oops...first sentence posted twice by accident.
Posted By: NM on 2009-02-27
In Reply to: DEA to halt medical marijuana raids. - Libby
:)
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Reply posted above this by accident.
x
Spoken by someone who posted about Laura Bush's accident about 40 years ago. sm
But I guess we were supposed to forget about that, too?
oops, ignore the last partial sentence....nm
Oops. I posted in the wrong place above, but here it is again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/12/video-jon-stewart-bush_n_29247.html
Oops. This should be posted under "Thre was a truce."
Sorry.
oops, I posted with the wrong name - just me did not type the above - it was in response to just me
x
Your first sentence says it
It's a question of who is shouldering the burden. Well apparently you're a billionaire,'cause I know many hardworking, responsible, professional middle-class people (no one looking for a handout)working pretty darn hard just to stay afloat...people with degrees who are delivering pizza. Our local food pantries can't keep up with the demand and this was before Katrina. There are Meals on Wheels volunteers, who pay for their own gas, have had to stop because they simply can't afford it. And the meals that WERE being delivered weren't even hot, because THAT was cut back. Go, good for you on your shiny throne passing judgement on who is or isn't looking for a hand-out, but I can tell you that even with every kind of insurance and adequate income, I pray my husband or I don't get sick or have some unforeseen catastrophy, because in many cases that is all it takes.
You said it all in one sentence...
Hindsight IS 20/20, something Democrats tend to forget. The pre war intelligence was very ominous, and it was international intelligence, not just ours. If an attack had come our way which was then traced to Iraq, you would have placed the blame squarely on the back of GWB. Of course, now that we have hindsight, he's blamed for the war being not worth it, wrong war, ad nauseum. Apply a little logic and you can see that it's a no-win situation. I believe the man did what he had to do, AT THE TIME. You can't play Monday morning quarterback. The prominent Democrats were all on the same page before the war, just read some of their quotes.
I think the last sentence says it all..sm
Either way, even if you believe McCain's health plan is a train wreck and that none of his math adds up, he proposes to fix that with Medicare savings, not with $882 billion worth of "cuts."
Tell me what the difference is, one says medicare savings and one says medicare cuts. Both mean less money for medicare, no? Semantics on both sides I think.
We can sum all of the above in one sentence:
LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!
me neither......Your sentence that
I quoted in my former post reminded me so much of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, therefore I swerved away from the issue at hand.
Ahmadinejad should step down and give his position to Mousavi. Same with Khatami.
On what are you? In your last sentence
of your post you contradict what you wrote in your subject line!
Hahahaha! LMAO !
You are a joke, 'Backward typist,' are you really .....?
Confused or imbibed?
Your last sentence tells it all
Your last sentence concerning ammo, in my opinion, sums up your beliefs, i.e., republicans, versus democrats. Everything to you righties is fight time, attack time, war time whereas we lefties post something for people to read or debate, not to fight. I cant speak for all, but I believe negotiating, talking out problems, trying to understand each other works better than slinging insults, attacks, and using ammo. A nonpartisian person reading these posts would be able to see, the attacks more often than not are from the right wingers.
I do believe that the last sentence is especially true.
Isn't it amazing. So many here with ties to Vietnam veterans and so many differing viewpoints. Nearly every male in my family has served in the Armed Forces and this down to third cousins. Many of them served in Vietnam. Every one of them has bad feelings towards the peace movement in the 60s and 70s.
I will finish your sentence. sm
an impossible thing for YOU.
regarding your list sentence
your body might not be there anymore.
is there a subj in that sentence?
just does not make sense. Please proofread what you post so you don't look illiterate.
I just went to the link and the first sentence
states it was from January. I am not even sure he is saying rates will skyrocket, but that will be the argument against his plan to cap greenhouse gases and retrofitting.
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
ADD time. The end of that sentence should be
shares in the responsibility at this point.
Don't need to explain to you, you explained yourself in your last sentence.
t
Thanks for the post. I was especially impressed by the last sentence...
of the article. At least they showed both sides (good for them), albeit three paragraphs on Palin and 1 line on Obama. Big sentence tho.
Can't ge past the ignorance of the first sentence here.
the constitution is not a static document and is, in fact, a living, dynamic, changing, vital document. To wrap you brain around this concept, consider this. The orignal Constitution contained 10 amendments. Amendments 11 through 27 commenced over time as such: 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913x2, 1919, 1920, 1933x2, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.
There. You see? The (progressive) authors of the constitution in their wisdom provided the mechanism of amendement, that would allow for change and growth. That makes it a living, breathing, dynamic document. Got it?
Next time you try to interpret Obama's book, watch your step.
That last sentence just didn't EVEN sound right! sm
And I think the missing sheep brains is the main thing in this picture.
