Are Observer and Americangirl the same person?
Posted By: kam on 2007-10-19
In Reply to: As I pointed out before...that fellow is not entirely honest either... - Observer
You guys seem to have exactly the same extremely conservative viewpoint on just about everything, so I'm just wondering.
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
yes, the first person did....the person replying to that post...
was talking about the founding fathers...who came along a long time after the witch trials. You replied to the second post, not the first one. I was replying to you based on that. Purtianism came first...Christianity was the religion practiced by the founding fathers. It is evident in their writings and in most of our original documents.
I think we can stop whipping this dead horse now.
Observer
Shame on you for touting your song. Why be proud to be a racist? I grew up in a semi-southern town where they had one of the last lynchings of multiple black males in the U.S. There was a PBS special done on this town if you have any interest. It makes me sickened and ashamed, now proud.
I could cite the legion problems still present in today's south - poor counties/states in the US, worst school performance, corruption, civil rights issues.....but I won't.
Below is exactly why the south NEEDS a greater range of folks with differing philosophies/political persuasion. This is an excerpt by a musical analyst:
The lines in "Sweet Home Alabama" are a direct response to Young's anti-racist, anti-cross burning "Southern Man" and "Alabama" songs. Lynyrd Skynyrd's comeback was intended to mean, essentially, "Thank you for your opinion Neil, now leave us alone."
It is this perceived "attitude" which has led to Lynyrd Skynyrd earning a reputation as a "racist" band. Not withstanding the fact that the band often performed with a Confederate flag as a backdrop
Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" meaning is often interpreted as being "racist" because of the the lyrics reference "In Birmingham [where a black church was bombed killing 4 young girls] they love the governor [George Wallace]" who was a segrationist.
Furthermore, Lynyrd Skynyrd sang "Now Watergate does not bother me". Sadly, it would seem not only were Lynard Skynard untroubled by racism but were not terribly concerned by corruption at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Thank you Dr. Observer. sm
However, I have to believe your personal party affilitation is having way too much sway on your "diagnosis." There is plenty of dysfunction on here. I don't particularly like being called a liar. I defend myself and my country and a president I happen to admire. That irritates you into a frenzy and you take the logical calm approach to insult me with your lame diagnosis! If you don't like my posts, DON'T READ THEM. How hard is that? I ask you.
Hey observer
do 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage? Would you explain why God would take the life if life begins in utero?
Observer...sm
I suggest you don't put your faith in politics. I know that NOTHING will happen to me or my family for generations to come unless it is the will of the Lord. Forgive my optimism, but I will not have you sign my death certificate prematurily. If we are so weak that we fear going out in crowds, then we need to concentrate our efforts on securing our own country more so than Iraq.
Politically, I have NEVER agreed with invading Iraq, ever. I believed the head insepctor when he said there were no WMDs. I didn't see then and I don't see now how that was a logical response to 9-11. Go back and check it, Congress did not vote for going into Iraq specifically, but they did give Bush autonomy to make that decision should it become a necessary option. Bad decision. I disagree with Kerry, Hillary and all the other democrats who cosigned on that, but everyone's adrenalin was pumping after 9-11 and who wanted to look *soft on terror.* I think averting attention from bin Laden to Sadaam was the biggest spin of the century.
So now we're in Iraq, and the only news we get back from over there are death counts, bombings, etc. What is the progress? Seriously, what is the progress? Are we winning the minds and hearts of the Iraqis like we won the mind and heart of bin Laden when we helped him in Afghanistan? I have said before in order to win the war in Iraq we need to go in strong and hit them with all we got. I would not like it, but I would support that. I think that is the only way our soldiers can walk out of that country with the mission accomplished. More innocents will die, more US soldiers will die, but that is the only way to WIN. If we are not in it to win, then we should come home. What we are doing now is policing and I don't agree with that. The US taxpayers are not responsible for Iraqi citizens' safety. Tell that to people who are terrorized by criminals in their own homes right here in the US daily.
If we leave Iraq it will be a defeat for the US, but the battle was not ours to begin with. It is not easy, but we have a choice to make. I want to believe that most or ALL Iraqis will stand up and hold the US flag high and thank us for our sacrifice one day, but I don't believe in fairy tales. We should be careful, because we could be training the next group of 9-11 attackers.
