haha reply to my own message
Posted By: shelly on 2008-10-27
In Reply to: goodness - shelly
i did NOT see her imply is what i meant to say.
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
Reply to phoney outrage over Chicago politics is on message.
from which so many repugs on this board suffer and the silence they maintain on W's reign of terror and corruption.
haha
nastiest poster on the board - I am glad you have accepted your new name with grace Gladfly! You made me smile ;-)
Peace.
Haha where can I get one of those??
Sorry just thought it was funny :)
C'mon, you know that if McCain/Palin wins you guys and gals who voted for Obama/Biden will want one too!
haha
Getting a little defensive. Looks like Joe caught onto your game, just like many of us on this board have. Maybe you should re-read your posts. Hahah!
HaHa I get it...
it's spreading the wealth! The yard had two, so if she gets one, then they both have one!! :)
Haha. Sorry.
I guess I'm just so, so, so tired of seeing all of this question about Obama's birthplace silliness (and I haven't really spoken out about it at all until now). I just assumed you were questioning the entire judgment, because I was prepared for someone to do that. But you know what happens when you assume.
My bad. Sorry.
HaHa
that is good! I've heard that before with other names in place of theirs, can't think of who (I think Cheney and someone).
I just can't imagine Obama duck hunting though!
BTW I got an early birthday present this week from my mom...a new shotgun, so now I don't have to be my hubby's bird dog when we go dove hunting! :)
I hope I get to use it before they're all taken away! LOL
And with the cost of meat at the supermarket right now you better bet your bottom dollar we are eating a whole lot of dove and deer this year!
Still no crow though.... ;)
Haha! And the truth is...
...the conservatives weren't interested in discussing issues on the old board, they got their jollies by harrassing and persecuting anyone THEY perceived as a liberal. Talk about label-slapping. Once you were diagnosed, look out - the subject of the whole board became get the liberal.
I suspect the board was separated because the Cons wouldn't leave the monitors alone, wanting this liberal and that liberal kicked off the board. They also screamed incessantly that they wished all the lousy liberals would leave them alone! So they got their wish:) They have their own board, but apparently they bore one another silly and have to come here to bother us, proving that they really did like it more the way it used to be.
Now they cry that it was the liberals' fault - LOL - despite the fact they wouldn't allow any liberals to stay on the board for more than a few weeks at a time. They complained once too often and got just a little too bold about it, and now, well - we have been separated. The liberals seem to like this arrangement, I know I do. Look at who's griping about it and you'll find the real source of the original trouble.
haha.... that's pretty LOW! That should be
(Though the latter does more closely resemble my own yearly income......)
Haha - see what I mean? It's like an OCD thing
Oh my! haha - you took the words right out of
N/m
haha..... and your point is?..........
haha, yep, she's a real peach
x
Haha... ain't she a piece of work?
Haha...."Caribou Barbie" at her best!
nm
SNL fan? conehead/cornbread? HaHa. nm
.
Haha! American Woman rocks.
haha--I agree with Luker completely--
This War against Christmas stuff is asinine! What a perfect way to take people's minds the real issues affecting our country (like Bush and Cheney trying to expand the powers of the presidency). People have always said happy holidays as long as I can remember and I'm almost 50 myself. BIG DEAL!!
Haha, these aggressive posts are too funny...
one thing to be assertive but these nasty comments, too much, and way too typical...outta here, good luck TTP
Haha - I guess this poster goes to bed with the chickens
.
Haha! It always seems the people with the biggest flag-
seem to recall someone else protecing herself again a WITCH...haha
hmmm, real sound judgment there. So if Palin wins and decides to seek advice from shamans or witchdoctors, you are okay with that?
haha - like half the nation is planning on doing!
;)
Haha! I so agree, she summed it up in 1 sentence, there is nothing more to say!..nm
nm
Haha - I was talking about firing people who disagree with her
but you must know her personally regarding that issue.
Haha - how 'bout "rich peoples' fat wallets first?"
