I'll be PERFECTLY clear. MTStars is a PRIVATELY owned
Posted By: Administrator sm on 2007-09-15
In Reply to: Public or Private? - m.e.d.
website that contains posts made by the public. Because it is PRIVATELY owned, we reserve the right to operate the site how we see fit. If you have specific questions or concerns about this, you can email me directly at admin@mtstars.com.
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
Privately owned board??
Who owns it?? If it is private, why is it on MT Stars along with our company boards, and job hunting boards. I thought it was a part of MT Stars; if not, I don't think it should be here since it is an extremely biased forum. It seems to me to be a venue for a couple of people to espouse their very very conservative views and really that is about all. There is not much civil debate going on. There are only a couple of liberals left who post and most of us stay away a lot of the time because no matter what we say, we will be castigated. There is nothing liberal that is acceptable to this board. The conservatives carry on on their side and when they get tired of that, they come to the liberal side and lambast the liberals. Nothing that is not conservative (one single solitary definition of conservative at that) is acceptable. This has become almost a conservative blog. So, who do I write to to find out how this is run. I think this board ought to be removed from the auspices of MT. It has nothing to do with MT and it is privately owned by extremists. I am going to see what I can find out about ForuMatrix and how one goes about getting things changed. I don't think anything resembling the Drudge Report ought be on a **politics** board that appears on the surface to be all inclusive when it is not.
The same person owns this board who owned it when it was on MTStars. sm
She has made herself known on this board several times and stated her rules. There are not many conservatives who post anymore either, Lurker, because of the whip lashing we took from liberals over the years. But do you see us whining about that all over the place? I don't think so. You can't follow the rules, because the rules do not apply to you. FormMatrix is a host for ths board, but the same person still administrates it. I wish you WOULD talk to her and stop with all of this. You come on our board and post and you always have. There have been some pretty egregious things said here over the years about the President, some of which probably should have been investigated by the FBI.
It is an agency created by Congress, but is privately owned. sm
The stocks are owned by member banks, and they are private corporations. Every penny of income tax collected goes to private lenders for interest only on the national debt.
Quote from the Grace Commission report: "100% of what is collected is absorbed
solely by interest on the Federal Debt ...
all individual income tax revenues are gone
before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government."
Let me be perfectly clear about what I said.
Since the poster above seems to think he/she can put words in my mouth, I will tell you exactly what I said.
I fully expect all posters to be respectful and not put down the President (current or past) or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if they're Liberal, Conservative, or polka dotted.
On the forum, you will be respectful in posting or you won't be allowed to post.
Think you can handle that? If you can't, don't post. It's just that simple.
I think it is perfectly clear
how things will go with regards to Obama. As evident by this board, I think it is very obvious that some people may hold back their "judgments" or concerns about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that any criticism aimed at the president thus far is construed as racism. How dare we criticize what he does, his agenda, etc. because he is the first mixed race president.
I also think that he will be judged less harshly because the liberal media will not cover things fairly. They will continue to portray Barrack Obama as the savior/rock star.
When this stimulus package fails to stimulate the economy and when our economy is still suffering at the end of his term, we will see how fairly he will be judged. Until then, he is getting a free pass by the liberal media and people too eager to throw out the race card or people who are too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist.
It's perfectly clear to me what the context was, so if it's above you, then
x
I'll try to make this clear for those who don't understand
We don't need people pointing out "similarities" in known terrorists names to candidates who are running for President of the United States. This is not something I like seeing as a topic with the "oh this is freaky" added. This is not freaky and certainly not funny. WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR THIS. I would be equally upset if somebody linked John McCain's name with some horrible and vile person. This is what I would expect to come out of the John McCain camp as an ad trying to connect the two while "innocently" stating "oh I'm not saying that they are alike but it's just freaky".
Sure maybe people do see that (I didn't), but we certainly do not need anyone to be bringing this up. This kind of statement falls right along the lines of the statement that Hillary made when she said that she was staying in the race because "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, right?" Well I guess you could call that freaky too.
To me pointing out something like this whether it's towards Obama or McCain is loathsome and I take great offense to this kind of comment or comparison. It sounds like others did too, so glad to know I'm not the only one.
At least privately
hopefully it will not be bastardized into something else totally. Though I am still against it, I am ABSOLUTELY against government involvement of any kind. Very good allegory by the way.
