left me with a 3 week old baby after I had had complications with the birth and could not go back to work and I got some help for about 3 months... then I went back to work just like I had every day since I was 15 years old. And I am thankful that it was there...
All Obama supporters are not waiting for a handout!
Thanks - no offense taken
Not a problem at all. There are so many messages that have been posting it is getting confusing.
I do find it amazing that in today's day and age we have come so far in our technology, etc, but yet there are so many out there still living emotionally in the puritan times. I find it amazing that they will call people who want to have a gay relationship deviants, etc, and they give a free pass to all the heterosexual child molesters, bondage, fetishes, etc. I can't even remember the last time I saw a news story about some haneous (sp?) crime that was committed by a gay person. It's always a heterosexual doing the weird and "deviant" acts.
There is nothing deviant or abnormal about loving another human being and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them. It's called love, honor, and cherish, and last I knew God was about love, honoring, and cherishing.
Thanks for posting though and clearing it up. I think I've had enough of this thread and hope it closes soon. I believe I would have an easier time trying to have an intelligent conversation with a chimpanzee than some of these other posters.
No offense...but how is this
political? 
no offense to you...but I keep picturing...sm
this little gecko that fell off the ceiling in Hawaii when were on vacation when I was 13 years old. This little lizard fell off the ceiling, on my father's head, bounced off onto the floor.... the little guy got so scared and twitched and twitched.....and lost his tail in the process..........
No offense taken. The charges she made sm
are based on the evidence, which is overwhelming. Popular Mechanics definitely did not debunk it. I think it shattered her belief system, just like it did mine.
No offense taken. Let me give my opinion here...sm
It sounds as if you have, like millions of Americans, health care problems and financial difficulties. No, certainly the Clinton's will not send you money, nor would Obama for that matter.
However both Clinton's and Obama's platforms address your issues, that being health care reform where,in the future, if you currently you are uninsured you will be able to become insured, along with other health care reform measures.
Both Clinton and Obama are acutely aware of the jobs losses, the cost of living situation, home foreclosures and the like, and both likewise address those issues in their respective platforms.
No offense taken. Directly, of couse, neither candidate is going to send you a check to help with your difficulties, but indirectly their platforms are well aware of your problems, and those of millions of other Americans like you, and they are very actively addressing those issues.
I hope your situation eases in the coming years.
What is offense about the comment? see message
No worse than people saying other religious organizations donated to McCain. I highly doubt that that saying a Muslim donated to Obama is offense. What is more truthful that you should have said is that you find it offense that people are finding out what kind of people are donating to Obama's campaign (you know those foreign countries that do not like us) and that he's getting donations from people who are not reputable people (like Good Will and the liquor store in NY), but her comment that it sounds like Muslim's made a donation is certainly not offensive. Most likely Obama did receive large donations from middle eastern countries. He's trying to con us all into believing that every penny he got was from grandma Jones or gradma Smith who gave him $5.00 here and there....come off it. You know better than that.
Arresting officer, who is Jewish, took no offense. sm
He pretty much said what I did below.
Arresting Deputy Didn’t Want To ‘Defame’ Gibson
‘I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson’ says officer, who is Jewish
MSNBC
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:56 p.m. PT July 31, 2006
Excerpt:
CALABASAS, Calif. - The deputy who arrested Mel Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving said Monday that he feels bad for damage to the star’s reputation but hopes Gibson thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel.
James Mee, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, told the Associated Press that he considered it a routine arrest and didn’t take seriously any comments that Gibson made.
Gibson reportedly unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade and made other offensive comments when he was pulled over, initially for speeding, early Friday along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. He was then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Gibson has issued a public apology for his conduct without specifying what he said or did.
“I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson,” said Mee, a 17-year deputy who is Jewish. “What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. ... I don’t want to ruin his career. I don’t want to defame him in any way or hurt him.”
*snip*
TMZ reported that Gibson said, “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the arresting officer, “Are you a Jew?”
In the interview outside his home, Mee would not comment specifically on what Gibson said.
“That stuff is booze talking,” the deputy said. “There’s two things that booze does. It amplifies your basic personality. If you are a laid-back kind of person, just an easygoing kind of person, booze is going to amplify that and you’ll be just sitting around going how it’s a wonderful day.
No offense taken. Rumors spread so fast, especially ...sm
bad rumors intended to scare and manipulate people. I think the excitement of the people at his rallies is because they see him as someone who offers the common people hope. He has never addressed or dwelled on any of the many, many rumors being spread about him. I believe he is an upstanding American citizen, a Christian, who has a lovely wife and family and is nothing like what the right wing of the republican party is painting him to be. Keep praying on it but don't get taken in by people who are not so Christian themselves.
