You've got to be kidding! How narrow-minded
Posted By: can you be? NM on 2009-03-06
In Reply to: I would not want to put a child into this world, whose - Jan
nm
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
That is the MOST narrow-minded post....
I have seen here. Got a mirror handy? :-)
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 exactly does that happen, one giving birth to their own biological children because of heterosexual relationships? Course gay men need to inseminate an agreeable friend or other woman to have their own biological children, but lesbians have no trouble at all conceiving, generally speaking. Thinking that gay people have no reproductive organs by design (and you would have to think this in order to believe that we cannot have our own children) and thinking that heterosexual relationships are responsible for "providing" us children is beyond ignorant. Beliefs such as these as well as those whose minds think gay marriage and automatically make a leap to marrying animals scare the h3ll out of me. As I said before, they call US weird/sick/.
The only way children are born into this world is through C-section or through the womb and lesbians have those too. You don't need to be part of a heterosexual relationship to become pregnant, or for a man, to inseminate someone else. There's a frozen pop for everyone (and I suppose you think all those are from heterosexual men too?).
I can't believe I'm even arguing this. That's it for me. No wonder we're where we are with this issue. Scary.
You've got to be kidding me!
Factcheck.org is the project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and funded by the Annenberg Foundation.
Senator Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a division, or project of the Annenberg Foundation.
Factcheck.org (who was used as a resource by so many who wish to "debunk" negative coverage of Obama) is also a division or Project of the Annenberg Foundation (i.e. supporters of Obama). Imagine that, Obama's supporters have their own website and have convinced people they are telling the truth. That would be laughable if it wasn't true.
Below is a link that describes The Annenberg Foundation, ACORN, etc.
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/obama-ayers-annenberg-and-acorn-a-family-affair/
What in the world are you talking about "flying back in time". Don't pass me any of that kool-aid.
Lets let the Supreme Court decide on the bc issue.
As for Office of the President Elect. You really need to do some research. While there has always been a President Elect in History, There has NEVER been an "Office of the President Elect". This is a NEWLY CREATED office by the O. So how can you go back and create something that never was!
You've got to be kidding! If you think the
economy was fine up until 2 years ago, then I've got a bridge to sell you. People should have to take a test to see if they even pay attention before they're allowed to vote, sheesh. I suppose you're one of the, what, 18% who think Bush has done a heckuva job?!
You've got to be kidding me!
You mean to tell me there's not one single person in DC or out that he could have picked that actually has experience AND isn't part of the Bush team? Please!!!
You've got to be kidding!!
These programs have been around for decades. You either gonna lose weight or you're not. The vast majority go straight to surgery if they're that overweight. There will not be fewer people in high risk categories, because those programs have failed time and time again. My own doctor says they just do not work. It is just more paper pushing around.
No one can make you stop eating, make you exericse, or make you stop smoking.
You either have to make up your mind to stop or you don't. No more jobs on paper only.............pleeeze!
You've got to be kidding!
The UN went that easy on them and they want an apology?
I'm not for nuking them first, but what if they make good on their threat? That's just what we need!
You've got to be kidding!
The UN went that easy on them and they want an apology?
I'm not for nuking them first, but what if they make good on their threat? That's just what we need!
you've got to be kidding -democrats honest.
What have you been smoking. I can't remember the last time Barack O'flipflop said an honest comment. One thing you got right was we need change and that is what we will get with McCain and Sarah Palin. The women who fought "the boys" and won. The woman who balanced her budget, cut back unnecessary spending, among other good things for her state. Is she perfect? No, nobody's perfect. Including Barack O'brother. Sure Barack will fix the economy, however that's not the kind of fix I want. I would prefer not to have higher taxes, more government waste, government control, government sticking their noses in where they don't belong. Socialist programs, socialist health care. Where in the world do you think he's going to get all the money to keep running the "fluffy bunny programs". Us. Sorry, I am not ready to keep funding programs that do not benefit America. Maybe you can afford to but I'm having a hard time just keeping afloat here. Democrats more honest than republicans??? Pulllleeease. Get a grip on reality. The reason we hear about McCain's POW story is because it shows he has integrity. He will stand up and fight for American's. He could have been released but he stayed knowing what would happen to him. That's what I call integrity, honor, and heroism. Nobody knows Barack O'No's intentions. What I don't trust is he's been running his campaign on the point that he's going to bring the troops home. Now he's saying they will stay there another five years, AND he's in favor of the draft. So, yes if your in favor of change vote for Mr. O. He seems to be changing his mind all the time.
You've got to be kidding. I suppose you must reside
at the Astro turf planet. I second signing a a petition to rid this country of Onuto.
You've got to be kidding me? Defending their actions and blaming on Bush?
Sure, they have a right to be "activists" and to march and to protest. They do not have a right to smash in windows and vandalize property. What's worse is that many of these are not ativists. They have NO IDEA what they are protesting against. Ask them who the vice president of our country is, they can't tell you. They are young foolish kids who think it's fun to be out there causing trouble and posing as "activists" with a cause. It's rather inane to equate these things with true activists.
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.
Actually, I find YOUR post closed-minded
nm
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.
Can't chew gum. Would've if I could've.
Even got hypnotized. Supposedly guaranteed to quit. Lasted 5 hours. Thank heavens I never smoked anything stronger. 
