nice theory...
Posted By: cj on 2008-12-13
In Reply to: If that were true....(sm) - Just the big bad
but many companies have closed when unions forced strikes. they simply closed. everyone lost their jobs. Then they re-opened, new name, new company, often in a new location (many out of the US where they didn't have to cowtow to the unions) and those past employes were left with nothing 'cuz when they closed their took all the pension benefits with them, too. I am not talking about firing a union worker. That is a whole different subject. Ask someone who works for a company with a union how it is to be a good worker when all the lazy people around you are not and the company can do nothing about it because they union does not hold the employee to any standard, only the company.
Perhaps companies that don't want union simply don't want the union crap shoved down their throats. Yes, I think unions HAD a place and did a lot of good, but I think it's a thing of the past. Unions now are greedy and care more about the union itself than the worker. don't kid yourself into thinking that's not true. Check into union corruption and greed not to mention union violence.
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
Nice in theory. Doesn't work well
nm
Well, I have a theory. sm
And I said a name above, because the L poster is the only one who seems obsessed with who you and I *really* are. Anyhoo, I didn't really even understand the *Original* Observer post, I'm afraid. Suffice it to say, the left has an entirely different reality about what comprises bashing than I do!
what you are saying here, is only theory,
but in reality, in real life, it is quite different, what is also evident on this very forum!
Tit-for-tat fights, posters trying to insinuate negative characteristics on others, and this without any proof at all.
Be honest, everybody tries to hide one's flaws, and please, do not tell me that a low IQ is something to be proud of. Everybody mentioned and accentuates what is positve and hides what's negative, if challenged.
Not 'flashing' it, just 'mentioning' it if it comes up in a conversation.
I never 'boasted' it, that's what this 'low-life' poster, smsg, who post every comment under a different user name, accused me of.
Don't be such a hypocrite!
Conspiracy Theory..........
Author: Taylor Caldwell
In The Captains and the Kings (1976) Caldwell takes on the global power brokers. In this book we find, running through the story line, a description of the way the international financiers and industrialists (all private consortiums owned by an elite of the world's richest families and persons) hijack governments around the globe; instigating wars and gaining control over the warring countries through manipulation of the enormous debts incurred during a war. Mentioned too is the Council on Foreign Relations; and while a disclaimer states that all persons portrayed in the book are fictional, it is clear that the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as another major organization of the globalists are both very real organizations. Also described is the idea that political systems everywhere, and certainly in the US, are almost totally dominated by the ruling elite; and that no one even gets into the running for a major political office unless the elite believes the person is under their control. It is explained that this can be direct control; e.g., the candidate takes a solemn oath to be true to that organization above all others; or indirect control: the candidate is known to have done something illegal or scandalous. The threat of public exposure can then be used to bend the person to the will of the elite. Politicians can also be compromised through a "set-up". When necessary the elite will play that hand (conform or be ruined by the controlled media). It is further explained that there have been a few who were not under the control of the elite (back in the 40s and 50s) and who had some success on their own. These individuals were not corruptible and in such cases very dirty tricks were employed against them. There is a figure in the book obviously symbolising JFK, who went along with the elitists (his father's cronies), but who once in power went his own way - resulting in his assassination.
yes, very interesting theory....sm
I've heard tell that at least in the old school democratic party, supposedly Bill Clinton had power brokered deals, in the dark back rooms, over brandy and cigars....that Hillary was supposed to be the dem nominee this year......But Obama changed all that, and the powers that be, felt that he would be the better choice, and thus, from what I hear, Bill kind of threw a tantrum...or several, some even out in public.
Anyway, I have no idea where my husband gets some of his political information, but he goes to all sorts of places on the web, and this was the hubbub earlier in the year, and one of the big to-do's this election cycle.
Personally, I find it distasteful if this practice does/did/still occurs, for either party. Shouldn't be, and it pisses me off to no end if it is so. So much for the will of the people, if these things are decided by the big wigs in power.....of either party....
...steps down off soapbox now....
If that's your theory, then the pubs
should have been all for it, but they weren't, were they?
Your theory is twisted
Maybe that's what they teach in the socialized education system nowadays (I heard plenty from my cousin who would tell me what her professors in the university were spewing). But what you stated is not the theory (that after 2 terms of one party the other party is supposed to be elected). What kind of screwed up site did you get that from (probably MSNBC or some other hate-filled station). If that was the case then there would not be a race and the opposite party would just be placed in - which is exactly what the democrats are trying to do.