Observer...
you have articulated excellently a lot of my concerns about a Democratic administration. One of my greatest frustrations with the war is that so many do not seem to understand that, in many ways, to this enemy (radical Islamist terrorists), appearance is everything.
In many ways they seem to me to be like Klingons - emboldened by and contemptuous of any show of weakness, even if it would seem superficially to be to their advantage.
If we are to succeed against this enemy, it seems to me that we must embrace two characteristics which have become somewhat foreign to the political process - strength and honor. We must be willing to do what we say we will do (i.e., stay in Iraq until they establish a stable government, as we promised them we would do) and enforce our own demands through whatever force is necessary. To do otherwise merely encourages the Jihadists to ongoing violence.
Unfortunately, I doubt in this era that any administration will have the fortitude for such action, particularly in the face of unrelenting media coverage of every setback. Like you, I have certainly seen nothing from any Democratic spokesperson save possibly Joe Lieberman to indicate to me any level of understanding of the enemy we face or the gravity of the consequences of failure.
It's all about them, Observer.
It has always been all about them. The leftists are starting to write articles now and make public appearances, admitting that they don't care about the troops at all. They don't even have much invested in peace. They want radical change by radical means and they do not care who gets hurt in the process. In the civil rights days, protest really did effect needed change. But it hasn't since then and is a tool of the left to get what they want. Imagine, Jane Fonda protesting at The Wall. How much more of a slap in the face to our veterans can you get. I am dumbfounded at this insult to our veterans. I know many of them will be there to protest HER being there and I wish I were one of them.
You are right, Observer. sm
These people are not what they seem. See link below for the real story.
Oh please, Observer.
You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said I supported partial-birth abortions. I definitely do not and never have. I'm talking about abortions that occur before 3 months gestational age. Do you really think that fetus can register pain at that point? Just because YOUR religion tells you that babies have a soul before they're born does not make it so - it's just a theory from your religion's mythology. It just drives me nuts when people act like their religion has the only correct answers and try to get others to believe it as well.
I think it is well known that many children are suffering in the US, and you are asking to put thousands (millions?) more kids into an already strained system. You must remember all of our discussions about the SCHIP program. Although many Republicans supported the bill, what the bill was ultimately missing was support from Republicans - the party that is almost exclusively pro-life yet didn't seem to mind children from lower-middle income families suffering without healthcare. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. (And yes, I know you think the bill was flawed, blah, blah, blah, but the fact remains kids are going without healthcare due to that decision).
You want state-to-state decisions made, so what happens to the women whose state doesn't allow abortion? What if she cannot afford to travel to a state where it is legal? You ask why her life is more important? What if she is a mother? What if she dies and leaves her other chidren motherless? Her family and friends would be devastated, whereas a fetus in the womb does not have these connections with others yet, and I still maintain that a fetus that young is not even capable of feeling pain. You have your opinion and your religious agenda, and that's your choice, but I don't think it is a smart choice to make abortions illegal, even in some states, as I truly believe women will have abortions regardless of legality.
Okay Observer...
it's Sunday, and I have a ton of work to do so I will try to make this brief. First of all, I do not hate you - I just don't like to be told the same things over and over again about your beliefs when I already know where you stand on pretty much every issue that is brought up. Some people may not have heard your views yet, and as I said, you certainly have the right to state them again and again, but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to be annoyed by them.
As for hating George W. Bush. I don't recall ever stating that, but I do think he is the most horrible president in the history of America and that he is destroying our nation and running us into an enormous deficit. I personally do not like to argue with people who defend Bush simply because if nothing that has gone on over the last 7 years has convinced them that Bush is a horrible president, then obviously nothing I can say will either.
