Whoa...(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: Your Jehovah has to frown upon the tone and content sm - me
Don't put her in the "no faith" column. We don't want her either...LOL. We may not believe in God, but we do believe in decency.
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
Whoa! So much for the
to the White House! Looks like they're in for a major a** whuppin' and they deserve it. Thanks, gt.
Whoa!!
"would much rather live in an environment of mutual respect, cooperation and tolerance, rather than taking the fearful, suspicious, paranoid, cold-blooded, hateful, exclusionary approach you and your buddies are promoting."
Whoa Nellie!!! Do you know the difference between legal and illegal???? I am all for LEGAL immigration. I would not thank anyone to come invade my home and demand their right to do so nor do I thank those coming into our country ILLEGALLY for doing the same thing.
As for Houston, once again I can't quite get a grip on your perspective. If you're happy in Sharpstown, more power to ya but most of the people I know who still live in Houston certainly don't share your view. If memory serves me correctly, didn't they close the 59 flea market because of high crime? As for Bellaire, it used to be a pretty elite neighborhood but I doubt it is now.
Thanks for the "education" anyway.
LOL whoa
are you a flame or are you "for real"?
some of the biddies in this political section are a riot.
talk about low class and the rougher side of a sentence.
Whoa!
Who gets $6,000 back in EIC with no taxes taken out of their checks? How many kids do they have? I get EIC, but have taxes deducted. Also, if you make over a certain amount per year, the EIC goes down. One year I didn't even qualify because I made too much - Yes, being an MT was good once. I do admit the EIC should only be given to people that WORK! I don't understand how people get it with no job. Sorry, I need to go back and read the rest of your post now. Got a little side tracked with the EIC thing.
Whoa again!
I had no idea! Do you want to know something embarrassing? I didn't even know about earned income credit until my child was 10 years old. I was raised with such a Republican attitude I couldn't even give money back to myself!! GEEZ!! I would do my own taxes and didn't know I could claim it. Then one year I did Turbo Tax and was like WT&*&*&&!!!!! Be glad I'm not an accountant or doing your payroll!
Okay, I just IM'd my loser SIL and asked how much she got back. She said $6200. I'm ticked now. She buys groceries for her grandma once a week and pretends that is a real job. 
Forget everything else I have said tonight. Arrghhhh!!!
Whoa...hold on there.
This is/was a good board with some good folks. PERHAPS she just hadn't seen these posts.....maybe....hope that's the case.
Otherwise, I agree that it's probably time to boycott this board. I have long been aware of the definite bias of the powers that be. But I still hold out hope for fairness in the long run. And I was banned on the conservative board for calling someone stupid!!!! (which I shouldn't have, I admit).
Whoa and hold on!!!
First and foremost, please express my personal appreciation to your husband for his service to this country. By no means would I EVER ridicule a military person. They have served and DIED for the freedom we have and they continue to do so. I say the war in Iraq is ridiculous and that is my personal opinion. I think it was wrong from the getgo and I think it is WRONG to put our service men and woman in harm's way with many of them sacrificing their lives needlessly. There has never been peace in the middle east and there never will be (IMO) all the way back to biblical times.
Bush's "excuse" for the war was to capture or kill bin Laden wasn't it? So why has that not been done? Because, again in my opinion, the war is not against terrorism but about the wealthy oil barons.
AND, I pray for you and your husband. You too are making a great sacrifice and, again, your husband is serving his country and for that he deserves and gets from me the utmost respect whether or not I happen to agree with the politicians who sent him to war. May he be safe and soon return to you.
but whoa, what about Biden
guaranteeing that we would have a "crisis" in the first 6 months of an Obama presidency -- as the enemy would definitely test him -- and as frosting on the cake, biden then saying, "it may not look like we will be handling it right", but "we will!" Good grief. If you care about the safety of Americans, you better vote McCain/Palin.
Whoa! Who said I am a Democrat?
I have been a registered independent since my state changed the law to allow independents to vote in the primary.
Whoa! No one said all cults are
I have no idea where you got that out of the previous posts. Not only is it not true, it doesn't even make sense. What was said was that, by definition, Christianity is a cult. No one ever said all cults are Christian.
Whoa there partner
Back up the train. Fox news isn't blaming illegal immigrants for swine flu. Did you get that spin from MSNBC? The swine flu did get started in Mexico so anyone traveling to and from Mexico, including illegals, are a potential threat of spreading the flu. That is common sense.
As for N. Korea.....regardless of whether they are going to test their missiles just for sh!t and giggles or so they can nuke someone.....a threat is a threat and there is no reason why the UN should apologize.
Whoa Nelly...
If I can't say something is right or wrong, according to God's word, how do I teach my children right from wrong? Oh, maybe that's why so many don't and their children experiment in sinful acts. Never mind.....LOL
Whoa, where did you learn math??
