You continue to prove my point.
Posted By: again and again. on 2009-01-17
In Reply to: Wrong again. I am not responsible for - jj
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
You continue to prove my point. (nm)
nm
Once again...you prove my point.
liberals are NOT about tolerance. There is nothing but INtolerance in your post...you, my friend, are a bigot. Only it is not a race, it is a belief system. "right wing rags" is NOT an example of tolerance of someone else's viewpoint. It is obvious for anyone who would care to, to see. Attack, attack, attack. If you are not like me, go away. I am not interested in another point of view,nor am I interested in debating any points.
You say equality, you say tolerance, you say no bigotry. Yet you do not tolerate opposition, you want to quell dissent, and you discriminate against conservatives.
Which leaves me with the impression that your lofty ideals are just that. Because you do NOT practice them. NOW I understand what the other liberal poster meant when they posted there are no true liberals in the Democratic party. Amen to that, poster, wherever you are!
You prove my point. Thank you. nm
nm
you prove my point so well
Hindsight is 20/20. If we would not have allowed millions of people to buy houses that could not afford them, we would not be here. If we would have decided that subprime loans were unstable and that a person should actually be required to be able to pay for what they want and be able to afford what their dream is, we would not be here. America has adopted the mentality somewhere along the way that equality shouldnt be just about race or religion but about everyone having the right to the same things in life. People have a false sense of entitlement. These people that have helped our ecomony fail are the ones who have been living in a manner they should not have been. This starts with the people who can work but dont. The people who feed off of the states and have children for a business but do nothing to give back to the economy. They are takers. It also goes to the CEOs and the loan officers and the banks and all the big guys who have decided that it was okay to make billions off of the people in our society who are sponges and are willing to take any handout given to them, even if it means failure down the road. They have made their fortunues based off of greed and lies. They built us a false ecomony. So if there are no jobs now and no credit to be had, you can thank them. Problem is Obama wants to give to the takers and make us pay, the exact people who have done the right things, lived the way they should within their means, and the very working people who build our ecomony. How is an new, strong economy going to be built off of welfare recipients who have never worked? What economic stimulation are they going to offer? It is simply crazy to me and I cannot see how people refuse to see this.
I guess we're going to have another 9/11 to prove our point
because your little mind doesn't even remember the first one. You guys need to give it up, because your lilly livered thought processes are losing. Nobody wants you all in charge that's why you keep LOSING ELECTIONS...that's because if you were in charge you would be hugging Muslim terrorists and telling them it's okay and that you understand them.
You can argue semantics of bills all day, but it doesn't make the fact of the dying liberal theology any less of a reality.
Just to prove my point, from Crooks and Liars website. sm
Joe Scarborough: Republicans want him to SHUT UP
On Joe's show tonight, he went off on Republicans that do not like him speaking out against this administration's handling of Katrina.
Joe: I'm getting lectured from Republicans in Oregon, California, upstate New York, Arizona telling me I need to back off the President, I need to back off of FEMA, I need to back off these state leaders. You and I are on the Gulf Coast- we know how these things are supposed to be run. This has nothing to do with politics...
Video-WMP
Video-QT
The Republicans are obviously worried that this Republican talk show host's point of view isn't following their talking points and is a real problem because he's not a Democrat saying them. Joe has been honest before (Schiavo not included) and is simply exposing their ineptitude that so many people are feeling right now.
Notice how I did't hand-pick text to prove a point.
nm
Gee, it's funny how you guys can go to page 11 to prove a point or hurl accusations.
The debate, actually several of them were with Lurker and are probably on page 2 or 3. The person you speak of whom you saw was not debating, she was trolling and causing trouble. THAT isn't debate, but maybe we have just solved the problem. You think it is debate. Well there you go!
It may continue until........sm
about 3-1/2 years before the end of time.
Your refusal to pull your head out of the sand, in my opinion, regarding what will happen makes any further discussion of this issue futile. Hope the sand protects your little head when all heck breaks loose.
why do we have to continue with what others before
did wrong?
Tit-for-tat and 2 wrongs doesn't make anything right.
Obama is a very promising and respectable 44th President of the United States of America and if you do not see that, I feel very sorry for you.
and yet you continue...
to slander everyone on this board who doesn't agree with you.