Reply
Any so-called knowledge can later prove to be wrong. There are very few absolutes in this world. I do know that the 1990s saw a dessimation in our human intelligence gathering. We need to get back to being good at that. If a threat is there, I'm not willing to wait until people die to do something about it. If you are, then I hope it's not one of my loved ones in the next airplane or subway or building. As for Al-Qaeda, there has been much damage done to that organization. Of course the news doesn't play that up very much, but it's happening. We're still looking for Bin Laden, we're still chasing Al-Qaeda, and we're planting a seed in the middle east that will hopefully someday (and it may take longer than your of my lifetime to accomplish) make a change in the middle east that will hopefully keep the horror of terrorism at least under control. We fought the Japanese, we fought the Nazis... I think we can handle Iraq and Al-Qaeda. As for N. Korea, you can't do anything there because they already HAVE the nukes. At least we can cross Iraq off the list for sure in the nuke department.
Thanks for the reply. (nm)
nm
Reply....
You missed my point also, because you are still harping on abortion "against God's will." No matter how many times I say it, you will not hear it, because it does not further your agenda to hear it.
I am not against abortion because it is against God's will. I am against abortion because it is murder, and it is murder of the most innocent life that exists. That is a deeply moral issue, and it does not stem from what or what is not God's will. You said you and God parted company a long time ago, but I am willing to bet your morality did not part and go with God...you kept it, right? Of course you did. Because we all have basic morality, whether or not you choose to believe in God. Belief in God validates and enhances that morality, but even those of you who do not believe in God have morals...right? Of COURSE you do. There are people who are NOT religious who oppose abortion on a strictly moral level. As that article said that I posted, if I lost my faith today, I would still morally oppose abortion. Yet it is more comfortable for you to claim that I am against abortion "in the name of God." I am against abortion because it is morally wrong. PERIOD.
Being pro choice does mean being pro abortion. If you vote for the right to choose, you are putting the okay stamp on it. You can spin it however you like, but the truth remains. It is your choice to do so, yes, but at least have the guts say so.
I have already said that I work toward supporting women who decide to make a choice for life. If they decide to go ahead with the abortion, they do not get condemnation from me, but they certainly know were I stand, and they also respect what I am doing and understand why I am doing it. Much unlike you ladies.
Again....try to let this sink into your closed mind. I am trying to give the CHILD a choice. The CHILD has no voice. You are taking that away from them. They have no recourse, no place to run, no place to hide. All they can do is endure being sliced and diced to have their brain sucked out. You want the MOTHER to have the choice, the voice, the power. I am merely saying that the CHILD deserves SOMETHING here, doesn't it? Doesn't something in your moral structure scream out to you that the CHILD deserves SOME consideration in all this?? That is where I and others like me come in. Because we believe the child DOES deserve consideration, DOES deserve to have a voice.
You say "I have intolerance for those who cannot take another's opinion or perception without tearing it down." Is that not EXACTLY what all your posts do to my opinions and perceptions? Including completely ignoring what I am actually saying and trying to put words in my mouth to suit your anti-God agenda.
You can't see the forest for the trees.
my reply
was meant in a humorous, light tone. Sorry you are so unhappy with current events.
reply
As far as who can accomplish all these goals -- a journey begins with a single step. Barack is willing to start the journey. McCain stubbornly refuses to change course. If he does not live up to his hopes - another election in 4 years.
Experience -- time and time again current events have proven Barack's thoughtfulness and judgment have proven true. Even the current administration is following the course for a time-table that Barack proposed so long ago.
I do not see Barack as a savior -- I see a fine man with a vision for our country that matches my own.
Reply...
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both of these claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where McCain called Alaska the largest state in America, he could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MORE FACTS: She is responsible for negotiating any drilling of those resources. "Primary power" may be taxation, but she also has to oversee environmental issues, etc. She cracked the monopoly and forced oil companies to bid again, and she made a necessary portion of the bid that they address environmental issues. That was left out of the FACTS. While the population of the state may not be in proportion to the size of the state, her latest approval rating is 86%. That is unheard of. None of the other candidates enjoy that as senators from their respective states. That was also left out of the FACTS.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
MORE FACTS: When the National Guard is called up within a state, the governor does have the primary responsibility of mobilization and oversight. Since she is 50 miles from Russia, having control of the National Guard in that state is certainly central to our national security. And the operative word is AFTER the unit is deployed. Making the decision to call them up and send them to war IS her decision, and DOES affect national security.
