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

Pure Race Definition: One Without Neglect & Abuse

Posted By: Eliminate all Neglect/Abusers; everyone else can s on 2008-07-22
In Reply to: Let me take one shot at clarifying... - sam

nm

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

Love that race card. Pure class. sm

This is coming from someone who trained at the gym for 2 years with a black guy.  Yeah, I'm racist, all right.


Like Bill Clinton said, "they played the race card from the bottom of the deck!"

It is criminal neglect, IMHO
The more I read articles and watch videos in the net, the more horror it all becomes, I truly believe it is criminal neglect.  I would think whomever will be found responsible after investigations (I assume Bush will be, the evidence is there), should be put on trial.  This was just simply neglect by the federal govt to respond to a national emergency and hundreds or thousands have died because of it, animals are dying, billions will have to be spent to rebuild, people no doubt will be traumatically scarred for years to come, especially the children.  Some will never know what happened to their family as the longer the bodies lay in the water and heat, their DNA breaks down.  Beautiful New Orleans destroyed.  Its like Bush is truly disconnected..he does not comprehend impending emergencies, he just does not get it and he would rather joke about disasters, like he did last week.  I wonder if all that alcohol and cocaine he did in his youth burned part of his thought processes?  Im just wondering what the next catastrophe will be under Bush's watch.  9/11, Iraq war and now this..American's dirty little secret is out to the world..we dont take care of the less fortunate, we would rather spend billions killing people in other countries than helping poor American citizens and strengthening our infrastructure.  I hope the momentum continues and we demand from our servants, the politicians, to put America back on the right track. 
Abuse of children and the right
Hold on just a minute....from your post you are making it sound like conservatives and the right condone molestation of children. If that is what you were implying you are absolutely wrong. Please, please, please do not categorize all Christians and conservatives with the wacko extreme cults that dare do these things to children. I believe a few weeks ago there was a long thread on the C-board about child molestation. Personally, I think anyone who hurts a child should die...period. If it's sexual molestation the very least that should happen to a male offender is castration...I'd prefer the death penalty...

Again, this implied generalization that all conservatives are racists, homophobes, and child molesters is absolutely wrong.
then again, perhaps it's abuse of power like
nm
I am not saying that there are people who abuse
the system and what not. I am just saying that there are real, honest, hardworking people that are having a hard time right now - regardless of their political affiliation. I'm not saying Obama would be superior or vice versa, I am just saying that some people would not find his remark funny.
So abuse of power is OK by you?
x
Pure hysteria, much of what you say.
I might also add, that as a casual observor, your hatred of conservatives, or as you so sweetly call them *CONS* is very evident.  It's ludicrous to deny it.  Anyone who does not agree with you, even when they are not of the political persuasian you accuse them of being, they are labeled and you send up a cry to the moderator and THEN you insult the moderator!  LOL.  You duplicity is quite obvious.  Except, perhaps, to you.  Let the flames begin!
Pure Class.

Adults acting like children once again.  Proves my point every time. 


 

That's pure propaganda

Right down to the music that is being played in the background.  Anyone can take bits and pieces of articles and flash them on the screen.  Those aren't facts. 


The democrates did not cause the financial crisis. Here are some real facts:


Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration. 


The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country.  It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican adminstration EXCEPT the top 1%. 


While Nixon and Ford were in office interest rates for mortgages had ballooned to 11%-13% and many people in this country could not afford to buy a home.  Carter brought those rates down so that more people in this country could afford to buy homes. 


What caused this mess is not the people who were extended credit.  Here is part of what caused it:  Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time.  Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. First-time home buyers were especially targeted.  A lot of them didn't understand what they were getting into because it was misrepresented to them.  They didn't know, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalities.  Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and they were unable to refinance.  Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford.  As homeowners lost their homes the banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices were no longer able to collect on those loans.  But the banks (and the CEOs) that initated those loans walked away with a great deal of money. 


It was because of greed.  And the deregulation that the republicans passed allowed it to happen. 


 

pure supposition and

not supported by any available information.


 

That's because it is pure hogwash.
x
Abuse in Iraq as bad or worse
What I would like to know is this: Where is the outrage from all those who were so eager to go in and get *the brutal dictator*?