Yes, it is interesting. I would be willing to see it go to court...
if we explore the dual citizenship/multi-citizenship of Obama at the same time. How about you?
Supreme Court
I think a huge issue people may not realize is that within the next president's term, the probability is that THREE to SIX of the Supreme Court justices will be retiring.
The next president will be able to place a significant number of justices, and they will be in place until they retire or die.
That makes the presidential race all the more important.
I, for one, don't want Obama stacking the deck, so to speak, with people who share his 'you're not alive until I SAY you're alive' view of life.
For me, this was the most profound part of the article:
"For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her."
I saw an interview with a young woman once who had survived abortion, though it did leave her with lifelong disabilities. She would not have been alive at all if it weren't for a nurse pulling her out of the trash. That's as sorry a state of affairs as I can imagine.
Even if it is court ordered
By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment. The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay. I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there. I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income. (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him). The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%. Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from. Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid.
Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support. Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system.
He did get it paid up about 2 years ago. Took him over 10 years to do so. He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.
I struggled for years with my kids on my own. We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs. There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job. But I made it. She can too. I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is. I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there. The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children. It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point.
Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days. They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table. Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care. I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations. I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.
Best of luck to you and your daughter.
It already is going to Supreme Court -
I hope this time it wins.
Nowadays, anything that comes before a court
and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs. Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it.
It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter. Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband? Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents? Or was it more than a little of both?
Supreme Court Ruling.
I almost fainted when I read ***Supreme Court Finds Bush Overstepped his Authority** in relation to the military tribunals. This being a very conservative court with 2 Bush appointees I have just felt that whatever was on the table would have a conservative outcome. I am shocked. What does anyone else think?
That's right, ignore a court document....
denial, denial, denial. You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic. Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white, and resort to snide remarks when you cannot effectively debate. But there is no debate here...CBS on the one hand said she was covert, and filed a brief in court stating the opposite. They have a history of lying to suit their agenda. And you are right there with them. I know you are not ignorant...I know you know that a court document is not cooked. The only impression one can glean from that is that you know they are lying, but you don't care.
And how does that speak to character?
No court has recognized any imperative
cetificate of live birth which has been provided, recognized and accepted on numberous occasions.
1. Andy Martin (Hawaii) Petition 29414 - denied.
2. David Neal request (Ohio) - denied.
3. Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) - denied.
4. Steven Marquis (Washington) - denied.
5. Leo Donofrio (New Jersey) - denied.
6. Phillip Berg (Pennsylvania) - denied.
7. Rev Tom Terry (Georgia) - denied.
Courts don't agree with you. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. How many more times will it take to get this through your thick skulls?
Supreme court lost their
credibility in the Bush/Gore recount.
I know he has nothing to prove to you....
but to the 48% of us who don't trust him, he does. I will believe it when I see it. There is nothing in his past to indicate he wants to wipe out party lines, unless that means bring us ALL into HIS light. His entire career has been hard left towing the party line. His votes have all been hard left toeing the party line. And now he wants us to believe that all disappears? He has undergone some miraculous change himself? I would feel better if he used the word "compromise" as much as he used the word "unite." All "unite" means to me is that he wants everyone to come to his side. His entire agenda is diametrically opposed to most of what I believe in. How is he going to "unite" people like him and people like me if he doesn't compromise?
Like I said...I am waiting to see what he does. He said himself he had to earn my trust. So far he is not doing so well. That could "change." Only time will tell.
BTW, this is not an attack. It is just my open and honest concerns about the POTUS. Concerns about any POTUS. I would have held McCain's feet to the fire too. He was certainly not my ideal candidate...but he beat the alternative. Now that the alternative has won...he has to prove himself to me and 48% of the country.
prove it.
Where is your proof that satan does not exist? Where is your proof that the Bible is a fairytale? Where is your proof that Jesus doesnt exist? Until you can show me some proof, this is just your opinion and doesnt really mean much or hold any water.
You would have to prove a ............. sm
genetic predisposition for this to be logical. Even if you did prove such a theory, the fact that a person has a particular gene does not necessarily mean that that gene will develop into a behavior.
Prove it
Yes he had to use Air Force 1 I think he and the Secret Service would look a little conspicuous on Continental, don't you? But he paid for everything else himself.
This is such a small, petty argument, I can't even believe you people are talking about it. Oh wait...yes I can....
Prove it
I have not seen one bit of proof that it was taxpayer money. Only Air Force 1 was a government expense and that could not be helped.
Where is your proof?
The Supreme Court won't stop him for much longer.
Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.
Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time. Same with Scalia and Thomas.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86. This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone. Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment. If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations.
In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much. They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.
Not that even THAT would matter much. Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.
He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war. Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.
"...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross"
nm
Actually, it was the Ohio State Supreme court, not...
the Supreme Court of the United States. That was then appealed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the state supreme court ruling.