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January of 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
MORE FACTS: This is true. But if Democrats truly believe in hope and change, they have had since January to actually do it. Have seen zip, zilch, nada. Got news for you...Bush is not a true conservative, especially fiscally obviously. McCain is.
THE FACTS: It's true that Obama voted "present" dozens of times, among the thousands of votes he cast in an eight-year span in Springfield. Illinois lawmakers commonly vote that way on a variety of issues for technical, legal or strategic reasons. Obama, for instance, voted "present" on some abortion measures to encourage wavering legislators to do the same instead of voting "yes." Their "present" votes had the same effect as "no" votes and helped defeat the bills. Voting this way also can be a way to duck a difficult issue, although that's difficult to prove.
MORE FACTS: Nice spin. He still voted "present." If he can't make a decision on those bills, he is going to be able to make the big ones to run the country? You can't vote present in the oval office. However, he did show up to vote NO to the Infants Born Alive act...twice.
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MORE FACTS: Look at this and digest it. First paragraph...Obama's plan will raise income for middle income taxpayers by 5% by 2012...he does not define "middle class." McCain's plan is going to CUT taxes across all levels and still raise the "middle income" by 3%. I think I will take the tax cut and the 3%. No brainer.
Obama wants to provide 80 billion in tax breaks to people who already pay almost 0 taxes. Where, pray tell, is that $80 billion going to come from?? Taxing the "rich" which will trickle down to loss of jobs and depression of the economy. Won't work. Never works. Case in point..small businesses that make more than $250,000 would see taxes rise. That is about every small family business in this country, who employ a lot of people. Just throw them all under the bus in order to cut taxes for people who pay the least taxes of all of us ANYWAY.
NO THANKS.
Reply
You know what truly amazes me? EVERYONE srcutinizes Obama for EVERY LITTLE THING from the b/c issue to his education, whether he is muslim, is he a terrorist, does he believe in this or that,etc but while GWB did pretty much whatever he wanted especially outside of the law whether it be national/international and the level of scrutiny bestowed upon him when he was first elected to office up until now has been been pretty much nonexistent.. or people saying 'i don't trust him', ' he frightens me' 'he is scary'. Should have been afraid of Bush and truly fear what you MAY NEVER know regarding the true state of this country of the last eight years..truly amazing
reply
Throw that hood in the wash, its getting dingy. 12 year olds, we know what you are saying there.
I made no "moral judgment" on SP's premarital pregnancy - merely pointing out the historical precedent she set.
I did reply, it is below....but I will reply again here...
I cannot find anything where Republicans voted for this issue before they voted against it. If you can, present it. I looked. In the case when McCain co-sponsored the bill that I have posted information about, where he predicted this exact thing happening, it never made it out of the committee. All the Republicans on the comittee voted for it, all of the Democrats on the comittee voted against it.
This is what the bill would have done:
1) in lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and (2) the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.
Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.
Sounds like the bailout bill doesn't it? Would have been nice if they had not blocked the legislation that would have fixed the problem and not stuck us with it?
I did not reply to it because I have not seen it -
I have not been on the news or TV today so am not aware of what you are talking about. Will, however, before I go to bed, find out what is going on so that I can discuss it later...
reply
poster says duh? Exactly. Overwrought rhetoric destroys the validity of any discussion.
In reply...
Let me just address a couple of points:
Science isn't a "numbers" game where if you line up 1000 scientists on your side and I line up 1500 on my side, I win. The history of science is rife with examples of the majority of scientists being wrong. It might even be argued that at the moment any scientific discovery is made, the person who makes the discovery is, DE facto, a minority of one. The majority of scientists once thought the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, and that human disease was caused by invisible gases or by imbalance of the "four elements", and scoffed at the notion of "germs". If we left science up to a vote and counted heads to determine what is true, we'd have never moved one inch beyond the stone age.