You cannot do your calculations based on the fact that everyone in the lower 48 and Hawaii would NOT vote for her!!
Whoa! Nice move there sm
In a below post you stated that Obama had voted against the new GI bill. I posted a website that would directly link you to the US Senate voting record for that bill which, by the way, does show a big Yea for Obama. Your response was "the facts, just the facts," and that people on this board are obsessed with that (I'm assuming the facts). And now you post some BS from Fox News? Unreal.
Whoa, wait just 1 minute s/m
My husband gets a pretty good retirement check each month so I would argue they didn't QUITE steal all the pension money.
whoa - hold on there - see message
I have been extremely busy these past couple weeks and hardly come here anymore, but I have read a lot of comments and take offense to this. I have seen plenty of intelligent conversations by both sides (and some no so intelligent - get it?). You seem to like to have divisions between one side and the other, and your comments will always be that the liberals are the "all knowing, intelligent ones" and then "them pubs". This country will never be united with thinking like that. Both sides have good and both sides have bad. But I'll bet a lot of people on this board are more in the middle and sick and tired of the elitist liberals and the uber-conservatives. Why can't people just have a good conversation without condescending messages like this?
Whoa there, kam....what pro life Republicans are you talking about?
I NEVER said I did not want to help those who genuinely need help. I already help to the tune of 30-35% of my wages off the top. What I said was it has to END somewhere and the government needs to learn to make do with what they have, like many American families have to do. Just imagine the amount of money with anywhere from 20-40% off the top of checks of all the workers in America...that is a LOT of money there, kam. If programs are prioritized that should be sufficient to take care of the most needy. What is wrong with asking the government to be fiscally responsible? Why is that so wrong in your eyes?
That is another argument I don't understand. Let's abort the kids just in case they might be abused later in life. Abused children don't come from just underprivileged homes. Abuse has nothing to do with socioeconomic circumstances, it has to do with the emotional makeup of the abuser. So I suppose next we should be looking at people who are "likely to abuse" and sterilize all of them?
I agree with fostering...why not fund it better than it is, instead of putting federal funds to aborting children? I would be all for that. The fostering system SHOULD pay those families more to take care of those children, and there is also abuse in the fostering system, they need to be vetted more carefully. Another better use for federal funds than to fund abortion. Fostering is a very worthy program, probably more than a LOT of them, and that is why the welfare system needs to be overhauled and not more money thrown at it. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.
Every life starts inside a woman's body, kam. Partial birth abortions are often much later in the pregnancy, and they actually turn the baby into breech so that the head is still inside the body and the baby's body is born first, so that it could not possibly take a breath, because it is so abhorent to people to think it would take a breath and THEN have it's skull collapsed and its brain literally sucked out of its head. That is murder, plain and simple, I don't care HOW you try to justify it. Why not give people the right to choose whether or not to raise an infant once it is here? They get overwhelmed, they drown it in the bathtub, or strap it in an infant seat and push the car off in a lake. You call THAT murder. Yet okay with abortion simply because the child has not left the mother's body yet.
And as to your last statement....how could you possibly know what Republicans do or do not do...there are faith-based facilities all over this country to help girls/women who decide against abortion. Funding to help with medical bills, support, placement of the children, or helping the mother if she elects to keep her child. We would rather funnel our money in that direction. Why is that SO wrong and in any way worse than your side wanting to fund abortion?
Whoa - hold on - Don't shoot the messenger
As that saying goes "Don't shoot the messenger". I was just passing on an article I thought was interesting. I have no idea if it was from a conservative or liberal view point. If I find another article that goes opposite will be happy to pass that on too. I'm for neither and probably won't even vote this fall because I don't want to have the responsibility if the "bad one" is picked that I would have contributed. Just thought this point of view was interesting.
BBC publishes anti-Obama article--whoa!
The BBC is very liberal, so this is quite shocking!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm
Viewpoint: The case against Obama
Peter Wehner
Former deputy assistant to President Bush
If the polls hold, the American people will elect Barack Obama as their 44th president.
He is a man of prodigious political talents who exudes grace, equanimity and self-possession. He is unflappable, possesses a first-rate mind, and is capable of inspiring rhetoric.
And he would be a very bad choice for president.
On the most important issue he has confronted as a legislator, the surge of forces in Iraq, Senator Obama was a harsh critic.
His opposition to President Bush's new strategy was wrong.
Much worse is the fact that Obama continued to oppose the surge at every stage, even after it was obviously succeeding.
To this day, even as he finally concedes the surge has "succeeded beyond our wildest imagination," Obama insists his opposition to the surge was correct.
Senator Obama's view is that a defeat in Iraq would somehow help our efforts in Afghanistan.
Indeed, if Obama had had his way, all American combat troops would have been withdrawn from Iraq by March 2008, which would have led to civil war and genocide; an unprecedented victory for al-Qaeda and Islamic jihadists; and a boon to Iran.
