I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Posted By: Just me on 2009-01-12
In Reply to: empty lives. - ditzil
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
- empty lives. - ditzil
- I'm not understanding the meaning of your post - Just me
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
My understanding (sm)
My understanding is that his name was not on the ballot in MI because he did not want it on the ballot. Anyway, you would have to research that further. I can't remember the reasoning behind that.
About the FL and MI delegates, I think the reason for the meeting is because the party understands that they will need those voters come November. There were something like 2 million votes cast, so they don't want to push those people aside. It could come back to haunt them. Also, my understanding is that what the candidates agreed to regarding FL and MI was not to campaign in those states, or not to campaign heavily, and I think they stood by that agreement.
As far as legends in their own mind and all of that, I don't agree. Bill Clinton is loved by many, whether we agree or disagree - it's a fact. I think that is true for most US presidents.
Thanks for understanding
I'm glad someone understands what I'm saying.
I'm also saying I support Obama but I don't support congress. I don't think congress is working for the best of the American people, they are working for what is best for them.
If in a couple months or so we get out of this I will gladly come on the board and say how wrong I was, but if we don't and it keeps getting worse I will say so.
P.S. - Can't you support Obama without supporting the crooked democratic politicians? (I already don't support crooked republican politicians).
My understanding is
that these contractual bonuses are based on individual or department performance, not company performance overall.
If a sales person or department manager agrees to a base salary and the rest of his compensation to be bonuses based on sales figures or some other measure of performance, then meets/surpasses those figures, the company is obliged to honor that contract, regardless what other departments or the company as a whole does.
If my MTSO offers a bonus for surpassing a line production figure, what justice is there to withholding that from me because the sales department is not signing enough new accounts, the IT department is not resolving technical problems, the billing or payroll department is making too many errors - again - etc.?
If a company as a whole is failing everybody eventually loses. But individuals who are performing as agreed by contract should at least receive the compensation they have earned. Change the rules later, not in the middle of the game.
From my understanding....(sm)
No, they didn't get put into the closet. As far as relationships go, they were more worried about social status than gender. There is a ton of literature on these relationships, but very little about them being shunned, which leads me to the conclusion that it was either overlooked, accepted, or most likely just not an issue.
As far as Sodom and Gomorrha go, well you can call it the hand of God, or you can call it a volcano. I tend to go with the latter. However, it is interesting to note that the word "sodomy" originated from "Sodom" (derived from traditional christian usage).
What part of this are you not understanding
I just read a bunch of posts below and am not disturbed, but maybe dismayed is a better word. Whether you trust Obama or not because of his policies, voting record, political life, or whatever is your perogative (sp?), but to incorrectly be making statements not based on anything but milicious rumors spread around leads readers to believe the writer is a biggot and just does not want a black man (which I should state once more 1/2 black, 1/2 white) in the white house. I have no doubt if more of the white race came out and he looked more white than black a lot of this would not be surfacing.
First - Obama is NOT muslim. You can think all you want and hope it to be true but what part of the facts don't you understand. How many times does he have to repeat he is a Christian. Always has been. Raised in a Christian home, white grandparents, white mother, went to catholic school, attended a Baptist church, married in a church (not Moslim), children baptised in a church. To say he is a muslim is like saying McCain belongs to KKK after all he's a white dude. Pullease. Sure, his father was a muslim when he married Obama's mother but that's where it stops. Obama never studied the muslim religon or went to muslim services. My parents are catholics but I was not raised catholic and am not catholic. His mother later remarried someone from Indonesia and Obama attended a catholic school. Get your facts straight. He never went to a muslim school or studied muslim studies and he is not muslim. So what if the muslims like him, so do the Christians, Jews, Mormoms, Baptists, and many other religions!
