nope not referring...but Bob's version is better.........NM
Posted By: Mrs. Bridger on 2009-03-10
In Reply to: If this is in reference - Chele
x
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
Here's a better version
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=i2naSzb1psU&feature=related
so your version
of freedom of speech is to allow anonymous people to go on and on and on and on about rumours and innuendos and twisty plots, but when someone expresses a thought that disagrees with yours, they are condemned as drug users. Whole lotta gaul, there binky.
O is just a younger version of the....sm
good ol' boys club, really. Young and vital, yeah, okay. Clever, no.
If he was really clever, and had something of value to offer me, I'd be voting for him.
We should start calling Obama, O'Same.
Anon's version is better.
Gee, I posted the pub version of this
a couple of weeks ago and nobody saw the humor.
My take on the subject, the short version.
Every country has some form of socialized medicine. Ours is comprised of the poor, the elderly, and those giving service to our country (military and political of which number in the millions) both past and present that encompasses their family members as well through different benefit packages depending on where they fall within the system. I believe the major argument is about extending those benefits in a social manner outside of what is already in place.
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?
Here's a funny (and quieter) version:
 Maybe the commercials should all be done by mimes, as well. Then you wouldn't have to hit "MUTE" on your remote every time one of them came on TV. And it might even be interesting!
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?
sorry came out off center. Fixed version.
I decided to post this at the top since things get lost in the shuffle so quickly here.
Right now there are single, low income mothers (and fathers I would assume) who by the time they get the earned income credit and claim head of household do not owe taxes and actually get back more than they paid in to begin with. So why haven't you been carrying on about that all along? (And when people without children are contributing to this with their tax money, why isn't that considered socialism?)
I don't get all the chaos over this issue.
Your version of the truth is skewed.
The Lebanese militia executed the people in the camps, though Israel took the blame for it. Why don't you go whine about the Lebanese, instead of transposing all your vitriol on Israel? Like most of the world, you seem to have given the Lebanese Phalangists a free pass. If you were so 'outraged' about S&S, why don't you actually hold the people who did the killing accountable?
Or are you unsure of the difference between Israel and Lebanon?
And isn't it odd that hardly anyone in the Arab world gave a rip about Sabra and Shatila? While in Israel there were protests and the Israeli government itself conducted an inquiry. (Which proved that, at most, we were only guilty of not forseeing the potential for the LEBANESE MILITARY to do what they did.)
And 3000 is ridiculous. The Lebanese reports were 450 or something, and the Israeli inquest reported 800 (of which I think 35 were non-soldiers). But it sounds better for your propaganda to make it THOUSANDS, so knock yourself out.
And let's not forget that the S&S massacre, by the Lebanese militia, was in retaliation for the murder of the president of Lebanon. Once again, the Pakistani brought wrath down on themselves and then claimed to be the victims.
And I noticed you didn't mention the ྑ attacks on Palestinian refugee camps.
Why? Oh, I know.
Because those were carried out by Muslims, and that just doesn't suit your cause, does it? So the PLO (Palestinias!) can massacre 2000 people and you're fine with that.
But Israel defends itself by returning fire on the Palestinian enemy and you condemn them.
Curious, don't you think?
I was thinking too, that the right wing version of Christianity...sm
does not necessary practice much *tolerance* much less acceptance or embracing of other religions and/or cultures itself. They should expect to get as good as they give.
Revelations, King James Version
Loved the "TV guide" version
Thanks for the countdown to Hillary's speech. Put some comedy into this which is what is needed. I also loved the other post that said a whole Xanax affords you a 2-hour nap. I'm gonna have to get me some of that.
I have learned a few things during this "race". Hillary is driven by power and greed and she won't stop at anything. I've never liked her. Well actually I used to like her when she and Bill were campaigning before he was elected the first time, and I liked her for about a month after she became first lady. Then her true self started to come out and DH and I would be mystified saying, wait a minute...this is not the same lady. I also heard that whenever they hosted dinners at the white house they would tell everyone to be there at a certain time and then they would purposely wait one hour and have everyone gather at the bottom of the steps so they could make their grand entrance for everyone to watch. They seemed to forget they were living in America and the were the president and first lady, not living in England being the King and Queen. So looks like her attitude hasn't changed much. Hillary has always been after uniting the world into a one-world government (or at least Mexico, US & Canada being one country) with her being the leader. Nothing less. I never expected her to end her campaign. After all you never know when such tragedy will hit and she needs to be standing there ready to sleeze in. In the beginning I listened to her because I wanted to know what her plans were if she were to be elected, and it seemed to be more of the same socialist programs she has been trying to pass since being first lady. So I have learned the best way to avoid the stress of listening to her drone on is to hit the mute button as soon as her face "graces" my TV. Now I'm pretty good and can usually hit the channel changer first before a sound from her is even uttered.
