You did not follow who I was responding to!!!! YOU READ IT
Posted By: Mrs. M on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: I AM an Obama fan and supporter - Do you read?
dip
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
Maybe you should actually read the post before responding.
Bush is claiming they are working on nuclear weapons.
Iran has always claimed they are working on nuclear energy.
Who's lying? Which country has the track record for lying when it comes to reasons for declaring war on a country that didn't attack it first??
And I think you have to read all of my posts, I am responding to arrogant inflammatory remarks, whic
Substantiation, no real substance, and yet these people are CHOOSING to start devisive threads with divisive remarks on this board, even making statements that historically are 100% inaccurate. Yes, I pray for unity, compassion, wisdom, etc., but the rabid Republicans on this board (and I do not mean all Rep., just a few loud ones), want to harshy judge and condemnn the new administration without giving things a chance, what would you call that? What about the "hit and run" posts by right wingers who continue to stir the pot with incorrect, slanted, and inflammatory remarks here? Fair is fair, I try to back up each statement I make with historical facts, I try to see both points of view (wow, I have actually agreed with Republicans on certain subjects!), but this board is not about me, or you, it is about all of us trying to hash out all the many struggles this nation now has, and with restraint, intelligence, and care look at each problem and try to help fix it. America comes first. Period.
Follow the yellow brick road....follow....
the yellow brick road. The great and powerful O will take care care of you. Watch out for those flying monkeys he is surrounding himself with tho....LOL. You folks kill me. This is ALL on you. You gave him the power. Remember that....
Thanks for responding.
1) Agree with the point about Afghanistan. If our troops weren't burdened with fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, we might be able to have a stronger presence in Afghanistan, as well as protect ourselves at home in case of a disaster (terroristic or natural). Our troops are spread too thin, and the military keeps raising the age limit and lowering physical standards for enlistment as a reseult.
2) I agree with this.
3) Bush has recently admitted that Iraq had no WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you think he is lying?
4) Tony Snow has made some really stupid statements, including blaming 9/11 on Bush 41.
5) Bush was the only leader who held out so the war could continue longer when the rest of the world pleaded for it to end.
Regarding your last sentence, whether I agree or not doesn't matter. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't feel you wasted your breath or your time. Thank you for responding.
I believe she was responding to the
the exclamation point abuser, and not referring to teabaggers in general.
I don't think I was responding to those posts
I was responding to gt's, and no, I was not around when those other posts were made, and that's why I didn't comment on them.
I was responding to the "drunk" comment that gt made which was totally off par and shows what that gt is here for only one reason and that is to incite fighting, because calling someone a drunk without knowing them at all is definitely fighting words.
I don't know how you can render me a phoney, because I have told you nothing of my self. That is again, a baseless judgement. GT was typing nonsenical stuff right after telling someone their posting habits sounded like those of a drunk. If posting habits are evidence of drunkeness then gt needs to look at his or her posting style.
If you'd stop responding, so will the OP.
The more you carry on with posters like this, the more they will continue.
Moderator
No, I was responding to the past above yours, sorry,
did I get it wrong? yikes - I meant that for the 'first of all' post...
Huh? No. I was responding to the post
above that stated man and woman were created with the purpose of producing offspring. It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
I don't understand where you got the idea I meant anything else.
Do you think you've been responding to
just 1 person all day - LOL.
enclosed the post I was responding to
Below is the post I was responding to:
*But can a parent sacrifice their child to the military
that was the question...
and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.*
Agree and I do not plan on responding to them either
I have better things to do than squander any more of my time responding to the troublemakers posting on this board. When someone here has something worth responding to, I will. There is no point in explaining, defending, or arguing with the people who are only here because they can't find any intelligent discussions on their own board.
You're the one who keeps responding. Just quit your...sm
harassment.
I was speaking to you, no matter how you try to twist the converation, and say I can't follow the thread. Period.
My apologies... I thought you were responding to
I usually don't read her posts, so by the time I checked to see if you were responding to her or me, it was too late. Sorry about the hasty reply, but I what I wrote still stands, just in case anyone DOES mis-quote me.
