That's what I was referring too....
Posted By: sbMT on 2009-02-02
In Reply to: Got Buddha? - deenibeeni
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450445,00.html
The Atheist organizations ran "Why believe in a god" ads in D.C.
I mean if we as Christians can't run ads in secular areas, why should atheists?
By the way, Atheism is becoming a lot like it's own religion nowadays....
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
Not what I was referring to...
Anyway, I'm beginning to be sorry I mentioned this. The whole point was that a poster said TWICE that it was easy enough for her to check ISPs to find out who was using multiple monikers in order to find out what was posting as whom, etc. I was just questioning that comment, that's all.
As far as the hacking on the protestwarrior.com website, that is a separate issue from what I was referring to. Someone revealed some folks' personal information on the forum. I wasn't blaming the owners of the website for that.....
Time for me to give this a rest.
LOL! I was referring to
Bush's invasion of Iraq to *spread freedom* (#2 reason after the failed WMD excuse). I'd consider it kind of a *gander invasion* (as in what's good for...). Could you imagine an America where, regardless of wealth, everyone received medical care, nobody starved, everyone had adequate housing? An America that didn't throw its poor to the wolves (or the *waves* of a hurricane, as pointed out below in the areas that Bush included in his Louisiana plan)? An American government that allowed personal freedoms, didn't force one set of religious beliefs down your throat via politics, didn't try to control your personal life/death issues, didn't condemn you to unequal rights and eternal damnation because you love the *wrong* person?
I wouldn't object to living in that kind of America. 
Actually, I was referring to
money/evil as it regards George W. Bush, et al.
The UAE has a very unstable history of *loyalty* to the United States, and I believe allowing this deal to go through is very risky business and completely contrary to the man who said *If you're not with us, you're against us,* who, to me, is now completely against us and in favor of big money. The 9/11 Commission is totally against this deal. But anything to defend Dubya, right?
Let me guess...you *accidentally* posted on the liberal board again, right?
I was actually not referring to you.
You are not the message-syntax-style-similar person.
I was not referring to these 2
individuals exclusively. I said there are those who are able to see a problem from all sides. These are the people who will lead us to peace if we can ever achieve it. As far as liars et al, PULEEZE, take a look at our current Congress, take a look at many of our **ministries.** Take a look at our leaders of industry. Take a look at our professional sports and news people and newspapers.
My point was that one can actually have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours and still love America, love democracy and disapprove of this administration AND say so out loud. I admire people who can put their personal feelings aside and see incendiary events objectively. I am not able to do that but there are those that can. My post was not a defense of anyone in particular.
I was referring to myself...
the things I have gotten mostly on the C board but some here. I did not say you said any of those things. I just know they have been said to me. I am not championing anyone. I wanted to let Teddy know that she has a place here as does everyone (except if you denigrate W) and some pretty nasty things have been said on both sides. I did not want her to leave because she was, it appeared, standing alone yesterday. The more people are here the better it is.
I don't think that anyone probably deserves some of the rhetoric that appears here and I am amazed at the viciousness sometimes...both sides...but we are representative of a larger picture and that is a good thing.
My apologies, I was not referring to you in any way. I was telling Teddy that I knew how she must feel. It's tough to go it alone sometimes or be the only one on your side (or so it seems). I have been there where I am the only left voice and besides being difficult, it gets really confusing about answering what to who about what. That is all.
This is what I was referring to...
I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.). Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job. Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!
Don't know what you are referring to. nm
nm
I am referring to....
The missionary story told in the "Wow. This is impressive. I agree." post, the point being that there are a multitude of Christian viewpoints, especially when it comes to interpreting the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) and reconciling more secular political beliefs.
To whom are you referring?
First, I would like to know exactly to whom you are referring. Second, I would like to know who gave you the power to tell people to go elsewhere? If you are offended by a post or posts, you certainly are free to go elsewhere yourself, but I do not believe you have the right to tell others what to do!
Perhaps she's referring to
A fictional character, John McClane of Die Hard fame. We know she's out of touch with reality.
But why are you referring to....sm
republicans as being rabid tonight? I imagine that term could be used both ways for both parties, but why are you so vehement tonight about only Republicans? Did something happen?
(at least in the posts that I have read...might have missed some, as I don't go back when I've missed a day or so of posts....)
You're usually very level headed, although as you said above on a different post, it sounds like you go right and left on different issues.
And I keep meaning to ask you how your gourd painting is coming along, now that Halloween and fall are upon us. I hope you're having fun with that, as I saw you post on a different board a while back about your hobby....
I was referring to the very same NWO...
...that is the goal of the PNAC that everyone was afraid Bush would cause.
That's right - I was referring to him
and should have credited Bubba's name to the quote. Everyone should remember though, Mr. O is not the first black President we've had, according to many Bubba was.
