oops - one paragraph made NO sense of mine..sm
Posted By: Pro-Choice march...I was there as were...sm on 2007-11-15
In Reply to: it was 1973, Union Square Park in NYC.. - Pro-Choice march...I was there as were...sm
That's not to say that they are not entitled to feel what they feel and they are entitled to their opinions/voice..even though I just reread my post and it could be interpreted that way (and sorry for that) -
(above is the corrected paragraph - sorry *lol*)
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
Well, Obama just made an obvious oops!!!
Obama says his tax cuts will help those in poverty get out of poverty........ how so? Those making "poverty" wages DON'T pay taxes.............. like so very many that put him in office. I'm so sick of listening to him give lip service, all the time knowing he's pulling good ones over on the more ignorant of our country!
For those buying homes, if they couldn't afford $8000.00 dollars in the first place, why in the heck are they even being given loans to buy a home with an $8K credit? And please, for those that think this is wonderful, don't even bother to try to glorify this. This is nothing more than giving people who shouldn't have homes in the first place ANOTHER avenue to get a home..... then when they can't pay the actual mortgage, the ones who do pay their mortages will be BAILING THEM OUT AGAIN!!
If you're needing that small amount of money (and yes it is a small amount considering the big picture), you shouldn't be buying a house because you should be able to have saved the down payment in the first place.......... Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Sure it made sense Mrs. M..........
it just brings to light how ignorant a lot of his voters were and still are and the others just voted out of sheer fear of the economy and their jobs. Want to hear some of it for yourself?
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
Made sense?!?
Which part? The part where he supposedly quoted from the Preamble to the Constitution (when what he was actually quoting [and misquoting, I might add] the Declaration of Independence)?
The post made sense to me......just because
a man and woman may not be able to reproduce certainly doesn't mean God intended for those of the same sex to get together. The Bible also speaks to those who can't have children of their own. It does give you a place to go for comfort; the Bible never said every couple would be able to have children of their own. But it most certainly does speak AGAINST homosexuality.
It made lots of sense, and it's something
references to Jesus in Christianity, Judaism (sp)? and Islam. I've often wondered, given the language differences, if they all have more in common than disagree.
oops - made a mistake - the other guy's book was released during the campaign -
I am sorry that I was wrong. Obama's book had already been released.
The first copy obviously sold really well though considering the amount of money they paid him to do the sequel.
You made plenty sense, Marmann.... sm
I hope you feel better soon!
This will be lost on you.....but common sense MADE
x
The last paragraph of
this article is just tooooooo good. I would LOVE to see the Bush supporters actually really "go to Iraq," and for free!!!!
|
Sacrifice? Count Me Out
If You Supported the War, Pay For It
|
by Ted Rall |
|
If America is truly on a war footing," Thom Shanker asks in the New York Times, "why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?" Military recruiters are coming up short of volunteers, yet neither party is pushing for a draft. No one is proposing a tax increase to cover the $60 billion annual cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars. There are no World War II-style war bond drives, no victory gardens, not even gas rationing. Back here in the fatherland, only "support our troops" car ribbons indicate that we're at war--and they aren't even bumper stickers, they're magnetic. Apparently Americans aren't even willing to sacrifice the finish on their automobiles to promote the cause.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," the paper quotes an officer who just returned from a year in rose-petal-paved Iraq. "[Symbolic signs of support are] just not enough," grumbles a brigadier general. "There has to be more," he demands. "The absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel," the general claims.
Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos says: "The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
To which I say: Screw that. It's not my duty to suffer for this pointless war. I've been against it all along, and you can stick your victory garden where the desert sun can't penetrate.
I was among hundreds of thousands of Americans who marched against invading Iraq in early 2003. Tens of millions cheered us on. The largest mass protest movement in history (so designated by the Guinness Book of World Records) brought together pacifists, humanists and people like me. We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't believe that the same White House that propped up dictatorships in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia--that had, when it suited them, supported Saddam--could possibly be interested in liberating the people of Iraq. When we scrutinized coverage of the CIA's prewar analyses, we found that there wasn't any. There were only reports dating back to 1998, ancient history in the intelligence business. We absolutely didn't trust Dick "cakewalk" Cheney's breezy predictions.
