I didn't say anything hurtful toward you and I don't want to be banned.
Posted By: Kaydie on 2008-10-24
In Reply to: Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! You can MAKE - acusations, but cant TAKE em.
I'm didn't make any comments to you and did not get nasty in any of my posts (most are defending myself). I post some information and am brutally attacked for it. I am in agreement with a lot of black democrats and I wanted to share some things I have heard, just like you share things about McCain & Palin, however my post did not say any nasty comments about Obama. I'm not attacking you but you are attacking me. Yeah it does shock me and made my eyes water that someone could be that mean towards me (especially when they don't know my nationality). There are two nasty posts about something about being home schooled and the one above it (3 if you include the one who yelled at me that I'm a racist) but I'm just skipping over them and not reading them as I can tell by the message what the content must be (p.s. home schoolers are quite highly intelligent). So I will follow the moderators message and just skip all the nasty comments about me. This will be my last post I make.
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
This is a hurtful statement
Guess I was stunned when someone calls you a name because the can't see you face to face. I don't need to explain my nationality to you. Do you know how many black people there are who are not supporting Obama. Are you gonna call all of us racists.
What do you define as a racist? Just becuase people don't vote for Obama doesn't make them racist. Not once in my post did I mention his race. It's the facts and his policies I am against.
Pales in comparison to the hurtful posts
Why do you think you were under such attack yesterday?
Banned..not me
Sweet honey, Im here..banned? For what? I dont break rules or laws and try to keep my posts respectful..**wish the conservatives would take the same hint**..I just state the FACTS in America right now..No, sweetie pie..to your dismay, I was not banned..I was just cooling my heels in Mexico, Tijuana for a few days as Tijuana is only two hours from my home and I frequent the town quite a bit..and have friends down there..But......IM......BACK....**Kiss.Kiss..Kiss..*..
Maybe they were banned. nm
xxx
No, what's hard is not getting banned from
People are not banned by their sig,
they are banned by their e-mail address.
I risk getting banned, but all I can think of
reading your post is: STUPID and living in a sdmall village in the MIDWEST, right?
Hehehehehe!
If hate was banned, this would be
NM
For people who wanted me banned ....
you certainly want to continue to engage me.
There is media bias. They want Obama elected. They did it to Hillary too, just not to this degree.
How is this coming out swinging? How is this different from posting pro Obama items?
Are you really this intolerant?
Watch out, you'll get BANNED.......
"anybody would have" will hopefully be banned from the board soon
that is how the moderator comes
I ask that 'sm' is banned due to this message!..nm
nm
Nice! You are kidding about the 'being banned.?...nm
nm
Why did Michael Savage get banned?? I know the answer....
Because Michael Savage calls a spade a spade and a terrorist a terrorist. He has no use for the Muslim religion whether they are the rabid haters or the mealy-mouthed ones who say nothing. He denounces the so called "religion of peace" every chance he gets; and right so. He is allowed to have his opinions. You know exactly where he stands on a subject. THus, because Britain has caved in to the Muslims as far as sharia law, sharia financing, etc, they hate Michael Savage because he lets the Brits know what they have become and what will happen to them down the road. As a famous line in a movie went...."You can't handle the truth!!!!"
Oopphhs..an editorial against bush..am I gonna be banned?
Shockingly unprepared
The countless questions about the unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf states are all variations on a simple theme: This disaster was all but scripted; why wasn't the response?
News reports from the region have shown the situation getting worse, not better.
This inability to regain control, or at least to rally against the disaster, has shocked the country's sense of itself. Predictably, recriminations mounted Thursday, even as federal officials delivered more aid. State and local officials in Louisiana were particularly critical of the response from Washington, complaining that the feds were slow to provide the help needed to feed and evacuate survivors and halt criminals.
Defenders of the Bush administration said it was doing everything it could. They're facing problems that nobody could foresee: breaking of the levees and the whole dome thing over in New Orleans coming apart, former President George H.W. Bush said Thursday on CNN. People couldn't foresee that.
In fact, emergency planners have been thinking about a catastrophic levee breach for years. Many saw it as an inevitable consequence of a high-powered hurricane such as Katrina hitting the city. And in early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that one of the three most likely disasters to strike the U.S. was a catastrophic flood triggered by a hurricane hitting New Orleans. (The other two: a terrorist attack on New York and a major earthquake in San Francisco.)