The real problem, though, is that it really doesn't take much information about the methods used by the "global warmists" (my term) for even a layman to recognize that they are far from conclusive, and in many cases their methods are highly questionable. And since there is an enormous cost to all of us (or, enormous flow of money to the "warmists") to do battle with this "problem" - if it is one - it only makes sense to get the science right rather than jumping off the deep end and starting a lot of things in process that might very well be entirely unnecessary. Before we get the villagers all up in arms with torches and pitchforks, let's bother to find out if there really is a dragon in the cave. So far, I'm afraid that the best we can say is that all we have is rumors and that no one has actually seen the dragon.
Let's not conflate global warming with alternative energy, though. Although there is some connection, they are really separate issues. If there is global warming, it seems now that some scientists think that worm flatulence causes more warming than hydrocarbons, so on that basis we should be attacking worms, not fossil fuels.
Certainly, we should be pursuing every realistic form of alternative energy, but for one simple reason which you have correctly stated: There is only so much fossil fuel of any kind in the ground. We're going to run out of it. This means that even if oil were clean and cheap as water, we must seek alternatives.
However, oil isn't as cheap as water, and we don't own most of it even if it were, so the second reason we must seek alternatives is that we cannot continue to send $billions to foreign countries, many of whom don't like us very much and who are using our own dollars to finance the operations of our enemies. It's simply madness to finance our own destruction.
Not even worth a reply -
Above was in reply to Hmmm (nm)
z
Thanks for your reply, Lurker
Thought I'd switch back over to this board.
Thanks for your reply to my question about your leaving Florida. It sounds like a big transition in many ways, both geographically and emotionally. I had inquired because I have similar thoughts myself and so far I keep moving farther and farther north and away from civilization. Anyway, good luck and it would be good to hear when you're settled in.
Thanks for your reply. I was thinking that the more...
moderate and even conservative leaning Independents might be swayed. Enough of them swayed to vote him back in as an Independent as a senator. I realize that is only one state, but there are others of like mind across the country who are pretty sick of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party...and McCain is more moderate, as is Lieberman...not hard right or hard left. That is very appealing to some people right now who are tired of the infighting and the extremes. I think Lieberman is VERY astute and realizes this.
As to the war in Iraq...both Clinton and Obama have said they would not be for immediate withdrawal of troops. The only candidate I have heard who said they would end the war immediately is Ron Paul. Which, I know is an unpopular stance you. The only thing I can say at this point is that for whatever reason we went...which we cannot change...we are there. And you can't unscramble eggs. We need to do the best fix we can in the shortest time possible, and Petraeus is doing that. Amazing strides have been made. Hopefully they will continue and we are able to get most of our forces out of there in a year or two. Which is better than the 5-6 years they used to talk about. And to me, that is an amazing stride.
At any rate, thanks for your answer. I won't hold my breath to hear you, DW, being criticized as a one-issue voter (you said that you would not vote for McCain because of his stand on the war). lol.
Have a great day!
short reply
So the success in Iraq apparently means nothing. Wow.
See me reply to your post.
nm
Typical lib reply
The name-calling. You wear it so well.... Classy, honey.
How many times are you going to reply
about my name, does it bother you this much? You really got too much time on your hands!
LOL! Good reply!!!
*
Just got a generic reply
lol go figure.
I got generic reply, too... sm
When I sent him an email of condolence on his grandmother's passing. Might not have been the proper place to send such an email, but I certainly didn't think I would get an email that told me where to go for answers about the "false and malicious emails" that were circulating about him. It even gave me a helpful link that revealed the "hidden attacks" of the McCain campaign. Very appropriate...NOT!
Thank you - just read your reply
Oh my gosh - I get so exacerbated trying to explain the same thing over and over. I can't understand what is so difficult to understand. Even my children who are in the 6th grade understand the situation and why it is important to defend and obey the Constitution. They said they like Obama(they think he's cute), but they said "Mom just cos your cute doesn't mean you can break the law". I guess the country is getting pretty bad when 6th graders understand right from wrong but adults do not.
P.S. - I don't have the patience to write anything more than what I do on this site.
Should be posted in reply to jm.
x
|