Bush and Cheney ignored our concerns. Instead of building a solid case and bipartisan political consensus, they bullied and lied to Congress and the UN to scam us into this unwinnable war. Who can blame them? They work for ExxonMobil and Halliburton, not the American people. But they, not us, broke Iraq. It can't be fixed, it's not our fault and it's not our problem. There's no reason to relinquish our creature comforts to back their grubby little oil grab.
The most galling aspect of this fiasco is that it was entirely predictable. I know; I predicted it. Here's my column written back in July 2002:
"Most experts expect Iraq to disintegrate into civil war after an overthrow of Saddam's oppressive Ba'ath Party," I wrote. "Opinion of the United States is now at an all-time low among Muslims around the world. Going after Iraq will make matters worse. Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?"
I'm no genius, but even I could see that this war was doomed eight months before the invasion:
"Do the Kurds deserve a homeland? Sure. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Probably. But if we're smart, we won't be the ones to blow over this particular house of cards. We have too much to lose and too little to gain in the mess that would certainly ensue."
Did I call that one or what?
David Hendrickson, a scholar at Colorado College, tells the Times: "Bush understands that the support of the public for war--especially the war in Iraq--is conditioned on demanding little of the public." Of course, Bush himself hasn't given up a second of vacation or a single donated dollar, much less one of his hard-partying daughters, to the "war effort." Sacrifice is a hard sell down here among the citizenry when we don't see it starting where it should start, among our leaders.
I'm already sacrificing too much for a war I always believed was stupid and wrong. I'm paying three dollars a gallon for buck-fifty gas and walking through gauntlets of over-armed National Guardboys at airports and bus stations. I'm in greater danger than ever before of getting blown up by a pissed-off fanatic. And I dread the giant tax hike we'll eventually need to pay off Bush's deficit. But these aren't enough sacrifices for Bush and his vainglorious generals, who are planning "a Civilian Reserve, a sort of Peace Corps for professionals. . . a program to seek commitments from bankers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, plumbers and solid-waste disposal experts to deploy to conflict zones for months at a time on reconstruction assignments, to relieve pressure on the military."
If you voted for Bush, here's your chance to plant your butt where your ridiculous car magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni Triangle. Good luck.
© 2005 Ted Rall
### |
|
Might we see the whole paragraph?
context, you know, to make a valid decision?
The last paragraph.
Now I know Emanuel is chief of staff and why obama picked him, makes sense.
I agree with the last paragraph, as well.
This is definitely a campaign against the First Amendment, and I believe Bush will do whatever he can to silence people who either disagree with him or who catch him in lies (a full-time job in and of itself).
Bob Geiger - see 2nd paragraph
The last paragraph is why I posted it.
I am not at all convinced that the issue of abortion is a liberal or conservative stance. I think it tends to be tied to conservative because of its religious roots, but even that is debatable. Women throughout history regardless of religion have been having abortions. I believe it simply to be your own belief that really should not be attached to a political process.
As war is always a political process, the comparison isn't really fair is it? and I really, really hope that you are not referring to the war on Iraq because there is just too much refuting evidence to continue to believe we were justified in invading Iraq in the guise that we were defending ourselves.
How can you be pro-choice in the voice of war knowing that the very nature of it kills more people than abortion ever could? Just the war in Iraq alone has probably killed more people than the abortions in the United States in the past 100 years.
Makes no sense to me.
Ho hum, lost me after second paragraph
x
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
I like this paragraph in your post....
'For the most part I will find people who live in other countries and are observing what is going on here to be a lot more credible because they do not have an agenda.'
Right, and they are more objective as they are far away from it all.
you should forward that last paragraph
to the White House where they seem to think terrorists can be rational and reasoned with and will play nice with us.
