you missed the point of the original post
Posted By: sweets on 2008-11-13
In Reply to: It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note - New Englander
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
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
You missed the point of the post
I don't care what happened back in June, July or whenever. You just confirmed what I had said in my post and it sounds like you want some "pay back" for whatever you think you want it for. Who knows, and I don't care. My point I was making was I'd like to see positive posts. I'd like to see true discussions about the candidate you favor and why you favor them or don't favor them (and facts to back up your approval or disapproval). Over the past week I've seen hateful posts not only to Sam but to others who don't agree (whether it's for Obama or McCain). All I'm asking is the board to go back to what it was originally meant for...not a "fight club".
and we come back to the original point.
Is it moral to befriend a terrorist?
I meant rather than funding ABORTION, which was the point of the original sm
poster's concerns - that the US family planning money will go overseas to provide abortions. If that $ is being spent anyway, shouldn't we be spending it on contraception?
I think you missed my point. sm
But I think this points out where the disonnect lies between those who understand the deadly threat of what we are fighting against and those who do not.
And you have missed my point entirely.
Michelle Obama is a career woman herself. Between her and Obama....they make like 1 million bucks a year. That isn't all his income....that is hers as well. She spends time campaigning and traveling to give speeches. You say SP shouldn't be VP because she has young children. Here Obama is with young children and nothing is said. We assume Michelle is with them 24/7.....did Michelle personally call you and tell you that?? I am just saying that this whole argument about not liking SP because she should stay home with her children is just as relevent to argue when it comes to B. Hussein Obama and Michelle Obama and their children.
I refuse to continue to banter back and forth with you about this. No...I don't know personally if Todd is giving up his career to stay home with the children but I see Michelle doing a he11 of a lot that keeps her away from her and Barry's children.
You missed the point. I was not just
the people in the path of Ike, I AM in the path of Ike myself. I have small children and animals to worry about and there is no one else but me. You cannot understand what it is like to know that evacuation orders are being called, some voluntary, others mandatory, that the path of the storm changes every 3 or 4 hours and you have to make decisions about whether or not to stay or leave. You either stock up on nonperishibles which go flying off the shelves within hours, board up and hunker down or you board up and get the heck out of Dodge.
All day yesterday and last night, the weather channel was announcing that some mandatory evacs had been called, but NOBODY, including local media outlets, was actually saying which ones they were. My comments were more or less about the lack of media coverage but I am also not apologetic about feeling some resentment toward the herd mentality and worship of one single SKIRT, a word which I intentionally chose because as far as I am concerned, up against 5 million people running for their lives and MY OWN CHILDREN, her comings and goings and all the smut politics that has been surrounding the nonstop media blitz was trivial and insignificant. If it were your home, your car, your chldren and your life, you would get that. What is even more disturbing is the fact that some of you do not even seem to have the capacity to take a single moment out of all this juvenile rhetoric and tit-for-tat outrage to stop and just simply try to put yourselves into somebody elses' shoes. Next to my children, SP is a pipsqueak, a skirt....a NOBODY. Wee needed some HELP and we couldn't get it because of all this stupid nonsense. Don't you get that?
You missed the point....
I really don't care if it offends you. If McCain and Palin were taking donations from Muslim countries, I would say the same thing. I am just not one who cares for all that politically correct garbage. Where does that get us?
Considering Obama's "buddies" in the middle east, wouldn't surprise me at all if he doesn't have all kinds of donations by "questionable" people/terrorists....wonder why they felt the need to lie about their name? If you can't deal with that.....too bad!!!
You have missed my point entirely.
I have no problem with an African-American president if that person is the right person for the job. I know there were assassination attempts on white presidents obviously as they all have been white...duh! I'm just saying that there are plenty of crazy whackos out there......just look at the KKK.....who would do anything to not be ruled by a black man. The KKK is just pure hatred against blacks. I'm not saying I believe that or agree with that. I'm just saying that the risk is higher for Obama because of this bigotry. I do not wish anything bad to happen to Obama so don't play the race card or call me a racist. I'm just saying that everyone keeps talking about McCain killing over and dying but no one mentions the fact that Obama could very well be assassinated by some crazy-@ssed KKK groupie.
I think you missed the point here.
Of course the economy is important and on everyone's mind right now. This is the worst economic fiasco since the Great Depression.
It's not always about the money.
Yes you missed something. The point!
Oh, self-proclaimed guru of the message boards. Go back to digging up rocks with your husband.
You obviously missed the point. (sm)
While this legislation is targeted at abortion, it doesn't actually say abortion. It says "procedures." Given it's broad language it can be translated into any type of procedure.
But lets take this scenario into consideration. Girl gets pregnant and wants to have the baby. Girl's health is at risk if she has the baby. Doctor does not believe in abortion at all, so does not have to give that patient the option of abortion. Get the picture yet? It's not all about abortion. It's about limiting health care in general.
You missed the point.
When was the last time you read an article or saw a photo of W hob-knobbing with the great unwashed?
