By my read, not a single negative response among them.
Posted By: This is uplifting, indeed. nm on 2008-11-05
In Reply to: In Quotes: The US Election Reacton sm - m
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
Oh, My. I just read every single
comment on the site. I haven't seen hardly any good comments for this program. So.....
This one I copied because I thought it was very insightful:
"I’m a 25 year mortgage veteran. I just got off a 2 hour call with Fannie, Freddie and Treasury.
Trust me when I tell you that this is a complete non-starter.
The modification criteria are VOLUNTARY. There is very little in it for the banks - so they are NOT going to offer these mods. Just trust me on that.
The banks don’t have enough capital to incur the losses these modifications would require.
And the refinance component is a similar waste. If you can refinance today - then you will get ZERO benefit via this program.
At the margin, some folks who find themselves upside down (but are still current on their loan) will be able to refinance - but this is far from a pancea."
Please read my response below. nm
nm
having read your response to my
comment, I can only conclude you and a few others are rather careless where you attach your stringing comments because I have certainly not called anyone names nor been responsible for any of the inflammatory comments which a reader would assume by your post that I had made sometime in the past. I merely asked a question and it was answered. end of story.
I read your response below too - we are on the same speed
I am so so so glad I'm not the only one that sees it. He is getting a little out of hand. I do have my own ideas of why I believe he keeps putting himself out there like this but I won't voice them because I will get a lot of nasty ignor@ant responses back. I'll tell ya. I take back everything I ever thought about Bill Clinton. When he was in office I thought he was the most arrogant person alive but O'Messiah sure takes the cake. I too never listened to GW's press conferences, but I don't think he even gave as many as this guy.
I too can read. Looks like I'm going to be not watching news for the next four years if this is the way it's going to go.
I read your message and stand by my response. (nm)
xx
Didn't read your response before I wrote mine....
lol. Good post :)
Another classy response. I won't say liberal response,
because I don't think you and these pile-on posters are indicative of liberals as a whole. Don't know why they let you speak for them...but that is up to them. Obviously you don't think compassion is a personality trait...obviously you feel that it can be turned on and off to suit your agenda. So be it.
I don't see it as a negative. SM
As a matter of fact, it was a case he was assigned when he was in a law firm and his law firm, from what I understand, took pro bono cases from time to time.
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Judge Roberts's involvement was minimal. "As in any other case," Ms. Healy said, "it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions."
Don't get too excited. In any case, I don't really care.
okay, not only negative but arrogant!
A bit of humility would be in order.
Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person. - Mark Twain
cant prove a negative
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS
Obama has had 61% of his ads negative throughout his ENTIRE campaign........... McCain only for one week.
Obama spent 47 million on negative ads.....McCain 27 million.
Yea, poor 'ole Obama....... just keeping believing in this guy. He'll sell you to the middle east and you'll be feeding their camels.
what a bunch of negative
nellies. Why even bother getting up in the morning with that burden of resentment on your shoulders?
Funny. I think CNN is negative.
x
Ever try to prove a negative?
The government can ''guestimate'' a number and send you a bill for what you ''owe''. Then I guess it's up to you to prove they're wrong? Not an enviable position to be in.
You are the most unhappy, negative person I have ever seen! nm
You are such a negative person - I saw your other posts.
So hmmmmmm
Iim ignoring all the negative dem psychobabble....
...doesn't change anything for me.
Sam = I'm ready for her to hit a home run tonight. It's the most important speech of her life. Can hardly wait....
Watched Romney talk earlier today, and he is such a class act. Looking forward to his speech tonight, too.
and to anyone thinking it....no, I won't read any negative posts after mine, so don't bother....
One BIG difference....O's negative campaign
the SCARIEST notion of all...4 more years of 90%. He has not engaged in character assassination. He has criticized McC's policies, which is what ANY candidate from ANY party is entitled to do.
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.
For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
I agree totally with you. A very negative message. nm
.
I find it interesting that anything negative about Obama is
desperate and anything negative about McCain is truth--yet you call McCain supporters hyprocrites.