Abuse in Iraq as bad or worse than in Saddam's day: Allawi


LONDON (AFP) - Human rights abuses in Iraq now are as bad, or worse, than they when Saddam Hussein was in power, the nation's first post-Saddam prime minister was quoted as saying.

In an interview with the Observer newspaper in London, Iyad Allawi pointed an accusing finger at the interior ministry, and alleged that a lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed during interrogation.

People are doing the same as (in) Saddam Hussein's time and worse, said Allawi, an prominent opponent of Saddam who steered the US-backed interim government in Baghdad until April this year.

It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam Hussein and now we are seeing the same things.

Allawi's remarks came two weeks after US troops raided a secret prison in Iraq and found about 170 detainees in need of water, food and medical attention.

Graphic pictures released by the Committee of Muslim Scholars, the main Sunni religious organisation in Iraq, showed prisoners with severe burns, massive bruising and welts on their bodies.

US military commanders and diplomats called the abuse intolerable, pressuring elected prime minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari into ordering a joint Iraqi-US inquiry.

Interior Minister Bayan Baqer Solagh has denied claims that he commands death squads targeting the Sunni minority, adding that only a few detainees were punched and hit in the prison and that US forces knew of its existence.

Allawi told The Observer that the interior ministry, though not Solagh, was at the heart of the matter.

I am not blaming the minister himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place, he was quoted as saying.

He also said: We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated.

A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.

He said that if immediate action is not taken, the disease infecting (the interior ministry) will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government.

More broadly, Allawi warned of the danger of Iraq disintegrating in chaos, saying: Iraq is the centrepiece of this region. If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the United States will be safe.

Abuse of power/hypocrisy seems to be
What is clear is that, slimy or not, she still used her office in an inappropriate manner to influence the outcome of a family dispute. What's ethical about that? The slimy trooper and the disposition of his divorce/custody case is supposed to be left up to the family courts and it not typically resolved by manipulation and interference by the Governor's office, now is it? Ethically challenged ethics clean-up maiden. Not my idea of a great pick.
Do you have any concept of what abuse of power is?
if you can turn off the hate machine long enough to remember how to do it. It was not Governor Palin's role to interfere in divorce/custody proceedings. Sister Palin could not have done what Governor Palin tried to do. She abuse the power of her office. We have already had 8 years of that kind of malarky. Most of us are not up for another 4. Got it?
Abuse of power is SP's middle name.
megalomaniac behaviors. I am particularly impressed by the "woman scorned" tantrum she had against her opponents that ensued within moments after she took office. Looks like Alaska's busy little ethics maid overlooked her own glass house.
Yes, there are people who abuse the system, but...
you can't apply that to everyone on welfare.  There are a lot of good people who don't abuse the system who have to be on welfare. 
You are a liar, pure and simple

While parts of this may be from a court brief, they are taken wholly out of context and your entire posting is a cut and paste from a neocon website article.  Time to 'fess up!


Your source of "facts" will always be totally different from the liberal board's source of facts so we are never going to agree on much of anything in general.  SO therefore we cannot debate. 

Pure trash from beginning to end.
Are you not aware how old this smear campaign is and how ineffective it has been thus far? Though it seems like a couple of lifetimes ago, I do recall it being around at least as far back as February. It was kept alive all the way up until Obama successfully clenched the nomination of his party despite the Hannity cult's diligence to make it stick. It finally faded out after their original mission had failed miserably and he emerged from the primaries on top. You can post this stupidity until the end of time but it isn't going to accomplish anything except to make you look like the ignorant, out of touch bigot that you are, marginalize the fringe that subscribes to these beliefs and make your own party look like fools.

I am a WASP American who has many more Moslem friends than Christians for reasons that would be a waste of time to explain to someone with such a narrow, tiny brain. My relationship to that community spans more than 5 decades and my life has been enriched tenfold because of it. I have traveled there, lived amongst them, married into a Moslem family, born Christian children from that union and buried a few along the way. I speak 2 of their languages, have read the Quran, their literature and appreciated their extensive historical contributions to the arts, music and the sciences.