In one paragraph you have not only told me more than I ever wanted to know.
You have outlined and described in perfect detail the problem with why your arguments can never be recognized as anything but dividing. Gt, believe me, this is not all about you, which it always seems to end up being about in your posts. The fact that you refuse, not fail, but refuse to accept anything, any explanation, any single example of the image you project as well as your close-minedness, is illustrated in every post that you make.
I agree with the assessment in the last paragraph.sm
They will use kiddie porn and so-called domestic terrorism to limit our use of the Internet. Everything is greatly exaggerated to induce fear, and then you will allow them to slice up more of your liberties.
Yes, and regarding that final paragraph re: Iran
Seymour Hersh has yet to get it wrong, no matter how much the King George and his men attack.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Here's your answer, 1st paragraph, 2nd line.
...Parade Magazine ASKED the President-elect, who is also a devoted family man, to get personal and tell us what he wants for his children.
He didn't take out an ad in the newspaper. He simply answered a simple question posed to him by a reporter on assignment. If you had taken the time to read more carefully and weren't in such a hurry to slam the man, you might have noticed that.
There was nothing superficial about his response. In fact, the only superficial thing around here is your post.
That would be great but one paragraph has me a bit leary.
"The announcement comes less than a month after the world's largest maker of microprocessors used in personal computers said it would close plants in Southeast Asia and scale back U.S. operations under a restructuring that affects as many as 6,000 employees."
What do they know? Are they afraid O is going to put extra taxes on businesses that do business overseas (which I hope), or are they being smart? Sorry if my sarcasm shows, but this will still affect 6,000 jobs in the U.S.? Why? Need to do some digging here.
The paragraph about early retirement
That's where DH is. Forced to retire because of no work (road construction). The stimulus money went to 2 cities in my state. The rest of the state got nothing towards road construction or very little.
We didn't get last year's stimulus check because we owed taxes and they put the money towards that. Now he's getting screwed out of the $250 because he wasn't retired when this happened. Never fails.
Remember that cartoon of the guy always under the grey cloud? That's us. 
Your last paragraph is absolutely correct.
The UN is definitely weak. It could be because of some of the countries that belong to it have the same ideas as Iran and NK.
I wonder when the UN is going to pay up on their lease for the NY building they occupy. Probably never because they think they are above reproach.
Once again you wasted a whole paragraph telling me how stupid I am SM
without a SINGLE FACT! I give up with you. You are just too much (or too little). Whateva!
Your 2nd paragraph is complete and utter nonsense. sm
You wrote: 'Besides, a lot of atheists who try to disprove that God ever existed will usually come to the conclusion that there is too much evidence to prove that He does exist. It usually scares the you know what out of them and they become converts.'
And you know this how? I would say show me the evidence to back up this ridiculous claim, but I already know you have none. It's your opinion/religious propaganda, and it's blantantly false. You also have it backwards. You're implying people start out being athiest, then convert to religion. It's the other way around, when religious or secular people start questioning all the improbable/impossible things the bible is overflowing with, in addition to all of its inconsistenties and outright contradictions.
Forgive me if I doubt that you're an expert on athiests, and forgive me if I doubt your critical thinking skills, because religion frowns upon that - you're not supposed to question god or think for yourself, just obey his commands, or should I say, various human interpretations of his commands...
If there was indeed
'too much evidence to prove that He does exist' then everyone would believe in him. How could anyone deny it? They couldn't. But that's just it, there is no evidence to prove it, whereas there actually IS scientific evidence to the contrary, that you apparently are unaware of or haven't investigated.
Instead, you're willing to believe something based only on 'faith.' In every other area of your life where you'd want or even *demand* facts, proof, or concrete evidence before believing something so important, with religion (some) people are all too willing to blindly accept it on faith.
