Thanks for responding.
Posted By: Liberal on 2006-08-29
In Reply to: Not standing up to the liberal Democratic party - Hattie
1) Agree with the point about Afghanistan. If our troops weren't burdened with fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, we might be able to have a stronger presence in Afghanistan, as well as protect ourselves at home in case of a disaster (terroristic or natural). Our troops are spread too thin, and the military keeps raising the age limit and lowering physical standards for enlistment as a reseult.
2) I agree with this.
3) Bush has recently admitted that Iraq had no WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you think he is lying?
4) Tony Snow has made some really stupid statements, including blaming 9/11 on Bush 41.
5) Bush was the only leader who held out so the war could continue longer when the rest of the world pleaded for it to end.
Regarding your last sentence, whether I agree or not doesn't matter. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't feel you wasted your breath or your time. Thank you for responding.
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 believe she was responding to the
the exclamation point abuser, and not referring to teabaggers in general.
I don't think I was responding to those posts
I was responding to gt's, and no, I was not around when those other posts were made, and that's why I didn't comment on them.
I was responding to the "drunk" comment that gt made which was totally off par and shows what that gt is here for only one reason and that is to incite fighting, because calling someone a drunk without knowing them at all is definitely fighting words.
I don't know how you can render me a phoney, because I have told you nothing of my self. That is again, a baseless judgement. GT was typing nonsenical stuff right after telling someone their posting habits sounded like those of a drunk. If posting habits are evidence of drunkeness then gt needs to look at his or her posting style.
If you'd stop responding, so will the OP.
The more you carry on with posters like this, the more they will continue.
Moderator
No, I was responding to the past above yours, sorry,
did I get it wrong? yikes - I meant that for the 'first of all' post...
Huh? No. I was responding to the post
above that stated man and woman were created with the purpose of producing offspring. It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
I don't understand where you got the idea I meant anything else.
Do you think you've been responding to
just 1 person all day - LOL.
enclosed the post I was responding to
Below is the post I was responding to:
*But can a parent sacrifice their child to the military
that was the question...
and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.*
Maybe you should actually read the post before responding.
Bush is claiming they are working on nuclear weapons.
Iran has always claimed they are working on nuclear energy.
Who's lying? Which country has the track record for lying when it comes to reasons for declaring war on a country that didn't attack it first??
Agree and I do not plan on responding to them either
I have better things to do than squander any more of my time responding to the troublemakers posting on this board. When someone here has something worth responding to, I will. There is no point in explaining, defending, or arguing with the people who are only here because they can't find any intelligent discussions on their own board.
You're the one who keeps responding. Just quit your...sm
harassment.
I was speaking to you, no matter how you try to twist the converation, and say I can't follow the thread. Period.
My apologies... I thought you were responding to
I usually don't read her posts, so by the time I checked to see if you were responding to her or me, it was too late. Sorry about the hasty reply, but I what I wrote still stands, just in case anyone DOES mis-quote me.
Anyway, a great big OOOPS!
:-/
Just tired of responding to hatred....nm
x
Responding to you is a waste of my time.
I do not waste my time responding to your political posts, and I will not waste my time arguing semantics with you. I would not associate with you in my personal life, and you are not worth my time and energy on this forum. I am afraid you will have to find someone else to listen to your nonsense.
I am responding to the above post with my opinion
and am not interested in over-aggressive fights about such silliness. It is my opinion in answer to the question above.
Wasn't responding to your post.... but the sow's ear
--
Did I stop anyone from responding to your post?
you haven't answered mine.
the problem with responding too fast
...is that you end up leaving out important phrases!
The $72 an hour figure quoted in the article, I should have said, isn't made of *just* the wages and benefits of current employees--it's also including those paid to retired workers, the ones who paid into the retirement fund their whole lives, and are now living off those benefits.
In other words, you take the wages/benefits paid to the current 180,000 or so autoworkers, PLUS those paid to the 400,000 or so retirees and the 120,000 spouses of dead retirees, then divide that by the 180,000 current workers, then say, LOOK HOW MUCH THOSE GUYS GET PAID! It's an incredibly artifically inflated number.
And noooo one in the media ever seems to question it.
You did not follow who I was responding to!!!! YOU READ IT
dip
Also I was responding to the person who wrote that
say the opposite. BT stated it correctly.
Now nuff said.
Dont even bother responding to her posts -
() is most definitely NOT playing with a full deck.
I agree, I was responding to some of the ugly remarks made below nm
x
You just don't have the capacity to understand I'm afraid... see ya, not responding anymore nm
to you
I am responding to all the posters who have made a living on this board denegrating everything that
new President does, even though he has just taken office, give me a break. George had 8 years, and each year was worse than the one before it.....I am not "whining" about Bush, the past is the past and I am trying very hard to focus on change, on a new future, on how we can all help, etc., not waving the Democratic flag, but the AMERICAN flag, I am just referring to history, nonpartison history.
I heard today Palin is responding to Levi's charges
by throwing the dirt back at him. I say that is how every woman her age should behave, right? Tit for tat.
And I think you have to read all of my posts, I am responding to arrogant inflammatory remarks, whic
Substantiation, no real substance, and yet these people are CHOOSING to start devisive threads with divisive remarks on this board, even making statements that historically are 100% inaccurate. Yes, I pray for unity, compassion, wisdom, etc., but the rabid Republicans on this board (and I do not mean all Rep., just a few loud ones), want to harshy judge and condemnn the new administration without giving things a chance, what would you call that? What about the "hit and run" posts by right wingers who continue to stir the pot with incorrect, slanted, and inflammatory remarks here? Fair is fair, I try to back up each statement I make with historical facts, I try to see both points of view (wow, I have actually agreed with Republicans on certain subjects!), but this board is not about me, or you, it is about all of us trying to hash out all the many struggles this nation now has, and with restraint, intelligence, and care look at each problem and try to help fix it. America comes first. Period.
|
