See, this is the reason that some liberals rub the rest of us the wrong way. sm
Posted By: Zville MT on 2008-12-30
In Reply to: Ann Coulter - leftie
Those of us Americans who can make our own decisions know that in America, we can listen to and read whomever we want to. If the time would come that someone is saying something we don't like on TV, we change the channel. If a book comes out and we don't like what is being said, we don't read it. But we also recognize that there are people who do like what is being said on TV or in that book, so we don't try to take their right to listen to it away.
If you read back in history, around the time our country was first becoming a country and the two party system was first being born, too many politicians didn't know how to handle the opposition; therefore, they did so very badly and at the cost of their reputations.
To those liberals (and conservatives) who try to dictate what the rest of us watch and listen to, please limit your rhetoric to your own households and let the rest of us decide for ourselves.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Ann Coulter - leftie
- See, this is the reason that some liberals rub the rest of us the wrong way. sm - Zville MT
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
One thing you have wrong for sure. Liberals are so
nm
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
wrong, full of wrong statements, see my upper post...nm
nm
Exactly who are the rest of you???
xx
Uh, the rest of us are those... sm
Who believe in facts, logic, science, reason, etc. above fairy tales and magical thinking/wishing. You know, like an adult? I should think that would be obvious.
And you assume that because I don't believe in your religion that I have "nothing to believe in." No. I just don't believe what you believe. Why? Well, mainly, lack of evidence. Oh, and the fact that I wasn't indoctrinated/brainwashed as a child to unquestionably believe something for which there is no proof.
While you may continue to love and pray for me, I can continue to love and wish the best for you. Praying/wishing, I don't see a big difference.
What do you mean by the rest of us?
What you got here is socialism in black and white and for the life of me, I do not understand why anyone would think all this would come your way free and clear. This is coming your way, complements of Obama, to the tune of around 3.5 trillion dollars.
And on top of that, he is talking giving checks to people who don't work. Aren't we already doing that?
Try to keep up with the rest of us
http://forum.mtstars.com/misc/v/11/52098.html
Sheesh...
Wrong Woman - Wrong Message
http://www.truthout.org/article/palin-wrong-woman-wrong-message
Wrong, wrong, wrong, clueless Lu.
Horse hockey
Rest assured, we won't. SM
Do you have recess time on this board?
The rest of the numbers. TI
This is reality in Israel: From 29 September 2000 through 11 January 2003:
5,041 injured, 717 killed, 15,992 attacks
IDF Spokesperson 12 January 2003
Injured: 3,585 Civilians + 1,456 Security Forces = 5,041 Total Israeli Injured
Killed: 503 Civilians + 214 Security Forces = 717 Total Israeli Killed
Total Attacks*: 7,139 West Bank + 8,203 Gaza Strip + 650 Home Front =15,992 Total
* Does not include attacks with rocks or fire bombs.
This is a death toll greater (in proportion) than America suffered on 9/11 and the American people would never tolerate this! So why should Israel have to endure this year after year while the world does nothing? The same people that hate Israel are the same people that hate America!
What you do DOES silence the rest of us.
nm
give it a rest ....nm
.
Give it a rest, already.
You're like a dang gnat that needs a swat. Unless you know what was going on behind the scenes in both parties, knock it off. Like Biden was the so-called "new politician's" first choice? He was supposedly the safest choice.
Not when the rest of the country = 61%
mm
Here's the rest of the story.
1. No soup for researching the breakdown on appropriations and who came down for and against as they progressed through time. That "congress did" cop-out does not cover for the fact that between 2002 and 2007, Dems were outnumbered by war zealots with glazed-over eyes as they followed a leader of liars and prevailed on the money issues. Answer: The pubs dominated and ARE credited for building up a $400B debt, no matter how fast you spin it.
2. Thank you. Obama voted against. Vision, conviction and courage to place principle over politics. Biden voted for, but has since stated he believes it was a mistake because of the W administration mismanagement of the war. Go here for Biden on the issue of Iraq: Does not appear to be part of the fleeced flock anymore. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm.
3. Obama. Ahead of the curve. Petraeus is not running for president.
4. Petraeus is a military man with a military agenda and a reputation to protect, just like McCain. Trouble is, public is war weary and are looking for nonmilitary solutions…or at least somebody who is willing to consider such notions. There has to be a plan for what lies beyond the surge, which is not an everlasting solution. Question is whose plan? Bush and McCain NOW get it that Obama gots it and are going with his flow. According to you, Petraeus is onboard too. By the way, the Iraqi leadership just might be entitled to weigh in on this one. After all, it IS their country. They backed Obama on international television this past summer, lest we forget.
5. Well then, according to you, Petraeus is onboard troop draw-down. No highjack here, but a bit slow on the draw.
6. There has been no political resolution. Iraqis have not taken control of their own nation. Exactly what do you think will happen after troop withdrawal? The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will throw farewell flowers at the troops and each other in gratitude for all the help and Iraq will become the "oasis of democracy" in the Middle East? All the surge has done is prolong the inevitable. We need to step aside NO MATTER WHAT the consequences and hand the Iraqis the keys to the kingdom and let them sort themselves out.
