Say what?? I am talking about a specific person whom I personally think...sm
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-03-04
In Reply to: I get it now!....(sm) - Just the big bad
is over-the-top, an embarrasmment to the President in many ways because of her ultra-liberal stance, but I am not "bashing" any Democrats, Republicans, or anyone else in particular here except Ms. Pelosi herself, and I was trying put a teensy tiny bit of humor on the board, sorry I did not pass it by you first, and you make no sense here because I am generally Democratic, not that that has anything to do with this?????? Wow, I honestly gave you more credit for intelligence and fairness than that.
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
I personally know only one person that makes over 75k
But I guess I don't run with the big dogs. All my family and friends make WAY under 75k - if they have jobs at ALL right now - and most don't!
The plus is that it is a real person you are talking to and not
.
This person was talking about the 2000 debit cards and calling them handouts...sm
Now is not the time to be talking about handups in the midst of a national disaster like the one in NO. In a time like this it is too late for that and inappropriate. But enlighten me, what kind of handup has the republican party offered the displaced NO citizens?
These people NEED HANDOUTS AND YESTERDAY, until they can regain some type of normal existence and then handups would be good. Some people can't stand to see a person get anything. I've learned that's just how some people are. Even though they are cush in front of their computers posting away, they think if I'm not getting 2000 dollars from the government neither should they. And then there's the, I got mine croud. They feel that these people should have educated themselves, worked harder and they wouldn't be in this position, so let em' stay in the astrodome until they can figure something out.
I don't agree and think these compasionate conservative Christians who think this way should ask themselves WWJD?
She took it personally because she was attacked personally. Plain and simple.
Where did you get your debating skills? On the south side of Chicago in some street gang? Because if you did, it shows.
In a REAL debate, there is no room or tolerance for personal attacks. Yet, that's all you people know how to do. You can't stay on the issue. You MUST attack the poster personally, claiming to know not only what they think and feel but also claiming to know what every liberal ever thought or did, what they're thinking and doing right now and what they will be thinking and doing for the next 1,000 years. In fact, you seem to know everything about anything that ever existed on the planet, exists now or will exist into infinity.
As I (and others) have said repeatedly and you just can't seem to grasp, if you constantly treat people badly, they're not going to want to associate with you. Lurker was very gracious in her posts to all of you on your board, but even she, in the end, couldn't tolerate your continued, nonstop, personal attacks any more (as she indicated in her responses to the attackers). If you ever stop knowing it all and become interested in the proper way of debating someone, you could learn a lot from Lurker. You see, having *thick skin* is only important if you're a thug in a gang somewhere. It's irrelevant when it comes to treating humans like humans, and in that area, you have a lot to learn.
As for me, I like to learn from intelligent, friendly people with different political views, so I visit boards where those kinds of people are found. Not all conservatives are angry, rude, come out swinging and need to personally attack 1,000% of the time. Some of them are actually quite nice and informative, and they can be found on other forums. Too bad they can't be found on MTStars.
Have a pleasant evening. 
yes, the first person did....the person replying to that post...
was talking about the founding fathers...who came along a long time after the witch trials. You replied to the second post, not the first one. I was replying to you based on that. Purtianism came first...Christianity was the religion practiced by the founding fathers. It is evident in their writings and in most of our original documents.
I think we can stop whipping this dead horse now.
I should have been more specific
Maybe "reformed' would have been a better choice. I would not consider the Southern Baptists mainstream anymore. There have been many changes in that denomination pushing it much further right, and it has changed a lot over the years.
Can you be more specific?
What is your impression of his "drug policies?" What poor black man ever went to jail for getting some doctor to forge prescriptions for him? It sounds like you are talking about someone caught dealing for personal gain (money), not because they were addicted. Most dealers don't use. I would say 95% of them don't use and less than that are addicted. So could you be more specific on what you think John McCain had to do with putting poor black men in jail for forging prescriptions or using political clout to get someone to forge them for them. Because that is what Cindy McCain did. I am just trying to understand here.
Could you be a tad more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
nm
Could you please be a little more specific?
I am interested in how Obama smoked the Constitution (what's left of it) and just when he stood by while the flag burned? While you are at it, please provide your sources. Otherwise, I can't reply to the rest of your post since I gave my Magic 8 ball to my neighbor's little sister when I was 11 and never replaced my Tarot cards after my college roommate stole them back in ྈ.
How about being a bit more specific?
Medicare and Medicaid, but what I want to know is why bother to post if you can't back yourself up with a logical argument, examples, sources for your info or something....ANYTHING? Otherwise, these sweeping generalized predictions of failure are just more sour grapes cat calls.
Can you be more specific, please?