Did you forget to finish our sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Did you forget to finish your sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...
... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people.
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough. 
Interesting sentence construction.
I would have gone with the adjective ''grammatical'' to modify the noun ''mistakes'' rather than using the noun ''grammar'' to modify another noun, or perhaps ''bad mistakes in grammar.'' Then again, I might have linked ''bad-grammar'' as a compound modifier, but then that's just me (as well most who are truly English literate.)
The last sentence is particularly worrisome for Michigan.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804053.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Senate's Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama's 'Public Option'
By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 19, 2009
A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation's health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking.
The document, distributed among members of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday afternoon, addressed none of the funding questions that have consumed House and Senate negotiators in recent days. But it included an array of coverage provisions that were drastically scaled back from earlier versions, as lawmakers seek to shrink the bill's overall cost. The proposal, for instance, would reduce the pool of middle-class beneficiaries eligible for a new tax credit meant to make insurance more affordable.
The absence of a "public option" marks perhaps the most significant omission. Obama and many Democrats had sought a public option to ensure affordable, universal coverage, but as many as 10 Senate Democrats have protested the idea as unfair to private insurers. In its place, the draft circulated yesterday outlines a co-op approach modeled after rural electricity and telecom providers, subject to government oversight and funded with federal seed money.
Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with four Republicans, including Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking GOP member on the panel, along with two Democratic colleagues in an attempt to find bipartisan consensus. Baucus dubbed the group "the coalition of the willing."
Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats are exploring a range of funding options, including a surtax on the rich and an increase in the payroll tax imposed on all U.S. workers. The list also includes new taxes on sugary drinks and alcohol, along with broader levies, such as a national value-added tax of up to 3 percent.
The Senate's preferred option -- taxing the health benefits that millions of Americans receive through their employers -- is also on the House list. So is Obama's favorite idea: limiting the value of itemized deductions for the nation's wealthiest 3 million taxpayers.
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee charged with developing a financing plan, said lawmakers have not "embraced any particular source of revenue." But he confirmed that big, broad-based taxes like the payroll tax and a value-added tax are under discussion, mainly because they have the potential to raise "a lot of money" for an expansion of health coverage expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
The House will not unveil a financing plan until after the July 4 recess, Neal said, though House leaders were expected to release an outline of the rest of their plan today, with a goal of putting a bill to vote later this summer. The Senate is aiming to debate its legislation in July as well, and is seeking a bill that would cost less than $1 trillion.
Maintaining that tight schedule could prove difficult, though, because daunting issues remain in both chambers. One area of contention is the extent to which private employers must subsidize public coverage for their workers if the companies don't offer their own plan or if the premiums are unaffordable. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if lawmakers don't find the right formula, employees may flee their company plans for federal coverage, sending government costs soaring.
The draft in the Senate committee spells out one possible solution: It would require employers to pay 50 percent of Medicaid costs for workers enrolled in the low-income program and 100 percent of the cost of health-insurance tax credits for eligible employees. Workers could forfeit employer coverage only if the cost exceeds 12.5 percent of their income.
The draft, earlier reported on by washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein, spells out four options for requiring employers to provide coverage, with exemptions for firms with up to 200 employees. It would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage, though certain groups, including Native Americans and undocumented workers, would be exempted.
It also would loosen eligibility requirements for Medicaid, a proposal certain to alarm many governors who are grappling with budget crises.
Proves you don't read anything..Says in the 1st sentence he is Gov. Lynch of
x
Did you just use the name Rush and the word honesty in the same sentence? (sm)
Limbaugh lied about 9-11 Commission report
Limbaugh falsely claimed "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks
Limbaugh misrepresented Duelfer report on Iraqi WMDs
Limbaugh lied about AIDS
Limbaugh overstated the minimum wage
Limbaugh made false claims about the Democratic National Convention
Limbaugh distorted the Kyoto Protocol
Limbaugh falsely accused Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Limbaugh claimed Clintons are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Limbaugh lied to defend Swift Boat Vets
Limbaugh misstated Pew report on journalists
Limbaugh mischaracterized the federal deficit
Limbaugh misstated federal education spending
Limbaugh lied about Bush's false uranium claim
And that isn't even the tip of the iceburg for him. And by the way, what's with the *he owns his problems* junk? Does that mean that since he admits he's a drug addict then he's not a bad drug addict? Give me a break.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
Haha! I so agree, she summed it up in 1 sentence, there is nothing more to say!..nm
nm
That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to
But that's no surprise. There was one sentence in those two paragraphs about how the crats always blame the pubs, but they never take responsibility and blame the people in their own party who are at fault too. So you take one sentence out of the whole two paragraphs and say that's what the whole message was about. Nice try. My message was about this admistration so far being a disaster in less than one month. The only ones who see it okay are the kool-aid drinkers, and that I'm sick of all the people acting as though there was never a United States until Obama came along. Since you evidently did not read my message I'll repeat it now.
