you're posts aren't positive either
Posted By: x on 2008-10-12
In Reply to: Now we go from the ridiculous to the sublime. s/m - gourdpainter
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
Nice to see positive posts about her.
nm
Screw Sam. His rambling posts aren't even
.
But you're asking for it, aren't you?
How many other boards do you go on and play devil's advocate? Do you go on the Christianity board and give the atheist's point of view? Do you go in the smoker's sections and preach quitting? Do you go to bars and brag that you're a teetotaler? How popular do you expect to be when you go to where people are happily doing their thing and start messing with them? You're mainly here to make trouble, IMHO. So when some of it comes back on you, stop whining!
You're on the wrong board, aren't you?
LOL - geez, we're getting desperate, aren't we?
You're stuck on pub thing aren't you.... not
prefer to think for myself unlike you who obviously needs someone to do it for ya. I don't care for government, let alone more of it.
you're full of assumptions aren't you?
nm
Hot? Hardly. Those aren't pecs, people. They're
x
You're just a tad bit ummm....CONCRETE, aren't you?!?
x
Now McCain is 80?! You're a real fountain of information, aren't you? nm
x
You're still eating aren't you? Lets pick this back
Or maybe you know enoug folks that will be getting the free handouts and can live off of them, like I see going on around my town already.
I stand by both my posts...meanwhile, you're arguing with someone else
....argued with oldtimer's post, and she's for Obama.
Too funny, you just attack anyone that you think is putting Obama or Biden down.
Get a grip!
You're simply pathetic, you know it? Your posts
x
Never mind, the no name posts explain it. You're just here to take a DUMP on the libs...nm
x
We're just trying to catch our breath after laughing over some of the blind right posts (and W. i
nm
The MSM did cover it, but all positive spin. sm
They said the troops were unarmed. No mention of FEMA thwarting relief efforts either.
Here is an article archived on Alex's page about some of it. Of course, since it did not come from Fox News it can't be believable.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mexican_dutch_troops_sent_biloxi.htm
Didn't know she had any positive qualities
Funny! The only one with a positive net worth is the bum. :) nm
x
what a very positive and involved post!
By the way, how does one "speak" loudly on an internet board?
You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.
There you go. At least counter the argument with something positive about Obama. That is if there is anything. Otherwise its all just blowing smoke.
I prefer to keep my focus on the positive measures
give the process a chance to unfold. Had enough of the prophets of doom.
intelligent, true patriotism, positive
not talking about the Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Not the one that gets a shiver up his leg for Obama? He is nothing but an Obama, DNC butt-kissing, too far lefty for any hope and I shudder of the thought of him having anything to do with this country's government. All he knows how to do is report one side of any issue and get a shiver up his leg for doing it.
so many attack - no real reason AND no positive info on Obama
The more McCain/Palin's ratings are going up, the more the democrats are panicking, and the attacks about Palin are becoming more vicious - AND nobody is posting anything positive about Obama, like "I'm really excited about his health care plan or his energy plan or his housing fix plan or 100 other reasons we should be voting for someone. No, nothing positive about him...AND I'm not even hearing anything negative against McCain's plan. It's just vicious rumors, lies, and conjectures about Sarah Palin. Let's see. I've heard she hunts, she's for killing innocent soldiers and civilians in Iraq, she has a tanning bed, her daughter's pregnant, she didn't answer questions the way you would answer them (which in all fairness to her the interview was a bait & trap situation - especially when half the country was asking "what part is he asking her about?"). So for all those who say she didn't get it, neither did half the country (but those must be the people who cling to their guns and religion). Let's see...what else. She's selling her baby on e-bay, the father of her daughter's baby is skum, she believes in God, etc, etc. Oh yes, the best one was someone didn't like her because she is pretty and was in a beauty pagent (although I can't decide whether that is the best or that someone believes she was selling her baby on e-bay). Yet you refuse to list any of her good qualities like she cut out pork spending, she balanced the budget, she stands up to the big guy, she gave refunds to all Alaskan citizens who paid too much in money to the oil executives, she's smart about energy and she's for drilling here in the states (which will cut our gas and oil prices in half), and the numerous other good things she has done. I've heard she's not experienced (but you won't admit that neither is Obama). Then of course when someone posts something positive about her you jump down their backs and are just really nasty. And then what kind of comments do I hear about McCain? He doesn't use the computer (someone was actually complaining about him not sending out emails himself on September 11th), and someone else was making fun of him because he doesn't comb his hair. I hear that and think that there are people who have small minds. He can't do either because he was beaten without mercy and he can't lift his arms up to do these activities (and you have the audacity to make fun of him for that?) But you know what? At least he can still put his hand over his heart when the pledge of allegience is being said and the national anthem is being played.