1. Exactly which "19th century" principles should the Republicans abandon or "modernize"?
2. What evidence is there that "evangelicals" are "running the party", please?
Thank you - and I hope you'll provide something cogent for discussion instead of supporting your talking-points with more talking-points, so that we can have a good discussion about this.
Could you be more specific? Or maybe . . .
you're talking about the part where he talked about his father being Muslim and you misunderstood that he said it was his religion. It would be most helpful if you could post the exact portion of that speech, please. I pretty much listened to the whole thing, and I don't believe there was any part in there where he professed to be Muslum.
No,actually, they are more specific in their bias...
they are definitely more biased toward the clintons than democrats in general. But it is obviously that the mainstream media are all Obama adorers. That's why I take what is reported there with a grain of salt. And if I want to know ANYthing about conservatives Fox is my only choice.
I am sure no one here can deny with a straight face that the mainstream media has a left bias. lol.
not specific enough to draw
an inference from your post. Vague.
I was trying not to be gender specific
Care to be more specific?..(sm)
You might want to look up his voting record before you go there.
That is not what I said. I will have to search for the specific case...
in this case, the school had a rule banning any kind of religious symbol. A girl wore a cross to school and she was told to take it off and not wear it again. The same school tried to ban a Muslim student from wearing a head covering on the same basis. The ACLU took the school to court (actually I think it was settled out of court) on behalf of the Muslim student to be able to wear her head covering. They did this without being hired by the Muslim student. They did not argue on behalf of the Christian girl at the same time. The Muslim got to wear the head covering but the other girl still could not wear the cross. That is what I am talking about. I did not say that the ACLU sought to ban it. I am saying that they took on the cause of the Muslim girl, but not the Christian girl. And to me, that is discrimination.
I don't know it to be a fact, but I think if that Christian girl specifically asked the ACLU to support her case they would have refused. The last thing the ACLU wants to do is argue on behalf of a Christian to practice Christianity, even in something so small as wearing a cross to school.
And yes, there are many schools who ban religious symbols because of that gross misinterpretation of the first ammendment...the free exercise thereof totally left out, and the words separation of church and state supplied, which do not even exist in the constitution.
Where does it give a specific age in the Bible? nm
I would really like to see this scripture if you can refer me to it.
The question was specific to marijuana
but frankly, I do not care what anybody else consumes. That includes maryjane, and so my vote is yes.
Not necessarily any specific speech
that changed the trend in Europe, but what those countries see happening in the US the last 6 months.
For decades, whenever there was trouble anywhere in the world, a natural disaster, an epidemic, an out-of-control dictator, a genocide, they could always count on the US to send money (more than any other nation), materiel and personnel to bail them out and fix the problem. Now the rest of the world sees our government bankrupting itself (Obama's mouth writing checks his wallet can't cover) and they must realize that they're going to be pretty much on their own from here on out. They have to get ready to take care of themselves, and rein in their own out-of-control governments.
Nope, not any specific speech he gave, but I think everyone in the EU must see the handwriting on the wall. They are starting to take measures to protect themselves. About time. It's just ironic that we are not moving into the place they are abandoning.
The specific issue is irrelavant to my point
I was in no way arguing the whole abortion issue. Passionate feelings on both sides. I'm staying out of that. What I was trying to say is this bill is typical future-ammo stuff done by both sides. Here is an example: I am a legislator and draw up a bill (the idea of which was probably pushed on me by a lobbyist). I call it the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act. The bulk of the bill talks about harsh punishments for pedophiles, one strike and you're out, life in jail, that kind of thing. But there is a little clause in there that says that at trial the pedophile victims have to come face-to-face with the pedophile and describe in detail what happened to them and be subject to the pedophile's lawyer's cross examination. I know my opponents are all for harsh punishments but don't want to subject the victims to that kind of trauma in court, so I know they will vote no. Then when election time comes I can say my opponent voted against the Justice for Pedophile Victims Act and thus must want to let peophiles walk the street. I know this is not true, but I knew they would vote no due to wording that left out would have changed their vote.
It's all politics and it happens all the time.
Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
George's Interview with her on this specific subject
I think she's on drugs...or else she's ready to run for president...or else she trying to undermine O before he even gets going. Watch and see. Good heavens, she's going off the deep end. She's a big mouth, as is Barney Fife, Harry Reid, and the others. They've been trying to run this country since before the bailout. If O is smart, he'll soon shut them all up.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/01/pelosi-defends.html
Aacks Cyndiee - I guess I should have been more specific
in my message because I've read a lot of your posts and I agree with you most of the time.
There are however other people who don't watch a variety and only listen to the words of Olberman and Matthews and don't even listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh but put them down. Those are whom I was talking about.
