Terrible debate! Jim was not direct or specific enough in his ...sm
Posted By: oldtimer on 2008-09-26
In Reply to:
questions and allowed too much of the same old retoric from both candidates.
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
Paying close attention. Sidestepping direct debate.
nm
That is a terrible, terrible thing
How sad that you think this way. So negative.
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
No, I think it is terrible. It is way too far. And
not that you were implying it, but Obama had nothing to do with this (though I have a feeling he will somehow be blamed). The people that did it are some group, which I can't remember the name of off hand. They have done this before as evidently they hacked into some Scientology accounts a while back.
yes terrible tragedy
Well, you picture me and my life all wrong. Yes, terrible disaster.. However, the ones to blame have to be pointed out and everything gone over in detail so it never happens again and so New Orleans and other cities/states at risk will get the money they should from the federal govt to protect the land and the people who live there. You can bet if this happened under a democratic president, you guys would be screaming for his head by now. However, I dont think it would have had the same devastating effects, as no democratic president is going to give tax cuts to the rich while waging a war. I have always been taught, you need to keep a little bit of money for emergencies. Bush, with all his family money, Im sure never was taught that. Just run up the bills, there is always money to pay for it all. Well, there isnt and there wasnt and the federal govt cut back on aid to all states due to Bush's extreme deficit. The people are in agony now and it will get worse before better and the rest of the country will begin to feel the pain when gas shortages start happening and gas is $8.00 or more/gallon. We probably will have other shortages also as the gulf is a major port. Then the rage will be turned to where it should be turned..to Bush.
many terrible things are done in
the name of Christianity. That doesn't make Christianity terrible.
Alcoholism is a terrible disease. sm
I wish him only the best and hope he is able to find help and solace. He is a deeply religious man. He needs to lean on that. As for the rest, having been raised in a family where alcoholism was very prevelant, I have learned to turn a blind ear to things people say when they are intoxicated. It's between him and God. He was making a film about the holocaust, so it's kind of hard to believe what he said was true. More likely alcohol and the moment talking. I know many in Hollywood are attacking him, but many are not. I wish him the best.
oops, terrible mistake, but looks like some
xx
Right. Because Obama has done such a terrible job as president....(sm)
Oh, wait....no...it can't be....the audacity of this man. He isn't even president yet, and just look at how he has changed this country. He has given people hope for a brighter future....the nerve. Things were much better when we could just torture people at will, invade who we want, pi$$ off the world, and not have to deal with those pesky civil rights. Oh, those were the days!
Keep counting.
Isnt he terrible? I tried watching too and he comes
nm
Ummm....yeah, it would be so terrible..(sm)
If we just "let it go" then we have said it is okay to torture and to break the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Those laws apply to everyone, even the former administration.
You guys constantly try to justify the war in Iraq by saying that Saadam was a tyrant (which he was) and that he was committing inhumane acts on his people. We also ridiculed the Taliban for its treatment of women.
How much credibility do we really have to judge anyone else if we don't hold ourselves accountable for our OWN laws?
I hope the whole Bush bunch that came up with and ordered torture go to trial and are given the most severe sentence possible. Maybe that way when other countries look at us they can see that we mean what we say instead of having a double standard for ourselves.
I do believe that there is a direct
response to the OP with the title of "You're Whack." The inside message said, "Who cares? So what? Get a life."
Seriously...if you have nothing constructive to add, why waste your time responding with that?
I guess I just don't get why some of you hate Christians so much? I admit that there are those who try and force their religion upon others. I don't do that. If someone doesn't want to believe in what I do, like my husband, I don't push my views on him. However, he doesn't ridicule me for believing either.
It just seems like every time someone mentions something about religion the bashing and name calling, etc. starts. I'm beginning to think that maybe Christians should be placed on the hate crime list because it sure sounds like a lot of people hate us.
Religionopathy. Terrible, debilitating disease.
'A mind is a terrible thing to waste'. - Unfortunately,
The Mind is a terrible thing to lose
thus spats out another great repub VP choice, Dan Potatoe Quayle.
Yes, because he could not get elected no matter what he tried, like the man, terrible, worn-out, in
nm
Can someone direct me to a site (sm)
that states the candidates' detailed respective platforms at a glance? I've watched most of the debates, as much as I can anyhow, but I've not been able glean and distinguish a lot of specifics.
I'm in FL and vote on Tuesday. Believe it or not, I am undecided. I liked Dennis, but he pulled out today and probably wouldn't have voted for him... won't go into why, but I'm sure I don't have to :-)
Dennis says to go Obama.... not sure if I want to. What I want is to have a Dem president. I like Edwards...
My demographic falls into Hilary's (female 45 and over lol).
Input appreciated.
that was a direct quote from
Ronald Reagan. How SHAMEFUL that you make fun of a dead man and one with Alzheimer's to boot. I am appalled at your lack of manners.
I believe this is a direct quote from big O
'The buck stops here.'
The exact quote is "What a terrible thing to
have lost one's mind, or not to have a mind at all. How true that is.".....Dan Quayle If you Google Dan Quayle, there are more quotes made by him which are very funny. Amazing how Americans form their decisions to vote for these people.