I also don't despise Christians. I just get sick of many religions starting wars in the name of God and hating others (gays, children out of wedlock, etc.) because the bible tells them these things are against God so therefore many religious people think this hate is justified. I know not all religious people are that hateful, and I actually have numerous friends who attend church regularly. I just think it's kind of silly to say we have to live by what the bible says when it was written sooooo long ago and so much has changed. It has also been interpreted so many times that who knows how much of the original content is even there or how it's been maneuvered. I do think the bible has some great stories and inspirational quotes - I just get annoyed when people are always like "bible says!" like they can't possibly be wrong because the "bible says." I actually believe in God and say prayers every night and teach my children about God too. Church just isn't for me. I live in the most beautiful state in America - I don't need to go sit in a church to get close to God! Church has helped some of my friends who have lost loved ones, and for them it is a great thing. So no, I don't hate Christians, but I am very sick of people killing others all over the world in the name of God - it's obviously the exact opposite of what God would want, and I will never understand their logic. Wouldn't God just be happy they are worshipping him in their own way?
Hey Observer.....
Hey observer didn't you steal someone else's moniker also?
Thanks for posting, Observer
Also to those donating money, please be aware that the FEMA site list of receiving agencies includes mostly faith-based groups after the Red Cross, which is not necessarily a bad thing at all, except the Operation Blessings charity which is Pat Robertson's group. He must need another diamond mine in South Africa. You might want to skip that one.
Didn't say you did...it was Observer
who asked me. It went like this (I think) I asked if you and AG did anything besides rant on about the left. Did you have **legs** that led you to do anything constructive with or for the stay the course people. Observer answered and said a bunch of stuff and then at the end, she said, what do you do??? where are your legs and mouth, so I answered her. That is how it went.
Just an Observation, Observer.....
Approximately 65% of the posts on this board are made by you. I have read some of your posts, and in one of them you state that you come here, as a conservative, mainly to read and learn. Are you certain that this is, in fact, your main purpose for coming here? It would seem from the sheer number of your posts, well over 50% of them being made by you here, that your purpose is not to read and learn, but rather to dominate and monopolize. Just an observation....
Please do not respond observer
Please do not respond to my posts *Observer*. This is the liberal board and my posts are to my fellow democrat/liberals not to a ring winger. I have nothing in common with you or right wingers, in fact, I cannot stomach right wingers, their ideas, what they have done to this country under their president. Do youself a favor, go back to the conservative board or just skip over my posts and dont even read them.
On the contrary, Observer...
I am using my right of free speech to encourage others to disregard what I believe to be a forum that you created for your own personal agenda. This is not the forum for debate between conservative and liberal points of view. This posting site is not titled "political debate". Nor is it supposed to provide fodder for you to chew on.
I will speak for most of us in that we do not have a lot of time in the day to try to strike up a conversation amongst ourselves under the liberal forum, and when we to get time to log on, we don't want to have to sift through it, and we shouldn't have to.
If political debate is your preferred forum, perhaps you should email admin to add another posting site to accommodate it?
If you can accomplish this, I would gladly log on and argue point to point with you, but until then I would appreciate it if you stayed on the conservative posting.
Oh, Observer. I wondered where you'd been. sm
By the way, 'sm' means 'see message' (as opposed to 'nm' meaning 'no message'). Doesn't mean 'small message' as far as I know.
I agree with that last paragraph that kitty wrote. And I don't know where you're getting your statistics either, because poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of abortion remaining legal during the 1st trimester. Less (but still a majority) are in favor of abortion remaining legal up to the 2nd trimester, but not after that.
What I get from your posts is that when someone mentions 'abortion' you picture a healthy, full-term infant of 9 months' gestation, angelic and cooing happily in its crib, being viciously 'murdered.' Obviously, that is not what takes place when the pregnancy is under 3 months.
Me, I picture a cluster of cells that may or may not have gone on to become a person. After all, it's been estimated that 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion ('miscarriage'), usually w/o a woman even knowing she was pregnant. And in fact, 20% of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriages. That is just human biology. Are you weeping and wailing for all those 'children'?
I don't believe there is any suffering of the embryo in that case, or in a 1st (or even 2nd) trimester abortion, but there is *plenty* of suffering of the unwanted children that are already here on this Earth and being abused and neglected.
Make safe, medical abortions illegal, and that suffering will grow exponentially with more unwanted children, as well as more women who will die or be injured during an illegal, unsafe abortion - because abortions will still take place.
IMO, on both 'sides' of the issue, we should all be working towards reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies in the first place by demanding better education, better birth control methods, and better access and affordability to birth control.
Not a Palin observer as you obviously are
xx
From an objective observer.
nothing further to add to te nothingness of this post
Observer, did you say WONKY?? TeeHee
WE KNOW Observer. You have made your stance
.
