That is the MOST narrow-minded post....
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-27
In Reply to: only the conservative, narrow-minded ones! - Stardust
I have seen here. Got a mirror handy? :-)
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
Are you that narrow-minded?
Are you so stuck on being "anti-religious" or amti-Christian or whatever that you don't realize everyone that opposes abortion is not a Christian?
Why is it if someone opposes abortion they MUST be Christian. If someone opposes abortion that has no religious beliefs, what do you call them? Maybe they just know murder when they see it?
only the conservative, narrow-minded ones!
nm
narrow minded? yup that is the O lovers
P.S. - last time someone was called stupid they were banned.
You don't like what I have to say fine. Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself. No need to be rude - oh wait! Your an O lover. Guess you do feel you have the right to be rude.
As Ben Franklin said, which fits perfectly about your post, .... "Better to keep silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
More like narrow minded people
Without resorting to throwing out some silly retort.
Who says your way is the right way? That is why we live in AMERICA - we are FREE to make our own choices. It is not up to the government to watch your children. That is YOUR job. Their job is to uphold the Constitution OF the people BY the people...lest you forget!
Nor I with the cloistered and narrow-minded.
>>>>
No, I challenge you to show me mean, narrow minded,
shallow, pure hatred from the reps to the dems on this board.
I think you libbies have it won down pat. Same on other boards, not just this one.
And for that matter, show me anywhere, that same degree of "hatred" toward Obama, that is now being shown to Gov. Palin.
I don't mean mere dislike, or spoof of his lack of anything, either. I mean the hatred.
Republicans don't act that way. But if they have, please give me an example, please.
That is so narrow-minded and not true. You are so judgemental (sm)
apparently, you are the only non-racist, good person in the United States, aren't you? Take yourself off your pedestal. Many of us are just as kind-hearted and see race as a nonissue as you claim to be. Get off your high horse.
You've got to be kidding! How narrow-minded
nm
Actually, I find YOUR post closed-minded
nm
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps your narrow world, not mine.
Trying to figure out exactly what a community organizer does (besides having dinner with terrorists, listening to - but never actually hearing - hate speech in church, rallying fraudulent votes, etc.).
Perhaps you could enighten me, o wise one?
It doesn't narrow our view of the world,
it expands it.
Isn't google wonderful? For expanding your narrow scope? sm
I also remember them comparing the two a while back, especially since Studds passed away recently. I guess it does depend on whose imagination you're stretching, doesn't it.
Nice of you to be so graphic about it.
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
I am open minded
but I'm also not gullible to anything that floats down the river either.
If you are as open-minded as you say you are
why does a countdown that millions of people are doing, whether its openly on a forum, or under their breath, nauseate you so much? Just like the 10-paragraph diatribe above someone launched in reply to the 2930 post, me thinks you doest protest too much. I mean, really, what is the harm in someone being excited and happy at the idea of a changing of the guard?
Wow, you don't even know me and you have labeled me. How fair-minded of you.
Can you even see how silly you are? Probably not.
You aren't even open-minded enough to think about this...
He has already said he wants to practice redistribution of wealth (tax oil companies and give it back to people who did not earn it). That is Marxist theory. And now we have son of Alinsky high-fiving him in the Boston Globe. I am seeing stuff that I am still confirming that he taught the Alinsky theory. One thing alone, maybe not so alarming...but the preponderance of evidence....the jury is still out, but it does not look good.
comment from your like-minded friend
You know there are some who believe that this is not like the Great Depression, not like the civil war (with the hyperinflation) but actually more like the revolutionary war because of the violations of our constitution. I think it will be very interesting to see how many people will want to preserve it, sacrifice to preserve it, once they realize how threatened it is.
Yes, that is close minded' and 'ignorant'..
Don't you see?
Typical closed-minded, my-way-or-the-highway,
(which means, "Waste of Our Time").
This poster is obviously simple minded and likes to
stir up trouble. Probably has never voted.
I hope you are not that small minded. You may quit your job
any time you like and apply for welfare and see if you get it. Maybe, Bush will let you draw it now.
Only the open minded and forward thinking
There isn't anything he can do about narrow-minded, self-righteous divisionists. Obama has won over the educated majority of the entire world.
Great Britain has been so "open minded" they now
have an out of control Muslim population. The neighborhoods have become so violent, the police won't even venture into the neighborhoods! They're trying to run the european contry.... GB is now trying to curtail anymore Muslims from coming into the country and that is why the "black list" started in the first place. I say GOOD FOR THEM! They are sick and tired of others trying to control their govt and people....same thing is happening in this country!
My mistake...I thought you only tolerated like-minded people....
hence Berkeley.
LOL! Ain't that the truth! "Fair minded"..."well-researched"...
I haven't seen one scintilla of anything that could properly be called 'research' in any of Just Terribly Bad Breath's posts.
Question....you tout yourself as open-minded and tolerant....
when are you going to start posting as such? Just curious. Not exactly tolerant and open-minded to make blanket statements about "pubs" when you certainly cannot POSSIBLY know or have talked to every single registered Republican in this country. And how do you know what political affiliation someone is? Do you decide based on how they feel about Barry from Chicago? I myself am registered Independent, and to quote from a post I have seen on this board before but which sums it up...because you have to register as something in this country to vote. I was a Republican once, but they have become Democrats lite. Yes, my politics would be considered conservative. I don't believe the Constitution is a "living" document. I believe is fine as the founders wrote it and not as the ACLU would like it to be re-written. I believe in God. I believe in a free country. I believe in capitalism. I believe in more power at the state level than the federal government level. To name a few. I certainly don't believe in socialism, in making people dependent upon the government for their every need. I believe in hard work as a means to bettering your situation, not handouts from the government paid for on the backs of those willing to work hard. To name just a few. What do YOU believe in besides Barry from Chicago?
Glad to see you are so open-minded and tolerant of diversity, as your party proclaims.
I am not set in my ways, I have embrace some of the liberal notions although not enough to vote that way say far, and welcome INTELLIGENT debate and discussion. And I'm suppose to be from the party of intolerance and racism. I think you should reread some of your posts and see who is intolerant. I don't come here to poke fun at anybody on either side, I come here because I don't get much out of just agreeing with everybody, I like to hear different ideas and to debate the issues. But, I guess I could find another liberal board where some mature people hang out and I might be welcome to do that, instead of just reading stupid childish jokes and laughing with each other.
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
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.
Thanks for the post. I think I will look up that
article.
And thanks for pointing out all the other "results" of his administration that, as you say, benefit nobody but the rich and/or the corporations or, as he himself once publicly bragged, "his base."
I know for a fact that when he ran for President in 2000, I told every single person I knew that if he becomes President, we're going to go to war with Iraq. (Nobody's gonna treat his daddy like Saddam did and get away with it.)
I didn't have a crystal ball. I had common sense and a good memory from the Gulf War when his father was President and how he didn't "finish the job." Seems a lot of other Americans forgot about that.
I really enjoyed reading your post and all the facts you raised that I failed to raise in mine. Thanks for the mention of the LA Times article. I'm going to try to look that up on the web. 
I know they don't. I said that in my post. NM
//
Actually, that post is right on. sm
You sound like a total lunatic, out of control and full of hatred. You sound like someone who could do just what "vs" says. You had best take a look at your behavior. YOUR posts are the ones who should be reported. You are one frightening person.
Re your post
From your post:
"Did you read Mein Kampf? Would that be good enough evidence for you, because he wrote about it in there."
Wrote about what? That the Jews were socialists?
This is an entirely different post.
Really wasn't directed to you anyhow.
|