I do agree that there is both far right and far left wingnuts. That is why the country needs someone who is a moderate. Unfortuntely the country will never elect someone from the Independent, Constitution or other party that is down the middle, but at least John McCain is more down the middle. Obama is the farthest left that you can get. It just astounds me how many Americans would rather have the country move to socialism and live under a dictator rather than have a free country.
Also, people forget that America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. Nowhere in the contitution or Declaration of Indpendence is the word "democracy" even mentioned. Our founding fathers were extremely knowledgeable about the issues of democracy and feared it. They understood that the only entity that could take away people's freedom is their own government (which we will see if Obama is elected).
There are people who are bent on destroying our sovereignty by creating the North American Union (which means Canada, US & Mexico will become a single country). The NAFTA agreement was just the beginning of this. Obama admits to support of this. Obama's policies are that of Stalin's. Stalin's economic philosophy was socialism, which involved taking property from the rich in order to redistribute it to the poor. Sounds exactly like what he was telling the plumber guy and others. I think last night John McCain made a very clear connection that Obama's polices and core beliefs are the same as Joseph Stalin's.
We cannot go down that road. We need to continue on as a free country. To think that now that because you have two terms of one party it's the other parties turn is wrong. Especially if the other party is and believes in socialism.
We need to have a republican (or another party other than a democrat) elected as president as the senate and house already are democrat. This is what they call "balance of power". Americans prefer that the checks-and-balances evisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. Put in a democrat president mixed with a democratic congress and a democratic senate and you have tyranny. They will pass every pork filled bill possible, tax you more and the country will go down the same dark road we hit with Carter and Clinton.
Yes, the country is in a state of turmoil one we haven't seen for not sure how long. I wouldn't go back to the depression, as we all know Obama is trying to scare people into believing if he is not elected we're going to hit a depression - another blatant lie of his. That is why we need a moderate in the office. We need someone to keep the democratic senate and house in order, that is why we need McCain.
People should not vote for the other party with your theory that if they vote for McCain we are all wealthy. A lot of us are voting for McCain because we don't want to be taxed over 45% of our paychecks like we were under the last democrat president Mr. "Liar, depends on what the meaning of is is" Clinton. It is a fact that under Bush most American have received tax refunds (not the richest of rich - people like me and others who make around $25K or so). Something I never saw once under any of the 8 years the last democrat president was in. McCain and Palin have more knowlege of how to run the country. How to create jobs, how to not tax the small business people, how to generate income for America, how to win the war and not rush everyone back because you think more people will vote for you if you keep pushing that, when in truth you will turn around and after elected send them all back.
I say if you want to be free. If you want to be able to start your own business or have any money left from your paychecks to build a future for yourselves. If you care that the country is now a safer place since 9/11. If you care that our next president doesn't hang around with people like Wright, Ayers, Farrakan, and has friends in the countries that want to see us wiped off the planet and will do so under an Obama presidency, then vote your conscience and vote John McCain.
After last nights debate no matter who you think won or lost, I'll be voting for a man who has the knowlege and experience to lead the country to better times and will continue to remain free. Otherwise you should learn how people in Cuba and North Korea and other communist/socialist countries feel. Why do you think they're all trying to come to our country. And the ones who immigrated to here to get away from there. I'm sure they will not be voting for someone who will make this country into what they risked their lives to get away from.
conspiracy theory
Economic crisis well controlled so far, maybe to give the republicans a chance at winning and to keep Bush from being blamed. Will they let the flood gates loose in January? Let us go into full blown economic depression? So far, they have only rescued themselves, not ordinary people. Maybe there won't be anything left to help ordinary people?
THEORY of evolution
Just that, a theory. It has never been proven. Just a cop out so you don't have to believe that someone BIGGER and BETTER created you.
Interesting theory.
Are you willing to apply it to Democrats, too? (You'll want to be very careful how you answer.)
...and what about Democrats who can't manage their finances or pay their taxes?
And I presume you won't be voting for Obama again if he can't even manage to keep Bo from taking a dump in the White House living quarters?