It's certainly true that by the time forecasters knew that Katrina was a threat, it was too late to shore up the levees. And by the time they knew Katrina was going to come ashore near New Orleans, there was not enough time to evacuate the city completely.
Still, much of what happened this week in New Orleans had been foreseen by federal and state emergency planners, as the city's newspaper, the Times-Picayune, laid out extensively three years ago. Survivors will end up trapped on roofs, in buildings or on high ground surrounded by water, with no means of escape and little food or fresh water, perhaps for several days, one story predicted with eerie accuracy.
That's why the complaints from Louisiana about the official response are so troubling. Why did it take so long to evacuate the poor, the elderly and the tourists unlucky enough to be caught with no way out of town? Where was the food and water? Why were the police left to choose between rescuing people from the floods and saving them from predators?
Critics of the administration, including former FEMA officials, say Washington's focus since late 2001 on potential terrorist targets has come at the expense of its ability to respond to natural disasters in other parts of the country. FEMA no longer helps prepare communities for disasters — it just responds to them. Other critics have pointed out that the administration diverted money from a levee project in New Orleans to fund priorities within the Department of Homeland Security.
One lesson of Hurricane Katrina, though, is that preparedness and response go hand in hand, whether the disaster is natural or man-made. Washington's response to Katrina is likely to gear up notably in the days to come, but the question of why it took so long will linger longer than the floodwaters
Hellooo....your compatriots just asked that I be BANNED from this board...
for posting on their threads. They obviously did not want me posting on their threads. I was trying to get along. Now I am being attacked for trying to get along.
If you want to rebut me, start a new thread. Why start the bashing behavior all over again? What is the difference in attacking me on your thread or on mine? Why attack at ALL?
As for me, I don't want a man with a 20-year alliance with an agenda that is antiAMerican. I don't want someone in bed with the Chicago political machine to be my President. I want a President who does not take money or share relationships with terrorists who have bombed our own buildings and police stations.
The most corrupt President was the one before Bush. He is the one who should be in jail on a felony perjury conviction. That has actually been proven. We actually KNOW that is the truth.
As far as McCain not being a maverick or Bush minion...Obama is not an agent of change, he is Washington politics as usual, the most liberal senator in the senate followed closely by his running mate at #3. Neither have any interest in reaching across the aisle to get things done and fix the gridlock in Congress. He is a hypocrit also, he does not care about the country, he puts party first, he cares about using the Presidency to advance his own agenda. He is a DNC minion.
Whoever posted this nasty reply to 'abc' on 11/16/08 should be banned.nm
nm
Michael Savage banned from Great Britian...(sm)
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/michael-savage-banned-from-great-britain
GOOD FOR THEM!!!! LOL. We need to do the same thing. I can think of 2 right off the top of my head. How about Hannity and O'Really?
I thought hateful people were banned from this forum
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
I didn't know that.
Thanks, Democrat. I wasn't aware of that point at all, and to me, that makes a huge difference. I will visit the site and check it out. Thanks again.
I though you said you didn't
Sorry, but I didn't see anywhere
in AR's post that she was against it. Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.
The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth. Don't believe me? Ask Valerie Plame.
I didn't say that.nm
It is me, but I didn't get it...sm
I think there is a problem wiht the email on forumatrix because I tried to send an email to the poster ????? who posted on the conservative board today and got an error message as well.
Nevermind it though. Have a good day! I have to get ready for my mini vacation later this week, so I will be working mucho hours til Wednesday.
I didn't know it was q/yours/q.
I just made a fast post. I don't know what the rest of the stuff is you are talking about. ForuMatrix is a worldwide board. Some of us don't even live in the United States. People here might want to realise that when making responses. It is of no consequence to me one way or the other. Just asking a question.
I didn't think so.
Same old. Same old.
No way. He didn't say that, did he??? nm
.
I didn't think of it this way.
I really didn't think of that, but you are right. My brother-in-law made over $20K in a few months. My sister has paid off just about everything, including the mortgage.
But, that is a heck of a risk to take for a little cash.
Didn't know about that one.
nm
You'd be #$%*@ing if they didn't do anything -
But, it IS the RNC, so they are damned either way with socialists oops I mean democRATS like yourself.