Yup - missed the point
Didn't expect anything less.
Then you have missed the point entirely
You won't see that kind of thing on those news channels because they don't report black people being racist. however, if a white person would even hint at something that may be racist even if it is stretching the truth a tad or not......it is reported all over every newspaper, station, etc. That is the double standard that I am talking about.
Just like the reverend who prayed at the inauguration and prayed that the white may embrace what is right. To me that was racist but not one person mentioned it on the news. I was offended by that. If that had been a white pastor saying something like that about the black community.....it would have been all over the news. Double standards, my friend.....double standards.
You missed the point - and IF he did we WOULD know
The point was IF Bush was having parties people would have been screaming and shouting (but he wasn't). At least he had the decency not to have frat parties in a building that is supposed to be for someone who is supposed to be a statesman representing our country. Instead now it's a frat/animal house.
Second....you bet we would have known. The liberal nazi media were all over every single thing he did. You bet we would have known.
You all screamed and shouted about the money Bush spent on his inauguration, yet you were perfectly fine with the O outspending him by 3 times as much -
Double standards.
You missed the point - and IF he did we WOULD know
The point was IF Bush was having parties people would have been screaming and shouting (but he wasn't). At least he had the decency not to have frat parties in a building that is supposed to be for someone who is supposed to be a statesman representing our country. Instead now it's a frat/animal house.
Second....you bet we would have known. The liberal nazi media were all over every single thing he did. You bet we would have known.
You all screamed and shouted about the money Bush spent on his inauguration, yet you were perfectly fine with the O outspending him by 3 times as much -
Double standards and disgraceful.
You missed the point....
Considering we have no opposition to alcohol in this country (other than huge taxes on it), why are we so concerned about legalizing marijuana. Either can impair you, driving or otherwise. When we had prohibition, alcohol was still around and there were those that made a killing smuggling that stuff in and selling it. If marijuana were legalized, there wouldn't be a huge black market for it and all the criminal activity it encourages (smuggling)from across the border would go down. We empower the druglords with all this.
Marijuana has shown to have great results for medicinal uses, yet our govt still wants to punish those that use it legitimately. How ludicrous is that? I don't know of anyone with an illness who actually has benefitted from alcohol, other than to just get drunk.
Sure, if legalized, it would be used just like alcohol, as a recreational substance, but it could also be utilized by those with real illnesses that could really benefit from it.
I think you missed the point...(sm)
Wouldn't condoning torture fall into the sin category? --- which is not something athiests would worry about or preach about. The obvious point that you are ignoring is the fact that condoning torture by any "christian" is blatent hipocrisy.
You guys are all about being against gay marriage and abortion because it would be a sin, and would like to base laws on these beliefs, but when it comes to torture (also a sin) it's a whole different ballgame.
I think you've missed the point.
Actually, marriage was originally a prearranged affair based on economics and had nothing to do with love or anything sacred. The point in the parody of the White House *Department of Faith* is that religious extremists fail at their *sacred* marriages (and many other things), yet they critize homosexuals for wanting the equal sacred AND legal protections they enjoy. The hypocrisy is that religious fanatics don't obey their own commandments and teachings of the bible (just like my right-wing reactionary cousin) and yet are ready to condemn everyone else.
Further, your comment about homosexuals dying out because they don't procreate is just plain bizarre. Humans are animals as well and have the same basic instincts (for better and worse) so that some species mate for life as heterosexuals, others are promiscuous, AND some chimps have been studies to be sexual with members of the same gender. Evolution is vast and far-reaching. Given the overpopulation of our planet, I don't think this is something we need to worry about. You almost prove Darwin's theory....do you think homosexuals really *choose* to be homosexual? Why in the world would they want to subject themselves to the homophobia and hatred? Homosexuality was even *gasp* celebrated in ancient Greece.
Oh yeah, and if sex is only for procreation, why do you (at least I assume you do) have a certain body part that plays no role in childbirth whatsoever and is apparently only for pleasure?
You've missed the point, again.
In a rush to be proven right, you missed my point once again. Yes, you can chose them all. It's call peace.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. You have chosen to speak out and act against abortion because you believe it to be against God's will. Is that ideology so different than other actions undertaken because they felt it was God's will? I don't think I need to list them for you. Most of the horrendous actions against mankind has been at the hands of other men in the name of religion. To me, this is no different.
In so doing, you are taking part in subjugation which is against what the constitution stands for. Correct? Keep it out of the government and keep out of the courts. In needs to be kept at a social level. Educate women against it. Give the women the love and support they need to make the right choice, but you cannot and should not make it for them.
I agree, you do need to adjust your thinking. I do not have intolerance for those who think differently, I have intolerance for those who cannot take another's opinion or perception without tearing it down. Sometimes it pays to be a better listener than a speaker. Tends to the offensive rather than the defensive which seem to be what most of your posts are.
I am officially jumping off this carousel.
Obvoiusly you missed my point . . .