Anyway...loved your post. and yes, grilled peach salad doesn't sound too good.
I prefer the Dorothy Parker version
(Look it up, they prolly would not let me use the words here....)
Stimulus plan...the short version....no one talks about....
Obama: I'm going to give you a one-time $500 tax rebate check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
You're going to owe the govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package.
Stimulus plan...the short version....no one talks about....
Obama: My trillion dollar stimulus package, very dire, we must do something NOW, right now, before it gets worse. Therefore I'm going to......
I'm going to give you a one-time $500 check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
You're going to owe the U.S. govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package.
When you have a bipartisan version of the bill to view...please enlighten us. nm
x
Site with the latest version of the stimulus bill. sm
Here is the link to the bill:
http://appropriations.house.gov/
Apparently, they are not going to have enough time to read it before the final vote. It is 1,071 pages long and Ms. Pelosi is going on vacation somewhere for eight days.
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478
Stimulus plan...the short version (fine print)....no one talks about....
Obama: My trillion dollar stimulus package, very dire, we must do something NOW, right now, before it gets worse. (I can sell anything...just tell me what to say.....) Therefore I'm going to......
I'm going to give you a one-time $500 check.
I'm also going to give those people who don't work for a living, or pay into the system, a $500 check too.
Oh, did I forget to mention.....
Each one of you taxpayers are going to owe the U.S. govt. $10,000 in taxes, once I can get away with asking you all to foot the bill for my stimulus package. (2 years down the line or so.....when we have to become fiscally responsible)
Not what I was referring to...
Anyway, I'm beginning to be sorry I mentioned this. The whole point was that a poster said TWICE that it was easy enough for her to check ISPs to find out who was using multiple monikers in order to find out what was posting as whom, etc. I was just questioning that comment, that's all.
As far as the hacking on the protestwarrior.com website, that is a separate issue from what I was referring to. Someone revealed some folks' personal information on the forum. I wasn't blaming the owners of the website for that.....
Time for me to give this a rest.
LOL! I was referring to
Bush's invasion of Iraq to *spread freedom* (#2 reason after the failed WMD excuse). I'd consider it kind of a *gander invasion* (as in what's good for...). Could you imagine an America where, regardless of wealth, everyone received medical care, nobody starved, everyone had adequate housing? An America that didn't throw its poor to the wolves (or the *waves* of a hurricane, as pointed out below in the areas that Bush included in his Louisiana plan)? An American government that allowed personal freedoms, didn't force one set of religious beliefs down your throat via politics, didn't try to control your personal life/death issues, didn't condemn you to unequal rights and eternal damnation because you love the *wrong* person?
I wouldn't object to living in that kind of America. 
Actually, I was referring to
money/evil as it regards George W. Bush, et al.
The UAE has a very unstable history of *loyalty* to the United States, and I believe allowing this deal to go through is very risky business and completely contrary to the man who said *If you're not with us, you're against us,* who, to me, is now completely against us and in favor of big money. The 9/11 Commission is totally against this deal. But anything to defend Dubya, right?
Let me guess...you *accidentally* posted on the liberal board again, right?
I was actually not referring to you.
You are not the message-syntax-style-similar person.
I was not referring to these 2
individuals exclusively. I said there are those who are able to see a problem from all sides. These are the people who will lead us to peace if we can ever achieve it. As far as liars et al, PULEEZE, take a look at our current Congress, take a look at many of our **ministries.** Take a look at our leaders of industry. Take a look at our professional sports and news people and newspapers.
My point was that one can actually have a viewpoint that is diametrically opposed to yours and still love America, love democracy and disapprove of this administration AND say so out loud. I admire people who can put their personal feelings aside and see incendiary events objectively. I am not able to do that but there are those that can. My post was not a defense of anyone in particular.