Your post on MTStars
Hi, "the truth is out there." I decided to try to write you and see what happens. I have Comcast and have NEVER received any problem about emails being posted back and forth.
If you receive this, please reply to marmann@comcast.net, which is my main email.
I hope it goes through. Not feeling real "perky" this morning, and I won't be at the computer much this morning but will try to get back on this afternoon for a little bit.
Again, I really hope this works because I would really enjoy chatting with you without being berated for doing so.
Hope you have a great day!! 
That would certainly apply to the entire MTStars
(Thumbs up.)
Well Brunson, I've been posting on the politics board on mtstars sm
for a few years, since it was created. It has took some tough skin - really tough to debate Nan and AG and the others of their ilk. Though I must say their unwaivering love and confidence in President Bush is almost admirable and I can't help but respect a person who knows what they believe in and stand strong for it; at the very same time, not being open to other's view points is close minded.
I have seen in my day AG (AKA Bush Supporter), Nan, and more of their coherts run quite a few liberal minded, even meek speaking posters and they did it with no regard to their feelings. They like to make the debate a personal one, so I would say by looking at what the trolls did to them was a healthy dose of their own medicine, and by the way from what I've read I didn't see death wished on anyone. That's yet another trick of theirs, again you would have to know them, to demonize everything the democrats/liberals say.
I did and I owned up to it . . .
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Not afraid to admit it.
Most newspapers are liberal owned
So, it's not big suprise. Newspaper circulation is down in this country for several reasons the biggest one being is that they are just mouthpieces for the liberal agenda. The NYT is a huge example, and their circulation is dropping weekly. Like liberal news they refuse to accept that most of the blame is due to the glaring bias they have. The internet has also taken a big bite out of their profits as people who care about news are bypassing newspapers and T.V. to search out their news from the internet. You're right. Ann probably is not batting an eyelash about losing newspapers. They are a dying breed anyway...mostly from political suicide.
90% of Wall Street is owned and run by....sm
liberal democrats.
What percentage of homes are owned by
Does anyone have numbers?
WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox.....
"nuf said.
she didn't have a choice....stepfather owned everything
--
Government owned Amtrak did not work
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!
une 1st, 2009 12:45 PM Eastern
PHIL KERPEN: It Didn’t Work for Amtrak and It Won’t Work for GM, Either
By Phil Kerpen
Director, Americans for Prosperity
I cautiously cheered the Obama administration’s announcement 60 days ago that GM was on a path to bankruptcy court, because I was hopeful that it would represent an end to political manipulation of the company and a chance to get a clean balance sheet and a new shot as a private company. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Instead GM heads to bankruptcy court with a prepackaged deal that almost completely politicizes the company, with the U.S. government the new majority shareholder.
———
Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.
———
Taxpayers were already on the hook for $20 billion of bailouts to GM, and today’s deal puts us on the hook for another $30 billion. Even worse, that $50 billion could be just the tip of the iceberg, because the government is now committed to owning and operating an automobile company that could run massive losses for years, even decades, to come.
Today’s New York Times quotes an administration official saying: “We don’t think that after this next $30 billion, they will need more money, but the fact is there are things you don’t know — like when the car market will come back, and how much Toyota and Honda and Volkswagen will benefit from the chaos.” In other words, who knows how much taxpayers will pay. Sky’s the limit.
In 1971, Amtrak was created, the Nixon administration said, “It is expected that the corporation would experience financial losses for about three years and then become a self-sustaining enterprise.” The Obama administration now claims that GM will be a publicly traded company again in six to 18 months. Expect that, like Amtrak, GM will be government-run and subsidized to the tune of billions of taxpayers dollars for decades to come.
The worst part is that government entities are run according to political, not economic, considerations. Every decision—about dealerships and plant closings, about suppliers, about which vehicles to build—will have to pass the Washington tests of political and environmental correctness.
Saab, Saturn, Hummer, and Pontaic will be shuttered. At least nine plants will close. These changes might make economic sense. But with government calling the shots, we will never be sure why certain plants were closed and others were spared.
The Obama administration’s big announcement on fuel-economy standards a couple of weeks ago and the president’s endless drumbeat that Detroit needs to make smaller and lighter cars and stop making trucks and SUVs is proof positive of this theory. Trucks have big margins, and could be a path to profitability. GM does need to find a way to make money on smaller cars, too, but does anyone really have confidence that being overseen and run by government bureaucrats will make that more likely to happen? Instead expect some government-by-committee to turn out vehicles with a Yugo-like design that nobody will want to buy and that taxpayers will end up subsidizing heavily.