Second of all on the flag thing. Obama's plane has the American flag on it, are you upset because the flag is not so huge it covers the plane from one end to the next? There's a flag there! Also, just because he doesn't have an american flag plastered all over the place on everything does not mean he is not "American". Have you seen him pledge to a flag of another country? No, he pledges to the American flag! As for the picture that he is standing not with his hand over his heart. I can't tell you how many times I've said the pledge of allegience and I didn't have my hand over my heart every time. Doesn't mean I'm not American. He's not trying to get rid of the American flag, but for pete's sake it doesn't need to be plastered in every square inch of empty space.
The poster who is not well informed about Obama's religion and trying to scare people into believing he's muslim when he's not is just plain wrong. It doesn't "ruffle any feathers" because you are just wrong. You may not want to "sugar coat any facts" but first you need to get the facts straight. People don't "hate" republicans, and certainly not enough that they would want "anything" in there. You could always put that statement on the other foot "People just hate the democrats so much they'll elect an old senile person to fill the position just as long as a democrat doesn't get in there". That excuse just doesn't sit well.
I'm no "Obama-lover" and I won't be voting for him but not because of malicious rumors on the internet or false statements made by the republican side. I'm basing my decision on his voting records and other issues that I don't agree with him on, certainly not from anything I get off the internet. You know there are people on both sides who hate the other candidate so much they are posting fall information, but for anyone to spread this...all I can say is "shame on you".
Well, thanks for finally understanding what I was saying.
Hitler maybe, but I'd have to think about that one for a while.
my understanding of the situation...
My understanding is that Obama says this is a practice that can be regulated at the state level. The federal government is just making sure that abortion stays legal and then the individual states decide how far their state will go with it.
From my understanding, the jobs
created would only be temporary. Don't forget, road and bridge construction only lasts in the summer in the northern states, and when those road and bridge jobs are done, what's next?
The money being doled out for infrastructure is definitely not enough. There are many, many roads and bridges that have to be built/rebuilt in the country and any one of them would cost $1 million and up. PA is getting $2.7M for roads. Is that going to take care of the roads? Doubt it. Headlines recenty in our paper stated PA was going to get $6B. I checked the charts and don't see where he gets that figure.
What's missing here is your understanding of this thread....
it is about infants born alive after botched abortions and left to die without care. Partial birth abortion is when they turn the baby around in the womb, let all but the head be born, then stick a needle in base of skull and suck the brain out to collapse the skull and make sure the baby is dead before it comes out, to avoid that pesky being born alive thing that proabortion people so hate.
At least get your facts straight and know what you are denying before you deny it.
And yes, he does support partial birth abortion. He supports removing the ban on that heinous procedure. His wife sent out a campaign letter while he was running for senate in Illinois that said that very thing.
Sheesh.
Actually, it was my understanding that both arenas represent the
"war on terrorism." So in a sense, they are both the same war, just different theaters.
People with a lot more understanding and empathy than
.
So, I have trouble understanding abstract ideas AND
I have no sense of humor. Anybody else?
Better read up on that homebuyers' tax credit, as you have zero understanding of how it works.
NM
Meaning what?
is this a veiled suggestion I move to France?
If so, I got a hot news bulletin for ya, pal: THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!
Vive la France!
The meaning -
the woman said it was the shadow of death behind Obama...
Is there a meaning in there somewhere? nm
nm
I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??
Then let's get out of there and let them control their government. Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them. As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own. And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it.
And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this. The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS. What a wonderful plan.
There is more than one meaning for jihad...nm
I didn't come away with that meaning......sm
I read it to mean that if a woman wants an abortion and goes to a doctor or hospital to have it performed, the doctor or hospital cannot not refuse to perform it based on their own religious beliefs.
Very hypocritical, if you ask me (and not direted at you in particular), to say "keep the government out of my uterus because I can do with my body what I want" and then demand a doctor who does not believe in abortion to perform an abortion on you, in essence dragging him into your uterus where he does not want to be doing something he does not want to do.