BTW, an athiest doesn't have to DISprove god (you can't prove a negative, anyway), you have to prove that he *does* exist, and you can't. And wouldn't you think if he really existed, he would prove it to the entire world's satisfaction anyway and put an end to the debate and all the relious wars, conflict, genocide, misery, suffering, etc? He'd rather we kill each over it? I think not. It makes no sense.
You also wrote: 'You can say all you want, but you just can't argue with a completely changed life'
Yes, I can argue it. You changed your life because *you* wanted to change it. You! Not some mystical, magical, invisible being in the sky who cares about your every thought and action. People change their lives for the better every day, without religion. IMO, if you hadn't found religion, you would've kept looking until you found something else that worked for you, and it probably would've been a lot healthier than the brainwashing, closed-minded, divisive phenomenon that is religion.
a spokesman for M/P issued the last paragraph so not sure how reliable
that would be. Odd how they added it at the end but did not say if it was a fact. It was supposed to be an investigative article. There is no way of knowing if that is fact, it is only what the McCain people say is true.
Cannot trust anyone it seems.
This paragraph is in my post...I guess you forgot to read it...nm
Actualy, my cut-and-past job didn't miss the first paragraph
but appreciate your selective reading. Nice name, BTW.
So has mine. nm
x
Mine too
I was seriously bummed when he left the race. I really think he could have shaken up the party and turned Washington around. Oh well, guess we'll never know.
so are mine nm
nm
So were mine
I get aggravated too when people lie or use eloquent words to gloss over the real issue.
Neither are mine
x
None of mine
have either. I usually lurk but I enjoy a good debate and intelligent conversation.
And clearly, neither did mine...
we are still spending money that doesn't exist to try to spend ourselves out of debt. But are you serious that everyone supports the troops? Have you not seen people protesting at military funerals? Or how about the people who stood outside our base with signs that said that all military men are terrorists who only want to murder helpless children. Whether or not you personally know them, there are people who are not behind troops. Take a look at the person who said they die for "no reason." Heaven forbid that my husband does not make it home from Iraq, God help anyone who has the audacity to say to my face that it was for nothing!
Unfortunately, not in mine......
nm
SP said it, too. In the post above mine. :) NM
..
and you keep making mine
So if something is amiss in the word you don't try to fix it at all you just hope that it goes away?
Would you rather deal with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas before they get nukes or after? Should we have let Saddam get nukes too?
This whole *Bush was too preoccupied with Iraq to deal with this situation* the Dems are crying is bull. Just like everything else they say in fact. This situation has been ongoing for years. The cease fires so touted by Madeline Albright and Clinton have never been true cease fires. This is a conflict that has been going on ever since there were Jews and Arabs. This is one situation you cannot historically place the blame on Bush. Doesn't hold water. So, if you are so concerned about our President supposedly not knowing history or geographics then I suggest you do some studying of your own, because your history and your perception of it is a little skewed itself.
so was mine, but I guess
the recipient didn't get it . . . .
It's their own words, not yours or mine. nm
Sam, you give closed-minded people way too much of your time! Oh well. It's your call.
They may be off your radar, not mine...
nm
and I base mine on
available information .... don't just pull them out of my bellybutton.
In your world....thank God not in mine. nm
nm
Mine is nm, stopping using that too.
nm
I have a friend of mine who has a
few nieces who are biracial and they are absolutely beautiful kids. I think some of the cutest kids are "oreos."
Your words, not mine.
Got it?
Her message....not mine..(sm)
"If there is an open door in 2012 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plough through that door," Mrs Palin said.
All indictations, from what I see, are that Palin is going to run for Prez in 2012. I would guess that this means the pubs are going even farther to the right.
Mine's 148, and I'm just "Joe MT".
and you missed mine...
All I meant was she wasn't judging her on her LOOKS, but I believe how she looks at people. does that make sense? She is a beautiful woman and she does love her family, that is great. But I believe the poster was relating her personality... which some find abrasive and a little rude and "above" others you know? you dont see it that way, but some do. that's all. personally i have no opinion of her i dont know enough.
|
