part of that comment is correct.......
Posted By: sm on 2008-10-06
In Reply to: I'm so glas my mind isn't hopelessly clogged up - with all that religious voodoo.
God gives us life and what we do with it is up to us....it's called "free will". We can either make good decisions or bad and sometimes we do both, but it's up to us to know the difference and correct it. Somehow you are of the belief that God does our thinking for us.
Just like some believe we derive from apes, climbed around in trees and one day came down and were man and woman. Okay, well, my argument with that would be if that were so, why are monkeys still having monkeys and not HUMANS?
It does take faith to believe in things unseen, but that is what is asked of us. What I have realized is that those who so harshly try to debunk God can't, but if you suggest they question God and ask Him to prove himself, they got a million reasons why they won't. They can but just won't. What are they afraid of? After all, if there's nothing there, then what you afraid of?
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
only part saved was the ignorant part
You can read the whole article. This quote was saved to show what she said that was so stupid.
Comment on Bush comment
I heard Bush this morning saying that no one predicted or knew that the New Orleans levees would give way. Well, that is not true. This was widely predicted by engineers and meteologists. The engineers predicted it for years if/when a major hurricaine hit, as well as engineers and meteorologists predicting this 1-2 days before Katrina. I even told my boyfriend last Sunday night that they were predicting some levees would break, that New Orleans would be in water the same depth as Lake Pontchartrain and that thousands could die. Gee, guess I should be a White House advisor.
My other gripe is that this federal response seems a bit slow. Like maybe Monday afternoon things should have been put into motion instead of......Thursday? But then, I'm sure not an expert.
too ignorant a comment to comment on...nm
nm
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it? Certainly if she didn't McCain would have. Why do you suppose THEY let it go? Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that. As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together. Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US. Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people. I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage. Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)
If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims. And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything. But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.
You may be correct that not all
However, I think most of Europe was happy we prevented them from all becoming German speakers - twice - how quickly they forget. The victims of genocidal nutjobs in Bosnia and Kosovo were pretty glad to see us. Kuwait was pretty grateful we kept Hussein from annexing their country. I believe the majority of Iraquis are delighted to be rid of him and his mistreatment and genocide of his own citizens.
Like it or not, the US has been in the business of subduing bullies since the turn of the last century. And when we don't step in, we're treated as though we're committing the atrocities ourselves. Why didn't we get involved? Because we don't like the victims? Because we have no economic or strategic interest in the region? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
The citizens of North Korea might be very appreciative to be relieved of their own little megalomaniac, who starves his people in order to fund missile parades. Obama feels we do not have the right to decide who has nuclear weapons and who does not, so we'll probably never find out how the North Korean people feel, until KJI lobs a missile right at us.
And when there is a disease outbreak, a famine, hurricane, an earthquake or a tsunami anywhere in the world, who is the first to offer assistance? Like Ghostbusters: Who ya gonna call? And we are expected to step up and take care of it.
I think other countries are starting to suspect that their calls will begin to go unanswered. Certainly, voluntary charitable donations will be reduced in the US, and with a $7 trillion (that's a 7 with 12 zeros) US budget deficit, they might be getting the ideal they are on their own now.
That is correct....(sm)
and I understand exactly what you're saying, and yes, the same thing might happen, but I just don't think it will. This retaliation that you talked about was in the face of what the middle east saw as an endless war/occupation. That's not the case now. They aren't facing Bush now (in their eyes a war monger). They are facing a guy that is willing to work with the people, is coming clean about previous actions involving the middle east, and who is keeping Israel at bay. It's not that I think Obama is that wonderful, it's that the circumstances are that different.
Something else....everyone (including those in the middle east) already know there are more pics. It's not like that's been kept a secret. Granted, for some it may be worse to actually see the pics than to just know they are there, but I think if there was going to be another retaliation it would have already happened just from the knowledge that they are there.
Comment
Why did you choose the Hilter comparison?
Here is what I saw in Hitler:
1. Megalomania - yes, possibly in Bush.
2. Skillful use of the propaganda of hate to unite a nation and incite a lust for war. Blaming of select ethnic group for Germany's woes -- yes, I see some similarity there, but Bush seems more like "oops, sorry I accidentlly killed you" to the Iraquis (Islam nations) rather than "I will place you in concentration camps until you are all exterminated."
