I believe you misunderstood
Posted By: Teddy on 2006-12-21
In Reply to: Sorry, not buying it..... - Observer
By scholarly articles I meant:
--characterized by careful evaluation and judgment; a critical reading; a critical dissertation. --
The comment was not meant to be disdainful at all. Scholarly articles would mean from a university or from experts or those who have studied their topic deeply rather than a blog, forum, editorial, cafe conversation, etc., although those sources do not rule out that they could as well be scholarly. I meet periodically at the local cafe with a retired university professor whose life-long passion it the middle east, having lived there and speaks it fluently. I consider his knowledge to be scholarly.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
you misunderstood........
I am truly anti-McCain and completely Pro-Obama..........the "black" was not in reference to what I saw as in race............I don't know what the f it was! Child's imagination? Could very well be...........my parent's had race horses and most of the grooms were African-American.........my father, raised in a rich family, saw firsthand the horrors racism imposed on these hard-working men who were his good friends.......I was raised different than a lot of people. My parents were very active in civil rights during the late 50s through the 60s. My father's grooms were jailed just for having nice cars!!! (they were paid WELL, not USED).
you have misunderstood
and taken my post in the wrong way. Sometimes I DO think. That has nothing whatsoever to do with you.
maybe i misunderstood
said above it's a felony??
you misunderstood me
pa percentage based on income. Meaning if I make $30,000 a year, and pay 10% in taxes, then I would pay $3,000 in taxes. If I make $100,000, then I would pay $10,000 in taxes.
I think you misunderstood me...
Your mind is evil, if you think tht O should stop campaigning.
I think you misunderstood not only
what Obama said, but also my post.
You misunderstood......
It's past time for the rich to pay their fair share. I see this country becoming unlivable and chaotic due to the current economic crisis which I do not see being healed by a patched up stimulus package. I think the rich should pay their fair share and the only way to hurt them is in the wallet. Now....if I could find a coherent plan to do just that - I would. I already boycott Wal-Mart because of their business practices. As a matter of fact, I routinely boycott most department stores and resort to the Salvation Army or Goodwill for household goods (such as casserole dishes, wine glasses, housewares, etc.). I figure, with my current personal economic crisis, it is the only way I can give back to the community.
Well perhaps we are simply misunderstood
like this:
We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you. —George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss., Sept. 20, 2005
Wow! Brazil is big. —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil,
If it were to rain a lot, there is concern from the Army Corps of Engineers that the levees might break. And so, therefore, we're cautious about encouraging people to return at this moment of history. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2005
The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they've, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they're universal values, they're not American values or, you know — European values, they're universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere. —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005
I can only speak to myself. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
After all, Europe is America's closest ally. —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005
I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. —George W. Bush, ABC's 20/20, Washington D.C., Jan. 14, 2005
I want to appreciate those of you who wear our nation's uniform for your sacrifice. —George W. Bush, Jacksonville, Fla.
Bush is just misunderstood.
The subject was troops, not coups. The events surrounding the Diem coup are to this day murky at best. Kennedy’s original support of South Vietnamese troops was an attempt bolster their ability to resist invasion from the north. He was not responsible South Vietnamese policy or goals the officers or some govt officials had against Diem. Kennedy and his advisors acknowledged the possibility of coup since Diem was notoriously unpopular with his own people. The South Vietnamese and their military openly promoted their coup (not Kennedy’s). Kennedy inherited Viet Nam policy from Eisenhower who had already sent some soldiers there. He sent an additional 15,000 or so. He did not support direct involvement of US troops in Vietnam, despite the declarations he made in his inauguration speech. If he had, he would have sent many, many more than he did.
Reference was made to Clinton’s Somalia and Kosovo policy. Now it’s Iraq. Clinton’s regime change ideas showed up after the Gulf War, which some felt had not gone far enough. US engaged with the Saudis in response to invasion of Kuwait by Saddam. HW Bush also used the WMD argument to justify US involvement in reference to the chemical and biological agents Saddam used against the Kurds and Iranians. Clinton and Clarke did not invent these issues and regime change was a policy which democrat and republican leaders before him had carried out, and one that he did not pursue. What he did do was spend most of his presidency supporting the UN weapons inspections to confirm suspicions, accusations and speculation. No conclusive proof was found, then or now. Clinton did not invent proof, nor did he disregard the findings of the UN inspectors. Bush did.
