i think you misunderstood my point entirely
Posted By: we still owe it even if it's not there on 2008-09-26
In Reply to: The difference is...... - sm
duh
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
I believe you misunderstood
By scholarly articles I meant:
--characterized by careful evaluation and judgment; a critical reading; a critical dissertation. --
The comment was not meant to be disdainful at all. Scholarly articles would mean from a university or from experts or those who have studied their topic deeply rather than a blog, forum, editorial, cafe conversation, etc., although those sources do not rule out that they could as well be scholarly. I meet periodically at the local cafe with a retired university professor whose life-long passion it the middle east, having lived there and speaks it fluently. I consider his knowledge to be scholarly.
you misunderstood........
I am truly anti-McCain and completely Pro-Obama..........the "black" was not in reference to what I saw as in race............I don't know what the f it was! Child's imagination? Could very well be...........my parent's had race horses and most of the grooms were African-American.........my father, raised in a rich family, saw firsthand the horrors racism imposed on these hard-working men who were his good friends.......I was raised different than a lot of people. My parents were very active in civil rights during the late 50s through the 60s. My father's grooms were jailed just for having nice cars!!! (they were paid WELL, not USED).
you have misunderstood
and taken my post in the wrong way. Sometimes I DO think. That has nothing whatsoever to do with you.
maybe i misunderstood
said above it's a felony??
you misunderstood me
pa percentage based on income. Meaning if I make $30,000 a year, and pay 10% in taxes, then I would pay $3,000 in taxes. If I make $100,000, then I would pay $10,000 in taxes.
I think you misunderstood me...
Your mind is evil, if you think tht O should stop campaigning.
I think you misunderstood not only
what Obama said, but also my post.
You misunderstood......
It's past time for the rich to pay their fair share. I see this country becoming unlivable and chaotic due to the current economic crisis which I do not see being healed by a patched up stimulus package. I think the rich should pay their fair share and the only way to hurt them is in the wallet. Now....if I could find a coherent plan to do just that - I would. I already boycott Wal-Mart because of their business practices. As a matter of fact, I routinely boycott most department stores and resort to the Salvation Army or Goodwill for household goods (such as casserole dishes, wine glasses, housewares, etc.). I figure, with my current personal economic crisis, it is the only way I can give back to the community.
Well perhaps we are simply misunderstood
like this:
We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you. —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005
Wow! Brazil is big. —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil,
If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees might break. And so, therefore, we're cautious about encouraging people to return at this moment of history. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2005
The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere. —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
I can only speak to myself. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
After all, Europe is America's closest ally. —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005
I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. —George W. Bush, ABC's 20/20, Washington D.C., Jan. 14, 2005
I want to appreciate those of you who wear our nation's uniform for your sacrifice. —George W. Bush, Jacksonville, Fla.
Bush is just misunderstood.
The subject was troops, not coups. The events surrounding the Diem coup are to this day murky at best. Kennedy’s original support of South Vietnamese troops was an attempt bolster their ability to resist invasion from the north. He was not responsible South Vietnamese policy or goals the officers or some govt officials had against Diem. Kennedy and his advisors acknowledged the possibility of coup since Diem was notoriously unpopular with his own people. The South Vietnamese and their military openly promoted their coup (not Kennedy’s). Kennedy inherited Viet Nam policy from Eisenhower who had already sent some soldiers there. He sent an additional 15,000 or so. He did not support direct involvement of US troops in Vietnam, despite the declarations he made in his inauguration speech. If he had, he would have sent many, many more than he did.
Reference was made to Clinton’s Somalia and Kosovo policy. Now it’s Iraq. Clinton’s regime change ideas showed up after the Gulf War, which some felt had not gone far enough. US engaged with the Saudis in response to invasion of Kuwait by Saddam. HW Bush also used the WMD argument to justify US involvement in reference to the chemical and biological agents Saddam used against the Kurds and Iranians. Clinton and Clarke did not invent these issues and regime change was a policy which democrat and republican leaders before him had carried out, and one that he did not pursue. What he did do was spend most of his presidency supporting the UN weapons inspections to confirm suspicions, accusations and speculation. No conclusive proof was found, then or now. Clinton did not invent proof, nor did he disregard the findings of the UN inspectors. Bush did.
Democrats were the ones who organized the protests against the war and were endlessly critical of LBJ as they were of Nixon. Republicans jumped onboard in time. Demonization from all sides and plenty of it to go around.
The question of Bush’s lies are explored in depth in the pages of those books. No need to say too much on that, but it will be interesting to see how the forged letter thing plays out. The list simply represents the other side of these issues and is provided for those who may be interested in those ideas. There are mountains of evidence of lies to be found. It would be more fair to consider that as well. No real purpose can be served by personal attacks on the authors. Of course they are partisan. Aren’t we all? Books sell. Authors make money. That does not mean that they are motivated only by that. It is the ideas on the pages that need the attention.
