Excuse me, but I thought we weren't... sm
Posted By: ex animo on 2008-08-26
In Reply to: WARNNG...ANOTHER ABORTION POST....DON'T READ IF IT BOTHERS YOU. - sam
Supposed to cut and paste large things like this because it takes up too much bandwidth? I thought we were supposed to provide the link to a website instead.
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 weren't there - you don't know
XX
And I never said you weren't entitled!
Give me a break! You have religious freedom. I never said you didn't!
First off, weren't there tapes by OBL after 9/11
I thought that's how they knew who it was. I guess I recall the events surrounding 9/11 a little differently. Second off, I agree there's a good possibility he's already dead, but even so, let's be certain. Also, he's surely designated followers to carry out any other plans he had, so dead or not, we need to keep searching and hopefully take down as many of his right-hand men as possible along the way. Finally, OBL is already on the FBI Most Wanted list for murder for the 1998 bombings and as suspect in many others.
You said it. Glad we weren't the only ones.
x
I know you weren't attacking me....
I was just telling you why I thought what I thought. sorry if I sounded defensive, didn't mean to be. :)
No - they weren't facts.......
Twisted spin that fools no one but yourself. You try to pass your drivel off as facts, but, well, I'll let them speak for themselves.
okay, that means they weren't......
$$
So, you weren't exactly being honest.
If your husband is sitting at home buying and selling stocks for your own portfolio, he does not "work" in stocks/trading. I am not assuming anything, I am just going by what you say, which apparently is not true.
It seems that you are the one who is assuming much more about what I am thinking than I have actually said. I thin it's time you visit the "real world."
HOW do YOU know that they weren't tortured?
Did you speak with them and they told you so?
Some were tortured, although innocent, this surely did not make them change their mind.
I defend the innocent ones.
If you weren't so unhinged and WRONG
that post would anger me. Your ignorance only goes to show why you extreme leftists are ruining the democratic party. I actually feel sorry for the good level headed democrats who have to put with the hateful deluded people like you.
Okay if you weren't shooting me the bird
then what were you trying to tell me oh and high and mighty one?
You consider *it would be so nice if you weren't here* an attack? sm
Wow.
If it weren't for uninformed voters
NEITHER candidate would have a chance.
VOTING BY WRITE-IN VOTE FOR LOU DOBBS!!!!!!!!!
Au contraire. Would't be asking if I weren't interested.
wanna help me out here?
They weren't 'LET OFF THE HOOK"
For starters, Obama did not dismiss these charges, Susan Crawford, described as a TOP LEGAL AUTHORITY for military trials did. Obama orders were to simply FREEZE the court proceedings (hello) PENDING the results of ongoing reviews of Gitmo operations.
Crawford's dedcision seems perfectly appropriate to me since dismissing the charges (ahem) WITHOUT PREJUDICE means he can be charged again once the results of the reviews are in, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that Abd Al-Rahim will remain in custody.
It looks as though you weren't really paying attention...
He said the same thing over and over. Withdraw troops from Iraq and put more boots on the ground in Afghanistan..........how could you have missed THAT? Selective hearing? Selective posting, too, I guess.
If they weren't qualified - how did they get the loans?
Get real. When I bought my house it took MONTHS to prove my income, the down payment had to sit in my banking account for months, the bank found an old unpaid hospital bill (I was unaware of) that was 10 years old that I had to prove I had insurance at the time and either the hospital screwed up or the insurance company never paid - I almost did not get the loan because of this! So, how do all of these unqualified people, irresponsible people, get home loans when they are so woefully unqualified? Because the lenders didn't give a rats whether or not the person could pay it back. They were boxing these loans together and selling them as securities. Did YOU ever buy a house? Did YOU have to jump through hoops? I sure did and I still have the house. So smoke that!
What makes you so sure they WEREN'T terrorists?
nm
Weren't you the one crying and whining
about how dare CA take away the rights they had given to gay people and how it shouldn't have been voted on and blah blah blah. You even brought up women's right to vote and how about we overturn that....blah blah blah. Now you want to take away the benefits that marriage has always had just because gay people want everything equal. I do believe that you were one of the ones that said it wasn't fair for gays to have to settle for civil unions and how dare I suggest such a thing.
Honestly....I'd agree to this just to shut you people up because I'm so sick to death of hearing about gay rights and poor gay people.....blah blah blah. Once again....I guess the Bible thumpers that you hate so much will do the compromising and once again give up something of ours to make you happy. Feel better now?
Weren't you just thanking God on the conservative board because
Which God was that? THe one that plays favorites?
Weren't they. I kept thinking someone was going to yank the cord...sm
*In a post-911 world* (I just wanted to say that :) I kept thinking special services was going to swoop in and take him down at any moment for the things he was saying.
Heehee. I'm in a laughing mood tonight.
Well, obviously they weren't impress with the moderator's call...
to stick to politics and not attack anyone personally. Not a whole lot of politics going on here tonight. lol.
LMAO. If it weren't so pathetic it could be funny.
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.
A Quiet Windfall for US Banks (While You Weren't Looking)
Here's you starter-kit that went under the radar screen, tax and spend lovers...
» Washington Post: A Quiet Windfall for US Banks
Why weren't they returned to Afghan/Pak or China ? ..nm
nm
Weren't they captured in Tora Bora? Innocent, I'm not so sure.
nm
I just thought it might be nice to hear an original thought. sm
I guess I was reaching.
If it weren't for uninformed voters, Obama wouldn't have a chance.
Did you happen to catch John Stossel's report on 20/20 last night?
AWWW....you weren't supposed to tell anyone!! Can't keep a secret worth a dang!!
Thought this was good so I thought I'd share
Down the drain? Beware of Obama's plan to 'spread the wealth around'
By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger
If the McCain campaign can’t use this Obama quote to raise doubts about his attitude towards wealth and success, then they deserve the shellacking they seem headed for.
“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”
“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Plumbers of the country, unite! Forget about the work and effort you put into building up a business or the scummy work that you do that many of us don’t know or don’t want to do. If you have succeeded, you should be willing to give up more of what you earn to help those who haven’t had the great good luck that you have had to be a successful plumber. Remember how Obama is going to give 95% of all of us a tax cut even though over 30% of the population doesn’t pay taxes?
He might call it a tax credit, but what he’s really doing is his vision of “spreading the wealth around.” It sounds a lot like Huey Long’s 1935 plan to “Share the Wealth.” And when he finds that he can’t tax the top 5% of the population to gain enough wealth to spread to the 95% of the rest of us, do you really think that he’ll stop with that 5%?
Remember…This is the guy who said in the ABC debate during the primary season that his approach to raising tax on capital gains is not based on whether it would provide more revenue but on his idea of what is fair:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
Just what we need in these fragile economic times — a guy who wants to raise taxes because he thinks it’s a matter of “fairness” and time to “spread the wealth around.”
That will be some incentive for other plumbers who want to work hard and build up a successful business.
But don’t worry - according to Joe Biden, it’s the patriotic thing to do.
Haha! I thought I was the only one who thought he looked
I told you what I thought he thought....
and thank you so much for reducing it to "a piece."
That being said, here is link to article from Wall Street Journal about both candidates and outsourcing...Obama is not going to stop it either. He has said on the stump the answer is more highly educated American workers to compete.
It seems to me, and although you may think this is also a "piece," that if you put our corporate tax rates lower, if that corporation is inclined to hire Americans and not outsource then they will do so.
You honestly think the majority of corporations just WANT to outsource and taxes don't matter?
if it weren't for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any standards at all!
nm
I knew you weren't the type -- just adding my own yuck, yuck!!! nm
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!
|