Are you kidding? (sm)
He never had any cheese on his cracker! All that clown needs is a room with mirrored walls and he'd be happy!
Who are YOU kidding?
You don't want to interrupt our so-called "Bush hate-fest with facts"????
Number one, you THRIVE on this. You thrive on spouting your drivel, fighting and spreading your venom. You need it like a fish needs water. You can't survive unless you spread your evil hatefulnes all over this board. You're not satisfied with a respectful, reasonable debate. You're not happy unless you're personally stomping someone who disagrees with you into the ground.
Number two, the entire issue involved with this thread IS "FACTS." An increasing number of Americans want to know what the truth is, and they're bright enough to realize they've been fed a bunch of lies by the idiot in the White House. You people are so adverse to the truth, you wouldn't be able to identify a fact if it hit you between the eyes.
I realize that you're energized and  over the fact that you've got a fight going here.
You have no compelling point of view. All you know how to do is insult and call people names. You don't have the ability to intelligently debate any issue. You're nothing more than message board thugs. I personally am very uncomfortable stooping that low, and from now on, I refuse to read and/or respond to any of your posts, and I would urge the thoughtful, respectful, intelligent people who frequent this board to do the same and NOT give you the conflict that you thrive on.
Take it back to the cesspool you call home: The Conservative Board. Isn't that what you've repeatedly promised to do, anyway, LEAVE?? Once again, your word has just as much value and credibility as Bush's. It's easy to see why you worship him. You share the same "values."
I don't know that it was kidding, but it's quite different.
But I'm sure you knew that. I could take the time to explain how these are two very different threats/comments from a legal as well as common sense standpoint but it it would fall on deaf ears. Not playing this game with you anymore. If you want to pretend to be ignorant, go ahead. Just not sure why you'd want to do it in public.
You ARE kidding, right?
You never heard of TRAVELGATE?!!!!!? Oh, well, people's lives were only ruined. People who had worked in the travel office under many different administrations. You know, people like you and me, just average Joes. Until Clinton cronyism ruined their lives. Gosh, how come you people don't know this stuff? That's really amazing. And disturbing.
You have got to be kidding, right?
Those comments the other night weren't particularly disturbing. They were a bit crass at times, and the John Willkes Booth comment was a bit coarse and probably a bit over the top.....but overall they were quite amusing. I even saved one posting because it was HILARIOUS. Okay, probably not hilarious to the conservative board, I do realize that. But after watching these dreadful playground bullies beat up on everyone on that board that didn't spew their propaganda there was some sort of justice in those posts that appeared. Sort of a karmic get-even thing. I am so glad that I got to read all of them that particular evening.
Reading the other board is kind of like passing a gruesome car accident. You don't want to look, but yet you can't resist.....and you never know how awful it's going to be. Human nature, I guess.
Your kidding right...??...sm
While this is not at the top of my list, a sitting president who was not elected by the people is nothing to say 'oh well' about.
I have always favored the popular vote over electorial votes. All electronic so swinging chads are not an issue.
You got to be kidding.
All day and night long, Bush used it as a political statement, beginning with Cheney and Rice on the Sunday talk show circuit and ending with a neocon made for TV movie that tried to pin the blame for 9/11 on Clinton.
Are you kidding?
213,000 refugees in 2004 and 801,000 in 2005 - I guess all this liberty/democracy/newfound security is just too much for some Iraqis, so they have to leave their country. ???????????????
Baghdad Empties as Residents Flee to Safety
Major Exodus Sends Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqis to Jordan, Syria
By JIM SCIUTTO
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18, 2006 — - Iraqi officials insist that the government's security plan shows signs of success, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqis express a different view -- by leaving the region in hordes.
Baghdad's passport office is overrun with people trying to leave the country. On a recent afternoon, a car bomb went off just outside the gates, killing nine people.
Inside an official tried to calm the crowd, saying this happens all the time. The attack was one more reason for resident Kaiss Warash to want to leave Iraq.
I'm tired of life here, he said.
Visit bus stations in Iraq's capital and it's clear many feel the same as Warash. By some estimates, this is now the largest movement of refugees in the world today, with most of the fleeing people going to neighboring Syria and Jordan. And the pace of the movement has accelerated. In 2004, 213,000 Iraqis fled the country. Last year that number rose to 801,000.
There is persecution going on of religious minorities, of professionals … and of course Shia or Sunni, said Lavinia Limón of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. People are actually told if you don't leave we're going to kill you.
The drain is worst among professionals. An estimated 40 percent of the country's professionals have left, and Baghdad's main hospital is now experiencing a dangerous shortage of trauma surgeons.
Unemployed but Safe
Across Baghdad, in some areas quiet streets and vacant homes are an eerie testament to the exodus.
In Jordan entire neighborhoods of Iraqi refugees have sprung up. In Jordan they can walk the streets safely again, but many can't work legally.
One refugee told us, I don't have a job here … but there's nothing better than security.
And so many keep leaving, hoping some day it will be safe to come home.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
No kidding!
I belive the vet stated that someone spat on the ground near him. This same vet has also had other incidents happen to him. Kind of strange. I guess accusations of spitting have been what is called an urban legend and been around since VIet Nam.
|