The congressional approval was under republican majority, based on grossly inaccurate information. Over 100,000 deaths, the carnage and a budget surplus of 559 billion dollars replaced by a deficit 482 billion dollars (net loss of more than a trillion dollars) behind a war over invisible WMDs and fictitious ties to Al-Quaeda is not rational. Without this lunacy, our economy would not be in the shape it is in today and there would not be countless hundreds of thousands of family members left behind grieving the loss of their loved ones, soldiers and civilians alike. With all these consequences to pay, there is nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to tell the truth when war is waged and there is no shame in searching for it until it is found. The republican congress approved what Bush and Cheney asked for. The buck stops at the top.
I must have misunderstood your post . . .
When you wrote "That's when the letter was dated. It could have been written the day he released it." I thought you were implying that something more underhanded was happening, and they were lying about when the letter was written.
I guess I missed your point entirely.
You misunderstood my answer, but no need to....
further beat that dead horse.
A tanning bed is not wasteful. Because she is a governor she can't have a tanning bed? She should forego anything personal in the house she is going to live in for 2 years? Geez, look what the Clintons carried OUT of the White House...lol. Let's have a little perspective here.
If something said about her is justified or there is not another side to the story I do not post. But so far, it has just been malicious attacks with no substance, and yes, I do defend her in those. Just like your side defends Obama or Biden.
Look, when I compare all four of these people, the good and the bad, for me it is a no brainer. I don't want redistribution of wealth socialism, government controlled health care socialism, a man with a personal agenda he wants to use the White House to further. I want someone who is there for me. Putting country first above ANY agenda be it party or personal. And that is why I am voting for McCain.
Most of the time when I respond to a post it is not whether the post is "right" or "wrong." Most of the posts don't have the whole story and assume something that is not the case. I don't do those kinds of posts and if I do am proven wrong, I say so. That is why I never posted anything about Obama being a Muslim...because I don't know if he is or not, and no one has proven to me that he is. So I don't post things like that if there is nothing to back it up. I didn't post the lipstick on a pig thing because I am not convinced that he was talking about Palin when he said it...though the people listening to him obviously thought he was. I didn't post anything about the brother in Kenya because who knows what is true about that and what does it have to do with him running for President?
That is what I mean, and that is what I try to do, just like supporters of the other ticket do, that is when they are not attacking me personally...which, by the way...has nothing to do with either ticket running for the Presidency.
Have a good day, Maxie!
Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
I think that the McCain campaign is currently on a suicide mission and have been trying to get some sort of response on that issue...ANY response that does not include hate speech. So far, I've only gotten one bite and the rest is, well.....hate speech. Are you in Ohio? Our early voting starts next Monday and I will be there with bells on.
You misunderstood. Gourpainter was...
condemning people on this board who she said incited those skinheads to plot to assassinate Obama. And I said to her, how many skinheads do you think are on this board? What I was saying is that I don't think anyone on this board was responsible for inciting skinheads. I said the Jeremiah Wright sermons were probably much more responsible for inciting skinheads than this board could ever be. So why are you attacking me? Do YOU think people on this board incited skinheads to assassinate Obama???
hope i was not misunderstood
my response was to Amanda saying GM should have had an on-call system instead of paying people for being there and not working. I was simply saying they would be paying them anyway for being on call. I was not responding in any way to the post about DHL. It sounds like what DHL did was totally unconscienable. I do not know what the situation was, but it sounds completely horrible.
But I have to tell you, I do take offense to the "snotsdale" comment. I have a daughter and son-in-law (and grandchild) in scottsdale, who are very hard working and decent people and not at all "snots" as you would put it. Those types of generalizations you are making are unfair and unwarranted and hurt people such as my daughter and her family. It's just a whole other set of prejudices. Please judge people as individuals, not based on their zip code or any other random criteria.
No one said that at all, not "die" - you misunderstood
poster did not say that!
You misunderstood...it was not a sob story.....
I am so grateful my granddaughter "flew" in under the radar. Who knows if my daughter would have had an abortion? I am so eternally grateful that she didn't.BUT, you still didn't change my mind. I still stand by my original statement that women should have the right to choose, whether WE/YOU/I like it or not.
I think you misunderstood the intent of my post.
I, and most of the people I know, don't think that government should be involved in our lives on a day-to-day basis. We think that government should only do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves--deal with foreign entities, defend our borders, create laws, maintain our infrastructure.
Government gets away with all they do because we do not hold them accountable. We are too busy attacking each other instead, which is not productive of anything and the way those in government like it. Just because I think we will need to work together to do what is best for our country does not mean I expect government to cater to my every need. In point of fact, it has been my experience that the more the government gets involved, the more screwed up things become.