General Motors was once an icon of American capitalism, but is now an exemplar of outright government control of a major industry, something completely un-American. Someone alert Karl Marx—we have government ownership of the means of production.
The legendary GM President Charles “Engine Charlie” Wilson was famous for saying in 1953: “For years I thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”
Today President Obama echoed those sentiments, ending his speech by saying that he hopes that once again what is good for General Motors will be good for the United States of America. We can only hope that he is wrong! — that somehow, what’s being done to GM will not spread to the rest of our country and its economy. That somehow, we will resist the inexorable pull of endless bailouts and government control if we are to restore the free market system that made our country great.
Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch
same owner of Fox Noise
Well...if it puts Obama in a good light, it is probably owned by George Soros. nm
nm
Thank you!!! You said it all perfectly!!! NM
xx
you said it perfectly. After that sm
then who do they tax? There is a fundamental problem here and it is the problem of big government getting in all our business! I hate cigarette smoke also and because of a chronic illness just a whiff of it puts me in the hospital. BUT, do I think they should place this tax, NO. For the same reason as you, because it is not our health the government is concerned about. They could not care less. They just want to control the American people more and more. Anyone who cant see that needs to take the blinders off!
Jet not sold on ebay, sold at a loss privately. nm
.
Perfectly understandable..
..how people who can't see three fingers being held up by someone (see posts and accompanying accusations below) are the very same people who can see a fetus in a hurricane.
Those of us who aren't delusional and twisted can clearly see the truth in this article. Thanks for posting it. 
I have been perfectly respectful.
I am not sure what you are talking about.
So what? You know perfectly well that what people
'more of the same' implies the candidates the republicans have chosen to nominate. You know that, I know that, and everyone else on this board knows that.
You really do have a gift, though, I might say. That gift is the ability to twist & manipulate words and numbers to come out to mean what YOU want them to. Too bad you can't find yourself some way to make a living at it.
Hmmm.... Maybe you should run for office?
I understand perfectly
They are lacking in reasoning capacity.
I'm perfectly fine with that.
Thanks Amanda - you explained it well. I had never heard the term anchor babies. If they are born in the US then that's fine for president.
I think it is perfectly fine -
You also have to take into account the differences in what one generation feels is appropriate and what the next generation feels is appropriate.
I can remember when I was younger being told I could not even wear jeans to McDonald's when applying for a job, that I needed to wear a dress. Now, with the new generation, you don't even need your "BEST" jeans on - anything goes.
Going for a business interview? Well, forget the dress and panty hose... wear a pantsuit or a dress with bare legs.
At least Obama still has on a dress shirt and a tie, and I am sure the jacket is there available when it is needed.
I also read that one of the problems is that Obama does not like the cold and he keeps the thermostat turned to an uncomfortable high if you have on a jacket.
Yes, we know, not tolerant, perfectly describes
.
Why? This video explains it perfectly.
You and I and some others on this board already knew this, but Keith Olbermann did an excellent job of explaining this to anyone who doesn't get it. This is a great video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7yl-UnsQQ
You've summed it up perfectly.
Thanks so much! Sums my feelings up perfectly. nm
x
I find it perfectly alright to say
I am white and I know how it works. White folks say a couple is "engaged" if the girl gets pregnant. Black folks say they are staying somewhere but do not go as far as to say they are engaged.
I understood you perfectly....pull out the military....
and what little stability there is will be gone. I cannot see it going any other way. What exactly do you see happening if we pull the military out? Seriously. What will the insurgents do? What will the sunni and shiite militias do? I am serious...what do you think would happen?
Makes perfectly good sense.....has no
xx
i'm sure osama has a perfectly good reason for this
nm
I understood perfectly well how you meant your post..nm
nm
Only drive-bys seem to be ruining perfectly adult conversations
We all were having good conversations and even adult disagreements until the usual drive-by suspects chimed in and make is a potty-mouth bash fest. Democrat might have lost control a little bit, but we all do at some point. You did your usual leftist troll duties by coming here and sabatoging and decent debates in process. You are not a liberal. You are someone who is so filled with hate that you cannot stand when conservatives and liberals are actually dialoguing. Yeah, it gets heated, but you are not mature enough nor do you have substance enough to tolerate adult conversation. You are a dive bomber, and you are the reason we have to be separated.