I was referring to myself...
the things I have gotten mostly on the C board but some here. I did not say you said any of those things. I just know they have been said to me. I am not championing anyone. I wanted to let Teddy know that she has a place here as does everyone (except if you denigrate W) and some pretty nasty things have been said on both sides. I did not want her to leave because she was, it appeared, standing alone yesterday. The more people are here the better it is.
I don't think that anyone probably deserves some of the rhetoric that appears here and I am amazed at the viciousness sometimes...both sides...but we are representative of a larger picture and that is a good thing.
My apologies, I was not referring to you in any way. I was telling Teddy that I knew how she must feel. It's tough to go it alone sometimes or be the only one on your side (or so it seems). I have been there where I am the only left voice and besides being difficult, it gets really confusing about answering what to who about what. That is all.
This is what I was referring to...
I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.). Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job. Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!
Don't know what you are referring to. nm
nm
I am referring to....
The missionary story told in the "Wow. This is impressive. I agree." post, the point being that there are a multitude of Christian viewpoints, especially when it comes to interpreting the Bible (or any other holy book, for that matter) and reconciling more secular political beliefs.
To whom are you referring?
First, I would like to know exactly to whom you are referring. Second, I would like to know who gave you the power to tell people to go elsewhere? If you are offended by a post or posts, you certainly are free to go elsewhere yourself, but I do not believe you have the right to tell others what to do!
Perhaps she's referring to
A fictional character, John McClane of Die Hard fame. We know she's out of touch with reality.
But why are you referring to....sm
republicans as being rabid tonight? I imagine that term could be used both ways for both parties, but why are you so vehement tonight about only Republicans? Did something happen?
(at least in the posts that I have read...might have missed some, as I don't go back when I've missed a day or so of posts....)
You're usually very level headed, although as you said above on a different post, it sounds like you go right and left on different issues.
And I keep meaning to ask you how your gourd painting is coming along, now that Halloween and fall are upon us. I hope you're having fun with that, as I saw you post on a different board a while back about your hobby....
I was referring to the very same NWO...
...that is the goal of the PNAC that everyone was afraid Bush would cause.
That's what I was referring too....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450445,00.html
The Atheist organizations ran "Why believe in a god" ads in D.C.
I mean if we as Christians can't run ads in secular areas, why should atheists?
By the way, Atheism is becoming a lot like it's own religion nowadays....
That's right - I was referring to him
and should have credited Bubba's name to the quote. Everyone should remember though, Mr. O is not the first black President we've had, according to many Bubba was.
First of all, I was referring to the GOP going . . . .
down the toilet, NOT Fox News. Secondly, the only reason Fox has the highest ratings on non-cable networks is because all the intellligent people are gleaning their information from the more intelligent cable networks. I reckon those people in the boonies can't get those fancy cable stations, and so they are forced to pick between the big 3, and besides, Lamebaugh, Beck, et al, are more to their likin', since birds of a feather (or smaller brains) stick together. So, you all can keep harping on Fox's ratings -- I don't give a rat's behind because I am not impressed (and I am not brainwashed), and I actually have a mind of my own. I think it is disgraceful that they are even allowed to call themselves a news network -- more like hate-inciting network.
If you are referring to me....
I haven't posted anything since January. So I think you may have me confused with someone else. I really just lurk and laugh. Thanks though! 
I think I see now what you're referring to about my post.
I don't find one thing funny about it. I'm outraged about it because blaming anyone BUT the priests is giving a green flag for that behavior to continue.
And I totally agree with you that it's gone on too long, with the church's apparent blessing. They know what these priests are doing, and they just transfer them to another parish so they can continue with a new set of children.
As far as the "headline" comment about my post, see what you mean about it coming up as a "headline" when you log onto this site. I didn't realize it was going to come up that way.
Please rest assured that I'm outraged by all this. Our children in this country are molested and killed every day in what seems to be an epidemic, and nobody is doing anything about it.
OK. But, I wasn't referring to this. That's all I'm trying to say. nm
x
Wasn't referring to you....nm
fdfdf
The 'jokes' I was referring to
were in your previous post. I guess I'm breaking your mold because, while I've never heard AL Franken, I'd break his nose too because what he said in the quote you just provided is hateful. I do not defend one side and slam the other.
Sounds like you are referring to a
certain group of people. Correct me if I have misunderstood. Who are you talking about? The vast majority of conservatives who believe the Bible is divinely inspired support the Constitution and don't want it meddled with. Your observation truly has me confused. 