I misunderstood your post and re-read it
You are right. When I first read it I thought what does one have to do with the other. I did not see the point you were making.
I'm not trying to start an argument, just misunderstood your point.
All I say is the DC crowd sure has a bunch of "winners" and they are falling on both sides.
I'll tell you what....why don't we have a total wipeout of every person in congress. Everyone go home. Let's wipe the slate clean. Every senator needs to be recalled and a whole new vote take place (not talking bout the "big guy" just the sleezeballs in congress). Then have another election. I guarantee there would be some new faces to DC.
Robertson apologizes - He was misunderstood. Any takers on this one?
See link.
You misunderstood - I'll speak slower
I never said, 'What's in it for me?'
My point was that you can't single out a section of the economic participants and think it will be perceived as equitable.
You can't say, 'let's help home owners' without disenfranchising non-home owners. You can't take cash from one group (taxpayers who rent) and throw it at another group (taxpayers who own houses) and pretend that it's fair.
Across-the-board or nothing at all. Surely even you can grasp that simple concept, no?
Michele Bachmann the misunderstood" A trap was
Apologizing afer her democratic Minnesota 6th district opponent received nearly $1 million in contributions in the aftermath of her HUAC statement, delivered with heated fervor. Might be more convincing if she weren’t trying to blame the guy who asked the question. Republican National Congressional Finance Committee is pulling her ads and running for the hills. Meanwhile, Tinklenberg ads will blanket the land after receiving additional backing from the Democratic National Congressional Finance Committee. She stepped into something all right, but it doesn't smell much like a trap, an impressive maneuver considering she had her foot in her mouth.
Another republican congressional seat bites the dust. That anti-American campaign rhetoric is working real well for them.
Okay...I think most of you have misunderstood the question (excluding Shelly) (sm)
I am not saying anything about christianity, christians, the Bible, Muslims or any other faith. What I am doing is pointing out the ridiculous idea that the republican party would paint someone as a Muslim while at the same time claiming he is a member of a Christian church. That's it. I'm questioning negative attacks that have been directed at Obama and have been repeated here on this board. Personally, as most of you know, I am an athiest, so I really don't care what religion the man is. I'm more interested in his ability to govern (which I happen to think will improve this country). However, as recent as TODAY (after the election) there are still people on this board going on about his religion. I don't think I can be any more clear that that.
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.
The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
If your point is that it was 7 years ago, that's not much of a point is it? sm
Not long ago at all in the scope of things. The point is that the same thing could and probably would happen here. 9-11 happened 7 years ago too....I guess that couldn't happen again, huh?
I get your point, but my main point is -
why should the government be allowed to tell people what they can and can't eat? Everyone says the government is too involved in our business anyway, so if they should stay out of one part of our lives, they should stay out of all parts of our lives!
and your point is??
Your point is?? Bush is the one who waged this immoral illegal wrong war, not all the democrats you have posted quotes on. It is BUSH, the chimp boy, who waged the war and used every kind of excuse possible, flip flopping back and forth over the reasons. Now that we know there are no WMD and we have gotten Saddam, what is the excuse for being there and not setting a time plan to leave?? Of course the reason has always been the murderous foreign policy of the US, to have its bloody hands in every country it possibly can. They are just salivating in DC over the fact that we will have control over the Middle East and OIL. Bush and his group are war criminals, just as bad as Saddam.
the point is
If these brave soldiers did not have to go to Vietnam, a useless, wrong war (it has been PROVEN, DEBATED AND PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN, EVEN BY THOSE WHO WERE IN THE MILITARY), their physical and emotional illnesses never would have happened..and there would have been no people turning against them. There were thousands upon thousands of protestors telling Nixon, bring our boys home and a few turning against the soldiers. The war is what scarred and has continued to torture these soldiers..the wrong war of that day just like the wrong war of now, Iraq..And where is the VA to help those of Vietnam? Bush continues to cut the budget for the VA, even though we will have thousands once again home from a useless, immoral, illegal war..I read an article the other day how the soldiers coming home are divorcing quite a bit..another thing these soldiers have to deal with..physical ailments, mental ailments, not adjusting to society, divorce..these were happy job holding family people before Bush got his blood hands on them. Thanks Bush.
You see, that's my whole point...
...the truth of this quote is why it's important. You can't ignore the inherent truth in an observation simply because you don't like the bearer of that message. I believe that if one truly examined history and discarded labels such as socialist, liberal, yes, even conservative (these labels change with time and are not static philosophies) I believe history would show that the the last part of this quote is right on about what it takes to be successful in uniting a country/party against a supposed "foe." Some have said hatred is the biggest uniter of a people that there is.
The point.