First of all, I was referring to the GOP going . . . .
down the toilet, NOT Fox News. Secondly, the only reason Fox has the highest ratings on non-cable networks is because all the intellligent people are gleaning their information from the more intelligent cable networks. I reckon those people in the boonies can't get those fancy cable stations, and so they are forced to pick between the big 3, and besides, Lamebaugh, Beck, et al, are more to their likin', since birds of a feather (or smaller brains) stick together. So, you all can keep harping on Fox's ratings -- I don't give a rat's behind because I am not impressed (and I am not brainwashed), and I actually have a mind of my own. I think it is disgraceful that they are even allowed to call themselves a news network -- more like hate-inciting network.
If you are referring to me....
I haven't posted anything since January. So I think you may have me confused with someone else. I really just lurk and laugh. Thanks though! 
I think I see now what you're referring to about my post.
I don't find one thing funny about it. I'm outraged about it because blaming anyone BUT the priests is giving a green flag for that behavior to continue.
And I totally agree with you that it's gone on too long, with the church's apparent blessing. They know what these priests are doing, and they just transfer them to another parish so they can continue with a new set of children.
As far as the "headline" comment about my post, see what you mean about it coming up as a "headline" when you log onto this site. I didn't realize it was going to come up that way.
Please rest assured that I'm outraged by all this. Our children in this country are molested and killed every day in what seems to be an epidemic, and nobody is doing anything about it.
OK. But, I wasn't referring to this. That's all I'm trying to say. nm
x
Wasn't referring to you....nm
fdfdf
The 'jokes' I was referring to
were in your previous post. I guess I'm breaking your mold because, while I've never heard AL Franken, I'd break his nose too because what he said in the quote you just provided is hateful. I do not defend one side and slam the other.
Sounds like you are referring to a
certain group of people. Correct me if I have misunderstood. Who are you talking about? The vast majority of conservatives who believe the Bible is divinely inspired support the Constitution and don't want it meddled with. Your observation truly has me confused. 
I know...I was referring to my typo (nm)
xx
I still have no idea to whom you are referring!
Why don't you give specific examples, so I can understand what you are talking about? I am not psychic and truly don't know who you are targeting here. Everyone on the board has the ability to post under whatever name they choose. For example, Sam admitted to posting under the name Indy Observer yesterday. No one knew it was her until she revealed it in one of her posts. Do you have special powers that allow you to know who is posting under various names?
I was referring to the war in Iraq being
a waste. The man who was behind our 09/11 massacre is still at large. We should have put more time, resources in money going after him. Not going after Iraq, but then they had all that great oil. Again, Afghanistan is one thing, Iraq another. Bush and his admin. mislead and lied to everybody saying that Iraq had anything to do with 09/11. So, now we have pumped billions of dollars into an Iraq war when it should have put into getting the man/people would attacked us. So yes, the fact that it is Afghanistan does make the difference IMO.
I shudder to think of all the things the Republicans have done in the 6 years that they had majority that we don't even know about yet. It does not excuse this current fiasco though and as I stated earlier, no I do not overlook what hand the Dems had it in either.
Who are you referring to by "they" ?
I am also a Christian and don't condone any of it either and I think most people probably do not. "they" fear Muslims because all they know of Muslims is the small portion of them who are terrorists. They don't realize it is a peaceful religion. All of these things that were done in the name of religion over centuries were done by radicals one way or the other looking for an excuse. No one's God, not the God we Christians believe in, not the God Muslims believe in, condones killing and hatred. That is something we humans have done all by ourselves.
Which lies are you referring to
Would you please be specific. I understand you are not defending either candidate, but you came on and pretty much said that whatever we wrote were lies, so I would like to know which "lies" are you referring to. I'm sure you're probably referring to the people who wrote about their concerns and posted articles that were against Obama.
I came on this board to read people's "opinions", why someone liked or disliked a candidate and for what reason. Also a lot of excellent links and articles were posted. Some written by lawyers, journalists, etc. People with degrees and who have been studying the economy, foreign affairs, laws, and presidential races for 20 years or more. Are those people lying? They've done their research, and for many of us we posted links to those sources for people to read themselves and make their own determinations as to whether they belive it or not.
What I saw constantly was if it went against Obama people said it was a lie. We posted articles and were told the source is not credible. Then when we posted some from CNN or MSNBC nothing was said. So people gave no reason as to why they were not credible except for the simple fact that it did not praise Obama. They chose to ignore the truth instead.
So as for people "making things up". It all depended on if you were for or against Obama. I never heard one Obama supporter question any of the stuff Obama was saying or doing or his shady background and questionable associations. But the McCain supporters did question him. We did say time and time again we weren't really happy with the republicans choice, but the other was worse.