You and your minions are pretty sad people indeed.
Not worth wasting perfectly good words on.
xx
Hypothetical, rhetorical questions, perfectly fine.
posing what can easily be construed as scripted questions are open to challenge. Dreams? Of course. Intent? Where is he now? Which American dream is the REAL, bona fide Joe the Plumber dream? If wanting to get to the truth is your idea of attack, so be it...but don't expect me or any of the other voters who are disgusted by the hypocrisy that underpins JTP and his exploitation by a desperate campaign which is obsessed with negativity, gloom, doom, Armageddon, character assassination, inciting cultural warfare and turns a blind eye to rampant racism and bigotry to play that game and accept the mantle as the oppressors. BTW, hypocrisy, half-truths, misrepresentations, slurs, unfounded accusations and the like have a way of exposing themselves showing their tru colors. Try debating honest campaign issues and you may be surprised with what you get in return.
I understood her post perfectly - 4 years in 4 minutes
What part of that don't you understand. Pretty simple to figure out.
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
Sorry, CJ...it is not as clear to me as it is to you..
that John McCain wants to continue fighting anywhere. What John McCain understands is that you cannot reason with some people (including terrorists) because they have no interest in getting along. That is not their agenda. They want us dead and our way of life dead. That is not going to change by sitting down and talking to them.
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up next to 4 years as a senator (2 of those at state level) where you voted present when you voted...then yes. I think 5 years in a prison camp plus serving as a military officer and commanding hundreds of soldiers makes him more qualified than Obama on the face of it...at the very least, AS qualified. And, at the very least, it demonstrates to me that John McCain puts his country first, even before himself. And to me, friend, that speaks volumes.
Obviously I was not clear enough either...
you could always ask where someone stands on a ban on gay marriage without asking how they VOTED on an issue.
I have not seen that many people on this board who were really invested in gay marriage.
If you're not gay and you don't live there...not sure why it matters to you so much? What anyone thinks?
Oh no, you have been quite clear,
and throughout this discussion you have been very cordial (I do apologize for the momentary snapishness in my last post.) Nor in your most recent post did you sink to the level of saying 'I will type slower - or use smaller words - so you can understand.' However, when someone tells me that my argument lacks merit because I do not truly understand the problem or have not thought the implications through, it brings out a bit of bitchiness in me. It is the same reaction I have when I read posts on this board saying that those who listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are being manipulated and not thinking for ourselves. (I actually consider myself a conservative, strangely enough.)
I think you do see and maybe even understand my point, as I see and feel I get where you are coming from. We see, but will have to agree to disagree.
I do not pretend that legalizing marijuana will make the world a better place, only that it will make our laws more consistent. The legality of alcohol and tobacco while marijuana remains illegal is very inconsistent. And I think the bottle no longer contains that particular genie (if it ever did). The criminalization of such behavior creates small criminals and enriches bigger criminals.
You say 'I wish no one took any mind-altering substances of any kind.' Does this mean you are a teetotaler and not somebody who enjoys a brewski on a summer day after mowing the lawn, maybe a glass of wine with dinner, as I do?
I think kids hear their government, teachers and parents painting marijuana as the 'demon killer weed' which opens the floodgates to all other substance abuse. Smoke a joint, die with a needle in your arm. Then they watch those same adults drink legal alcohol, smoke legal cigarettes, overuse prescription drugs and they see the entire thing as yet another example of extreme phoniness.
Maybe some people will try legalized marijuana who never did when it was illegal. Maybe, deprived of its mystique and the element of rebellion, fewer kids will need to act out in that particular way. If alcohol were illegal for everyone and their parents were committing a criminal act just to obtain it (which you know they would do) would fewer or more teenagers use it? If a kid walking into a 'speakeasy' were no more or less illegal than his parents doing it, what would be the result? Interesting question.
And now I am going to offer you something a woman seldom does - the last word. The final post can be yours. I've said my piece.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekepper is.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekeeper is.
If it is all clear cut that
Pelosi told the truth and the CIA is, in fact, lying....why not just let the investigation go on so the dems could tell the GOP to stick it and prove once and for all who was involved and who is lying, etc. If Pelosi is telling the truth, which I highly doubt, there should be no reason to avoid an investigation.
Oh. Well, they'll have to kill me before they'll censor
We'll see who'll be laughing tomorrow.
Bet it's me!
|