Democrats were the ones who organized the protests against the war and were endlessly critical of LBJ as they were of Nixon. Republicans jumped onboard in time. Demonization from all sides and plenty of it to go around.
The question of Bush’s lies are explored in depth in the pages of those books. No need to say too much on that, but it will be interesting to see how the forged letter thing plays out. The list simply represents the other side of these issues and is provided for those who may be interested in those ideas. There are mountains of evidence of lies to be found. It would be more fair to consider that as well. No real purpose can be served by personal attacks on the authors. Of course they are partisan. Aren’t we all? Books sell. Authors make money. That does not mean that they are motivated only by that. It is the ideas on the pages that need the attention.
The congressional approval was under republican majority, based on grossly inaccurate information. Over 100,000 deaths, the carnage and a budget surplus of 559 billion dollars replaced by a deficit 482 billion dollars (net loss of more than a trillion dollars) behind a war over invisible WMDs and fictitious ties to Al-Quaeda is not rational. Without this lunacy, our economy would not be in the shape it is in today and there would not be countless hundreds of thousands of family members left behind grieving the loss of their loved ones, soldiers and civilians alike. With all these consequences to pay, there is nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to tell the truth when war is waged and there is no shame in searching for it until it is found. The republican congress approved what Bush and Cheney asked for. The buck stops at the top.
I must have misunderstood your post . . .
When you wrote "That's when the letter was dated. It could have been written the day he released it." I thought you were implying that something more underhanded was happening, and they were lying about when the letter was written.
I guess I missed your point entirely.
You misunderstood my answer, but no need to....
further beat that dead horse.
A tanning bed is not wasteful. Because she is a governor she can't have a tanning bed? She should forego anything personal in the house she is going to live in for 2 years? Geez, look what the Clintons carried OUT of the White House...lol. Let's have a little perspective here.
If something said about her is justified or there is not another side to the story I do not post. But so far, it has just been malicious attacks with no substance, and yes, I do defend her in those. Just like your side defends Obama or Biden.
Look, when I compare all four of these people, the good and the bad, for me it is a no brainer. I don't want redistribution of wealth socialism, government controlled health care socialism, a man with a personal agenda he wants to use the White House to further. I want someone who is there for me. Putting country first above ANY agenda be it party or personal. And that is why I am voting for McCain.
Most of the time when I respond to a post it is not whether the post is "right" or "wrong." Most of the posts don't have the whole story and assume something that is not the case. I don't do those kinds of posts and if I do am proven wrong, I say so. That is why I never posted anything about Obama being a Muslim...because I don't know if he is or not, and no one has proven to me that he is. So I don't post things like that if there is nothing to back it up. I didn't post the lipstick on a pig thing because I am not convinced that he was talking about Palin when he said it...though the people listening to him obviously thought he was. I didn't post anything about the brother in Kenya because who knows what is true about that and what does it have to do with him running for President?
That is what I mean, and that is what I try to do, just like supporters of the other ticket do, that is when they are not attacking me personally...which, by the way...has nothing to do with either ticket running for the Presidency.
Have a good day, Maxie!
i think you misunderstood my point entirely
duh
Sorry if I misunderstood your post.
I think that the McCain campaign is currently on a suicide mission and have been trying to get some sort of response on that issue...ANY response that does not include hate speech. So far, I've only gotten one bite and the rest is, well.....hate speech. Are you in Ohio? Our early voting starts next Monday and I will be there with bells on.