I know he has nothing to prove to you....
but to the 48% of us who don't trust him, he does. I will believe it when I see it. There is nothing in his past to indicate he wants to wipe out party lines, unless that means bring us ALL into HIS light. His entire career has been hard left towing the party line. His votes have all been hard left toeing the party line. And now he wants us to believe that all disappears? He has undergone some miraculous change himself? I would feel better if he used the word "compromise" as much as he used the word "unite." All "unite" means to me is that he wants everyone to come to his side. His entire agenda is diametrically opposed to most of what I believe in. How is he going to "unite" people like him and people like me if he doesn't compromise?
Like I said...I am waiting to see what he does. He said himself he had to earn my trust. So far he is not doing so well. That could "change." Only time will tell.
BTW, this is not an attack. It is just my open and honest concerns about the POTUS. Concerns about any POTUS. I would have held McCain's feet to the fire too. He was certainly not my ideal candidate...but he beat the alternative. Now that the alternative has won...he has to prove himself to me and 48% of the country.
prove it.
Where is your proof that satan does not exist? Where is your proof that the Bible is a fairytale? Where is your proof that Jesus doesnt exist? Until you can show me some proof, this is just your opinion and doesnt really mean much or hold any water.
You would have to prove a ............. sm
genetic predisposition for this to be logical. Even if you did prove such a theory, the fact that a person has a particular gene does not necessarily mean that that gene will develop into a behavior.
Prove it
Yes he had to use Air Force 1 I think he and the Secret Service would look a little conspicuous on Continental, don't you? But he paid for everything else himself.
This is such a small, petty argument, I can't even believe you people are talking about it. Oh wait...yes I can....
Prove it
I have not seen one bit of proof that it was taxpayer money. Only Air Force 1 was a government expense and that could not be helped.
Where is your proof?
I will continue to care for the little guy
Well, you go ahead and defend big corporations and the rich..frankly, they could not care about you one bit. I will continue to care for the middle class, the poor, the disadvantaged.
Why must you continue to post?
Nah, just someone who cannot imagine why a neocon dinosaur who knows she/he is not wanted or needed on the liberal board would continue to post.
go ahead...continue...
....being rude.
Life's too short to be so full of hate, directed at every member of the opposite viewpoint.
But as you say, the silence is deafening....maybe you need a hearing aid??
Big 3 talks continue....... sm
According to the article linked below and others I have read, the two of the three auto makers who will be receiving these emergency loans will be required to either show a viable plan for their industries by March 31, 2009, or face repayment of the loans. While I agree with the premise of this requirement, I have to wonder if, given the amount of time that it took them to get into this situation in the first place, will 3 months, more or less, be enough time for them to find a way to save their dying companies? Is this bailout/loan just a temporary fix to a more permanent problem? What happens, if on 03/31/2009, the automakers have spent the money fronted them, are unable to come up with a plan to satisfy the stipulations, and can not repay the loan? Is it fair for taxpayers to bear the burden of this as well as the other bailouts that have been given and are likely yet to come?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/11auto.html?ref=us
Not what I said. Just wondering why we continue getting
and not a single person can stop and show a bit more humanity....that's all.
And I suppose you would rather we continue...(sm)
to run that torture chamber in Guantanamo. Yeah, that would be the one where they can hold supposed SUSPECTS for how long without trial? Maybe you should rent the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side."
Not that I feel I need to continue.... sm
this seemingly endless and mindless banter, but rather to just satisfy your apparent thirst for blood, I went back and looked to see what I had posted that I felt the need to apologize for. Here is the post that I made to abc that sent her off into a tizzy about it being her body and her embryo, etc.
""And I prefer an abortion to giving up my baby for adoption. I would not be able to sleep a single night, having given my baby to strangers." (Note: This was a quote from abc that I was addressing. )
But you could sleep knowing that you took your baby's life? I am not trying to criticize but simply trying to understand this line of reasoning. " (This was my answer to her quote.)
Now..... go cool off! 
Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
Why do you continue to ask "where" when you have
=>
Obama will continue to act like he did regarding
nm
I don't have to prove anything. Those of us who were here know it to be true. nm
Then prove I said what you accused me of saying.
Show me the post I wrote where I claimed to have *inside info on rapture. She said so* as you accused me of in your post above. Just copy and paste it and show me where I said I have inside info on the rapture.
You can't prove it because I didn't say it. So who's really the liar here?