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.
May I politely and respectfully direct you
back to God's word? Obviously a little more study and maturing will do you no harm.
You know, I hate hypocrisy. You want to direct me
back to God's Word?
When you can show me in God's Word where He approves of what Osambo approves, then we can talk.
Let's talk abortion, gay marriage, taxes, lying, cheating, subversion of government, indoctrination of preschoolers, redefining marriage, etc., a whole litany of what Osambo stands for and compare it to God Almighty's Word.
I warn you in advance. You are up against an adversary you do not want to tackle with because you are ill prepared to defend your comments and beliefs in the light of Scripture.
Ready to go for it, old girl?
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.
Debate, lets debate
Honey, I dont know if your problem is Alzheimer's or Parkinson's but I have debated all over this board..I have tried and tried again and again to debate with your cohorts..It starts out okay and then your conservative friends start attacking and it continues through the debate to where then there is no longer a debate. I ask for you to check the archives and you will see this..nothing but personal attacks against me, which then I attacked back..Debate..lets debate..I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE WITHOUT ATTACKS..Place an issue and lets debate..Who knows..my consciousness might be raised or yours might be..Lets do it,,
and that should have read "NO MORE than being a Republican means," I am typing terrible, migra
nm
and that should have read "NO MORE than being a Republican means," I am typing terrible, migra
nm
Please direct me to the bible verse where it is written
about the right to bear arms. I missed this.
"They are no more pro war than God is. They do believe in the right to bear arms..."
You give me a direct answer. You dodge it like he does.
How can he give 95% of AMericans a tax cut if 30-40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Either he is lying about the 95%, or he is going to use refundable tax credits. How else can he do it? PLEASE, PLEASE, explain that to me. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me HOW he is going to give tax cuts to 95% of people, 30-40% of whom DO NOT PAY federal income taxes, wITHOUT cutting them a check. Please, please explain that to me.
Sam understands the basic principles of socialism and Marxism just fine. Most of which Mr Obama taught me in his books and associations. Which you are willing to ignore.
So please...very simply. Explain to me how he is going to give tax breaks or cuts to 95% of Americans if 30-40% of that group don't pay taxes. You said yourself, he can't. So either he is lying about the 95%...or he is going to cut that 30-40% a check.
PLEASE explain his tax plan to me since you are such an expert on it. HOW is he going to do it without cutting checks? HOW?
Are you not able to answer a simple direct question?
It's obviously over your head.
Don't want to direct quote, can't stand to watch it again sm
The point being, cutting unnecessary procedures to seniors who "would not get any better anyway." I was so fuming angry that I would like everyone to hear it, but I for one could not stand watching it again. We are bailing out all these losers and he's going to deny our seniors. If he touches their benefits, I will march on Washington. Most of them paid their way all their lives and now they're being "cut" because he thinks it's frivalous as they "wouldn't get any better anyway." Who the blazes is he to make that decision???? Everyone deserves a choice of care, even Gramma and Grampa. I don't care how old they are!
Yeah, direct me to some homosexual "scientific"
site. Believe me, if that were the case, it would be well publicized, especially in the New York Times.
Don't you even know that the first "scientists" who "came out" with a gay gene were homosexuals? You don't think they have an agenda, my dear?
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.
Nan-ism post was in direct reply/rebuttal to the two posts above it.
Surely you would agree that when accused of something we should have a chance for rebuttal? And that our rebuttal would surely include proof/evidence of why we took a particular stand? Would you deny the liberal board that right? SOME of us may be tolerant (or as Nan put it, "sissies") but some of us are very capable of speaking up for ourselves.
I have read Nan on this board (and others as well) for almost two years so I think I have a pretty fair grasp of her opinion and style of posting.
Feel free to direct your concerns to the Administrator. sm
You can reach the adminstrator at Admin@MTStars.com. As far as deleting, since the incident of several weeks ago, I have made a concerted effort on BOTH boards to keep the bashing to a minimum.
Hardly. Consorting with vs direct quote? Supports succession
The quote thing, whether SP or her husband is not the only example of the problems SP will be facing once the convention is over and the campaign goes into high gear. So far, this morning, you have managed to dodge every single effort to elicit a response to SP's OWN words. Dismiss the pastor, but not her own preaching on video. That just won't fade away no matter how much spin you are able to produce. These are land mines waiting for detonation.
With regard to the "got not use for America's damned institutions" and support of succession question, these issues will not play well for yer in terms of country first, in the context of ethics (can't practice what is preached) and when it comes to change versus same old stuff.
Before pronoucing this as a nonissue, suppose we give this a little time to play out in the political arena? Your guilt by association campaign has already run its course, and Obama managed to clench the nomination. In the light of the blaring negative publicity that will be issuing forth in the weeks to come with SP being the newest rock star on the block, how much political mileage do you really think that empty tank is going to give you?
Still waiting for a direct answer to a simple question.
nm
The huge emphasis on tomorrow is in direct proportion to
Finally. A President we can all be PROUD of, instead of hide-your-head-in-a-bag EMBARRASSED.
|