I have lost count of how many of them I have known. I can tell you they are an intelligent, educated and spiritual people. They have family values every bit as strong as Americans and an even stronger sense of community. They take pride in humility and honor. In all those many years, never ONCE have I known a terrorist among them. I know they are out there and I know that unfortunately the politicized version of Islam is every bit as ugly as the politicized version of Chritianity.

It makes no difference whether Obama is a Christian with Moslem ties or a Moslem who has converted (which he is not). As a matter of fact, I have also known many Moslems who have converted, but Obama is not one of them. He is a remarkable human being and this country is blessed to have him as a choice for leadership in this election. What I can tell you is that the ugly, bigoted sentiments expressed here are universally repulsive to all people of faith. Today, you have made me feel ashamed to call myself a Christian.
Because it's a lie, pure, plain and simple...
We do have free speech but it is wrong to make things up about people. Didn't your mom teach you that? The stuff about Palin and Bush are facts. What you put about Obama being compared to Hitler is trouble making slander and liable and hateful. I won't even respond to you anymore on this board because it gives attention to a person who doesn't deserve it. All I can say is OBAMA WON AND THAT MEANS THE MAJORITY WANTED HIM SO TOUGH NOOGIES.
What a load of pure dung! nm
.
Hmmmm, pure dung? Definitely an
.
Agreed. It's abuse of power AND a crime
nm
because slander is the 1st stage of violence and abuse...sm
the next step is physical abuse, the next is murder.

As it happens so often.

Cutting waste, fraud and abuse...They should be
Read between the lines....pure sarcasm.....nm
x
Pure garbage. I actually think the repubs leaked that...sm
personal baloney about Sarah to gain her the sympathy vote.
I investigated this and your allegations are pure garbage. nm
.
Eden Pure Heater answer

We had one last year for the bedroom. It died a week after the warranty ran out. Didn't last a full winter and we only turned it on 2 hours before going to bed.  


Try getting in touch with them. Couldn't find a phone number. Found the ad and wrote a letter. Never heard a thing.


 

This is brainwashed hogwash, pure and simple.
You've been lied to since the get-go; 1948, to be precise.
Hey, all you liberals out there! It's YOUR fault that priests sexually abuse

I'm sure the usual suspects from the Conservative board also agree with the conclusions of THIS Pennsylvania nut case and will be ready to blame Kennedy for starting trouble.  LMAO!


Conservatives are getting weirder by the hour.


 


Kennedy slams Santorum for church sex abuse remarks


By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer  |  July 13, 2005


WASHINGTON --In a rare personal attack on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum self-righteous and insensitive for his remarks linking Boston's liberal reputation to the clergy sex abuse scandal.


In recent days, Santorum has refused to back down from comments he made in a 2002 column, in which he said promoting alternative lifestyles spawns aberrant behavior, such as priests molesting children. He went on to say that it was not surprising that liberal Boston was at the center of the scandal.


"The people of Boston are to blame for the clergy sexual abuse? That is an irresponsible, insensitive and inexcusable thing to say," said Kennedy, D-Mass., in a speech from the Senate chamber.


Kennedy called for Santorum to apologize to the people of Boston and across the nation, noting that the clergy abuse happened all across the country, in "red states and blue states, in the north and in the south, in big cities and small."


On Wednesday, Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham said the Pennsylvania conservative recognizes that the church abuse scandal was not just in Boston.


He said Santorum "was speaking to a broader cultural argument about the need for everyone to take these issues very, very seriously."


Santorum's initial observations were in a July 2002 column for Catholic Online, and came back to public light last month and earlier this week in newspaper accounts.


"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture," Santorum wrote in the Catholic Online column. "When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."


Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., accused Santorum of abject ignorance, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called the senator's rationale bizarre.


"As a prosecutor in Massachusetts, I saw some of the worst criminals who had abused children and not once did I hear them hide behind Sen. Santorum's bizarre claim that the state was responsible for their acts," Kerry said.


David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said Santorum's column tries to minimize the abuse scandal, and imply that "some vague, larger societal defects" somehow caused clergy to assault children.