If this is truly the meaning of the whole thing
fine. I could never have an abortion because I personally believe it is wrong. However, if people are bound and determined to terminate their pregnancy, I'd much rather it be done by a professional instead of these girls having babies in bathrooms and throwing them away, going to some whack job who does permanent damage or have some girl take poisonous things into their body to try and get rid of the pregnancy.
There are pros and cons to abortion whether people want to see it or not. Abortion will not be stopped and so I have to look at it like population control and just go on about my business.
I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM
*No more of a radical than Jesus* IS a comparison.
True meaning of Christmas...sm
I have been watching the discussion on the conservative board about Christmas, it's origin and how it is celebrated. While there are a lot of charitable things that go on during the holiday season that are commendable, like Toys for Tots and food drives, I think it is sad how materialistic this season is. If you have kids it is hard to explain to them why one of their classmates got a Playstation 3 (600 dollars), games for the PS3 (200 dollars), laptop (1300 dollars), namebrand shoes and clothes (500 dollars), jewelry (200 dollars), etc, etc, when you can not, or have better sense than to spoil your child (and finances) like this.
My children know the value of a dollar. They also know that this season is about the birth of Christ, the spirit of giving, whether that be love or gifts.
I said all of that to ask this question. Do you think the majority of people who celebrate Christmas know the true meaning of Christmas or are they caught up in the hype of the latest best technology, the best decorations, the most expensive tree?
"present", meaning he showed up, but could not
nm
Hate to say it, but they aren't well-meaning at all s/m
They're blatantly peddling socialism..."spreading the wealth around?" So if you make more than I do, Obtama will take from you & give some to me. How can people NOT see this?
As far asa I'm concerned, these Obama fanatics can move to Canada, Cuba, etc. Look how well that's workin' for them.
Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Kruschev said they (meaning, their philosophy) would take us over from within.
One only has to imagine: Would Kruschev be laughing or crying over the direction the current administration is taking?
Not a tough question to answer, so there's no prize offered.
The real meaning of happy holidays.
Ever since I can remember, and I am 50, everyone said Merry Christmas AND/OR Happy Holidays and no one gave a flip either way. However, in my youthful naivete, little did I realize what happy holidays REALLY means. It is a code. It means that anyone who says it is really saying, I want to take Christ out of Christmas, and by the way, I hate America and I want the communists/terrorists to win. So if you hear someone say happy holidays and the other person answers back happy holidays you know you have 2 people of interest who require, at the very least, a wiretap or two and surveillance for an indeterminate amount of time. They should be reported immediately to the FBI. Happy Holidays is a serious threat and a Code Orange.
God save us from well-meaning people as my mother
.
Plus - does the Republican party understand the meaning of MAVERICK?
Agree with you - what did they expect with her zero experience (in foreign policy) AND the fact that she's under investigation?
Re: maverick. There are subtle variations of this word like "eccentric" that could apply to just about anyone, but the central meaning is 'nonconformist'
When you look at someone who has VOTED WITH GEORGE BUSH 90% OF THE time, where do you see 'nonconformist'?
And this from a man who was hammered by Bush when they went toe to toe. Please sir can I have another?
I see REPACKAGED MATERIAL, not 'maverick.'
That said, I have TONS of respect for his POW experience - all the MORE reason for him to NEVER ALLOW AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN WARS BASED ON LIES!!!
What's nonconformist about his support for our current fake war?
He should under the banner of HYPOCRITE, not maverick.
Meaning, I read and try to find informative sites
xx
Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
I still say no response is the best response.
A 9-letter word meaning "Thinking 'Everyone's out to get me'" 'Paranoiac.'? Nop
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.
Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.
About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Advertisement
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:
Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.
Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of “If you want, coordinate with him.”
Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.
The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.
The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister’s plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.
Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.
The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush’s visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.
However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel’s “offensive” requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.
During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.
The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.
A senior security official said the Americans were preparing “with the greatest speed” to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.
The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.
At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.
However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html
Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
meaning=history repeats...the PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE will be tested...no matter which one wins...nm
=)
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
|