I hope you got some rest.
At least a dozen people? When this kind of bigotry rears its ugly head, it breaks all kinds of silence. Let me make this clear to you. My post was responding to the bigotry, the lie and the ignorance being displayed and not to the other poster who was responding to the to the bigotry, the lie and the ignorance. How many different ways do you want to make yourself look foolish?
So what about the rest of the post
Is it only welfare to the poor that ticks you off so? I raised some specific points. Just curious. All of the rest of it is okay by you?
I rest my case!
Pittsburgh law enforcement sources tell TMZ they have serious questions about the authenticity of the alleged victim who says she had her face cut by a politically-motivated attacker.
We're told there are several things about the alleged attack that don't add up. A Pittsburgh PD official says they are conducting a "thorough investigation" and have not determined if the alleged attack is real or a hoax. But we're told there is definitely a level of skepticism.
Give it a rest will ya? s/m
Or better yet, let's declare NEITHER candidate was born in the U.S. and declare this election OFF and see if we can't come up with 2 better candidates!!!!
This needs to be laid to rest
Mine shows none of that here in Pennsylvania when I had to get a copy. My copy has only DOB, file number, date filed, date issued, count of birth, name, and sex. It also has the raised seal. That's it.
It doesn't need to have all that other information to be real.
Yeah and the rest by Sam...
Shame on you!  I guess you believe in God though right. The man did have a death in his family. Give it a rest already, and no I'm not GP. I'm another MT just like you with a little heart I guess. 
Rest yourself assured that this is just more of the same...sm
garbage spewn by people who have a vested interest in unrest in our country. Even IF Obama had been born in Russia, his mother was an natural born American citizen and that right was automatically conferred to him the second he was born. NO ONE can take American citizenship from someone against their will, even in the case of a child. NO ONE ! ! So all this trash is a moot point.
i rest my case
no need for further discussion, you proved my point!
you can put lipstick on a pig..you know the rest..nm
//
Give it a rest, BB....... sm
Don't you have more pressing issues to think about....such as the economy?
At least that is what I was reprimanded for on the board several days ago when I pointed out one of Obama's shortcomings, at least as I saw it.
Onward and upward, cheerio pip-pip and all that good stuff.
There ya go, I rest my case nm
thanks!
The Rest Of The Story
The civil jury rejected most of the claims against Roger Barnett but found him liable for assault and infliction of emotional distress. He was ordered to pay $77,804--$60,000 of it in punitive damages.
Barnett is a well-known vigilante who flashes a fake police badge and has been sued a number of times, including detaining some Americans who were on a hunting trip. Apparently to Barnett, if you look Mexican then you're an illegal alien. Barnett's 22,000-acre ranch includes private and federal lease holdings and almost 14,000 acres of state-leased land.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-border-confrontation,1,5753960.story
The idea of having US troops patrolling the Mexican border is ludicrous and will never happen.
I'm glad for you but what about the rest of us
You are the first person I have heard to receive anything that Obama has promised. I caught some of his speech tonight. I like some of it (energy and stuff even though it's very confusing to understand), but for the most part it sounded like he was on the campaign trail again and all I was waiting for was "and I'll end world hunger" ha ha ha.
I agreed with another poster who said what in the world was that republican rebuttal talking about. There are so many other good republicans out there who would have spoken better (and said things I would have understood). I was listening while I was making supper and I kept asking DH what in the world is he talking about. I just don't understand why with so many other good republican speakers (R. Paul for one), why don't they ever get up and talk.
Anyway...I'm glad for you with your Cobra, but I'm not seeing any changes and nobody I know of is seeing any changes. We just keep getting fed his campaign speeches of hope, hope, hope. It's time now to stop talking about hope and tell us what is being done (and none of this feel-good stuff which is lies to fool the public into thinking good things are happening when nothing actually is). I want to see it in writing. I don't see jobs being created so half of my family who were laid off can go back to work. Well I guess I'll find out come tax time if Obama is good on his word. I "hope" so, but the whole economy thing is so depressing right now. I am hopeful and will keep my fingers crossed. If my taxes are lower I'm going to come on this board and say thank you Obama.
Once again proclaiming yourself as better than the rest of us.
so long
It's not that hard to be better than the rest of you.nm
x
Boy-oh-boy. I rest my case.
I rest my case.
The big three networks (who have always been in the bag for Obama) chose to pretty much ignore the whole thing. Mainstream commentators that mentioned it chose to characterize it a gathering of a few loose screws who were mad at the president - not sure why - something about his race? Local stations that covered it picked out a few hostile-looking signs to focus on, amoung throngs of thousands.
I would have thought that a quarter-million folks protesting would be a nationally newsworthy event, but apparently not. Depends where you tune your dial, I guess. For those who think there is no liberal bias in media, how come nobody but Fox viewers and conservative radio listeners had any clue what was going on?
The rest of the verse....(sm)
thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of Allah, - he will never let their deeds be lost.