There's a word for people who think like you, but I can't use it without violating forum policy. Democrats a "shoo-in" next election? Doesn't look like Dodd's doing too well - and we'll throw the rest of them out if we can, too. See link - and then go right on whistling past the graveyard because we're going to send a lot of people from both parties home if we can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/report-dodd-receives-early-donations-just-state-residents/
So true. But it makes it a theory.
And a theory surrounded by corroborating actions in its babyhood can and will eventually grow up to be a fact.
And there is a growing list of corroborating actions, all of which, as I originally said, frighten me.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Have a nice day.
I call it a conspiracy theory because it is...
You mention scientists, demolition experts, police, eye witnesses...but someone had to be responsible for whatever you think might have happened, and therein lies the conspiracy theory. So who do the scienists, demolition experts, police, and eyewitnesses think is behind whatever they think they know or saw? And do you have any documentation for any of this? Especially since people actually SAW the planes fly into the buildings...unless you are saying the planes were flown into the buildings to cover up the "demolition" Or the "demolition" just happened to be planned at the same time the planes flew into the buildings? And if there were no planes and the eye witneses to that (including most of the world on television) were all victims of mass hallucination...what happened to the people on those non-existent planes? They never existed either?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. No offense intended...just calling it like it is.
sounds good in theory
& it's great you can manage to love your neighbors because you are forced to, but it would be great if you could work on the idea that homosexuality should be talked about in the same context as addiction, adultery, or other harmful or evil behaviors.
Homosexuality...is very much about loving another human being, despite everyone's (I daresay prurient) focus on sex. It's a mistake to equate being exactly what the godhead created you to be with evil, & to say that you can love your neighbor "in spite of" this shows such a profound lack of understanding & tacit attitude of superiority that I don't even know where to start.
If you knew the nature of real love and acceptance, you wouldn't have to force yourself to do anything.
Yay! Another conspiracy theory for your scrapbook.
You can fess up now. You're Michael Moore.
Right?
Your theory doesn't really surprise
me. I just think it sucks that illegals get so much money from us for education, health care, etc. Now they want to give illegals the right to vote? What is the point of being an American citizen nowadays. You get more rights and benefits being illegal. It just irks me!!!
I think perhaps you are a closet republican because that is quite the conspiracy theory.
x
ah...I see your post below...interresting conspiracy theory....sm
I don't agree. Bush and Cheney will be well out of it in 2009. The changes that come will be all Obamas and dem congress.
Not arguing, though... I won't waste anymore of your time.
you live in a chronic state of conspiracy theory
how sad for you 
What facts have you researched to dismiss this as conspiracy theory?nm
z
Unless it's a crazy conspiracy-theory driven right winger
nm
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.
Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.
He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.
This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.
Gore Slams Global Warming Critics
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"
Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."
Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."
In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.
Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.
According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.
They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”
Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
Oh, goody-goody! The "trickle-down theory"
NM
Not nice.
Of course conservatives are wrong. And often. I am one, so I should know. What I am NOT is a neocon. That word gets used a lot here and it is used incorrectly. I am not the original poster but I wanted to point that out.
Really nice, isn't it?
Not all of them are gone, but a lot were removed. Smells a lot better on the Liberal Board today, though it probably won't last. 
It's really nice to have you here.
As you can see, you may also be called names on this board, as well. The monitor has asked that they stop, but they continue to do it. If they begin to attack you here, I hope you will just consider the source, laugh it off and continue to post here because they aren't important and certainly don't represent the majority of normal Americans.
Exactly....have a nice day. :) nm
nm
nice
When a woman gets attacked by a man with knife, do you condemn her because she didn't fight back hard enough?I say condemn the attacker, not the attackee....you attack folks and then condemn them because there feelings where hurt instead of addressing the real problem which is your bullying.
Nice try, but no....
I started posting here about 3 years ago, and there was no observer but me. If there was one before that, I had no way of knowing that. Taiga did not "steal" Teddy's moniker. They were always the same person, just posting under two different monikers. I have posted under two...Independent for awhile, and then Observer. Observer was not in use when I changed to that moniker, and if there was one before my time...as I stated...I have no way of knowing that. Again...did not accuse Taiga of stealing the Teddy moniker. She posted under both.