3. Hitler was mentally ill but still capable of great, inspirational speeches and inspiring confidence in the masses -- Bush is kind of dopey and I'm not sure who he inspires, really, if much of anyone.
4. Hitler seemed to have an agenda to exterminate -- as mentioned, I don't see that in Bush.
Well, I had fun with this. WWII is an area that I know quite a bit about.
Comment
Did gt actually say there were NO socialist Jews? I took her to mean that Jews in general should not be categorized as socialists. There are probably socialist Irish, socialist Catholics, socialist African-Americans....but that doesn't mean you label the entire ethnic group as such. Common sense would dictate this. Just as I keep saying, you cannot label all liberals or all democrats as having the same ideals and belief systems. You seem to keep trying to put square pegs in round holes here....or, as also has been mentioned...thinking only in black and white when the world and all its people are shades of gray. It makes me very sad to see this and I end up feeling hopeless about the future of our country and of the world.
As far as Chomsky, I haven't read tons of his writing but what I did read a few years ago I very much liked. Could it be a case of you taking some things he wrote out of context? Or perhaps some things he wrote were more fiery or radical than you were comfortable with? Perhaps you didn't survey his writings as a whole and only picked out a few you didn't like. When you make an accusation as you did, please provide examples to back up your comments.
Your comment...
I think I do your understand your point....basically you are saying his comment was taken out of context? It did seem that what I read of this quote was more that he was careless in his comments - they touched a nerve, as I said. It seemed he was looking at a cultural problem from a tongue-in-cheek statistical line of reasoning, and perhaps spoke before thinking. At least, I HOPE that's all it was. I have not read this all that carefully, I must admit. I also admit I know NOTHING about him personally or his past.
Thanks for your intelligent commentary.
Comment
Obviously your beliefs bring you solace and comfort and that is a benefit that religion offers, in my opinion, and that is very good if it helps you.
However, perhaps you should not generalize. I was a hospice worker as well as watching my mother die from cancer. She was a life-long agnostic and I don't believe it ever even crossed her mind to call out to Jesus or Zeus or any other deity. She made the most graceful exit from this world I have ever seen and was at peace with that process.
I do agree though that in times of extreme stress many folks may want to enlist the aid of a higher power, but please don't assume that we all turn to Jesus.
Just a comment
Does this apply to anyone who helps a specific region? That would certainly limit a lot of programs that target specific groups of the poor. So when President Johnson launched his War on Poverty targeting Appalachia he should have been required to live there? I am just so happy to see interest and help provided for the most downtrodden sectors of our society (as well as worldwide) that I can see no good reason to require that the folks contributing have to change their place of residence.
Had to comment
The story about your prescriptions rings so true! My insurance company sends me these little papers after every x-ray, lab test, etc. that outlines what I paid, what they paid, and whether or not the price was reduced. I had blood tests that I was initially told cost $1,150. (I almost passed out!) After a few months of arguing with the insurance company and the lab, I get one of these little papers that says my $1,150 bill was knocked down to $150 - without my insurance paying anything. The lab went ahead and reduced the price since my insurance was obviously not going to pay for it. I've had this done with hospital bills, too. I just love looking at those numbers. Someone is making a HUGE profit somewhere for them to be able to cut the price down that much. Kinda like when I worked in retail and I got to see the difference between what the store paid to the manufacturer and what the price tag said. Sometimes I'd almost rather not know...
Just another comment
I've been watching all stations of the news. I'm not voting for Obama. I don't trust him. I also don't trust McCain and not voting for him. I'm sure I will write in someone's name. With that said I have seen no "love fest" with Obama (watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX). I'm not seeing this "love fest", however it was so obvious with Clinton. It was so obvious and so nauseating that I always had a bucket nearby to retch in.
As for McCain..who is saying that he is supposed to "hide" the fact that he was tortured. I've never heard that on any station. However, McCain keeps playing it over and over and over. This is not the Vietnam war and I don't care what anyone says...just because he was tortured doesn't make him qualified to be President. What makes some qualified is having your "faculties" together. Know what country you are talking about and know what's going on with the countries. DH and I were looking at each other funny when he's talking about Iran and says the Israeli people and vice versa. He doesn't know where the Taliban are, and for sure he has no idea or plans to get this country back on its feet. He is a war mongerer and that's all he's planning for. If its not one country he'll start up a war somewhere else. It's what he thrives on.