I know...I was referring to my typo (nm)
xx
I still have no idea to whom you are referring!
Why don't you give specific examples, so I can understand what you are talking about? I am not psychic and truly don't know who you are targeting here. Everyone on the board has the ability to post under whatever name they choose. For example, Sam admitted to posting under the name Indy Observer yesterday. No one knew it was her until she revealed it in one of her posts. Do you have special powers that allow you to know who is posting under various names?
I was referring to the war in Iraq being
a waste. The man who was behind our 09/11 massacre is still at large. We should have put more time, resources in money going after him. Not going after Iraq, but then they had all that great oil. Again, Afghanistan is one thing, Iraq another. Bush and his admin. mislead and lied to everybody saying that Iraq had anything to do with 09/11. So, now we have pumped billions of dollars into an Iraq war when it should have put into getting the man/people would attacked us. So yes, the fact that it is Afghanistan does make the difference IMO.
I shudder to think of all the things the Republicans have done in the 6 years that they had majority that we don't even know about yet. It does not excuse this current fiasco though and as I stated earlier, no I do not overlook what hand the Dems had it in either.
Who are you referring to by "they" ?
I am also a Christian and don't condone any of it either and I think most people probably do not. "they" fear Muslims because all they know of Muslims is the small portion of them who are terrorists. They don't realize it is a peaceful religion. All of these things that were done in the name of religion over centuries were done by radicals one way or the other looking for an excuse. No one's God, not the God we Christians believe in, not the God Muslims believe in, condones killing and hatred. That is something we humans have done all by ourselves.
Which lies are you referring to
Would you please be specific. I understand you are not defending either candidate, but you came on and pretty much said that whatever we wrote were lies, so I would like to know which "lies" are you referring to. I'm sure you're probably referring to the people who wrote about their concerns and posted articles that were against Obama.
I came on this board to read people's "opinions", why someone liked or disliked a candidate and for what reason. Also a lot of excellent links and articles were posted. Some written by lawyers, journalists, etc. People with degrees and who have been studying the economy, foreign affairs, laws, and presidential races for 20 years or more. Are those people lying? They've done their research, and for many of us we posted links to those sources for people to read themselves and make their own determinations as to whether they belive it or not.
What I saw constantly was if it went against Obama people said it was a lie. We posted articles and were told the source is not credible. Then when we posted some from CNN or MSNBC nothing was said. So people gave no reason as to why they were not credible except for the simple fact that it did not praise Obama. They chose to ignore the truth instead.
So as for people "making things up". It all depended on if you were for or against Obama. I never heard one Obama supporter question any of the stuff Obama was saying or doing or his shady background and questionable associations. But the McCain supporters did question him. We did say time and time again we weren't really happy with the republicans choice, but the other was worse.
P.S. - The stuff we post... we do back up with a credible source.
So please tell me which lies you are referring to so we can answer you with credible sources.
This is referring to an off shore rig..... sm
when it talks about taking 20 years to bring one to production. People need to understand that this is from the seismographic investigations until the first drop of crude comes from below the ocean floor.
I am talking about land rigs, and I believe I stated this in my post. I live in an oil and gas rich region of our country and have a very good friend who is a consultant for one of the major drilling companies in the region. When I asked him how long it takes to bring a rig to production, his answer was that it used to take upwards of 6 weeks to 2 months but that they now have the technology to bring one in within 14 days from rig up to rig down. The higher ups in the business push for a figure closer to 10 days. I have watched the oil drilling activity in my area, and I mean physically watched it and not just reading about it in the newspaper, for the last 3 years and have literally counted the days from rig up to rig down several times and it generally does come in at around 10 to 14 days.
I also looked at the front page for your source. Did you? It has Obama written all over it, so any "facts" that are posted there are going to be slanted in his favor to advance his legislation and party. Even the first sentence is an outdated statement. Gas prices have plummetted in the past couple of weeks. It is currently down to below $2 in several towns in my area. My mother's royalty check this month was only 25% of what it had been in previous months.
So, I believe I know my facts pretty well and I don't need Obama's website decrying what Bush did or did not do to substantiate them.
Noooooooooo! I was referring to
when Bush declares martial law.
I wasn't talking about Obama.
If anyone is the antichrist, it's Bush, in my opinion. 
which post are you referring to
specifically? Which one of my posts were lies?
Not referring to you but to Keisha
@@
|