Nice. (sm)
Fortunately your opinion on this subject means nothing to me. Those who want to pray will. Those who don't, won't. It is a free country,and while no one can force you to pray, no one can force us not too either. Much as you would like to have that control. What a myopic view of life you have. Party line vote Dem or die and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with you. Sounds decidedly UNdemocratIC to me.
nice try
This comes from the same pinheads who were absolutely certain that Rush would go outta business when Clinton got elected. Yeah, right! 20 million listeners at least, and HOW many hundreds of millions later?
And y'all actually think Keith Overbite & Mr. Potato Head actually discuss news seriously when 1 has crabs or something crawling up his leg? And give up the opiates re Rush. He fixed that problem, but didn't do the resume enhancement like the celebutards do. Start that empty crap & I'll just keep listing their names.
And just to clarify things, in case anyone didn't catch the post about the NAGS, that's Rush's pet name for the National Assn of GalS. I knew I wasn't the only Dittohead on the embarrassment of a board.
Face it. Y'all have nothing to offer here, just empty insults and thrills over women "choosing" to kill babies. That's the only definition y'all have of "choice." Funny, but I thought choice was supposed to mean that the woman decided either way. Nice try once again.
nice try....but NOT
I take you comparing me to Sam as a compliment though as I do value a lot of the same opinions.
However, once again, instead of actually coming on with facts and trying to prove an actual point, I find someone who just spats out anything. I was not the one who started this post. I was just stating my opinion and sharing some experiences I've had raising horses and what has happened in the past when deer hunting was not allowed. Those are things that I have seen first hand.
That would be nice!
Doubt that will happen, but my husband and I could pay off the house we just built, have money for the kids college education, etc.
oh come on... he seems like a nice
and he wants change.... give him a break... LOL.....
I'M WITH YOU!!! PEOPLE ARE SO INTO HEARING WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR THAT THEY ARE BLIND!!!!!!
nice
from yet another who cannot back up what exactly obama stands for besides "change"... hmmm
there was nothing psychotic about her post.
It would be nice
there was help for those who help themselves.... not just help themselves to handouts.
That might be nice, but don't look to
nm
Nice Try
Our economy is in a bad way, so what does "O" do? Raise taxes! What on earth are y'all thinking! So taking $ from you to give to someone else makes sense?
This is comparable to the women who went totally nuts over the Beatles!
Check your taxes for 2007, 2008, then 2009. The facts will speak for themselves.
Just more white guilt, too, which is also pitiful.
that sure was nice!
x
Nice try
Yeah, that so-called nutjob recently signed another long-term contract (7 years, I believe) for how many millions?
I never miss his show.
Have you ever actually listened to his show? You'd like his official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley. You can find clips on google.
When I got married, we used his theme song to announce the wedding party at the reception
You just said she was nice. Why don't you
accept her as she is then if she is a nice person. Maybe she wants to raise her baby is a safe place. I live in Arizona and the only illegal immigrants I have a problem with are the drug dealers who bring their dope across the border.
its nice to see him in an
informal setting. Every pol goes for a photo op once in a while, just to remind you they are around. I enjoy seeing him smile and interact with people. He makes me smile. God Bless America, how fortunate we are to have him at this time in history.
nice try
I dont think so. I am an American. As a matter of fact I was a soldier and I helped defend this country. So dont even try to tell me that I am not American and I should leave just because I don't like or agree with the present administration. Do I hope that Obama will be all that people need? Sure. Do I think he will do it? No. That has nothing to do with my American pride or heritage. This country was founded on many things that are not in effect today and I dont have to blindly support things that are blatantly wrong with our government. Most politicians are liars and crooks and our government is not a representation of our country. Our country is hard working American people who have built this land up based on dreams, faith, hard work, and pride. Our government is supposed to answer to us, not us to them. You have the wrong idea and should not categorize people based on whether they like Obama or not. That is why we VOTE and have the FREEDOM to choose who we want in OUR office.