This fact is, by itself, a shattering indictment to Obama's judgement, and in the area that is the most important responsibility of a president: his duties as commander-in-chief.
Extreme liberalism
I suspect, too, that Obama will, as his running mate has said, invite an international challenge early on.
Obama appears to be a man who dodges conflict and hard decisions; the result may be dangerous displays of indecision and weakness.
Beyond that is the fact that Senator Obama, while exuding a centrist style and employing soothing rhetoric, has amassed a record that places him on the extreme left end of our political spectrum, whether the subject is taxes, trade, healthcare, the size and role of the federal government, the federal courts, missile defence, or virtually any other policy area.
In fact, Senator Obama has been judged by the non-partisan National Journal as the most liberal member of the Senate.
His record as an Illinois state senator is, if anything, more troubling. He opposed legislation that would have prevented infanticide against children who had survived abortion attempts.
Senator Obama has presented himself as a post-partisan figure. Once again, however, his record belies his claim.
He is among the most reliably partisan voters the Democrats have.
He has not opposed the special interest groups of his party on a single important issue. And he has no impressive bipartisan achievements to his credit.
Senator Obama is, in short, an orthodox partisan, a man of left-leaning instinct who has - through the power of his rhetoric, head-snapping shifts in his position, and the attractiveness of his personality - won people over.
Race card
Even Senator Obama's claim of being a practitioner of a "new politics" is fraudulent.
Much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless
He has run ads about Senator McCain's position on healthcare, social security, immigration, and the Iraq war that are demonstrably false.
After saying he would never do such a thing, Obama and his supporters have employed the "race card" in a disturbing fashion - with Obama warning that key Republicans would use the fact that he's black against him, and later saying that George Bush and John McCain were going to try to frighten voters by saying Obama has "a funny name" and "doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills" (both claims are untrue).
And Senator Obama's intimate 20-year relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright - an anti-American extremist - is troubling.
It reinforces the sense that much of what Obama has presented about himself is a mirage - an impressive one for sure, but a mirage nonetheless.
And even if you were inclined to believe that Senator Obama will govern as a centrist - a questionable claim, given his record - the Democratic Party will hold a commanding position in the House and Senate.
Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid and their committee chairmen - many of them partisan, ideological, and ruthless - will exert enormous pressure on Obama to move left.
From all we know about him, Senator Obama will not resist it or defy them. And that, in turn, will lead to overreach.
Which is why even though next Tuesday will be a difficult day for Republicans and conservatives, the wise ones will understand that our moment will come again, and perhaps sooner than we think.
Our task is to be ready.
VIEWPOINTS
Peter Wehner is a former deputy assistant to President George W Bush, and currently a senior fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center. This is one of a series of comment and opinion pieces published on the BBC News website in the run-up to the US election.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/7700913.stm
Whoa, Bessie. Can't be anti-Semitic and Pro-Palestinian
at the same time. Let us not defy logic here. Semitic peoples is an ethnologic reference based on a language group, and incluced both Arabs and Hebrews/Jewish people. This is a tired tactic dragged out in desperation in an attempt to discredit by implying someone is a bigoted Jew-hater. NOT.
The term Israeli based on nationality and the term Zionist is based the political movement that seeks to establish a national homeland (echoes of Hitler) in Palestine. It is not even accurate to state anti-Israel unless followed by a qualifier. The sentiment expressed on this forum is anti-Zionist, straight up, no more, no less, no doubt. It is not about hating a race of people, it's all about hating a set of ideas.
Whoa, Bessie. Can't be anti-Semitic and Pro-Palestinian
at the same time. Let us not defy logic here. Semitic peoples is an ethnologic reference based on a language group, and incluced both Arabs and Hebrews/Jewish people. This is a tired tactic dragged out in desperation in an attempt to discredit by implying someone is a bigoted Jew-hater. NOT.
The term Israeli based on nationality and the term Zionist is based the political movement that seeks to establish a national homeland (echoes of Hitler) in Palestine. It is not even accurate to state anti-Israel unless followed by a qualifier. The sentiment expressed on this forum is anti-Zionist, straight up, no more, no less, no doubt. It is not about hating a race of people, it's all about hating a set of ideas.
Whoa, that is actually like a Christmas Present from the IRS, what an unheard of concept!!!....sm
True, you can do it yourself, the IRS just makes so daunting and intimidating with all those forms, and then you worry if you make another mistake, you will get another penalty.....Just those three letters together give most folk the heebie geebies.
Also, taling about not needing a service, most people do not know that you DO NOT need those miriad of services who will "talk down your credit bills" and renegotiate. Especially in these times, banks are very eager to get payment and work with you, most banks have a "hardship" department where you can talk to reps who can negotiate lower settlements, eliminate fees, figure out a very good payment plan without fees, etc. You can do it yourself without paying a debt relief service.
|