Please tell me he didn't say that
I received a call from an friend who was so upset and said Obama called Palin a pig in lipstick. I responded, surely no, you must be mistaken. Obama is running for office of the President of the United States. Why would he ruin his chances of winning by calling this lady a pig. That doesn't sound like rational behavior for a presidential candidate. However, to my surprise I opened several different news sources (both liberal and conservative) and sure enough he did. I'm thinking why, why in the world would you fall down that path of being so low that you would call Palin a pig saying "you can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig". If he was trying to make a joke in reference to her joke about the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull is lipstick, this joke could not have come at a worse time for him. How in the world is he going to explain that one.
Shame shame Barack Obama. This has to be one of the lowest comments anyone can make about another candidate. - Not funny! Why would you go and ruin any chance you had that people may have thought you had a little bit of "class" to you.
I haven't watched MSNBC but am curious as to how they are going to respond. How can they support someone when this is his opinion of other people.
Talk about low class. One more reason I will not be voting democrat this election.
I didn't know this either, but....sm
I was a little disappointed in McCain yesterday, blaming Bush for the current crisis, just like Obama.
What he needs to do, is link Obama and Biden to this, as they both took bribes from the lobbyists, from these corporations, that went under.
Where's the outrage against the dems and the democratic congress, that knew these things were going on, and refused to step in and stop these from happening?
Once again, it's blame George Bush, and McCain has to remember he's running against Obama, not George Bush.
I don't think he didn't know where
Spain was. I think he is just old, tired from the campaign and wasn't thinking very clearly at that moment. But that is not any more comforting than not knowing where Spain is. Geography he can learn; energy, youth and vitality he cannot get back. My mom is a pretty spry 75YO, but would I want her as President at that age, no way.
I didn't go after anything she said . . .
I posed a question, which is worse?. You read far more into it than was intended. Lady R. brought up Obama's bitterly clingly to guns and religion insult and added an additional insult of referring to those people as rednecks. Thus, my question, which is worse? She was just as clueless that it was offensive.
And as far as going after what my opponent says, I am not running for anything, I have no opponent. I voted for McCain in the primary of 2000 and was very disappointed when he wasn't the nominee then. I am an independent that has actually voted both parties.
You didn't see this on NBC, etc.
Subject: Bet Ya didn't hear about this on NBC
Family with Down Syndrome Child Meets John McCain and Sarah Palin
September 9, 2008
((( BEGIN PHONE TRANSCRIPT WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH )))
RUSH: Kurt in Pittsburgh, hello, sir. Nice to have you on the EIB Network, and how about the Steelers defense? CALLER: How about those Steelers, huh? RUSH: How about that? CALLER: Hey, listen, Rush, longtime listener, first-time caller, one of those Bible, family, gun clingers from western Pennsylvania. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: And I wanted to share a story with you. A week ago last Saturday we went to the Palin-McCain rally in Washington, Pennsylvania, was the day after he announced her, and we have a five-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, and we made a sign that said: "We Love Kids with Down Syndrome." So when they pulled in their bus, the sign did catch their eye (McCain and Palin and the rest of their family) it caught their eye, we could tell, they gave us a thumbs-up from the bus, so we were all excited just by that --
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait. Who gave you the thumbs up, McCain and Palin? CALLER: McCain, Palin, Cindy McCain, we could see them from the bus. We were in a position where we had eye contact with them -- RUSH: Oh, cool! CALLER: My wife was holding our daughter. RUSH: Very, very, very cool. CALLER: It was really cool, Rush. I was like, "Wow, that's awesome," because I love Governor Palin and so I thought that's really neat. So then we moved around as the bus was getting ready to pull out, we kind of positioned ourselves so we could just wave them on and a Secret Service agent came up to us and said, "Hey, can you come with us?" I was like, "Do we have a choice?" RUSH: (laughing) You shouldn't have worried. It's not the Clinton administration. CALLER: Right. So we accompanied them up the hill, we went right to the bus, where it was, and Governor Palin, Senator McCain, Cindy, Todd Palin, they're all standing there. We're in this inner circle with just us and them, and the Secret Service agent, and they came right up to us and thanked us for coming out, said they loved our sign, and Governor Palin immediately said, "May I hold your daughter?" and our daughter Chloe, who's five, went right to her, and I have some pictures I'd love to send you maybe when I'm done here, but Governor Palin was hugging Chloe, and then her little daughter brought their baby Trig who has Down syndrome from the bus, he was napping, and Chloe went right over and kissed him on the cheek, and my son Nolan who's nine, he thanked her.