Thank you. Nice to know I'm not alone
I liked Sarah Palin a lot and was the main reason I was leaning more towards their camp. I actually kept going back and forth. I liked Obama, then I liked Sarah, then I liked Obama, then I liked Sarah. I could not make up my mind. But I liked Gov. Palin a lot. Washington needed a new face. Someone not on the inner circles and corrupted by Washington politicians/lobbyists. She said things as she saw them. She was the only one out of all of them who had the qualifications. She was a governor and knows how to balance a budget. If she believed in something she stuck to it. She didn't give in and say one thing then run over to a different group and say another thing. Like some people did. You want to talk about experience? Obama had less experience than she did. As for her saying things and making mistakes. Nobody has a right to say anything about that because your all okay with Biden saying the most @ssnine things. You didn't like that she carried her baby around, but you were okay with Biden carrying around his grandson everywhere (talk about an obvious prop). He'd look around for the camera then grab his grandson and make sure the camera saw him carrying him. I liked the way Sarah spoke. She spoke the truth and to the point. Sorry it's not fancy/sleezy enough for the Washington crowd. She/McCain had ideas for how to get the people back working again. Now look what we've got. Someone who just keeps telling us its going to get worse, passed a bill that creates no jobs for the country and nothing to stimulate the economy, and is punishing the people who are hard working and trying to survive. Just more money for them to line the pockets of the politicians. But then again it doesn't matter what we thought because the people have no control over who is elected. Obama had been selected a long time before the election even began.
I liked Sarah Palin and I don't care what anyone says. She was a real human being. You can slam me all you want. Sure there were other candidates I would have supported, especially every time Biden spoke. He's puts his foot in his mouth every time he speaks and it's becoming more and more evident this guy is either going senile or truly does not know what he is doing. No wonder why the WH keeps him behind locked doors.
But it's all a double standard. People say she didn't have experience, don't vote for her, we have to have someone with experience. Then when it's brought up about Obama's lack of experience (i.e. no experience) we hear. You gotta give the guy a chance. They trashed her personal life, but when anyone spoke about Obama's personal life they were told don't talk about his personal life it has nothing to do with his being president. When people said, you can't bring Palin in, she's not Washington, she's an outsider, but when they were told well Obama is new and he hasn't been in Washington very long himself (i.e. no experience) and has been in Illinois most of his life we were told we need a fresh face in Washington. When we brought up Palin's balancing the budget we were met with Obama got a bunch of people registered to vote. You just can't win. None of what I wrote pertains to anyone on this board, it's what was in the news. And I was watching MSNBC during the election because I was voting democrat, but was interested in Palin. And the best of them all was when people were asked "So you're voting for Obama because of his policies? and they answered yeah, then when asked "So if Obama is elected President you wouldn't mind Sarah Palin as the VP?" And they all said "No, I think she'd make a fine VP". HA HA HA. What's that Master card commercial where at the end it says "Priceless".
Nice try, but once again
no cigar.
It would be nice if EVERYBODY would
follow the rules of this board, but some apparently think they are above the rules.
The two posters you pointed out are not the only ones who call other posters names, especially in the last week or so that I've noticed, but the instead of falling into the argumentative mode, you need to ignore their posts.
It is nice to know that our
economy is in ruins, we have spies interfering with our electronic grid, our president bows to the Saudi King, every country still hates us even with Obama's major butt kissing and you are concerned about Levi and Bristol? Who cares. How many teenagers really stay together even when there is a baby involved? This isn't a matter of national security. It is a teenage girl who screwed her boyfriend and got knocked up and then they broke up. Like that never happens anywhere else in the world.
I personally couldn't care less if Levi and Bristol broke up. Who cares? If you like teenage drama, you might want to watch the N channel and get your fill with Degrassi or something and keep this nonsense off the political board.
nice..
very Christian of you saying her husband is as messed up as she is. showing your true colors.
It would have been nice if instead of
just throwing our country under the bus and calling us arrogant and apologizing if he would have also listed the good things that we have done for other countries. Instead he just says that we are arrogant and apologizes and blames Bush. Our country has done a lot of good things for others too. Why does Obama constantly focus on the bad things. Does he think that constantly bringing up bad things will make people like us more? He is really naive and stupid if he thinks that. If Obama really wanted to move forward, he needs to stop the blame game and MOVE ON! This is his administration now....not Bush's. Yes, Obama inherited a mess but I don't see him doing much cleaning up of this mess. I see what he is doing as making things worse.....not better and that isn't Bush's fault.
Aw, that's so nice! =)
See? People with differing opinions CAN get along on this board - just have some respect for each other like these two posters.
You are both an example for the rest to follow.
Nice try....almost...(sm)
Sending pics as proof? That's hilarious....I'm absolutely sure they would be of you...ROFL.
Sorry, but your little ploy to make it look like that was an acceptable joke to the black community is just simply not working.
Maybe you should do some research next time.
|