Observer, please ignore my posts
Observer, please do not respond to my posts as you are not going to get any answers to your questions from me. I do not read your posts. They are con propaganda. My posts are for fellow democrats. You are wasting you time and energy reading and responding to my posts.
curious - if Observer is not liberal, why always here?
...speaking for myself, as an observer of your style...s/m
of supposed "debate" -- I can see why some people would prefer to avoid you.
It really adds nothing when you insult other posters like this. Why can't you accept an opinion, when everyone here who knows politics, is very aware of things that have happened over the past few months? Just because someone doesn't feel like typing out what has been discussed and debated here for the last few months does not make them less intellectual than you.
I rather admire them for refusing to be baited by your antagonistic style of posting.
Being an objective observer, the repugnants appear to be the most evil.
Defend the republican party all you want with your self-righteousness, but in the end the republican party will always be a party that represents big business and the rich.
You religious right wingers, rednecks who were undereducated and/or raised by a long line of redneckers will never get it so I won't even address you as your perception of reality is hopelessly distorted.
However, I will say that, anyone who makes under 250 grand a year and who votes for the republican tick is a fool.
This next presidential term will all be about taxes now that Georgie has sold out the country to foreign lands to pay for his war and cover his tax cuts to the wealthy, and someone's taxes are going to be raised and if you vote republican and earn less than 250 grand, it will be YOURS.
Funding under republicans will also be cut to social services and that means more crime, and if your town is like mine, police and fire departments are laying off due to budget cuts - hey, what an oxymoron, cutting police forces while fighting terrorism.
Republicans are not for the people whatever you say. They pander to the religious right and those high school drop out rednecks for the votes. Abortion is and always will happen as it has since the beginning of time and I don't think you will ever stop it from happening. You can try to romanticize reproduction all you want but in this world, as we watch babies starving, dying from curable disease and, even raped, it just doesn't hold water.
Republicans are as evil as greed is evil.
Your arguments are weak as always.
Check the source for Observer's Murtha article....
It is from a right-wing pro-war blog called "Politico." If you read a more non-partisan source you'll find that Murtha added a very large caveat to his comment.
Observer's "facts" would be so much more credible if she would quit posting from right-wing partisan sources. If I were to repeatedly or constantly post on the Conservative board what I thought was the "truth" and all backed up by far left-wing blogs/publications I don't think I'd get very far and after I while I'd probably try to provide more non-partisan sources for my statements if I wanted to be viewed as the least bit credible.
Observer is not a troll, but does debate. Posters here need to understand
this. You are welcome to debate here or on the Conservatives board. Debate IS allowed on both forums. Again, there will be no additional forum strictly for debates as it can be conducted in a respectful fashion on either of our two political forums.
Whoops....A person....not I person.
.
No, we are not the same person....
Americangirl is a Republican I believe, and I am an independent (who changed my registration to Repub so I could vote in the primary, but will be changing back), but yes, we are both conservative. In some ways she more so than I, in some ways I more so than she. If you look at our posts, we are very different in how we post and we certainly don't agree with each other all the time.
The same could be said for many of the liberal posters. There is one for sure that posts under different monikers, but you can always tell...when one comes under attack the other swoops to defend. Americangirl and I do not post like that.
Thanks for asking.
Actually, you are the person who needs (sm)
to relax. I really do not know why you keep insisting that someone was smeared. It is rather bizarre. She posted an article that mentioned his middle name, you created a huge post about his middle name and why it is used to attack him, I mention that you are creating issues over nothing, then you insist that someone is being smeared? Very strange...
if one person somewhere
said that one time, we must take it completely seriously and mention it at every opportunity. Fight fire with fire.
Person like this is beyond help.
nm
The person who said this was not....
a commentator for Fox News. She is Caroline Baum and she works for Bloomberg News. She was being interviewed on the Fox Morning Show and was giving her opinion. Just that, her opinion. Why should there be outrage?