You know, if your going to say something negative about someone at least have a comeback with something negative that is halfway intelligent and counter it with something positive from the candidate you support.
And for petes sake, use John McCain's real name, not the phony acronyms you like to use. He was in a POW camp for five years beaten til near death every day. He's earned the respect to at least call him by his real name. Whether or not you hate him so much, he is not Bush and he is not more of the same. His policies and voting record proves differently. You can't say he voted the same as Bush because Bush doesn't vote. Anything that's been voted on that you want to blame Bush for you need to take a look at the democrat congress. Their the ones voting, and its the democrats who have stopped the impeachment hearing for Bush. Why???? McCain's policies, health care plan, his reform plan, his economy plan, and everything else about what he will do when he becomes president is different than what Bush has done. Bush is Bush, McCain is McCain. If anyone is to be compared to Bush it would be Obama because the people who are directing Bush are also the same group that is directing Obama.
So, can we please be civilized adults, and come up with hard facts before accusing one candidate of something that is obviously false. Stick to issues and no rumors.
Joint Chiefs Chairman "Very Positive" After Meeting with Obama
Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
-
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.
There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.
But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.
Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.
"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.
"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."
Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.
Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.
Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.
"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."
Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.
But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.
Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.
In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.
In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.
Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.
"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.
But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.
The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.
These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.
Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.
Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.
Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.
A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.
One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.
Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.
"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.
But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith
our conscience guide us politically?
I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make. My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am. I vote my conscience. I want political leaders who reflect my morality. I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me. There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial. There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial? The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!
Posts were removed due to the nastiness. Play nice and posts won't get deleted.
I saw the posts for myself, no one "ran" to me. Note that all boards were reviewed for inappropriate posts.
She also posts regularly here. Who are you to say where she posts? nm
//
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm
x
We're not defending Bush we're pointing out the obvious
All you see in your view is Bush, Bush, Bush. Nobody else exists. You have yet to answer any of the questions I posed yesterday. We're not the one obsessing about Bush. I'm sure you'll counter that with I don't owe you any answers! It's really telling that for five or six days this board was mute about the Israel/Lebanon situation. You were too busy posting trash news about Bush like nothing was even happening, but I know that the left has wait for its talking points. You all cannot formulate opinions on your own. You have boilerplates ready to go though. *This is Bush's fault because _____________ but you have to wait on Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, etc. etc. to fill in the blanks for you. It's not just a phenomenon here but with all the left. You can count on at least two days of silence when something unforseen breaks out in the world, because they have to retreat to their bunkers to get their talking points straight, but it will always start with *This is Bush's fault because....
Hey, if they're smoking cigs, they're paying for SCHIP.
xx
They're too lazy to show patriotism......they're waiting
xx
Probably because there aren't
nearly as many of them. And I noticed the tally keeper yesterday was only tallying those posts she wanted to count. Sound like politics?
As for rabid, thanks for the enlightenment but the definition I prefer is 1 a: extremely violent : furious b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion <rabid editorials> <a rabid supporter>
CERTAINLY NOT:
2: affected with rabies
Well, though, I would hope none of the "rabid" Republicans (or Democrats) are "affected with rabies" but hey, maybe that's something to ponder. After all, rabies does affect the brain. LOL
aren't
YOU special . . .
They aren't done yet. This is just day 1 of
cutting the pork. Let's wait and see what they will do by Friday.
My calculator doesn't go that high for adding up the pork they want to cut, but I think it's more than 2%.
I will take a wait-and-see attitude with my finger on the "favorites" key to renounce them if they don't cut all the pork out.
no, they aren't.
I hate this discussion. Do you actually know any gay people? I doubt it or you would not think that way. Most people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are just trying to go about their business and live their own lives. There are always people making a big issue of something or another, whether gay or straight, and the gay population does not do so anymore than any other group. As is always the case, only those making an issue get the attention thus painting a whole population. If everyone would just keep their nose out of everyone else's business we would all be better off. Truly, another person's lifestyle is no one else's business unless it infringes on the rights of others.
Since we obviously aren't going to be able to have..(sm)
any meaningful conversation today, how about this? Keep in mind he was one of the main ones going after Clinton for having an affair. Hmmmm....
Top Republican resigns leadership post over affair
1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Republican US Senator John Ensign has resigned his Senate leadership post one day after admitting to an extra-marital affair, the chamber's top Republican said in a statement Wednesday.
"He's accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family and constituents. He offered, and I accepted, his resignation as chairman of the Policy Committee," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The post is the fourth-ranking leadership position among Senate Republicans.
Ensign, a rising star of the Republican Party regarded as a possible contender in the 2012 presidential election, admitted to the affair at a news conference Tuesday in his home state of Nevada.