While there were quite a few issues in this article that were noteworthy, to me at least, the main point was that the Bush/war supporters are going to have a chance to participate in the war that they love. Since we broke Iraq we have to fix it and we can't afford to and the military can't do it so, in its infinite wisdom, the administration has come up with a "Peace Corps" type scenario where professionals of all vein VOLUNTEER to go to Iraq and work, for free. This is just too good. How many of those on the conservative board do you think will volunteer to go, or their husbands, sons, relatives? And like he said, if you voted for Bush put your money where your magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni triangle.
We have and have had for a long time alternatives energy resources. You can destroy the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and wherever else you want but in a few years we will be right back here. The oil supply is finite. Get used to it. Time to switch gears and explore the alternatives. But again, I can't wait to see who signs up for volunteer duty...next stop is Vietnam (Oh, I mean Iran, no I mean Iraq...).
Well, to each his own, which is exactly my point.
I can not discount your points here without discounting mine. I can't explain why people sign up, but my guess would be that some need money, jobs and opportunities and are praying if they do go to Iraq they will make it back in one piece. There are obviously a lot of people who believe in the cause of this war, I'm just not one. And like I say, some have fallen hook-line-and-sinker into the justification for this war, or believe it is important to free the Iraqis and somehow this is going to protect America.
I say again, to each his own. May God be with them all!
That is not the point! sm
The point is, expect the unexpected. Don't get all hyper about guns. I should never have mentioned that here, I am sure. I was making a point where has, yet again, been twisted! Good grief!
There is no point to THAT. SM
Everyone knows that paper is and always has been anti-Bush. I'm sorry, but you guys won't take stuff from NewsMax and FrontPageMag, which are both WAY WAY BIGGER than this little rag. Don't expect me to take this seriously.
It's my point.nm
x
And your point is
 It's all Bush's fault, by the way. It's the evil Republican's fault, but especially Bush. It's ALL his fault. It's America's fault, too! IMPEACH AMERICA. You are my hero.
But, at what point...
do you just toss your arms up in the air and give up on teaching people how to use birth control. It's not rocket science. How many decades of teaching do we need? I think we already have a cornucopia of information available everywhere on how to use birth control. It's not like it's a taboo subject. I have to think that the computer saavy youth of today, who can jump through hoops on the internet, if interested, could find out with the click of a button just exactly how to use any given birth control. We can fund education to the hilt, but stupid careless people will always be stupid careless people. It's sad.
You got a point there...nm
I know all I need to. I see no point in this.
.
But the point is, we believe what we believe.
In this instance, you feel the war is morally illegal and I don't.
Yes....that was my point.
I think what you said is exactly the point.
With everything going on, and it keeps getting worse and worse, the leader of the free world shows himself to be crude, have no table manners ... the forever frat boy. In itself giving an uninvited neck rub and talking with one's mouth full are certainly not newsworthy but in the context of where he was, what he was participating in ( participation questionable) what is happening to our world, our leader, without his spinners and handlers and speech writers was exposed as the uninformed, disinterested, unegaged person that he is and always has been. He was obviously bored throughout the entire conference, displayed his ignorance of geography (again), displayed his total lack of understanding of the Middle East, a process that has been evolving for 100s of years, way before Israel appeared on the scene. The history of the Middle East appears to bore him. Actually, everything but clearing brush at the ranch seems to bore him. And this guy wants free reign to do anything he likes, no checks, no balances, no congressional approval; its like he thinks this is the old board game War, or little green soldiers he can play with. He is such an embarassment.
to further my point
They are even making Pat Buchanan look like a liberal. I have never agreed with Buchanan until recently. This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO__Matthews_Buchanan_Slam_Neocons_0720.html
My point WAS sm
Newspapers dropping her column aren't hurting her. I don't care about the other stuff. I don't even like her.
Exactly the point...sm
There are plenty things that sell in America that are no good for America. I happen to believe Ms. Coulter (not just her books but her persona and work, collectively) is one of them.
And your point is?
I dont understand your post. I never said Merv Griffin did not like Bush or his crew, I said he stated the American people overthrew the government Tuesday. He did not elaborate whether he liked Bush or not.
The point is. sm
Why share something like that on this board? For what purpose?
Well some of that was my point.
I don't think he went to school in Africa ever, don't know for sure but I know he was born in Hawaii, his mother was white, his father from Kenya. His father returned to Kenya and he (the father) may have been the Muslim. His mother remarried and moved out of the country with her new husband and I believe that Obama lived with his white grandparents in the midwest somewhere; something like that. At any rate, I was saying that anyone, not Obama specifically, anyone at all who had a really good working knowledge of Islam, Arabic and all 13 of its dialects and the Muslim lifestyle would be an asset at this point, in my opinion, whoever he or she may be.
The point is. sm
Does it really matter how old the picture is? It is in San Francisco at a rally. If it was 1000 years old, it would still be horrible. And I am not pro this war or any war.
|