"In 2002, we gave Sen. Santorum the benefit of the doubt, assuming he was not aware of the scope of the abuse crisis," said Clohessy. "In 2005, it's hard to understand how he could repeat and stand by such misguided and harmful comments."


The scandal began in Boston in early 2002 when internal church files released under court order revealed abusive priests were transferred from parish to parish rather than removed from ministry. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned as archbishop later that year amid criticism over his handling of the crisis.


A 2003 investigation by Attorney General Thomas Reilly found that at least 1,000 children were abused by more than 235 priests and church workers between 1940 and 2000. And the archdiocese has paid out more than $120 million to settle abuse claims since 1950.


Reilly, a Democratic candidate for governor, also criticized Santorum on Wednesday. "For him to equate liberalism with child abuse is disgraceful," he said. "It's embarrassing for him and embarrassing to his party and his party should disown him." "



"
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
 













"

And yet you STILL refuse to condemn child sexual abuse!

When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards.  Still, there was no response.


You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.


Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse? 


I guess we can leave it at that.  You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.


And THAT speaks volumes.

Pure entertainment (or possibly not) see link inside...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,415441,00.html
Disgusting! Pure racism and fear tactics. nm
.
Thanks...glad you could see it for what it was. Star Wars, pure and simple...nm
I saw a documentary on the abuse of boys in United Arab Emirates...sm
as donkey racers and it was downright heartbreaking. I would adopt them ALL if I could.

I don't think the US should throw a penny their way. Only the rich would benefit anyway.
Los Angeles Files Recount Decades of Priests' Abuse...sm
see link.
Germany seek charges against Rumsfeld for prison abuse sm

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN


Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Abuse of Power charges stick to Palin like glue.

So, what goes around comes around.  After a hard week out on that campaign trail attacking Obama right, left and center, seems Sarah has a character issue of her own now to deal with.  Oops!   

So you find the sexual abuse of children funny? Pretty sick. NM
Oregon Christian Coalition Head Resigns - Family Sexual Abuse

If these are *family values* then the right is RIGHT.  I'm proud to say I
don't have 'em!


These people get scarier and scarier every day, and I'm keeping my children
away from them!
 


Christian Coalition head to withdraw from political life 
 


10/10/2005, 5:50 p.m. PT


By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI The Associated Press 


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The longtime head of the Christian Coalition of Oregon
said Monday that he is withdrawing from public life, a day after news reports
detailed accusations of sexual abuse against him by three female relatives.


I am thankful for a family that loves and supports me, and intend to withdraw
from public life until this is resolved, Lou Beres wrote in a statement posted
on the organization's web site, at http://www.coalition.org


Beres has denied any criminal misconduct and wrote that he will pursue the
Biblical response and do all within my power to reconcile with that person.


Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk told The Oregonian
newspaper that officials are investigating the complaints against Beres.


The three women — now adults — allege they were abused by Beres as preteens.
Their families called the child abuse hot line last month, after the three
openly discussed the alleged abuse for the first time.


I was molested, one of the women, now in her 50s, told The Oregonian. I was
victimized and I've suffered all my life for it. I'm still afraid to be in the
same room with him.


Beres, 70, has blamed personal and political enemies for the complaint.


Only one of the three cases appears to fall under Oregon's statute of
limitations on sex abuse, which expires after six years. Authorities said that
case involves a young woman who was allegedly abused by Beres when she was in elementary school.


A nephew of Beres' is standing up for the three women.


My family has gone through hell, said Richard Galat, 41, of Oakland, Calif.,
who told detectives that his uncle had molested several female relatives over
the years.


Lives have been ruined. Those of us who have come forward have been
ostracized, verbally abused and the victims of character assassination...It must
stop, he said.


In response to Galat's statements, Beres said on the Christian Coalition web
site Monday, I am grieved by the false allegations of my nephew, Richard Galat.
I am attempting to determine the source of each claim.


Beres, who did not immediately return a phone message from The Associated
Press, is the former head of the Republican Party in Multnomah County, the
Democratic stronghold that includes Portland.