Anyway, a great big OOOPS!
:-/
Just tired of responding to hatred....nm
x
Responding to you is a waste of my time.
I do not waste my time responding to your political posts, and I will not waste my time arguing semantics with you. I would not associate with you in my personal life, and you are not worth my time and energy on this forum. I am afraid you will have to find someone else to listen to your nonsense.
I am responding to the above post with my opinion
and am not interested in over-aggressive fights about such silliness. It is my opinion in answer to the question above.
Wasn't responding to your post.... but the sow's ear
--
Did I stop anyone from responding to your post?
you haven't answered mine.
the problem with responding too fast
...is that you end up leaving out important phrases!
The $72 an hour figure quoted in the article, I should have said, isn't made of *just* the wages and benefits of current employees--it's also including those paid to retired workers, the ones who paid into the retirement fund their whole lives, and are now living off those benefits.
In other words, you take the wages/benefits paid to the current 180,000 or so autoworkers, PLUS those paid to the 400,000 or so retirees and the 120,000 spouses of dead retirees, then divide that by the 180,000 current workers, then say, LOOK HOW MUCH THOSE GUYS GET PAID! It's an incredibly artifically inflated number.
And noooo one in the media ever seems to question it.
Also I was responding to the person who wrote that
say the opposite. BT stated it correctly.
Now nuff said.
Dont even bother responding to her posts -
() is most definitely NOT playing with a full deck.
I agree, I was responding to some of the ugly remarks made below nm
x
You just don't have the capacity to understand I'm afraid... see ya, not responding anymore nm
to you
I am responding to all the posters who have made a living on this board denegrating everything that
new President does, even though he has just taken office, give me a break. George had 8 years, and each year was worse than the one before it.....I am not "whining" about Bush, the past is the past and I am trying very hard to focus on change, on a new future, on how we can all help, etc., not waving the Democratic flag, but the AMERICAN flag, I am just referring to history, nonpartison history.
I heard today Palin is responding to Levi's charges
by throwing the dirt back at him. I say that is how every woman her age should behave, right? Tit for tat.
I don't follow you? nm
.
Then it would follow that .........sm
conservatives not idjits since we cannot see that Obama is a natural born citizen! 
And no actually, if you follow the thread SM
I was posting to American Woman.
Hope you follow him
/
Here is a follow up to the first story... sm
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=448&z=56
I don't follow your reasoning...because there are a lot of
gays you think God made them that way? Years ago, sex before marriage was unheard of, but so many people over the years have done it openly now it is accepted. The Bible speaks frankly against it. Same with adultery. The Bible speaks frankly against it. People still do it. And it is still wrong. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. People still do it, it is still wrong. More people kill and steal nowadays. Does that make it right? There are more serial killers today than 20 years ago. Does that make it okay? I believe you are rationalizing. Why would God call something an abomination and then make people that way? That is like saying people are thieves because God made them that way...people are killers because God made them that way...sorry, we will have to agree to disagree big time on that kind of reasoning.
And you wonder why those people follow
xx
You don't follow the board much, do you?
This has been discussed way below
You sound terribly misinformed.
Like I said, weak enough to follow
"
you need to follow your posts a little better
I didn't refer to the word "aspire" in my post and neither did the "the big bad"
Find somewhere else to troll.
If you are not able to follow my thread,
at least try to follow your own. I was replying to your right-from-wrong post where, in an attempt to avoid the points I had made about Israel, you stated I had listed all of Palestinian atrocities. My reply followed consecutive order.
The first item on the list you were trying to attribute to them began with occupation. Since you made the blanket, all-encompassing statement that I had just listed ALL of their atrocities, I began my reply with occupation and followed point-by-point with responses to the other listed items. You would probably have a vague understanding of that if you actually engaged in debating substance rather than simple vollies of empty, vacuous put-downs and denials.
