Sounds like an excuse for it being okay for Obama to have leaked this...nm
Posted By: ms on 2008-11-11
In Reply to: Nope...no excuses...(sm) - Just the big bad
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
They knew very well it would be leaked and intended for it to be leaked.
Someone in the White House (Obama's advisors are truly incompetent) thought this would suppress attendance at the tea parties. And who knows, maybe it did deter some people from coming out. Even so, attendance is simply amazing...and, as someone said, without any ACORN buses either.
Your friend Obama does not want that part leaked.
nm
Sounds like Obama is going to
x
Excuse me. Obama did not "invent" anything.
President Elect, and has been ever since 1963. Bush had one....he just did not use it in the same way. He certainly is not exactly famous for being open and transparent. Your post is juvenile whining nitpicking, not to mention based on false premise. Here's the research:
Articles of various dates talking about the Office of the President Elect:
1. President Bush announces selections for ITA and other commerce posts - International Trade Administration, dated March 27, 1989, 3rd paragraph, page 2 of the article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1052/is_n6_v110/ai_7464165/pg_3?tag=artBody;col1
2. Memorandum #185 From President Nixon to Secretary of State Rogers, dated January 31, 1969: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/iv/15576.htm
3. Memorandum to Designated Agency Ethics Officials on Presidential Transition, dated December 28, 2000: http://www.usoge.gov/ethics_guidance/daeograms/dgr_files/2000/do00048.txt
4. Public Law 88-277 (language of the act):
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=24780
Excuse me, but I voted for Obama and
I have never questioned the authenticity of his birth certificate. I am not a supporter of Bush but he is our President until Obama is sworn in as President. GP, you jumped to all types of conclusions because I mentioned it was time to stop ranting and raving about Bush. That does not mean I am a Bush supporter.
Even Obama has made his peace with Bush and he is working with him. I think it is high-time you allowed for difference of opinions between dems and pubs. If the pubs want to question Obama's birth certificate athenticity, then so be it.
Excuse me? I would hardly call Obama
a far-liberal! I really believe that you are doing far better on the 'Word help board', that's where you belong.
Sounds like sour grapes because OBAMA WON
HE WON
Someone sounds jealous...... Obama won! Do not be treasonous!
nm
Ummm wait, want to talk about Palin?
bwahhhahahaha
Obama will get every excuse in the world. "He is
nm
Excuse me, did you miss the part where Obama
said out of his own lips that he would close Gitmo?
This should come as no surprise.... Obama has wanted to shut this down from the start and will do so completely! This is just a starting point. If you don't like the words, then stop listening to Obama 'cause he has yammered on and on about how ALL us American citizens want this package. REALLY? Strange,seeming how the white house switchboard is overwhelmed with calls saying NO to this package!!!
Who was rude? I just said she sounds young. You are just mad cuz Obama is winning
so everything i say is hateable from your point... well you can kiss my grits lady...you cannot come to my victory party... no snotty argumentative loser rednecks allowed.
Look at who it was leaked to.
And et AL did not report on it; they twisted it into something that would serve their ends.
Who leaked it? The answer:
*We've established a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks.* (September 24, 2001, George W. Bush, President of the United States)
*We have begun to act to block assets to seize books, records and evidence and to follow audit trails to track terror cells poised to do violence to our common interests.* (November 7, 2001, Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the United States Treasury)
I disagree. I think it was leaked
increase the outrage and boost attendance at the protests. It certainly got a lot of people here up in arms.
I did not say Rush & Co. leaked it.
Roger Hedgecock. Are you saying the Obama administration, who had no part in doing the study (these things take time folks) were intelligent enough to anonymously distribute it to someone in the blogosphere close enough it's epicenter to get noticed but not so far away that it would be discounted automatically? If so, you attribute far more intelligence to them than most of the posters here.
I have seen no outrage over the previous similar releases regarding rightwing extremists or the leftwing extremists or the Muslim extremists here before when those reports came out. Why the outrage now?
Interesting how it was leaked to the press
These types of studies are typically not for public consumption, but the timing of this one was just perfect for some manufactured outrage based on intentional misconstruing of the contents of the study.
Pure garbage. I actually think the repubs leaked that...sm
personal baloney about Sarah to gain her the sympathy vote.
It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Assuming you have one?
Oh gee...that sounds like too much
thinking to have to do...... To think for yourself and not follow like lost sheep.... gee whiz.
sounds like we now have
scientific proof of putting lipstick on a pig!! Great experiement.
It sounds like
you are not endorsing Barack Obama.
It just sounds like to me that she
lives in the neighborhood that she prefers, so that she can be her might self-righteous self.
Sounds like us and more soon when (NM)
x
sounds like
sedition to me.
Sounds like someone needs to look
a little deeper into history. FDR actually prolonged the duration of the great depression with his government programs. Get a clue! Stimulus package is a BAD idea and will not work!!!!!
It sounds as though you do not want our
Congresspeople not to listen to the people's voices, I cannot believe that! I am a Democrat. I thought that is why we held elections. Look at the national polls, the numbers are dropping every day, but the last I heard it was like 37% of Americans in favor of passing this stimulus bill. And you are proud these calls are being ignored? This is a perfect example of downright IGNORANCE!
Sounds like someone
needs to go put their nose in the corner or sit in the time out chair. Wow.
Sounds sensible enough, but I wonder...
...would you have the same discussion with them about sniffing glue? Snorting coke? Smoking "Smarties" (the newest thing)? Drinking Drano?
If you're going to disappoint me, break the law and do something harmful to your body, I'd rather you do it at home.
Sorry - I can't get a handle on that one. It's a "helpless parent" position that amounts to parental malfeasance, IMHO. I'm sorry to put it in such stark terms and I realize that I'm going to be in the minority on this one.
Sounds like they are trying........... sm
to do damage control in order to keep their Fortune "Most Admired" status.
It sounds to me as if you need to go to
your personal prayer closet and find your peace. You cannot say how you would react if one of your children came and told you he/she was homosexual.
Just to stay on topic, I am of a firm conviction and do agree with you that this is not a subject to be taught in public schools.
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
That's the best excuse you have for the
nm
Please excuse me....(sm)
I saw scripture quoted and many references to God on here, so I assumed this must be the faith board. Funny how you didn't have a problem with that.
|