As for September 11th - the truth will come out one day and people will be shocked and in denial.
First of all, i appreciate very much your comment...
about her daughter.
That being said...there are women in high places who have young children. I do not think that precludes Sarah Palin from serving. She has been managing as governor, including firing the state chef because she wanted to cook for her own kids.
JFK had young children. Both John and Caroline were very young. Jackie did a fine job raising them. They were/are fine young people.
the difference is that Sarah is VP, not president, and her husband will be taking a larger role. There are a lot of husbands who stay at home more to take care of children because of the wife's career. I don't remember how old amy carter was...13 maybe?
At any rate, that is not an issue for me. Those children seem happy and well adjusted after their mom being a mayor and then a governor, and I have no reason to believe they will suffer if she is VP.
I think that just brings her closer to understanding career women, who can have both without excluding the other. I think that makes her closer to mothers, period. She understands.
But that is just my opinion...and you are certainly entitled to yours.
Just a comment
Having offspring is not the only reason to get married as your post suggests (not saying it says that, just saying it "suggests" that). You said "If same-gender marriage was to be then where would there be offspring". There are a lot of man/women couples who cannot have children (like me), should that have stopped us from getting married? Loving a person and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them and share the same rights every other human being get to have should be the basis for a marriage. Just leave the offspring to couples who can have kids. The world will still be fruitful and multiple.
Well, my comment on that is ---
If you don't believe in abortion and you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't get an abortion and don't get married to a gay person, and you will still get to pay less taxes!
Thanks for your comment..nm
nm
Comment
(Basically, Russia wants to be able to trust the USA again but is deploying "short-range missiles near Poland to counter U.S. military plans in Eastern Europe" in response to Bush's missile placement in Poland and the Czech Republic.)
From:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081105/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_medvedev
After the speech, the Kremlin announced Medvedev had congratulated Obama for winning the U.S. presidency, saying in a telegram he was "counting on a constructive dialogue with you on the basis of trust and taking each other's interests into account."
So, no comment on JTP?
x
I think we both know better so why should your comment
))
Thanks. I appreciate this comment.
I was beginning to think I was hallucinating hate speech after hours and hours of defending the other side of the coin. Guess that means I should pack it in for the night. After all, the Israelis will still be attacking Gaza in the morning and I guess it wouldn't hurt to say a few prayers, begging for mercy and hoping the gound invasion will not take place.
My comment is to anyone
who lived that carefree, don't worry about tomorrow attitude that got them in the situation they are in now. Who in their right mind would agree to an interest-only mortgage, an ARM, or any other harebrained idea to own a home. I am more irritated with the ones who knew they made $50,000 a year and bought a $300,000 home and can now plead stupid and irresponsible and the gov't will bend over backwards to help them out. I am sick and tired of my money going to those who have no clue as to how to manage money, can't better themselves without the gov't helping out, and just plain expect someone else to pay for their mistakes. Believe me, I am tender hearted, feel for the children, etc, I don't want to see anyone lose their home but for cryin' out loud, take some responsibility and quit blaming the lenders; they did not FORCE people to buy homes. Sure, they made an attractive offer, but that does not preclude common sense going right out the window just because you want something. Shelter is a right; owning a home is a privilege when you can afford it.
no comment.....nm
nm
Yes, you're completely correct. So we should do nothing to
only answer is hop around the globe, play eenie, meenie, miney, moe and choose another sovereign country to invade.
It didn't happen here.....yet. But every single terrorism expert believes it's not a matter of if but a matter of WHEN. And Bush is helping them by not protecting us satisfactorily and by providing THEM with OTJ training in Iraq.
Yes, I think I'm beginning to "get" it.
As far as what I feel about Conservatives, I've voted Republican a number of times in my life, so don't tell me what I think because you haven't a clue. I vote for the candidate, not the party, and if Bush and Kerry are the best this country can offer up, we need to worry about much more than terrorists.
So even the monitor can't correct you? NM
So....Correct me if I'm wrong here
But you seem to be advocate blowing somebody away just because you merely think they are going to do something wrong?
Quite the little anarchist, aren't you?
Yes, you care correct, however...
My point was simply that things are not black and white, or purely good or evil. I'm also not sure why anyone would try to categorize someone's ethics or morals based on the political party they belong to.
You are correct. Please ignore
my above post. I was given incorrect information and failed to check its validity before passing it on. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My humble apologies.
|
