hiring a *speed reader*
Posted By: Exactly on 2009-05-24
In Reply to: 900 page bill - AZMT
to mug for the cameras was indicative of the respect the dems are showing for the legislative process, no? what a bunch of scamps those dems are!
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
As far as hiring, what changes?
If a church is going to refuse to hire someone involved in a "civil marriage", what makes you think they would hire him/her as part of a gay partnership? The same issue would be presented to the Maine Supreme Court...refusing to hire someone based on their sexual orientation.
maybe the Canadians are hiring
and you could go work as an illegal immigrant up there?
What ever happened to hiring someone...sm
because they were qualified - why should anything else matter, i.e. race, gender, religion, etc.? I would think a job would be done more proficiently if you hired the person best qualified for that job!
Hope you get up to speed soon LVMT... nm
I read your response below too - we are on the same speed
I am so so so glad I'm not the only one that sees it. He is getting a little out of hand. I do have my own ideas of why I believe he keeps putting himself out there like this but I won't voice them because I will get a lot of nasty ignor@ant responses back. I'll tell ya. I take back everything I ever thought about Bill Clinton. When he was in office I thought he was the most arrogant person alive but O'Messiah sure takes the cake. I too never listened to GW's press conferences, but I don't think he even gave as many as this guy.
I too can read. Looks like I'm going to be not watching news for the next four years if this is the way it's going to go.
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL - you got that on speed dial or something.
x
Add speed reading to Sam's long list
I was watching the board when this post appeared, opened the post, copied the link and opened the article. After a 20-second survey of the massive amount of information on both this link and the one embedded therein of the previous day's original 10 Most Disturbing Facts, I returned to the board momentarily and lo and behold, Sam had already posted her dismissive response, feeling as though answering the "few things" the OP cited from inside the articles was good enough to discount the remaining MOUNTAINS of information.
Notably, there have been no other immediate responses, since it takes TIME to actually read the 6 pages of tiny print addressing SP's views, assuming that one will be skipping all the blog responses beneath the article itself.
Sam decries the inability to verify content and moves merrily along her way. Well, that might work well for her for an hour or 2, while the rest of us who actually DO CARE about becoming acquainted with JM's Golden Girl read and verify, since she just might end up leading our nation.
Not only does it take times to read the information mountain, it takes much additional time to verify even a few assertions and will take probably hours and hours of effort to thoroughly investigate.
So much for Sam's claims of multitasking, MTing, posting, blogging, researching, speed reading and all other forms of superwomaning she lays claim to. Excuse me while I now get back to a meticulous read of this extremely interesting link and the research it will require before making an informed response.
Dear Sam, you are surrounded by packs and packs of liberal watch dog muckrackers who will eventually succeed exposing the views, beliefs, opinions, experience (or lack thereof), policies and gems of wisdom straight from the moose's mouth. This is what informed voters do before drawing conclusions.
Oh, that's just silly. So you are a mind reader? I don't think so.
It's obvious what happened. Give some of us the benefit of having a brain.
Glad you put that straight, Reader.
Not that it really needed to be put straight in any but the most challenged minds, but hey - was very interesting!
Excellent post, Reader.
You really hit the target:) And of course, you are absolutely correct. MT has no credibility here, she blew it herself.
And I totally agree with you about lying - that is one thing liberals on the whole despise, but something you'll NEVER find the Cons stating that they hate. They can't, because it's just too easy to prove that lying is a Con way of life and they know it. So they attack us instead:) It's all they've got.
Reader's Digest version....
Nancy Pelosi is Catholic, Joe Biden is Catholic. Nancy Pelosi made some comment about the Catholic Church being vague on the issue of abortion (those are not her exact words, the jist of it). Anyway, immediately one of the Catholic Church hierarchy said there was nothing vague about the stand of the Catholic Church (and printed what the stand is) and said if a Catholic supported abortion they should not take Communion. It was mentioned again in Denver when someone asked the Archbishop of Denver about it, as Joe Biden does profess to be Catholic, and the Archbishop said that the Catholic Church believes abortion to be wrong and he would speak to Mr. Biden personally. Bottom line, the Catholic Church defines life begins at conception, they are against abortion, and these Catholic higher-ups are saying that if you publically support abortion you should not take Communion. If you Google Pelosi abortion catholic church you can find a lot of it.
I am not Catholic, by the way. Just answering the question. So I can't get into a shouting match with people about what the Catholic church believes or what they should or should not do. I do agree with them, however, that life begins at conception.
And with that, I will finish.
So I guess what the article meant was that the last thing the Obama campaign wants to have to answer is abortion questions when his veep is catholic and the speaker of the house is catholic and they are being spanked by the church over abortion stance? That would be my take on it. I guess now we will see if Biden will throw his catholicism under the bus too?
I posted the information. It is up to the reader...
to decide what it means.
Reader's Digest version....
where do you think the dirt on Joe came from? a background check instigated by the governor of Ohio. Which tramples all over Joe's civil rights.
Now let's make that pertinent to you. If YOU went to a John McCain rally and placed yourself at a rope line for the sole purpose of asking a "hard" question...and you did ask the hard question...which he answered...and then his answer was not becoming so to do damage control the governor of the state launched a background check of you and made all the information from that public...would YOU not be angry and sue? I darned sure would. As big as liberals are on civil rights, and the ACLU is not in sight, and you certainly aren't defending Joe's civil rights either are you?
I guess that only matters to you when a liberal's civil rights are violated?
dear mind reader
1. Very tacky to insult a person's family name.
2. I hear Medium is returning in february. be on it.
Gee that's funny READER, cuz I never saw your handle on here until the last few days. sm
So who are you Really? Why, I think you are a liar!
mind reader! faith healer! nm
nm
It probably bothered her because she is a closet Nat'l Enquirer reader?
xx
You must be a selective reader...lots of facts posted by the right...nm
It's like trying to discuss Dante's Inferno with someone stuck in My Little Red Reader. nm
nm
|