You misunderstood. Gourpainter was...
condemning people on this board who she said incited those skinheads to plot to assassinate Obama. And I said to her, how many skinheads do you think are on this board? What I was saying is that I don't think anyone on this board was responsible for inciting skinheads. I said the Jeremiah Wright sermons were probably much more responsible for inciting skinheads than this board could ever be. So why are you attacking me? Do YOU think people on this board incited skinheads to assassinate Obama???
hope i was not misunderstood
my response was to Amanda saying GM should have had an on-call system instead of paying people for being there and not working. I was simply saying they would be paying them anyway for being on call. I was not responding in any way to the post about DHL. It sounds like what DHL did was totally unconscienable. I do not know what the situation was, but it sounds completely horrible.
But I have to tell you, I do take offense to the "snotsdale" comment. I have a daughter and son-in-law (and grandchild) in scottsdale, who are very hard working and decent people and not at all "snots" as you would put it. Those types of generalizations you are making are unfair and unwarranted and hurt people such as my daughter and her family. It's just a whole other set of prejudices. Please judge people as individuals, not based on their zip code or any other random criteria.
No one said that at all, not "die" - you misunderstood
poster did not say that!
You misunderstood...it was not a sob story.....
I am so grateful my granddaughter "flew" in under the radar. Who knows if my daughter would have had an abortion? I am so eternally grateful that she didn't.BUT, you still didn't change my mind. I still stand by my original statement that women should have the right to choose, whether WE/YOU/I like it or not.
I think you misunderstood the intent of my post.
I, and most of the people I know, don't think that government should be involved in our lives on a day-to-day basis. We think that government should only do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves--deal with foreign entities, defend our borders, create laws, maintain our infrastructure.
Government gets away with all they do because we do not hold them accountable. We are too busy attacking each other instead, which is not productive of anything and the way those in government like it. Just because I think we will need to work together to do what is best for our country does not mean I expect government to cater to my every need. In point of fact, it has been my experience that the more the government gets involved, the more screwed up things become.
I misunderstood your post and re-read it
You are right. When I first read it I thought what does one have to do with the other. I did not see the point you were making.
I'm not trying to start an argument, just misunderstood your point.
All I say is the DC crowd sure has a bunch of "winners" and they are falling on both sides.
I'll tell you what....why don't we have a total wipeout of every person in congress. Everyone go home. Let's wipe the slate clean. Every senator needs to be recalled and a whole new vote take place (not talking bout the "big guy" just the sleezeballs in congress). Then have another election. I guarantee there would be some new faces to DC.
Robertson apologizes - He was misunderstood. Any takers on this one?
See link.
You misunderstood - I'll speak slower
I never said, 'What's in it for me?'
My point was that you can't single out a section of the economic participants and think it will be perceived as equitable.
You can't say, 'let's help home owners' without disenfranchising non-home owners. You can't take cash from one group (taxpayers who rent) and throw it at another group (taxpayers who own houses) and pretend that it's fair.
Across-the-board or nothing at all. Surely even you can grasp that simple concept, no?
Michele Bachmann the misunderstood" A trap was
Apologizing afer her democratic Minnesota 6th district opponent received nearly $1 million in contributions in the aftermath of her HUAC statement, delivered with heated fervor. Might be more convincing if she weren’t trying to blame the guy who asked the question. Republican National Congressional Finance Committee is pulling her ads and running for the hills. Meanwhile, Tinklenberg ads will blanket the land after receiving additional backing from the Democratic National Congressional Finance Committee. She stepped into something all right, but it doesn't smell much like a trap, an impressive maneuver considering she had her foot in her mouth.
Another republican congressional seat bites the dust. That anti-American campaign rhetoric is working real well for them.
Okay...I think most of you have misunderstood the question (excluding Shelly) (sm)
I am not saying anything about christianity, christians, the Bible, Muslims or any other faith. What I am doing is pointing out the ridiculous idea that the republican party would paint someone as a Muslim while at the same time claiming he is a member of a Christian church. That's it. I'm questioning negative attacks that have been directed at Obama and have been repeated here on this board. Personally, as most of you know, I am an athiest, so I really don't care what religion the man is. I'm more interested in his ability to govern (which I happen to think will improve this country). However, as recent as TODAY (after the election) there are still people on this board going on about his religion. I don't think I can be any more clear that that.
|