Ensign, 51, a staunch conservative with a record of strong family-values stances, vowed to remain in office after describing the affair as "absolutely the worst thing I've ever done in my life."
So you're not racist but you're most definitely SEXIST and AGEIST!!!
"Someone more in our age group..."
"She should be taking care of her family."
Your true colors are showing, and they're truly ugly.
Just because they're LOSING doesn't mean they're VICTIMS.
What is it with people these days? You think that just because Hamas is getting its fanny handed to it that that magically makes them victims, and we should all weep and throw cash at them?
From the dawn of time, lesser civilizations have fallen to stronger ones.
It's why the human species survived and the neanderthals didn't.
It's why Rome conquered the Celts.
It's why the Barbarians conquered the Western Roman Empire.
It's why the British conquered the American Indians.
It's why the Spanish conquered the Aztecs.
It's why the Muslims conquered Israel the first time. But, since their societal progres seems to have permanently parked in the Stone Age, now Israel is conquering them right back.
Deal with it.
You're right. They're simply not worthy of a reply.
Nope we aren't
you can believe that but it just ain't so...
You aren't serious, surely. SM
This is the man who told the biggest lie of all time, i.e., the lie that launched the Vietnam War. HIs presidency was filled with graft and collusion. You can't be serious!
We aren't going to be THAT lucky.
Ignorance is, for whatever reason, simply not knowing something.
Like not knowing how the Downing Street memos have made your leader out to be a liar.
Like not knowing the history of our relationship to Iraq so you can make a coherent judgment about what is going on there now, and why.
Like not knowing that Bush tax cuts and budget deficits are strangling and endangering the country even worse than Reagan had a chance to do.
You know, stuff like that. Now there is plain and simple ignorance, where people just aren't exposed to the facts and so just don't know about them. Then there is also totally willful ignorance where people have every opportunity to see and understand the facts but simply refuse to do so. That's real ignorance of the kind you were probably referring to.
Going under fast, aren't they.
Starting to sound a mite peeved:) Look, person - we KNOW some people support this screw-up of a profiteering war. Like you. What don't you get about that? WE KNOW.
Now, tell us YOU KNOW that just as many - to judge by the 300,000 versus the 300, ONE HUNDRED times as many DO NOT support this mess any longer.
Why do you seem to feel that people who agree with you are somehow PROOF that yours is the only way to think? What are you going to do about the REST of those who do not believe what you do? What are you going to do when soldiers are speaking 100,000 to 1 against the war? You better think about it, because it's shaping up that way.
Aren't you the one who WANTS states
I don't mean for that to sound rude, just an honest question. I seem to remember you saying you wanted more power to go to individual states, so do you agree with the states having control in this case? I appreciate the information and will check it out. I already know my state's income eligibility requirements and will post them below if anyone is curious. I found them at mt.gov.
For Montana:
2007 CHIP Income Chart
Effective July 1, 2007
*Annual Adjusted Gross Income (before taxes) |
Household Size
(Children and Adults) |
Household Income |
Family of 2 |
$23,958 |
Family of 3 |
$30,048 |
Family of 4 |
$36,138 |
Family of 5 |
$42,228 |
Family of 6 |
$48,318 |
Family of 7 |
$54,408 |
Family of 8 |
$60,498 |
Some employment-related and child care deductions apply.
These guidelines are effective July 1, 2007.
Income guidelines may increase in 2008.
* If a child qualifies for Medicaid, health insurance will be provided by Medicaid. |
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
Well, since she didn't and you aren't....
what is the point of this post other than looking down your nose and making moral judgments?
Your aren't running for VP and won't be
McCain camp made such as issue about Obama's lack of foreign travel, boasting about how many times he had been overseas to visit the troops, and claiming that made him a more viable foreign policy candidate. He openly challenged Obama to make his trip overseas, gleefully hoping that Obama would end up looking like a rookie. Obama responded in kind, met with world leaders, garnered open support from Iraq's president and turned out 250,000 Berliners for his speech. Not too shabby for a rookie. So, if there was so much flap over Obama's not having been overseas and how that made him inexperienced, what does it say about his VP pick, who applied for a passport last year? McCain can't have it both ways. This issue is being raised to point out McCain double standards.
You aren't too bright, are you?
No message
Are you sure you aren't talking about
Barrack Obama.....uh....and....uh...his....uh....ability...uh....to pause.....uh....because that....uh....teleprompter....uh....isn't telling...uh....him what to....uh....say. You cut SP down for issues that can be said of Barry Obama. The biggest difference is that Obama is running for president. SP is running for VP.
And your precious ones aren't, am I right?
nm
Ah, duh.........those aren't the news ones yet!!
xx
|