I'm the same person
Don't know how I got the two separated but just so you know I'm the same person. Don't want to appear misleading. Sometimes on the gab board I will put Kaydie and on the political board I put me, but every once inawhile the two get backwards. Not sure I can reset that so only one name will come up. Like I say, not being misleading I just don't know how to reset. PS, still been coming to the board here this morning since I last posted (I think I need some counseling to get un-addicted to this board ha ha), but still haven't had a chance to read your post. Still, thank you for the time you took to reseach and I will read with an open mind. After all I could be wrong. I usually tell people. I may not always be right, but I am never wrong. HA HA HA. Will read your post later - promise.
I think that each person needs to do what his ....sm
conscience tells him to do and not be criticized by us for doing so. Let the chips fall where they may.
Now I know this person is not an MT
"The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here." Made me laugh my butt off.
I don't see where this person is
racist at all. This person is merely pointing out that there is racism out there on BOTH sides and this is what it could potentially lead to.
No, this person's sig is also clearly sm as well
check it out, it's everywhere on here.
any person who
uses Hitler to compare anyone to, be it Obama or Bush, deserves to be ignored. There is no comparison to be made in this country to that era. To use his name for shock value shows extreme ignorance of history and inability to grasp basic facts, let alone nuances, relying instead on the worst of the worst. Shameful and ignorant.
I think it's down to $400/person now......sm
another cut courtesy of our esteemed politicians. That's only about $8.25 a week or a couple gallons of milk, at least at current prices.
And not one person gives him
a freebie just because of his skin color either....Sheesh.
I'll admit there are some people who are going to hate Obama just because he is black or mixed or whatever the heck he really is. But there are several people following him blindly for the exact same reason. So if you are going to post about racism....please do so fairly and consider both sides of the spectrum.
And not one person gives him
a freebie just because of his skin color either....Sheesh.
I'll admit there are some people who are going to hate Obama just because he is black or mixed or whatever the heck he really is. But there are several people following him blindly for the exact same reason. So if you are going to post about racism....please do so fairly and consider both sides of the spectrum.
I see a person as
either male or female. If that person decides to describe himself as a sin, that's how I will see them, based on the description they have given of themselves. And that description is sinful. Very simple. I hate the description because God tells me to hate it.
You're a very wise person.
There is a definite tendency for some posters on these boards (not so much this one) to very negatively judge a post based on who posted instead of what was contained in the post. And you're right. That just detracts from the entire value of the post when they do that. (Anyone who doesn't believe me can visit the Conservative and see how they chew up and spit out those who don't assign nicknames to themselves.)
Thanks for posting and thanks for the link.
Do you always speak of yourself in the third person? sm
I see no difference in your writing style. Same old stuff.
I probably have used third person at times....
Why is it so important to you?
And if you cannot see the obvious differences in writing, well, you appear to be quite ignorant or unobservant or else you are not telling the truth. But that is your problem and I am not going to make it mine!!!
Obviously, this person was not attacking. sm
The underlined part just goes to prove that they are NOT attacking liberals. I am unsure of your rationalization on this one.
Obviously, this person does not wish to debate. TI
We are wasting our time here.
Who said a person should be president because
My point is that we should be glad there are women in elections and holding high-profile positions in this country instead of attacking their mothering skills or parenting choices. There are plenty of women who think ANY mother that works outside the home in any form is making a poor parenting choice. It should be to each his or her own, please do not try to twist my words to fit your agenda. I never, EVER said I would vote for someone solely to have a woman in office. I said I hailed Hillary's accomplishment, not that I would vote for her (in fact, I said I didn't care for her) and I never said I agree with everything Palin says or does, just that her family is her own business.
On the contrary, I don't vote gender, family, public opinion, or party affiliation, I vote based on the person's abilities and whether I feel they are qualified for the position. Period.
Sally, you really are a mean person.
nm
Any person earning less than $57,490/yr
income earners in the US. We are not taling about skid row bums and deadbeats. Ever heard of the concept of the shrinking middle class? Is that a good thing for the nation? The lower 40% of the ENTIRE POPULATION of the US owns LESS THAN 1% of the total national wealth. This includes a very, very sizeable chunk of the entire middle class. MTs are always complaining about how they are not paid what they are worth. Does it make sense that all persons combined making less than $57,490/yr own less than 1% of the national wealth? Do these people do less than 1% of the work? Does this seem like an equitable distribution of wealth to you? Please answer these questions directly. Yes or no?
|
