Excuse me? So it's only allowed to say bad things
Posted By: about republicans? sm on 2008-09-04
In Reply to: Typical, make a nasty comment and run. You have no credibility with anyone with any brains. nm - oldtimer
The first person stated republicans are strange. The first person could hardly know every republican in the USA and her statement was inflammatory. The second person returned the observation, and you say "typical," as though you know who posted it and what is typical behavior of that person? Tsk. You disappoint me, oldtimer. Here I thought perhaps you'd be a voice of reason. First you say stop petty attacks and then you stoop to flinging yourself. Talk about lack of credibility. You're either with them or against them. Did you decide if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
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
Excuse me but don't you find it more stimulating to debate things rather than to just
f
You call that an excuse? There are plenty of churches that offer those things!! nm
x
typo - meant cite things as hoax, not "site" things
Just thought I'd correct that before I get pummeled by the people who want to believe snopes is a truthful organization.
It is not too much to ask to be allowed
on the politics board. The moderators have some in from time to time to remind us of the lay of the forums. Religion has its very own forum. Please use it when appropriate and respect the rest of us who simply want you to GIVE IT A REST.
Exactly, how else were millions allowed to die...sm
And genocide is not something of the past. Darfur is the here and now, but we are not effected economically (i.e., oil), so we go on our merry little way.
I have to agree also....he should not be allowed (sm)
to make a dime and Fox should not facilitate him. No one should. It would be nice if no one bought the book and no one watched....but we all know they will and they will. All I can really speak for is myself...I certainly won't be buying or watching.
And that's your opinion. We are all allowed to have one.
nm
So it shouldn't be allowed
because everyone might suddenly become gay and there would be no offspring? How about artificial insemination? This is a new one on me!
New VP candidate allowed to appear
for 30 seconds - no talking - for news cameras with world leaders. Now, let's hear you say she doesn't have any foreign experience -- here look at this picture.
If we are not allowed to express
political viewpoints.....what is the point of a political board?
I have know idea to what post you are referring to that you posted and was removed. You would have to take that up with the moderator.
I am proud that RW is being allowed to
been convicted and knows in HIS heart to be right without fear. I hope there has been no compromise or deal in the background made and I do not believe RW is of this character. I am afraid that you are right, the people who elected Obama will not be listening to what RW will have to say because they do not know who he will be talking to. I know this is just something for you and a lot of others to just laugh off, but one of the saddest days of this election was the day the Billy Graham Ministry resigned as as pastor/counselor to the the president since serving in that capacity since Eisenhower. They resigned just a few days after Nov 4.
Citizens are allowed to vote
with any motivation they wish - FOR someone, AGAINST someone, because they had soup for lunch, etc. Supreme Court (hey there's a case someone can discuss) upheld same-day registration and voting. Since they know the constitution and the law, I will trust their judgment.
The election system is OBVIOUSLY sound, because when Ohioans suggested that the Bush reelection count was rigged, they were denounced as conspiracy theorists. One cannot have it both ways.
A Christian is not allowed to comment on Israel? nm
Have we made new rules? I didn't know that! When did that happen! By the way, sm is exactly right. Ariel Sharon has made a mistake that will doom Israel. This is a man who wept on television with fury when saying he would never give up an inch of land and then handed the Gaza strip away. If you have been following this story for some time, decades, as I have, then you know what a tragedy this is. One does not have to be Jewish to understand it. In fact, if you understand the Biblical significance, you get the picture. And, of course, Sharon was wrong, as Hamas now wants Jerusalem.
They already ARE allowed to stay silent. That's the irony of this.
It's just one crazy loon who wants to foist HIS version of the world on the rest of us, which is no better than ramming religion down a person's throat. What about those who wish to say the pledge, now they can't. It was better the way it was... Say it if you want, don't say it if you don't want to. That way everybody has the freedom to choose.
And I want to know why the bin Ladens were allowed to leave the country...sm
The day after the attacks???
The trick is, truffle....you are allowed unlimited...
posts, along as you support the party line. But if you deviate...katy bar the door! They are so tolerant, these dems. They believe in individual freedoms...and shame if the government infringes on them!! But if THEY want to infringe on them...then that is AAAAA-OKKKK. The Audacity of Deception and Hypocrisy...lol.
I never said citizens weren't allowed to vote.