I guess that puts you and Sarah on about the same footing as far as the Supreme court?
Just asking.
It is still on the docket slated for a court date
--
At least she isnt fighting the court by refusing
nm
So you'd believe Michael Savage (of all people) over a court of law?
No offense, but using something that Michael Savage read isn't really proof of anything, but the fact that Michael Savage can form words and speak them.
There is a picture of the birth announcement (along with all kids of very level, logical information) here (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html).
But given the fact that (a) there was a birth announcement, (b) Obama has a valid birth certificate from the state of Hawaii (that I am SURE, if forged, would have been looked into by a number of people who have access to birth records in Hawaii), and (c) that a huge network of people would have had be a part of this vast conspiracy theory, from the moment Barack Obama was born, it's a pretty far-flung accusation and one that really just resembles clinging to insanity so as not to have to deal with a distasteful reality.
Please give us a link for the court's not agreeing...
The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm
on the case. They do not hear every case presented to them. They are very likely to send it back to the lower court if they think it is frivolous.
if it were a "Dead Horse" the Supreme Court ...sm
would not be still considering it further, which they are. Perhaps that should be your first dose of reality.
Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court
Wow, I believe we have some sore losers!
From NBC’s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for discussion.
Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.
Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the circumstances of Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya. Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States, Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.
The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the Constitution.
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."
Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as a voter or taxpayer.
The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because they were constrained by the privacy laws.
Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record," which shows that he was born there.
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?
JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
More Czars than Russia...or The King and his Court.
The disturbing thing about these "czars" is that they are not answerable to anyone other than Obama himself, and yet are positioned to usurp some of the powers of the Congress, who did not approve their appointments.
You're looking at a man who is concentrating power in his own hands and setting up a banana-republic type of dictatorship.
We already have a census czar. The logical next step is an "elections czar" - whose position will be justified on the basis of "problems" in past elections. He will "help" us "get it right" this time.
When you see that, folks, the end is near.
I don't have to prove anything. Those of us who were here know it to be true. nm
Then prove I said what you accused me of saying.
Show me the post I wrote where I claimed to have *inside info on rapture. She said so* as you accused me of in your post above. Just copy and paste it and show me where I said I have inside info on the rapture.
You can't prove it because I didn't say it. So who's really the liar here?
What, may I respectfully ask, does this prove?
Lebanon and Israel have a long and colourful history of conflict. I am not quite sure what this letter is meant to prove. Hezbollah has used Lebanese residential areas to set up their missles and attack bases. Israel retaliates for the abduction of their people. But first, they drop leaflets, warning civilians to leave. Really, quite a first for this sort of thing. I'm very sorry, but I, for one, am bloody tired of Israel being made the aggressor here. Hamas and Hezbollah have pounded them nearly to oblivion and all you can worry about is a letter from the Lebanese?! I am astounded.
In Massachusetts we have to prove
we have health insurance when we file our state income taxes. We get a form from insurance company that we have to file. Otherwise you lose your personal exemption. I believe at one point part of the plan was they could garnish your wages but not sure on that.
This is all part of the insurance plan Romney came up with as governor, and he is supposed to be a conservative.
Once again...you prove my point.
liberals are NOT about tolerance. There is nothing but INtolerance in your post...you, my friend, are a bigot. Only it is not a race, it is a belief system. "right wing rags" is NOT an example of tolerance of someone else's viewpoint. It is obvious for anyone who would care to, to see. Attack, attack, attack. If you are not like me, go away. I am not interested in another point of view,nor am I interested in debating any points.
You say equality, you say tolerance, you say no bigotry. Yet you do not tolerate opposition, you want to quell dissent, and you discriminate against conservatives.
Which leaves me with the impression that your lofty ideals are just that. Because you do NOT practice them. NOW I understand what the other liberal poster meant when they posted there are no true liberals in the Democratic party. Amen to that, poster, wherever you are!
Prove to me that it is a rumor!!!
.
Prove to me it is not!! Are you so jaded that you...
can't even give a 16-year-old the benefit of the doubt??
To what end? Prove a communist
nm
DOn't have to prove it....HE SAID IT. Geez...
did you read his letter? And I have been doing more research...you should too. This is not the end of the Saul Alinsky connection.
I am not the one who needs to prove or disprove it....
I accept it on its face. She did what she was supposed to do...look out for the interests of her state. Why would that surprise anyone? And she did a good job of it. Like I said, if she applies that same principle at the federal level, good for us, right?
If you lived in Alaska, wouldn't you want the $1200 as your part of the revenue Alaska oil generated? Or would you rather that was redistributed to the lower 48? Just asking.
cant prove a negative
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
You prove my point. Thank you. nm
nm
don't have to prove a thing
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6817.html
|