You have always presented yourself very well versed in a lot of different topics and sometimes I wish I could articulate myself as well.
If there already exist specific written policies
pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you. If you don't like the policy, don't work there. Your office is not your personal gallery.
If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.
However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree. What's next? An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?) Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it. If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it.
If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this. In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.
Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations. What is it they don't understand about "liberty"? If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay! Disciplinary action against the complainer. Law suits! ACLU involvement! Paid leave and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!
Don't know which board or which specific Iranian you're referring to.
If you want me to read something, then post it, so I can, but please don't suggest that I go on some kind of wild goose chase on some other unnamed *board* for a post by some unnamed *Iranian.* I simply don't have that kind of time.
If you don't think the Iranian president is nuts, then blame the media and the administration because that's he way he's been portrayed by both, and his actions sure suggest that he is. Please post his redeeming qualities as you see them.
I posted this because I thought it was humorous, yet dead on accurate in the way a lot of Americans feel.
Get the picture?
It is not the same at all, not picking on a specific group,race, or ethnicity....sm
as a matter of fact, some of my worst dictators are AMERICAN, they hate dictating and so act like little kids and speed talk, trip all over their words, slur everything together, mispronounce without correcting themselves, chew, burp, rattle papers and x-rays, etc., and then will correct several paragraps because they "forgot" this or that. At least foreign docs have an excuse, and many try to enuniciate clearly, spell things, out, etc. There is no comparison here...complaining about high percentage of difficult docs in your queue is not the same as drawing a "cartoon" that points directly in one direction, is poorly disguised, and is dispersed and disseminated in a national, hugely circulated newpaper.
Whoops....A person....not I person.
.
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
This what I'm personally going to do
In every place I go where the pledge is recited ballgames mostly when we got to the words under God it's amplified UNDER GOD!!! That's what I intend on doing even if it becomes illegal. I don't care if they outlaw the word God period I'll shout it from the mountaintops. First of all to glorify my God, and second of all to irritate those who think it's a curse word.
Go ahead sue me...hang me...chop my head off. The best is yet to come for me anyway.
I personally think that
the McCain campaing has set Palin up to be the attacker of Obama's character and let McCain talk about what they will do if they are elected.
As for Palin lying, I do believe that Obama has not been 100% truthful with things brought out about him. He has changed his story several times on different associations and issues and that makes me not trust him.
I do find it interesting that a lot of times what an Obama supporter can say about Palin....a McCain supporter can say about Obama. LOL! Kind of makes you wonder what the heck all of us are thinking really.
One thing that holds true for me in the case of Sarah Palin is that she cut spending in her state. I truly do believe that for the sake our country....we need to cut back on the government pending and this just reinforces my trust in McCain and Palin to do just that. Obama...on the other hand....I believe will not cut back on spending as he has endorsed more pork in his short term in senate than McCain has his entire career.....and that to me says a lot. And that has nothing to do with him being a POW and having the scars to prove it. LOL!
Personally, you hit on one of her best...
attributes. I like the idea of a VP who could lock and load with the Secret Service if need be. Shove those guys out of the way and take care of herself. Hooah! lol.
Well, I personally am a
right-leaning Libertarian who registered Republican last time McCain made an attempt, just so that I could vote for him in that primary.
This time around he has morphed into something so frightening that I'm voting for Obama, & I haven't voted for a Democrat in 30 years.
Well, personally s/m
I could not care less so long as they don't mess around with the constitution. I do think, however, that there is much ado about nothing. As for the alleged tax breaks...when my husband and I married we asked my CPA about tax ramifications. He said we would be better off to marry. When we filed our first joint return, the same CPA said he didn't realize how much our income was and that in fact, marrying was the worst thing we could do tax-wise. So if gays/lesbians want to marry for tax purposes, they had better take a good hard look at where the marriage will put them.
I don't know that there's anything legal/illegal about it but I expect that in the case of serious illness or injury a significant other would not be kept from the bedside.
My husband and I used an attorney to draw up papers (forget what they are called) that directs everything that could possibly be foreseen and the cost was something like $350. That would work just as well for gays/lesbians I would think.
We have a gay couple in our community, also biracial. They moved here from another state. Both wear wedding rings, I have no idea what it symbolizes, haven't asked. One is rather elderly and has relatives here but they accept the significant other and everyone just goes about their business.
Gay/lesbian relations are not new, it goes all the way back to biblical times. I don't lean in that direction myself so I do not know anything about it, whether it is a choice or people are born with that bend. I just have a hard time with God saying that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman and then that He would turn around and cause people to be born with this kind of sexual orientation. That being said, let them do what they will, it is between them and God. Like religion and politics, they don't need to try to shove it down the throats of the majority who are heterosexual.