RUSH: This is amazing. CALLER: I will send you all the stuff, Senator McCain was talking to my son, and we thanked him for his service, and he asked my son if he wanted to see the bus, and we were hanging out and it was very surreal. I felt like we could have had a pizza and a beer with them, they were so warm. RUSH: You know what? I want to put you on hold. I want Snerdley to give you our super-secret, known-only-to-three-people here, e-mail address. CALLER: I will send you everything, Rush. RUSH: And then could you send us these pictures? Would you mind if we put them on the website? CALLER: I would be honored, and my main thing is they are warm, kind, genuine people, and they represent the best of this country. RUSH: That's right. And when you send these pictures, make sure you identify them. I mean, we'll know Palin and McCain, of course. Identify yourselves. CALLER: I will, I will identify everybody in the picture, Rush, and God bless you for being a beacon of hope and truth in this country. RUSH: Oh, no, no. It's nothing, it's nothing. You're doing the Lord's work. CALLER: Well, we're very blessed and I want people to know what a blessing it is to have a child with Down syndrome. These kids, they're angels. RUSH: That's the thing. There's always good to be found in everything that happens. It may be a while before it reveals itself.
CALLER: Absolutely. RUSH: Right, and when she hugged my daughter I said, here's the difference, this candidate embraces life and all its limitless possibilities. RUSH: All right. CALLER: That's what she is. RUSH: Terrific, okay, I gotta run here, but I'm going to put you on hold. CALLER: Thank you, Rush. RUSH: Thank you, Kurt. I really appreciate it. ((( END TRANSCRIPT )))
|
|
Well, you didn't say that s/m
you didn't agree with everything in that propaganda. Therein lies the problem. Don't put stuff out there as fact if you don't agree with it.
Sorry the Dems didn't have enough votes to pass the bail-out without their Pub counterparts. They are all a greedy bunch of vipers and I intend to vote AGAINST my Senator (Democrat) and Represent (Republican) when they come up for re-election and I have told them so! Both have voted to support big business in their district and gone against the will of there constituents on every issue.
Sorry, I didn't see
your post before I posted mine. I said apology accepted. I forgot about "that dog won't hunt." LOL
I didn't know he had said this....
Obama told an evangelical church in South Carolina: "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."
hmmm.
I didn't say it was okay - sm
But they both aspire to be dictators. Obama just hides it.
No not all democrats are socialists. Obama IS. So is Hillary. Although now in all fairness to her, knowing what I know about what type of person Obama is, I should have voted for her.
Please tell me he didn't say this....
"My job this morning is to be so persuasive....that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack."
- Barack Obama, January 8, 2008, speaking at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
What in the heck? He really does think he is the messiah! Anyone else ever see or hear of this? I came across it somewhere, googled it and it's out there...
no didn't see it
I don't turn the TV during the day, otherwise, I get nothing done. The internet is bad enough, lol.
ACTUALLY I DIDN'T
swampmamma
She didn't put you down.
You are the one getting defensive because we don't see your point of view. She asked for facts to back up your statement when it was just your opinion and not a fact at all.
If that was your opinion...fine. I do not agree but that is my opinion. However, when people ask for facts...don't get all bent out of shape when you can't give them any.
I didn't, but I think I'm going to.
I didn't want to be the first
to say anything, but to uses a child to bash the oponent you don't like.
Please be fair in your assessments.
actually I didn't need to look it up
I read a lot and know how to spell lots of words. I think I learned how to spell that one in 8th grade. Too bad you can't see the irony.
I didn't get to see it
I'll have to find it online. I thought that speech he gave awhile back at the dinner (I can't remember the name of it right now) was hilarious. Wonder if this turned out like that?
I watched a rerun of O on Jon Stewart last night. I'll admit he is witty too.
Didn't I now?
I'd love to keep on chatting but gotta get about some constructive efforts now.
she didn't say that
at all. But of course, being christian, you have to see the worst in absolutely everything.
|