Obama's Approval Index hits negative territory
The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it.
Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish) has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven. May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo.
Not a single new job
(unless we are talking about hiring new staff to do all that teaching....wonder if it takes a PhD....) And since PA is a liquor 'control state' i.e. the State runs the whole booze operation, it's not as though the customer can go get their hard liquor from some private enterprise down the street where the help might be more knowledgeable. No matter where you buy whiskey in a control state, you are getting it from the State.
Businesses only need to spend money on marketing and product education if they have to compete for your money.
so every single pub voted for it and no pub
I've answered several of your questions. Now try 2 of mine. Did every single pub vote to pass it and did no pub receive any type of benefit from this situation?
Yes, and EVERY SINGLE THING he did to TRY to
nm
Not a single Nay vote. He's gone and
Then they're going to vote on whether he can ever hold office in the state again.
Why do you single out Muslims?
I quote from your post:
'If you go back in history, the Muslim religion has ALWAYS been a religion of violence and this has been going on since the Crusades and before.'
Who slaughtered whom during the Crusades?
Who slaughtered the Palestinians in Gaza in the year of 2008?
And there are hundreds of other examples.
It All Comes Down to ONE SINGLE THING
YOU LOST.
AMERICA WON.
STOP YER WHININ'!!!!!
Filing single, no dependents?
*
All getting so depression. I doubt there is a single
nm
To same OP: Show me one single thing that is not
For starters, I am not the original poster you think you silenced with your question. I would be happy to step up and point a few things that would lead many people to the conclusion that at least the message in your post is racist, and to the more general conclusion that people who post racist messages are very likely, well....racist.
It is difficult for some to distinguish the difference between prejudice, bigotry and racism. There is a reason for that. They are all forms of intolerance that vary only in degree and basis. Consider for a moment the definitions as they apply to the context of this post:
Prejudice: a: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
Bigotry: The state of mind, action or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination
Now, to begin with, there is not a shred of truth to one single thing you have said here. That would qualify you as prejudiced on the basis of "without just ground, before sufficient knowledge." The conclusions you have drawn from your unfounded accusations would also suggest irrationality directed against an individual and the supposed characteristics, in this case, religion.
Obstinate, intolerant and devoted to you own opinions and prejudices, exhibiting hatred and intolerance, yesiree, we can check that off and confidently pronounce you bigoted as well.
Racist...your assumption that ACORN is a "racist organization." Unfounded, untrue and without proof. I challenge you now to show us one thing in your post that is not prejudiced, bigoted and racist, keeping in mind that you have no leg to stand on whatsoever until you can PROVE your accusations. Ball's in your court, dear.
He tells us who he is every single day. And it isn't pretty.
Your mother really was right, wasn't she? She always taught you to judge character by what people do and not what they say. BO exemplifies Mom's wisdom.
I believe in a single payer system.
It's not being "rushed." It's not even on the table. If you like your insurance, you should have a right to keep it. Others of us would like the option of a single-payer program.
HR676 has been in Congress collecting dust for a very long time now. It's not being rushed. It's being ignored.
Single payer = bad idea.
I just don't trust the government to take care of my health needs. I don't want them controlling any aspect of it, including what procedures need to be done and whether it's cost-effective (meaning will I live long enough to recoup the cost) to have the procedure done.
I agree something needs to be done about insurance and health care and I speak as one of the millions without health care (my husband and I are both self-employed, but cannot afford full coverage). Single payer (meaning the government pays) is just not the answer - look at how they've screwed up everything else!
Every single thing you posted is true.
And it's not just the veterans, either. It's their entire FAMILIES and their friends. It's all the people you will never hear about (assuming you're allowed to hear about the veterans). It's about families that will be fractured, causing divorce, only to be criticized by the radical right about having no family values.
I assume you are referring to a single photo of him...
and I assume you don't know the exact moment that picture was taken - maybe before or after the actual pledge was recited? Regardless, I support Obama 100%, and as I have said many times: No candidate is perfect, but he is an exceptional human being and can literally help "save" this country, and Lord knows we need some savin up in here! I am very optimistic about the outcome in Iowa.