I personally don't know anyone......... sm
with voter's remorse right now, but I can guarandangtee you there will be a whole bunch of folks in about 6 months to a year or so who will rue the day they cast their ballot for the O.
perhaps you just don't personally know anyone
rrrrrrr
Personally
I think it's all of the above and then some.
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?
I have never personally used that phrase myself. sm
But then, I am sure someone will expend a huge amount of energy to prove me wrong.
I personally feel
that Jesse Jackson is a detriment to the black community. Surely there has to be someone better to represent and stand up for the black community. If a white person made the general comments that Jesse Jackson does......the black community would scream racism. His own son spoke negatively about his father and his comment.
I personally don't feel that there will ever be equality between the races because people are constantly wanting to point the finger at the other race. Do I want equality....yes...of course I do. I have many black friends who are great people that I care about. But until we stop pointing the finger at the other race, it won't stop. Prejudice and racism is on both sides. It isn't just the white folks or the black people.....it is on both sides and until people stop and realize that and learn to forgive and forget and be accepting.......it won't change.
As for Bill Cosby, I loved watching the Bill Cosby Show when I was younger, but the more I learn about Bill......the more I think he is a huge bigot.
Once again, did he personally call you
to say he would quit HIS job and be at home with the kids? Oh wait, I KNOW! The oldest pregnant one can watch ALL of them! Now, There is an idea! Furthermore, yes, you ARE bashing US, by saying we have a 1950's mentality, just because we want to ACTUALLY RAISE our OWN kids, instead of a DAY orphanage! What a concept? Raise your own kids! Dr. Laura people, you all should listen to her...
I personally feel that
neither McCain nor Obama will be able to really pull us out of this horrible economic situation. They will be able to help or make it worse, but no one president is totally going to pull us out of this horrible situation that we find ourselves in today. I personally put the blame on everyone....dems and repubs alike. Our president is currently republican but the congress is controlled by the dems and quite frankly I haven't seen a whole he11 of a lot out of either group to start pulling us out. We are too busy flinging mud between parties to really focus on what our country needs and that is a shame as well as scary. I hope and pray that people in Washington will get their heads out of their butts and consider the future of our country instead of how much money they can line their pockets with and that goes for both dems and repubs.
I personally feel that this
failure in our government is a failure on both sides. This isn't strictly dems, although dems control the congress, and this isn't strictly reps even though the pres is a rep. I think they should all stop pointing fingers as what is done is done and find a solution that will benefit the tax payers and not line the crooks' pockets with money anymore than they already are.
As for McCain....no matter what....at least he had the balls to say....HEY...we have a problem here. That is more than other politicians have done who benefited from FMFM money.
Of course, I personally don't have a problem with
any of it. I don't look to the debates to help make up my mind, they are for entertainment value to me. I simply was putting out there what I had read. I too agree, the VP debate is going to be the one everyone wants to see.
I personally believe that they are both good men...sm
We are lucky to have two such good men to vote for. That being said, you need to do your own research at reliable places, keep an open mind, and take nothing at face value. In the end, we all vote with, hopefully, our brains/hearts/instincts. The issues are what really matter. Who honestly represents your values and who is going to help the ordinary person, the middle class, the poor, the rich, whatever is your agenda.
What makes you think that I personally don't?
pub or dem, who benefited from this should be the ones financially responsible to repair it. But that isn't going to happen and I'm sick of hearing about who's responsible for it. What about the homeowners who applied for these mortgages that they knew they couldn't afford? I hold them responsible. What about the banks who gave them the loan, knowing they could never repay it, but didn't care because they were just going to sell it? I hold them responsible. What about the CEOs who made millions on their severenace packages when they walked away from these failing companies? I hold them responsible. I don't care what party they are affiliated with. But the fact is, no one person is going to be held accountable. As a whole, the taxpayers will be made to be responsible.
You talk a good game and some of what you say makes sense. Unfortunately, you have to read through all the pub/dem cr@p to really get to what you're saying. Are you going to try to tell me that not 1 single pub had anything to do with any of this? That it all rests on the individual dems? Come on -- that's a load of bull and you know it.
And I respect yours. Personally,
if I had to be in a foxhole with someone, it would be McCain no question. I have a feeling that Obama would look out for himself.
Personally, I think she meant (Lou
.
i personally don't care much for either of them
Madeline Halfbright was Clinton's Sec. of State. Don't even get me started on her.
No matter what, I give nobody a free pass just by the R behind his/her name. Look at Olympia Snow & Susan Collins! Talk about embarrassments!
|