Follow up to Tammy (Tom)
Okay Clarence Thomas!! You would have made a good house person back in the day. Ever heard of the word "Tom," as in Uncle Tom??
Hey there follow Oregonian
We may be heading up closer your way. Nothing down here in GP. No hopes for a future here but we hear further north it is better. Hoping within a couple weeks we're out of here.
That's what happens when you follow blindly....
you go in circles. By the way, wagon has only one "g." And quite frankly, all conservatives are not "pubs." The last election cycle should prove that convincingly...if you can look away from the blinding light that is your leader long enough to have an independent thought...key word here being independent. You might want to wait and see what JTBB has to say before you answer. :-) Blah blah about sums it up...lol.
I do not follow the 'party' system. sm
Consider myself true conservative (not Republican or a religious zealot), libertarian. Colbert shoved the truth in the face of power, media & government. Somebody needs to do it. The mainstream media does not have the guts to really put the truth in Bush's face. They are afraid of him, just like the rest of the world and America. Definitely something wrong with that.
May I suggest that you follow your own *instruction...*
and read a book before YOU spout off.
The National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), or NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers Party (DAP) before the name was changed in 1920.
The party's leader, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by president Hindenburg in 1933. Hitler rapidly established a totalitarian regime known as the Third Reich, under which the party gained almost unlimited power.
THAT is what happens when an entire nation is tied to the government for every need...a check, health care, education, and on and on and on. Then they have you, my friend, and that is when socialism turns into totalitarian dictatorship. It happened in Cuba. It happened in Venezuela. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy under Mussolini. So, I would suggest, my friend, that YOU do your research before attacking someone else.
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that visualize a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by socialized (state or community) ownership of the means of production.
The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution where the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.
A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." Since the 19th century, socialists have not agreed on a common doctrine or program. The various adherents of socialist movements are split into differing and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between reformist socialists and communists.
Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including self-titled Communists in Yugoslavia and Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s, Chinese Communists since the reform era, and some Western economists, have proposed various forms of market socialism, attempting to reconcile the presumed advantages of cooperative or state ownership of the means of production with letting market forces, rather than central planners, guide production and exchange.[2] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the U.S. New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils. Others may advocate different arrangements.
NO THANKS.
For those who follow foreign politics...
I just heard on NPR that Gary Kasparov has been arrested in Russia during a marching and protest of Russia's voting practice. This is NOT good. Putin is a very dangerous individual who has been funding the middle east conflict and selling weapons to those who really shouldn't have them. Kasparov is a potential light at the end of the tunnel for a more democratic and liberal Russian state. I am afraid for him.
Doubt they will follow your suggestion.
nm
And a follow up question for McPain,
WHICH country do you put first? (Heeheehee (McPain laughing) with his teeth all out there with that queer little grin.)
You both are absolutely right. Sheep(le) will follow each
other right over the cliff and we are heading that way quickly. If it was happening in another country people here would wonder why the citizens are so dense; not here, they just hear the mantra of change, hope and promises (that cannot be kept) and are so addicted the first time they hear it they don't take the time to educate themselves about the possible ramifications until it is too late.
Follow the link, oh lazy one.
You can see the Senate requistions for yourself. Barack's name is there there, along with the amount doled out, what the money is going toward, and WHO THE MONEY IS GOING TO. Doesn't take a braniac to copy and paste a recipient's name in and Google their relationship wtih Barack.
And I notice you didn't offer a link with any rebuttal informationl. Typical. "Ladies and gentlemen, I have 'investigated' this and the allegations are 'pure garbage.' What a joke. How much did YOU get from that corrupt dolt?
Sweep, sweep, sweep. The Dems shove ANOTHER Obama dirty little secret under the rug.
Just NOT smart enough to NOT follow the sheeps
__
Perhaps you should follow your own advice (last line)
nm
What you meant was don't follow links that
//
Try to follow the thread. OP said he/she was bored....
and felt compelled to post that he/she was bored. I merely said it was boring to read posts about people complaining that they are bored. If you are bored by my posts, don't read them. Simple fix.
|