Well you didn't clarify a single thing,
just restated your point all over again. Which I still don't understand. Never mind. 
"Ms" is a moniker that denotes neither single
It is used by thousands of women this way. also, how many Mary Smiths are in the phone book. These letters are not yours to claim.
I'd rather eat glass than spend a single minute
nm
That would explain why the libs were single-handedly
the rise of the Beat Generation, the counter-culture revolution of the 60s, the success of the civil right's movement and the VietNam, Gulf War and Iraq anti-war movements, not to mention the fact that they have been champions of all sorts of dissenting opinions/movements. Advocating for Palestinian statehood comes to mind.
There is no credibility in any single part of this story
including at the $800,000 expense claim, since the whole thing is based on a fantasy whichg arises out of a false premise. You may have noticed that the other 2 posts directly below regarding this trash have gone unanswered all day long, and you will not be engaging me in any further beating of this dead, dead horse. The fanatic/broken record comment is all I care to post as the rest of it is simply a huge waste of time and energy. We all know that when the Supreme Court dismisses this tomorrow it will not phase a single solitary fanatic and they will continue their quest to nowhere until they run out of money. Fanatics, every last one of them.
Show me one single thing in your post that is not
For starters, I am not the original poster you think you silenced with your question. I would be more than happy to step up and point out a few things that would lead many people to the conclusion that at least the message in your post is racist, and to the more general conclusion that people who post racist messages are very likely, well....racist.
It is difficult for some to distinguish the difference between prejudice, bigotry and racism. There is a reason for that. They are all forms of intolerance that vary only in degree and basis. Consider for a moment the definitions as they apply to the context of this post:
Prejudice: a: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.
Bigotry: The state of mind, action or beliefs of a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; racial prejudice or discrimination
Now, to begin with, there is not a shred of truth to one single thing you have said here. That would qualify you as prejudiced on the basis of "without just ground, before sufficient knowledge." The conclusions you have drawn from your unfounded accusations would also suggest irrationality directed against an individual and the supposed characteristics, in this case, religion.
Obstinate, intolerant and devoted to you own opinions and prejudices, exhibiting hatred and intolerance...yesiree, we can check that off and confidently pronounce you bigoted as well.
Racist...your assumption that ACORN is a "racist organization." Unfounded, untrue and without proof. I challenge you now to show us one thing in your post that is not prejudiced, bigoted AND racist, keeping in mind that you have no leg to stand on whatsoever until you can PROVE your accusations. Ball's in your court, dear.
and you agree with ever single thing Obama says
Knock yourself out--but I prefer to think for myself. I only pick the candidate I think is best--not perfect
Our countdiwn has entered into single digits.
Pretty soon we'll get to count in hours instead of days, post every hour, too, beginning with the double digits at 8 am EST THIS coming Friday...99, 98, 97.
I get the single rate deducted from my pays (nm)
.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
The one, single thing that took the worst toll on US
nm
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
Now you're speaking my language. Single parenthood
world void of credit cards. Never used one. Not once. Have only paid off one car loan in my entire (long) life...the rest of it, cash and carry, pay as you go. Paid for my condo that way and became proud owner of Acura 2.2 CL in the absence of interest back in the 90s, good ole days from where I sit now. Passed these survival skills along to my son. Credit crunch has left us unscathed. We are wondering how the rest of the folks will fare once the recession (let's not quibble and say it OUT LOUD) sets in. Guess they will have to see what it feels like to live like the great unwashed underbelly. We expect the tables will turn on some of them but will be happy to help them out and give them a "hand up," when the time comes.
Obama cannot single-handedly sign this bill into law.
It has not passed the House and Senate. Nobody can predict the course that bill will take during legislative process. As president, he has clearly stated he will pass it, rather than impede or veto it. He cannot PROCLAIM FOCA into law. Any discussion beyond that is purely speculation.
|