Jim Moore, who teaches political science at Pacific University in Forest
Grove, said Monday that Beres has not been particularly influential in Oregon
politics.


In fact, under his leadership, the Christian Coalition in Oregon has gone
downhill.


In state legislative races in 2004, for example, Moore said that, we found
that Christian Coalition candidates basically did not do as well as they did in
the past.


Oregon Republican Chairman Vance Day said Beres hasn't been much of a factor
in state GOP politics since he stepped down as Multnomah County chairman about 10 years ago.


I don't view this as having any major impact on politics here in Oregon; I
don't think the Christian Coalition has a big footprint here at all, he said.


The group did support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage that
passed handily with voters in November of 2004, but support for that cause was
rallied by another conservative-leaning group, the Defense of Marriage
Coalition.


Tim Nashif, the political director of that group, said he has few details
about the allegations, and added that his group is not associated with the
Christian Coalition.


Anytime any family goes through anything like this it's a pretty grievous
situation and our hearts go out to them, he said. The truth has a tendency to
come out.

This is bulls**t. Pure and simple. But you guys LOVE the troops. News flash. SM
Recruiters are troops. 
What is your definition of..

winning the war, Iraq and Viet Nam. What exactly does that mean, that there will democracy, an industrialized, technologically adept population? that we will overthrow the **terrorists**  (where will they go??) and peace will be restored to the kingdom?  I don't get what you think is going to be achieved by staying in Iraq. There has never been peace in the region and there never will be, NEVER unless Himself comes down here and changes things. And another question Islamofascists, who on God's green earth came up with that moniker? It is really quite bizarre, and a mouthful.


Where did you copy the chickenhawk piece from, just curious.

Thanks for the definition!
That is me..liberal to the core and so proud of it.  Watching the debate last night I was shaking my head watching those old men with old ideas, so out of touch.  Made me so happy that Im a liberal democrat.
Okay but by your definition
His BROTHER is in need! And if not him, definitely his aunt who is living in public housing, illegally at that (unless it's been refuted and I missed that part)

All I'm saying is you have to start at home. Family should come first. I would believe him a lot more about taking care of others if I saw him doing that, instead of just trying to tax us to take care of others.

On a side note, why in the heck does someone who makes almost 1M in 2006 get to claim a child care credit? Like they need that.

By definition it is...
a servile (submissive) self-seeking flatterer
Definition of NWO from wikipedia

The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.

If your definition is accurate
which I highly dobut then I guess I'm a liberal because I don't pledge blind loyalty to Bush. On the other hand I don't think every word he says is a lie either. I think he is a human capable of human mistakes, but I don't think every problem in the world at this moment is Bush's fault like many on this board do. I think many people are obsessed with the fact there's a conservative in office. It wouldn't matter what their name was Bush or Smith, the obsession would be the same. There are many wacko theories out there on all sorts of issues, but some I have read here take the cake. You don't talk about any other issues other than Bush is fault of everything wrong in this world. To me, liberal or conservative, is a little off the deep end no matter what political ideology you come from.
Do we have a different definition for the word lie?nm
z
If you want a definition of racism...
read the creed for Obama's church...and read some of his pastor mentor's sermons...and some of the speeches and quotes of their friend Louis Farrakhan. That, my friend, is the very definition of racism. When you read the creed of the church, substitute the word "white" everywhere the word "black" is used and tell me it is not racist. We do NOT need a racist in the White House.
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
What is the definition of "wind bag"?
Once again, I just skimmed your post. You are much too fond of your own words.

I am pretty succint in my posts. There is no flip flop. I am stating history in black and white. It doesn't come from Common Dreams. I am explicit in sending the links for those to read them if they wish. I don't quote it. I think you got the market cornered on that maneuver.

Not much of value has come out of the coservative sector, from my point of view. All the sustainable social movements have been on a liberal front. It just so happens that we are a small faction and can get very little leverage, but when we do, it is for the benefit of all not just a few. Can the conservative sector say that? I don't think so.

This is not childish. It's political fact. If you makes you feel better to place the blame everywhere, well that's your right.

If you don't like my liberal thoughts or progressive ideas, don't read my posts. Continue to be a sheep.
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved