I am interested in this
Posted By: Teddy on 2007-02-01
In Reply to: Look LVMT, you look up all the little definitions you want. You are still wrong. sm - Brunson
What is a little definition? And how is your definition a big definition. Can you provide sources for this categorization?
I am still waiting for the sources of the claim that a liberal poster(s) has stalked a conservative poster(s) at some point. I find this very very intriguing and eagerly await the details!!!
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
If you are interested, there is more...
on this on the America's Most Wanted website with some more detail. It does not appear to be biased one way or the other...and there is some food for thought there. They seem to be leaning more toward what I said...that the agents should have been reprimanded but the sentence appears pretty harsh. One of the agents has since been beaten up in prison, AMW contends, by other inmates who recognized him from the show (Hispanics yelling kill the border agent) while they beat him up. I did not try to confirm that part of it. At any rate...I do not think, after reading all of this, it would be wrong for the White House to pardon these two men, even if that pardon included removing them as border patrol agents, if that is what it took. Point being...at most border situations, it is going to be the guards and the illegals and no one else...so there does need to be accountability for border patrol agents...and frankly, illegals, I still say, should have NO legal standing in this country and should understand that if they cross illegally. That does not mean that border patrol should have carte blanche to shoot people, that is not what I am saying. THEY need to be accountable to our legal system. However, the illegals should have no standing and should realize that when they come here illegaly. I know that there are many on the liberal side, and perhaps even on the RINO side but I have not heard of any... who disagree with that and think they should have the same rights as US citizens. I disagree with that strongly.
Ok....certainly your right! Was interested...
in what the kinda judgmental poster who was horrified that she was pregnant and saying that the family had no values because of that...if that poster thought abortion would have been better. Frankly, the fact that the girl elected to marry the father and have the child shows me that her family values are in place. To save the child is also a choice, and I think she made the right one.
Thanks for your answer!
For anyone who is interested...
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
I had no idea there was this much stuff out there.
very interested--thank you! nm
x
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm more interested in
x
Since you are so interested, ...(sm)
I actually did do your research for you, just not in this thread. Try looking under the next thread up about credible sources. That was the point -- the fact that you could not say what you meant, you just spouted out some crap you heard on TV, and then got mad because someone called you on it. Grow up.
P.S. Is this something the ACLU would be interested in?
Thanks again.
I have to say, honestly, I am just not interested.
That is my true feeling on the matter. I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame. Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies. I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind. I am sure it has to be hard for them.
Interested in knowing...sm
Not to rehash the debate but was it Stephen or another poster who supposedly made threats against the president. I missed that.
the nation really isn't interested
It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?
I'm sure you would have missed it since all you are interested in sm
is your own agenda. You can't even listen to anyone else's point of view and all you can respond with is sarcasm.
For those interested.....here is the blog
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
I am learning too but interested in
even-sided with obama and dodd's names all over the place?
Not really interested in talking to you. nm
x
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
but she did not say she is not - I am not worried - just interested - nm
x
The world is interested because -
America has always been a leader in the world and looked up to until the last few years. I don't believe there is anything sinister going on because the world is excited. So much of what goes on in the world revolved around the US for so long. Nobody used to care that everyone looked to us for guidance - what is the problem with it now? I for one am glad that people are beginning to look at us as leaders again and not with the contempt and disdain that they have been feeling!
Another one I would be interested in vetting is
Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Here's something interested we heard
Last night we were watching the movie Demolition Man. Don't know if you've ever seen it. Sylvester Stallone goes in cryostasis and 70 or so years later he's brought out to hunt down a killer (Wesley Snipes). Anyway...here's what's interesting. He's riding in the car with Sandra Bullock and she tells him Schwartenneger was president. He said something about him being foreign born and she made mention that because he was so popular they changed the ammendment.
DH & I looked at each other and said isn't that interesting.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
I was more interested in the idea that...(sm)
Alaska is getting hit financially because of the drop in the cost of oil, and yet Palin seems to think this is a perfect time to basically give herself a whopping 20% raise. Sounds some CEOs that I've heard of recently.
You are such a child, interested only in
sake. Do you know what leftie means?
No, I was more interested in what our President had to say
And it was refreshing to here an intelligent, thoughtful speech.
No doubt, that's all he would be interested in doing.
x
You might be interested to know this is the country
Honest to gorblimey, you need to try to blow some of those liberal cobwebs out of your cranium.
Not even interested in the architects of the 9/11 disaster. sm
They either have more lucrative interests in Iraq or are just bent on ridding it of Saddam or all of the above (too much history there), and we all know good and well there were no jihadist extremist there before America invaded that country, so this so-called War on Terror in Iraq was INVENTED.
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I'm really not interested in arguing the point...sm
Of who is worst because you are right they all were wrong. I just don't understand why when someone does something wrong people expect you to not say anything about it because *others* have committed similar crimes in the past and got away with it. And??
I understand being upset about Studd and even Clinton if you feel that strongly about it, but don't expect business as usual when a scandal like this hits the fan. People are going to talk about it. 23 years ago when Studd was having his affair I was in grade school so excuse me for first not knowing what you were talking about (until I researched it) and second not seeing the relevance of it in the case of Foley. I'm sure there was outrage for what Studd did too. Now upon learning about Studd and his (I can't say that here), I even said I do not know how or why the people continued to vote him in and yeah he should have had the decency to step down. Sorry you think I'm being partisan - NO far from it. I am always disgusted with people who prey on children, birth to the day before they turn 18, sexually.
Oh and don't expect me or anyone else to think Foley is some stand up type of guy because he stepped down AFTER GETTING CAUGHT, mind you. Had he not been caught he would still be IM'ing children.
Yeah Clinton was wrong for lying under oath. He should have told the truth and apologized *to his wife*. It's not like it is illegal to have an extramarital affair.
Like you said, they are all morally wrong, but I tend to be more disgusted with child predators. It doesn't matter if you agree with me (there are plenty of people who do). We'll just have to agree to disagree.
One point you didn't bring up was Foley's job responsibility. That makes it a little more eerie. Are people not supposed to be disappointed that this is who we have in charge of protecting our children?
Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM
On the www.apartmentherapy website, they feature the candidates homes. I love that site. Anway...spoiler alert, if anyone cares.
________________________________
What I found interesting is Mitt Romney lives in a comptemporary home on the water, which is pictured next to Barack Obama's conservative georgian style home.
OK, not of vital interest, I just love looking at homes. 
MasonD, If you are really interested in the truth...
and not bash posting, take a little look at the internet...google Clinton Iraq WMD and see what you get. Clinton thought there were WMD during his administration too. Don't you remember him getting on the TV and telling us all how Iraq had WMD and if they did not comply with the UN and let the inspectors in we might have to use force? I bet I could find that on You Tube or someplace. The CIA director at that time was George Tenet. When Bush was elected, he did not fire Tenet, he kept him on (BAD mistake in hindsight I would say). Tenet told the Congress and everyone else (now this is the head of the CIA mind you, left over from Clinton's Administration) that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD. Soooo...if it is a lie it was one that started during the Clinton administration. So St. Bill believed it too. Even though he seems to have amnesia regarding that fact until a news show confronted him with it. And then it was the stuttering and stammering and "yes I believed it then...but I don't believe it now." Yeah right. Nothing changed between now and then...sheesh. Had that deer in the headlights I did not have sex with that woman MS Lewinsky look.
It really is just amazing to me that you folks cannot see any of the faults in Democrats but EVERY fault in Republicans...lol.
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Not to fear. The Chinese are interested in...
...purchasing these American icons. More selling out of America, right under our noses.
Thank you, Congress. 
Chinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler
By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008 -
Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology–– the state regulator of China's auto industry–– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?
A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.
21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: "It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis."
Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: "Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler."
The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. "In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng's possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler."
Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China's largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.
Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China's Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means "East Wind") was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.
Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
Would be interested in your input to posts below
nm
Not interested, really... we've heard it all before
.
If they were interested in the country they would just pass it...
they just don't want all the BLAME if it tanks. Playing politics. The Republicans did not help create this one...they, and McCain, and the Bush Admin, have been warning of this very thing for years. Dems blocked, blocked, blocked; chief among them Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. What I don't understand is why you Democrats don't want to hold them accountable. That just boggles my mind. Absolutely it does.
I'd be interested in the answer to this question myself.
investigation you are referring to. We'll get that info out there yet.
Au contraire. Would't be asking if I weren't interested.
wanna help me out here?
I would also be interested in the answer to that question.
x
it is not superficial to be interested in what they wore
and it was a question asked by the OP, so are we not allowed to answer in fear of being called superficial if we don't like it, as i didn't?
I love fashion. People make a living off of that too you know, I wouldn't call it superficial.
unless we were talking about the MONEY it cost... then you have a valid point
I Would Be Interested To Hear Your Plan?
The Republicans are the ones who got us into this trumped up, VERY expensive war, so don't blame the Democrats for trying to "fix" the mess they were left with.
Just what would you suggest we do?
Can we view it on line? I would be interested in watching it .sm
Is it Spike Lee? You do not want to read the view of it on the board next door. No hearts at all.
Serious post regarding S-CHIP for those interested...see inside
Apparently the individual states have a lot of discretion as to how they spend the federal CHIP money. Pennsylvania, according to their website (PAkids.com I think, or something like that), isay they will insure ALL kids, no matter how much money their parents make. Only kids who are eligible for Medical Assistance (for lower income families I think) are not eligible. It says either it will be provided free or at a much reduced cost. So, even before expansion, had individual states chosen to, they could have provided insurance to all kids apparently. So if anyone is interested in seeing how their state handles the money, or is need of assistance, I would suggest going to individual state websites and see how their individual states handle the money. If PA can do it, I would think other states could do it too....?
Edwards today said "not interested"
Found the story on the front of www.cnn.com but can't get the link to translate here. Anyway, Edwards said flat out that he wasn't interested in being VP but kind of beat around the bush when they asked him about being attorney general.
BGlobe thread just shows how interested U R
nm
If you are so interested in Palin family privacy,
nm
It is a witch hunt. If you were interested in the truth
drawing all these conclusion about a story that has not even come out yet. The lady says she'll spill the beans after the 5th, but looks like waiting that long would take the winds right out of the sails of the impotent smear campaigners.
I am interested why any of us should know his personal reasons for EVERYTHING he believes in? sm
It does seem that President Obama is now under a microscope and every tiny minute aspect of his life, any beliefs he holds, are scrutinize for a NEFARIOUS HIDDEN MEANING? yes, perhaps it is a religious belief, I have a close girlfriend who was born Catholic and has been a Jehovah Witness for several years, but is that wrong? The focus of their lives, their spending, etc., is around Our Savior and they minimize celebrations of self, as I understand. Would that be bad or evil in some way? I have been silently reading this board since the primaries first started, and it seems that ever since Mr. Obama became a frontrunner, candidate, and finally president, people are picking apart EVERY SINGLE area of his life. Why? Would anyone want to live under this scrutiny? Why not just pray for him he has a HUGE job ahead of him that I personally would never want, judge him by his policies, his intentions for this country, the way he represents our country, for his proposals and hard work, but not his personal beliefs which should be private, as my religion is to me. What's next, analyzing his favorite color for hidden meaning? I am really praying hard for a successful and safe presidency.
Here's the real story if you're interested
The family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding was originally created in 1972 under the leadership of Richard Nixon. The proposal is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI). John Boehner and House Republicans claim this is a "gift to the abortion industry," yet I don't see any Republican governors promising to end the program in their states.
Plus the process for obtaining the family-planning waiver is covered in red tape and often takes as long as TWO YEARS to be approved. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the waiver requirement would save states $400 million over 10 years.
Of course, Drudge and Politico are screaming "Democrats want to spend $200 million on contraception!" without presenting the facts.
Olbermann is disgraceful, but I'd be interested in knowing...
...where the Constitution prohibits the federal taxation of citizens, if you would please quote me the article and section.
|
