FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
Posted By: i'm not the one with the filthy mind here on 2008-11-06
In Reply to: The only thing that is vulgar and offensive - deenibeeni
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
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
I didn't know "under God" was not in the original pledge. sm
And I don't know the circumstance underwhich it was amended, but yeah you make a sound case and I can't help but agree that it should be taken back out and separation of church and state is a good thing.
When you make the case this way it makes sense to me because I have been very neutral about the 10 commandments in government buildings and the pledge being recited in the classes. But, people can spread the Word and fellowship on private time, but this should be off school property, off government property, etc. That would be true separation of church and state.
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I picked up the quack word from the original post.
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
I guess I didn't take B's post that way. SM
I use God as a comparison when I am really trying to make a point. I think that is what was going on, but only B can answer that. At any rate, I agree with B.
Perhaps you didn't READ my post
I said -- keep it the hell out of politics.
You're welcome to claim whomever you'd like as your Saviour in the privacy of your own home and the community of your own church.
Brunson didn't post that. someone else did.
.
You didn't read my post
I was referring to people I talk to, as I stated. I don't generally talk to Churchill or Chomsky. In fact, I don't even pay much attention to them, nor should you. Just as I don't pay much if any attention to crazy right-wingers. Just common sense.
FYI--I didn't post the comment above this.sm
I think this was a mistake. Is this you Observer?
P.S. If there is another person posting with the Democrat moniker let me know and I will change mines.
I didn't post this.....someone used my initials...sm
x nice try.
Why didn' you post a message?
I'm not sure why you wrote Henry Kissinger but then didn't write anything. If Obama can come up with when Henry Kissinger said that to him I will take back my original post. All I'm saying is Kissinger was interviewed and he said he never said it. You should take him at his word. If Obama says something I believe him. Maybe Obama really believed Kissinger said this.
Obama says he cares about the people. He cares that people needs jobs, decent healthcare, and not to lose their homes. He said he is going to work towards getting this fixed. I believe him.
link didn't post
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/
You didn't address your post
to Christians exclusively. If that was what you wanted, maybe you should take it over to the faith board, will everyone will gush and agree with you.
It didn't post for some reason; will try again
Very Good for Today: cartoon from 50 yrs ago "Count your Isms"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY
Does anyone else have this happen as well? It says it posted successfully, & doesn't show up. Just curious.
Thanks!
Why didn't you post this yesterday?
Or the day before? Didn't feel the love until Obama got elected?
Actually, you didn't read the post then
Didn't say she was a liar. There is a difference with calling someone a liar and saying you don't believe them.
She over did it with the drama. Sure maybe she donated to charities on her own, but all the drama about contributing to the greater care, organizing for charity, painted and nailing carpeting in "poverty stricken homes" as her "gift to her children" oh yes, all while she didn't have a pot to you know what in, all while making only 5.30 an hour. And on top of all that she moved in with her parents to take care of her dying father while herself working full-time as a supervisor several states away (wow what a commute each day that must have been). On and on an on an on. Could it have happened? Sure anything could happen. Do I believe it personally? Not in my lifetime. But that's not saying it didn't happen. Just sounds like she should be awarded the model citizen of the century award.
BTW - there is a clear difference between saying you don't believe someone and them attacking you personally.
So I'd boo-hoo on yourself.
Guess you didn't see the post I did below
showing that Bush tried to regulate the industry as far back as 2001, but the dems would have none of it....those most opposed were all on the "take"; i.e., getting thousands of dollars in contributions from FM/FM.....or don't you believe it even when it comes from their own mouths?
Open your eyes and listen, or do you need a hearing test?
you really didn't need to post describing yourself
we had enough of you yesterday. Sometimes it's best to leave things alone and not comment at all.
Sorry, the link didn't post.....
In a nutshell, Hawaii has passed "Islam Day" law....
Where is their "Christianity Day"?
Where's the loud mouth ACLU on this?
This country is heading to he!! in a handbasket!
You obviously didn't really read her post...what's happened
You used to be a pretty straightforward poster even though we were often at odds. Now you seem nasty.
I didn't really have an intention. That post just caught my eye. nm
You didn't respond to Yepper's post.
I don't feel the need to make the choice. It's a child, not a choice. n/t
Ooops, I just reposted this. I didn't see your post. sm
Cutting Medicaid and student loans but has hundreds of billions while throwing hundreds of billions at Iraq.
That's the second time you addressed something I didn't post. sm
I thought the Chickenhawk article was brilliant though. I wish I had posted it.
Didn't quite catch the drift of this post.
su
your post explains why you didn't think it was funny
Crats just don't have a sense of humor like the rest of us. PS - I am a liberal. If there is one equally as funny about the conservatives I would post. But pretty much all of these are true - and funny.
Evidently you didn't read the post....
no one said a black person wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama (HELLO.....Steele, etc., etc.).
My post just zooooomed right past you didn't it?
Why am I not surprised? I said that both of them were moronic posts, in case (what do I mean, in case?) you didn't catch that.
As for the reference to "par", I take it you golf. Then you'll understand this: Eat my niblick.
I didn't bother to read your post....
I couldn't get past your heading "staying on the subject" .... the only "subject" is you..... Obama's "subject". You probably don't get that either! LOL
OMG, I hope my post didn't look like I thought Obama did it
I know he didn't. He's a very decent person and respectful and when something is wrong he'll say so (and will have words with his people if they cross the line). I wasn't sure who did it. The news said they were going to tell us who is responsible but they never did (go figure). I just think its a horrible thing to happen to anyone and DH and I were talking tonight about when did all the nasty things like this start happening. I'm sure 100 or so years ago it wasn't bad like this. I just think it's a horrible world when someone is running for an office and people think its okay to do this. How low will they go?
No, your post didn't make it sound like you thought
he was responsible, I'm only imaging how it is going to somehow get back on him. It is a terrible thing to happen to anybody. Some people just need to step back and get a life. :)
Didn't the Washington Post back Obama?
My math isn't wrong. Gov. Blago+Mrs. Blago (real estate agent, or did you forget?)+Rezko=Obama. Can I make it any clearer?
You evidently didn't read my post - it was not a question
of if you think he's done harm. He has, it's a fact and no matter how much you want to cover it up you can't. You think bowing to our enemy, telling other countries we are selfish, and that we don't want our jobs so they can have them, tripling our deficit (nothing Bush had to do with -sorry can't pull that crap anymore), lining the pockets of his rich friends and CEOs, filling his cabinet with unqualified crooks and thieves, and the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the first 90 days. So the question was how many more years will it take to undo the harm. You can keep drinking the kool-aid thinking socialistm/communism is fine. It is not. Even the other countries keep telling him - "Don't go there, it is not a path you want to take", while other country leaders who are telling him not to go there are saying "why aren't you listening to us. We've been there and done that and it doesn't work".
Hence, how many more years will it take to undo the harm he has already done (and its only been less than 90 days). My guess is at least 2. It's going to be hard once he's out of office, but I do have faith the country will bounce back as long as we have some decent politicians in the office and take congress out from the control of the crats.
I didn't post a link, I posted a smard alek
reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly. It was dripping in sarcasm. LOL I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it. I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.
We can all agree to disagree. What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves. I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.
I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration. I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies. I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration. What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand. AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty. That didn't work too well under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it. That's an issue to me. No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that. Why? I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.
|