I just do not think that same day register and voting should be allowed. That is my personal opinion and I have the right to have that opinion regardless on how a court ruled on the subject.
Spelling police not allowed on this board.
.
Not allowed. Pubs haven't learned
LOL
I agree, isn't he even allowed to make some jokes.
because is the President-Elect?
Duh?
Guess he wasn't allowed to use the DOD planes
unlike some others... =)
I wonder if he'll be allowed to take the famous brush!!
Homosexuality was never allowed in ancient times
and it did not become a sin because the christians said it is a sin. It's written in the Bible and this I believe, because it is 'detestable', it is so written in the Bible:
' Below are some Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.....'
It wasn't legal, it was unlawfully allowed; thus, the
--
yes, seoparated is still married, no flings allowed...nm
nm
Because so far I'm still allowed to express my honest opinion. He hasn't taken that away from us
yet.
Those are his words, and what is scary is that I think he believes it. It's bad enough we've got enemies who believe they're in a religious war. With each passing day, I'm starting to think HE believes he's in one, too. If that's the case, we're in more trouble than anyone could have thought.
My post was about HIM, not about you. But it isn't the first time a Bush groupie has PERSONALLY attacked a poster for expressing their opinion about BUSH. Now, how do you think that makes YOU look? Maybe it's YOU who should grow up or at least WAKE up and see what he's doing, not just to us but to the entire WORLD.
As long as we all still have freedom of expression, I'll continue to express my views, whether you like them or not.
And I hope you keep posting. Nobody can prove my point for me like a Bush groupie, and I do appreciate the help!!
As long as the posting is not personal, they are allowed to post here. sm
If you have a problem with that, that is your problem. I have been watching these boards closely. I have seen some posts come pretty close to personal insults, but as long as they don't, and the Administrator's rules, which were posted earlier, are not broken, cross-posting is allowed.
I thought lewd pornographic content is not allowed here...nm
So your in favor of a creep who tazered a child to be allowed
She put a stop to this creep being able to abuse his position as a cop who tazered a 10-year old child and put fear into a family with death threats.
She had the proper and legal authority to fire him. She should have also fired the person who didn't fire him.
If you think its okay to let thugs run around the streets in cop uniforms yielding badges and guns tazering children and threatening death to people your a real piece of work.
I guess we are allowed to call names so YOU ARE a FOOL nm
NM
I rest my case. Obviously this person does not understand that in America we are allowed to have our
.
Cindy Sheehan not allowed to watch SOU address, was arrested.
Curiously, CNN reported that Cindy had UNFURLED A BANNER INSIDE THE CHAMBER WHICH IS AGAINST THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS RULES.
Half an hour later we learn that no such thing happened. Cindy simply wore a T-shirt with an antiwar message on it and was promptly hauled off to jail.
In Bushworld, you can not only be arrested and hauled off to jail for wearing a controversial T-shirt, but the major media will also make up ridiculous lies about you and broadcast them world-wide. That's some performance for a liberal press. But oh ho ho, we were all being so paranoid four years ago to claim that the press was a willing servant of deliberate Rovian disinformation spinmeisters. Once again, we are right on the mark and the Repubs? - blind and wrong and misdirected as usual - let us count the many things about which the progressive thinking people of this nation have been absolutely correct, and the Bush supporters oh so regrettably wrong. Wow, it would take pages and pages!
Can't tell them anything though - they can't admit it when they are wrong. The way things are going, they're going to deny us right into the communist USSR of 1965 - the state our teachers used to scare us about in 1965 - and we would think, oh, how awful to live in a place where the government controls all the media, where protestors are thrown in jail, where you have to be worried about speaking above a whisper if you criticize the government, because your own neighbor will turn you in! Oh those poor people, having their mail opened and never being able to see any real news, only what the govt. wants them to see!
But of course that was back in the days when dissent was patriotic, when Americans didn't spy on each other, when the govt. could not throw you in jail without a trial, when even Presidents had to resign if they wiretapped you without a warrant. You know, the OLD America, when nobody was above the law and citizens were shocked when the lies and deceit and self-serving greed of elected officials was exposed, instead of sniggering and giggling behind their hands about how bold their guys are, and ain't it grand they're still in charge.
Gee, I really miss it - was good while it lasted, and something to tell the grandkids about.
Debate is allowed on the political forums. Be respectful in your posts. If you
cannot post in kind, DON'T POST.
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
|