Rest easy
she'll probably have you posthumously converted and you will be okey-dokey in the hereafter. Thanks a boatload, Sis!
Now for the rest of the story...
Kindred Healthcare's corporate headquarters are located in Kentucky. We called them for comment when we were first working on this story Tuesday, but they did not return our calls.
Wednesday morning, however, our story received nationwide attention. We have received dozens of emails and comments from people who had something to say about it. And a receptionist at Kindred's headquarters told us they received many phone calls.
Then, late Wednesday morning, Kindred posted on its website a statement about the incident. It reads, in part: "The disagreement was over the size of the flag and not what it symbolized. We have invited the employee to put the flag back up."
We're contacting McLucas for her take on what Kindred said. We'll have that part of the story later today on CBS11TV.com.
But you complete ignored the rest of the post....
I am just shaking my head. It is amazing to me that anyone would think God is okay with abortion. I believe he is okay with personal choice, of course I do, my faith is based greatly on that belief. Someone makes a choice when they take any life, inside the womb or outside. That does not mean God condones murder. You are representing that the Bible, and therefore God, condones abortion, and I cannot wrap my mind around that. To follow your line of reasoning, I should be able to steal from you and not have the government interfere because it is my choice to steal from you and I have to answer only to my maker. If a person breaks into your house (his choice) and rapes you or kills you, (his choice), then he should be free to do so and only have to face his maker. Can you not see how destructive that line of thinking can become? You think that is ridiculous, but I promise you that 20 years ago people thought abortion was ridiculous, same sex marriage would horrify my parents...if left unchecked, horrible things can happen. The amazing thing is, the moral compass becomes so skewed that the horrible becomes the acceptable. As I said before, that kind thinking is what helped a madman rise to power, and thousands upon thousands of people either jumped on the bandwagon or turned their heads and condoned something horrific, on the premise that a whole race of people were inferior and subhuman and therefore it was all right to exterminate them. THAT is what happens when people begin to devalue life. I do not want that to EVER happen again, to ANYONE. I realize that is probably falling on deaf ears because I will get the rote I don't believe it is life again and you are unable to draw the parallel. You see, that is a fundamental difference between you and me...I care about what happens to you as an individual and what happens to this country and every person in it, so I gave it one last shot. It is hard for me to just walk away. But walk away I shall, because sometimes you have to. We shall have to agree to disagree, but I will keep standing for what I believe in and calling wrong what I believe is wrong, just as you do. God bless, Maryland Gal.
Teddy, give it a rest already. sm
We have, through the years, LONG before you were posting here, made a distinct difference between liberals and leftists. If you would actually read the posts, instead of reading Ann Coulter, which for some reason you feel a Clockwork Orangish type of inescapability to read, you would see that. But instead in post after post after post you go on and on with a litany of wrongs against the poor liberals on the conservative board. Give it a rest already. As far as your assertion that Vietnam and Korea were civil wars, well, I am not quite sure how to address that gigantic historial distortion. I won't even try.
He can't make rules by himself....obviously the rest of the...
legislature must have agreed with him. Again I ask you...if it happened in YOUR family, would you not use every means at your disposal to help your family member get the help they needed?
Help the wife. Lock up the rest of us.
All the other democrats you named in similar situations are not running for president in 2008. This guy is not fit to be my leader.
sheesh is right, sam, GIVE IT A REST!!!
if we talked about the weather, you would turn it into an abortion topic. If we talked about fashion, you would turn it into an abortion topic. If we talked about sports, well, you get it. And WE GET IT. Give it a blanking rest.
and turned a blind eye to all the rest
nm
Taking a rest today.
Yes, you go ahead. Take a rest. Freedom of speech.
no rest for the wicked, even on...... Sunday....
.
Only if the rest of the mainstream media...
put vote for obama stickers on their foreheads.
have you read the rest of the thread?
Before you start firing off, maybe you should read the thread. In a lot of areas in the US, the wait for access to healthcare is a lot more than 6 weeks.
Also, a lot of folks in the US don't have any kind of insurance, so they would wait a lifetime for a CT.
we'll just go down the tubes with the rest
x
No more sick and tired than the rest of us are with the
McC numbers plummeting back to double-digit deficit after another week of this vitriole. When WILL you folks get the message?
I agree and count only your #1....the rest...sm
....to me, are the many ways that Obama has tried to paint himself, many only just recently as he has run for office of the pres....don't trust a single word out of his mouth.
He will screw us all over, just to get elected. Just watch.
WOW did you even read the rest of my post?
It's called a JOKE...hence the LOL and the j/k (which means just kidding btw)
Oh give it a royal rest already
it isn't was 'MURDER' and you know it. You cannot 'MURDER' a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus before the legal time limit for an abortion. Does it end the 'viability' of the embryo/fetus? Yes. Murder? Not even close.
And EXACTLY how are you paying for children born out of wedlock with your taxes?
Specifically, please.
Amount? How much? And how are these monies distributed to these children and/or their gaurdians?
If you can document and defend your position, I'm all ears.
|