American has been around for over 200 years. We've had some good presidents and we've had some bad presidents, but Obama did not discover a new country here.
Since McCain was not elected nobody can say whether or not he would have been a better president or not, so time to put that dog to rest.
In the last sentence of her post she retracts what she said in her subject line, lol!..nm
nm
Your first sentence really shows was a mean hate filled shallow person you are.
Too bad McCain can't form a sentence w/o gagging, slurring, making faces
That is his problem. Obama is eloquent... oh well
Oh MM, oops, I mean gt. SM
I think you have enough hate for the whole world. I'll leave that to you.
Oops!
I see they also accused you of being me (and/or others) in your more current posts using the ?? moniker. In reading your posts there, it was obvious you were sincerely looking for debate, and all you did was ask intelligent questions that should have led to an intelligent debate. Instead it lead to more personal attacks and name calling, without EVER once addressing the ISSUE you were attempting to address. I'm sorry you were treated so badly there. You did nothing to deserve their wrath, other than act like a normal respectful human being with valid questions, and they have little tolerance for people like that.
If you search further down on this board, you'll see where I attempted to debate one of them here well over a month ago. The person, who I was fooled into believing was sincere about being here to debate, clearly didn't have any responses, though she promised to respond later and never did. She had the golden opportunity to add something of value and continue the debate process I had begun, but she chose to ignore that and I suppose found more pleasure in insulting others, adding nothing of substance or value to this board, as they constantly do to their own board.
They constantly accuse liberals on this board of being heinous people, their most favorite accusation seeming to be how hateful we all are, yet I think they honestly don't realize how hateful they come across constantly. Or maybe they do. Who knows? 
Oops, try this one.sm
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/disowning-conservative-politics-is/20060729195809990005?ncid=NWS00010000000001
oops
that would be though they are all bad
Little Dem oops...
Y'know how the Democrats were so opposed to McCain's proposed holiday from the gas tax while gas was so high? Welllll....seems the Dem Nat'l Committee has not only been enjoying tax-free gas in Denver (site of convention), they have been getting it totally free on the front end because there is no signed contract in place to pay for the gas used (even it is tax free), they basically told the Denver mayor they were "good for it." Well, guess they can borrow from Barack if they get in a pinch...lol. The Mayor is the one who offered gas tax free...and seems the state of Colorado has taken exception to that, and the state revenue dept launched an investigation because that is a no-no...the state did not agree to wave the gas tax, and why did the Dems Natl Committee even agree to that when they had been totally against it for the rest of us out here struggling, even for a little gas tax holiday. LOL. Sooo typical. Do as we SAY America, NOT as we DO. Unnnbelievable. LOL. When asked about it, the mayor replied, obviously before having checked with the St. Paul people..."The Republicans are doing the same thing in St. Paul!" Well, number one, they aren't; but even if they were, that somehow makes it right? LOL. The Republicans were FOR a gas tax holiday. The Dems were against it. Well...except the Dem Natl Committee it seems. Heard a local Denver radio show talking about it. Seems not all Denverites, Dem and Repub alike, are impressed with this decision...go figure.
Oops. sm
I did research it...
His wife outed him.
Obama used the roundtable audience, as she did yesterday, to describe her husband's understanding of women's issues through the prism of the strong -- but sometimes struggling -- women in his life.
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him." And, Obama added, he has observed his wife's attempts to reconcile motherhood with her career aspirations.
"He sees me, his wife, who struggles every day with that guilt that we all hold deep in our hearts as women," she said. "That guilt that you don't have the choice to stay home, and even if you do, you feel guilty."
"He has seen me struggle with this my entire life," she added. "Trust me, Barack understands the struggles of women."
Exactly diametrically opposite from things that have been posted here today.
I don't think Sarah Palin, OR Barack Obama's mother, deserve this kind of criticism.
Oops! nm
nm
oops
the one who received the disability within two months.... was "HEARING VOICES" .... whatever.... if you ask me, the only voice he has never heard was the one telling him to continue to be lazy and work the system.
Oops. (sm)
Sorry. Didn't see that. 
Oops. big bad me
I made a <gasp> typo! OMG I am the scourge of humanity. No as a matter of fact I did not write in Nader. Guess again.
Oops, message above
OOPS, THAT SHOULD BE REPUBLICAN!!! SORRY!!
XX
Oops,sorry about the typo. I should know better sm
after 25 years as an MT. 20 lashes with a wet noodle.
Oops, thought I was in the U.S.!!
And I guess peace ain't as popular as it used to be.....seems to be a really dirty word on this board.
Oops, please reverse the above!
nm
|