P.S. - The stuff we post... we do back up with a credible source.
So please tell me which lies you are referring to so we can answer you with credible sources.
This is referring to an off shore rig..... sm
when it talks about taking 20 years to bring one to production. People need to understand that this is from the seismographic investigations until the first drop of crude comes from below the ocean floor.
I am talking about land rigs, and I believe I stated this in my post. I live in an oil and gas rich region of our country and have a very good friend who is a consultant for one of the major drilling companies in the region. When I asked him how long it takes to bring a rig to production, his answer was that it used to take upwards of 6 weeks to 2 months but that they now have the technology to bring one in within 14 days from rig up to rig down. The higher ups in the business push for a figure closer to 10 days. I have watched the oil drilling activity in my area, and I mean physically watched it and not just reading about it in the newspaper, for the last 3 years and have literally counted the days from rig up to rig down several times and it generally does come in at around 10 to 14 days.
I also looked at the front page for your source. Did you? It has Obama written all over it, so any "facts" that are posted there are going to be slanted in his favor to advance his legislation and party. Even the first sentence is an outdated statement. Gas prices have plummetted in the past couple of weeks. It is currently down to below $2 in several towns in my area. My mother's royalty check this month was only 25% of what it had been in previous months.
So, I believe I know my facts pretty well and I don't need Obama's website decrying what Bush did or did not do to substantiate them.
Noooooooooo! I was referring to
when Bush declares martial law.
I wasn't talking about Obama.
If anyone is the antichrist, it's Bush, in my opinion. 
which post are you referring to
specifically? Which one of my posts were lies?
Not referring to you but to Keisha
@@
What lies are you referring to?
The ones coming out of the conspiracy theorists and witch hunts?
Referring to your quote above, would
sentiments if a conservative was being sworn into office on 1/20/09? Is this how you felt on 11/3/08?
**From where I stand (the left...ok, far left),....I would say that most Americans realize the power that comes with being united and would not be willing to give that up, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on.**
If you are referring to Obama.....sm
who refuses to release his IQ...it may well be in the triple digits, but so is President Bush.
I could care less what you think of Bush, so don't go there. He's made mistakes, most can agree on, so I won't debate any of those with you.
But high IQ does not equate to wisdom, and only time will tell if Obama, in his administration, will have any....wisdom that is.
He obviously hasn't had much wisdom wth respect to his past life, so hopefully his future will be different. I doubt it though.
I am referring to several of her posts, not just this one.
xx
I am very aware of what she was referring to.
I am asking for facts/incidences that directly relate to the type of "personality" that proves this poster's observations on Mrs. Obama's character. What exactly has she done to draw this meaness from someone?
I think this is what the poster is referring too...
This is from Robert Reich, economic advisor to Obama, giving his opinion on the stimulus package and the creation of new jobs....
I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. … I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals
sorry, I'm confused. Are you referring to GW
regarding historic precident?
Funny you should quote BJ. That was my argument against the Patriot Act.
I was referring to the fact that you apparently
think your opinion is the only one and you know all.
I'm on the board I belong to and I rarely post but you just seem like a board bully.
Apparently, from the posts above, I'm not the only one feeling that way.
I think you are referring to resolution 1441
But that did resolution did not authorize invasion or war, as far as I understand it.
Referring to the legendary republican
nm
Yes, but the Planned Parenthood you keep referring to
it has to have funding from somewhere or it will cease to exist and those counting on it would be left behind. Not even talking teens here, but adults, too, who can't afford high OB/GYN bills often use Planned Parenthood services. Some people use birth control for reasons other than just birth control, too, which every MT should certainly know. It's been used to help migraines, dysmenorrhea, etc. I was a teen who took BCP not because I was sexually active (I wasn't), but because the doctor tried everything else for my debilitating cramps and nothing worked. The BCP was the only thing that kept it in check so I could actually attend school for those 5-7 days each month. I guess that's why I don't necessarily feel it's the gov't's place to step in and control this. Anyone who would've seen me taking BCP would've surely jumped to the conclusion it was because I was promiscuous even though there was another explanation entirely.
Was referring to words out of her own mouth
nm
The sleeping lion I was referring to was not...
JOhn McCain, it was conservatives, and in particular, feminists who are conservative, not liberal. They are concerned with all those issues. John McCain addresses all of those issues you listed.
One in particular, small business. Obama is going to raise their taxes. It is part of his tax plan..the $250,000 or over bracket. That is right in the small business bracket. All that will do is cause more businesses to close or go offshore, resulting in more jobs lost, more people into the lower income brackets. Enter the $6 billion he is going to tax those small businesses in order to give MORE tax breaks to the lowest bracket. They already pay little or no taxes.