What, may I respectfully ask, does this prove?
Lebanon and Israel have a long and colourful history of conflict. I am not quite sure what this letter is meant to prove. Hezbollah has used Lebanese residential areas to set up their missles and attack bases. Israel retaliates for the abduction of their people. But first, they drop leaflets, warning civilians to leave. Really, quite a first for this sort of thing. I'm very sorry, but I, for one, am bloody tired of Israel being made the aggressor here. Hamas and Hezbollah have pounded them nearly to oblivion and all you can worry about is a letter from the Lebanese?! I am astounded.
In Massachusetts we have to prove
we have health insurance when we file our state income taxes. We get a form from insurance company that we have to file. Otherwise you lose your personal exemption. I believe at one point part of the plan was they could garnish your wages but not sure on that.
This is all part of the insurance plan Romney came up with as governor, and he is supposed to be a conservative.
Prove to me that it is a rumor!!!
.
Prove to me it is not!! Are you so jaded that you...
can't even give a 16-year-old the benefit of the doubt??
To what end? Prove a communist
nm
DOn't have to prove it....HE SAID IT. Geez...
did you read his letter? And I have been doing more research...you should too. This is not the end of the Saul Alinsky connection.
I am not the one who needs to prove or disprove it....
I accept it on its face. She did what she was supposed to do...look out for the interests of her state. Why would that surprise anyone? And she did a good job of it. Like I said, if she applies that same principle at the federal level, good for us, right?
If you lived in Alaska, wouldn't you want the $1200 as your part of the revenue Alaska oil generated? Or would you rather that was redistributed to the lower 48? Just asking.
cant prove a negative
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
don't have to prove a thing
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6817.html
can you prove that it's a fake?
nm
If they win, it'll prove there's really no God.
.
No he can't but papers are there that prove he was
@
Nope, he has to prove a lot because
He claims to be born in Hawaii, which he cannot prove yet, and then he was adopted by a Kenhan man, which according to their laws, made him Muslim, and a citizen of Kenya. According to OUR laws, he cannot just come back and claim citizenship. He would have had to go through immigration process all over again and there is no immigration papers to find.
Still waiting for his proof.
Even if he could prove citizenship, which he
a citizen once he was adopted by the Indonesian stepfather. Once a child is adopted by someone from another country, they cannot claim citizenship to that country any longer, even if they were born there.
He has yet to produce immigration papers which show he applied for citizenship to this country, just like any "illegal" would have to do.
what do supporters prove?
What do you mean by "He'll make a fine President... He's going to do great and he's got the supporters to prove it." That only means he has people who think he will do well. Can't really say until he is in office and we see what he does. Unless you think all these people can predict the future.
unless you can prove the daddies do it
Unless you were there in the delivery room, I am guessing that his American mother gave birth to him.
Hahahahahahaha!!! - PROVE IT!
nm
Ever try to prove a negative?
The government can ''guestimate'' a number and send you a bill for what you ''owe''. Then I guess it's up to you to prove they're wrong? Not an enviable position to be in.
and the personal attacks continue
Go ahead continue to talk about which you know nothing about
Go ahead, then, continue to talk about what you know nothing about other than news reports and slanted history books and we, who truly know a bit more about jewish issues and Israel will sit back and continue to smile and, of course, like I said in my previous post, there are always courses in the local synagogue that you can take. Join a jewish discussion group either in the net or in your home town, that is if your home town even has a jew in it, and learn the truth. Not what is being put out there by radical orthodox jews. Those are the ones that you see fighting in Israel to stay in Gaza. The radical orthodox jews. Sharon, as much as I dont like him, is right in what he has decided. It is unfortunate but it is just and right.
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.
But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):
Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action
It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.
The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).
It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.
Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.
Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!
The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.
Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.
Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Before you continue with your generalization rampage
William Bennett's remarks are definitely NOT representative of conservative views as a whole. However, you and GT's comments do nothing...absolutely nothing but make the division between political views that much worse. If you and your ideology truly want unity and peace you would do the cause much good by not adding gasoline to an already bad bonfire.
Your comments cause as much harm to race/political relations as what Bennett said himself.
No. You won't leave. You'll continue on.
Not unlike Bush, who wants to have world domination, you want to dominate all boards here.
Accidents are exused. There's no reason on earth to excuse you.
|