I guess if it was okay to do that on taxpayer's money, she wouldn't be being investigated now, would she?
LOL you missed the entire point...
If saving innocent lives (abortion) is your goal, then MCBUSH is certainly *not* the lesser of two evils because he is CHOMPING at the bit to start MORE fake wars that kill MORE innocent people.
Or as I said before, does it only matter if the "innocent life" being killed is American...?
Are Americans really this stupid they can't see that all these FAKE WAR deplete our own treasury, kil people, and MAKE US MORE ENEMIES??
OR, DO WE have to be brought to our knees by the CIVILIZED portion of the world before we stand up to government that invades innocent countries with OUR money using OUR sons and daughters as cannon fodder?
You must have missed my point, ju ju bean...sm
There is no coverage of "real" conservative economists in the mainstream media who DO NOT support Obama.
I don't have hours and hours to search to find them....but rest assured, they are there, buried amongst the Yes-Men that have climbed aboard the Obama bandwagon.
Like I said, they are not there amongst the mainstream media. The ones that are "AGAINST" Obama's plan.
You people have missed the whole point.
President Obama has not even been president for a week yet and he has an extremely long list of promises that he has made. Truthfully, there are some promises I don't want him to keep because I don't agree with him. He just has a lot of live up to because he has promises so much. I don't expect for him to do everything right away because that is impossible and for you to suggest that I expect this "change" to happen overnight is both stupid and unrealistic. I was just stating the fact that he has been pres for less than a week, has already broken 2 promises he has made, and has a rather large list of more promises. It was just an observation. Don't have a cow.
You missed the point....she was trying to end another's life!
nm
I am not surprised that you missed my point.
If they have done this with other presidents, fine. If Obama is the first, it just goes to show the love affair the media, including CNN, has with Obama and the bias they report in his favor. That was my point and I was trying to be nice in inquiring about whether or not they had done this type of thing with previous presidents, but since you have jumped on me for my post....I'm not going to be nice any more. I'm tired of the love affair with Obama and the free passes he gets for everything including the obvious and blantant lies that he tells. Makes me sick.
The reason people are scrutinizing everything Obama does is because our country is in deep deep doo doo.....if you haven't noticed......and yes this started before Obama's administration but now that he is the big cheese on campus.....it is his time to be observed and if I don't feel that what he is doing is best for our economy and our country, I have a right to say something and express my concerns. I'm not unpatriotic for disagreeing with him. I'm not racist for disagreeing with him. I'm not republican for disagreeing with him.
Barack Obama is just a man. He isn't the Messiah like the left try to make him out to be and he isn't the anti-christ like some on the right try to portray him as.....but he is our president and I have a right to voice my opinion on whether or not I think he is doing a good job and quite frankly......I'm not very impressed with him yet.
As for CNN celebrating Obama's 100 days as president....I'm sure they will make him once again look like he does no wrong and he is to be worshiped. Therefore, I will not be watching it. I had enough of the sickening adoration of him during the inaguration. I am proud that our country has looked past the prejudice of skin to elect the first African American president, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticized and questioned just like every other president that has ever been in office. This is our country and we have a right to question what he does if we disagree with him. I don't have a problem with an African American as president.....I just don't think Barack Obama was the right guy for the job.
And quite honestly....I'd be just as disgusted by this if this was the first 100 days of Hillary's presidency because there are a lot of things I don't agree with her on either. So spare me!
I think you've missed the point....again..(sm)
Believe me, we know what Rush is, that he doesn't hold any office and is simply a poor entertainment choice. We've been saying that for years. It's not the dems who give him more credibility than he deserves, it's the pubs. Why else would elected republican officials have to stoop to kiss his behind and apologize for disagreeing with him, and even get fired as in the instance above? The dems have no misconceptions about Rush's role. We just find it amusing that the pubs can't seem to figure it out.
The point....which you missed....in bliss I suppose....
was the comment in disproportionate numbers. There is nothing to support that contention. Obviously there is a problem with pedophilia among priests...but not in any more disproportionate numbers than in the rest of the population. Teachers, coaches, daycare workers and owners..next door neighbors and relatives. THAT was the point.
What are you saying, death threats are okay? you missed the point
completely, that is utter ridiculousness. the poster meant I think people at McCain's rallies are calling for Obama's death - are you going to stick with that thought, that he should be able to take it? Could not disagree with you more
You missed the point - go figure (see message)
The point was that a President must pass a background check with the FBI - has nothing to do with applying to work for the FBI. He can't pass a basic background check (oh yeah, I feel real safe with him that close to the "launch" button).
So, he can't pass a background check and he is not American born and he's getting a free pass...go ahead make him president. Maybe his cabinet people will be Ahmandinejab, Mohammar Kadafi, Castro, Kim Jong iL, etc. Plus the others he'll form back up with (Ayers & Wright) - after all it will be too late by then.
You're obviously one who has missed his entire point
nm
You completely missed the point didn't ya? And where
99
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
|