The "rich" already pay more than 90% of the federal tax bill. Why isn't that enough for Obama? Corporations are also the largest employers in this country. Why continue to tax them so hard, so hard they are forced to go offshore or lay off people to afford them? That makes no sense, unless your goal is to force more people into the lower brackets so you can contiune to demonize corporations as your re-election mantra in the next election?
Democrats had the 8 years before Bush...just as many people were in the lower brackets as today. No matter what the DNC says, their goal is to keep people in the lower brackets, not elevate them. Because if they are elevated they are happy, and if they are happy, you cannot prey on discontent in order to get elected. If people just look at history, that is pretty darned obvious. I am not blaming Obama in particular...he has just picked up the mantle of the DNC. He is Washington politics as usual.
Protect social security? Privatize it, let individuals control their own, get it OUT of the hands of COngress so they cannot continue to "borrow" from it. That should be the first priority. And for Congress to pay back all they have "borrowed" before they create more social programs. THAT would be putting the people before the party.
Clean elections? There is fast and loose on both sides, and everyone knows that. No party owns that particular issue.
Federal contract earmarks? Research Joe Biden's professional lobbyist son and how many earmarks he has steered to good old dad's supporters. That is also on both sides of the aisle. If Obama wants to clean up lobbying and earmarks, he needs to start with his VP.
War? John McCain hates war. But he does not want his country to lose one. Unlike the other side.
Patriot act? How many "innoncent" people have fallen victim to the patriot act? None, that I know of. I have nothing to hide. If the FBI wants to monitor my emails, they better get coffee because they will be bored to death. How does it escape anyone's notice that we have not been attacked again? I saw on the news this morning that AL Qaeda is going to focus attention on denmark now, because of those cartoons. Started by bombing one of their embassies...sound familiar? If George Bush did nothing else right, he did put them on the run, and good for HIM. John McCain will do the same. Barack Obama...not so much.
Separation of church and state...what the constitution states is that there will be no establishment of a state religion. There never has been in this country and never will be. The constitution also says the free expression thereof...but liberals skip right over that inconvenient detail every single time.
Global diplomacy? Look at history. Europe loves America when Europe needs America, and when they don't come the sneers. May I direct you to World War I, World War II...? Helllpppp America they are running us over. Cheering in the streets. Throwing flowers at the soldiers' feet. War over. Yankee go home. sorry if I don't give a hoot what Europe thinks of us. Europe does not step up when we need help...yet if they yelled again tomorrow, right back we would go..because that is who we are.
Obama...how do you balance a budget and reduce debt when your tax plan alone is going to raise the deficit by over a trillion dollars? Not to mention health care, expanded social programs, and everything else he promises.
The best way to address poverty is not to keep giving tax cuts to those who do not pay much tax to begin with. You make every welfare check attached to a jobs program. You make them work to earn it. Learn a skill.
Obama talks a lot about the middle class. He practices the Alinsky tactic well and it has worked for the DNC for many years. Class warfare. Stir people up, because in the words of Alinsky himself, it doesn't matter if it is true or not. It just matters if you are able to make people believe it.
And with that, I bid you a good afternoon.
If you are referring to Bush, he is not in this race
nm
Is it referring to a 6-pack of beer? nm
.
I agreed with your post! I was referring to the
I'm on YOUR side!
I doubt he is referring to people
who work one day a year and the like.
I was not referring to an individual as being self-righteous,
I was referring to the collective you that applies to anyone that maybe needs to see a different perspective.
He obviously was referring to US states, territories, etc
He received votes from 57 "entities." If someone wants to get picky, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania aren't states, either.
From: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717171450AAf1dMj
57 caucuses and primaries in the states, commonwealth, territories, districts and citizens abroad. In order they are:
Iowa
New Hampshire
Michigan
Nevada
South Carolina
Florida
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
Louisiana
Nebraska
U.S. Virgin Islands
Washington caucus
Maine
Democrats Abroad
District of Columbia
Maryland
Virginia
Hawaii
Wisconsin
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas primary
Texas caucus
Vermont
Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Guam
Indiana
North Carolina
West Virginia
Kentucky
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Montana
South Dakota
M, did u write the post Vie is referring to?
just wondering
Hello. They are referring to PRIVATE insurance.
Do you have kids? Would you like to see them go to college? Graduate school? Law school? Medical school? Would you or would you not like to have the option to carry YOUR OWN CHILDREN on your insurance beyond age 17? I think that parents who want to cover their kids (and other members of their family, for that matter, like parents, in-laws, sisters, brothers, etc) should have that choice under a group rate that would be cheaper than individual policies that some of them otherwise would not be able to afford. It's called medical care reform and the aim is to INSURE people, not exclude them. got it?
|
