I didn't say that depends on what the definition of "IF"
Posted By: sbMT on 2008-10-26
In Reply to: Do you hear yourself. Seriously. Nitpicking over - "that depends on what the....sm
There is a big difference between IF and WHEN. IF I said "...If I go to the store" or "...when I go to the store" IF means I may go to the store, WHEN means I WILL go to the store.
The other poster said that Mccain was saying he was going to be president and I pointed out that so did Obama and I gave PROOF from his OWN site.
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
No "If"
He didn't say "If I am president" He said "When I am president"
I'll try to find a clip where he says it, but I remember him saying it because I remember commenting to my husband that it was odd to say that instead of "If"
Correction - This..."If you are not with me, you are against me."
is Bush's motto.
Yep, the "if its true" factor.
What part of "if and when" did you not understand?
Please go back and read the post slowly and pay attention.
"If the laws in this country are not going to be enforced, what's the point of having them?
Would that include Proposition 8 that was recently upheld as lawful? ;-)
It all depends on how you look at it....
Obama actually has 166,186 vote lead over Clinton in the popular vote -- 17,267,658 to 17,101,472. If Michigan's primary is included, where Clinton received 328,307 votes and Obama none due to the fact he removed his name from the ballot, Clinton takes a 162,123 vote lead.
It depends on who you believe.
nm
Depends on who you ask. It is okay according
nm
All depends on what you think a nut is, eh.
He is a well-respected researcher and author, who has gained a lot of confidence and respect of some of the finest minds on this planet. Sure he may have some books you don't agree with, but there are a lot of authors like that. Some books you enjoy others you don't. And if you don't do the research yourself how can you discount anything anyone who has spent 20 years researching has to say. Probably the same crowd that discounts scientists and climatologists who have been at their jobs for 40 and 50 years as kooks because they come out and tell you Algore doesn't know what the he!! he's talking about. I guess people would consider them "nuts" too. David Icke has a website where you can learn a lot of useful information.
I guess before JFK was assassinated if people were told there would be an assassination and it would come from within, people would have called them nuts too.
Actually, the people I consider nuts are the ones who will only listen to what is fed to them through the boob tube (Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, Limbaugh, Hannity, Colmes, etc) and the ones who will not listen to issues of importance but just follows the leader with their eyes closed, and anything they don't agree with or like they call nuts. I guess in their own minds by making fun and ridiculing others who don't agree with them they must feel elevated above all others - just another elite nut to me.
Sometimes you have to look with both eyes open to get to the truth.
Depends
what the definition of 'lobbyist' is. Same as it depended what the definition of 'is' is.
depends on what poll you are looking at
I've seen recent polls that put both Clinton and Obama about even with McCain when matched up together and others that show both of them come out ahead of McCain 5-10 points. Others then show McCain ahead. Polls are so subjective that you have to take them with a grain of salt. The most telling thing to me is that Democratic vote turnout has been twice that of Republican turnout in some areas, so no matter what people are saying in the polls, getting them to the voting booths in November is a different matter. The Democrats are energized and enthusiastic, flocking to the polls. The Republicans overall are leukwarm on McCain (and the party in general) and it's showing in unenthusiastic turnouts. This will play very well for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November.
It depends on the situation
I voted for Bush the first term. He was running against Gore. The country could not afford another 4 years of Clintons. I voted for Bush and I'm proud I did because it helped keep a known bafoon who didn't know squat diddly out of the white house. After Bush was elected a lot changed. I didn't want to vote for him again, yet the best the dems could do was give us Kerry???????? There were so many qualified people running. How that ninny got in there (must have been all those purple hearts). So I voted for Bush again. However I wasn't voting for Bush, I was voting against Kerry. That doesn't make me and others morons, it makes us well-informed voters. If it meant four more years with Bush in there then so be it, but I'll tell you something. With everything that has happened in the world these past eight years the US is lucky that Gore and Lerch were not in office. That's the way a lot of people feel.
Now we're in a totally different election. Both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden are very different from their usual party people. This year is an unusually difficult election. Times are quite different than they were 4 and 8 years ago.
To tell someone they are a moron because they didn't vote for democrats? The other choice would have been even more moronic to vote for.
With everything that has happened I'll take Bush over Gore or Kerry anyday. And before anyone goes blaming him for everything that's happened - He's just a talking head being told what to do. If you want to blame anyone, blame the bafoons in his party (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc to include the people who tell Bush what he's going to do).
I suppose it depends on who says it...sm
If she said it referring to herself....who cares.
If someone says it about Sarah Palin.....who cares, it will bounce off, as she is neither of those words.
What about when Obama talked about all the small town bitter people holding on to their guns and religion, in his San Francisco speech?
Was that bad? I think it was, and he disenfranchised a whole group of voters, to this day, who would not consider voting for him....
That is perhaps, the phrase that deRothchild was comparing to...not sure, but perhaps...
Sooooo.....to answer your question? which word is worse? Well, both of them are, and there's been plenty of name calling lately. It's getting tiresome, really.
Petty, spiteful, little name calling, which has run entirely too rampant lately in the media, not to mention on this board from time to time.
depends in which poll you look at....
and all within the margin of error.
I think that depends on your definitition (sm)
of a *nice neighborhood.* I don't judge neighborhoods by the cost of the houses, I judge them by the people who live there. At present I live in an average-to-small house on a double lot. Plenty of room for the backyard garden, cookouts, etc. I have neighbors who I would not trade for the world. So, if I had that kind of money I would probably stay right where I am. I may, however, change that tile in the bathroom to marble and put that koi pond out back that I've been wanting for years....LOL.
I guess it depends on how you look
at it. There are so many things that I don't agree with Obama on that I want him to fail. If he is succeeds, I feel that our country will fail because we will go down a path that I don't agree with. I want America to succeed but if Obama does everything he wants.....I don't see how America can succeed. I mean no ill will to him and do not wish him any harm. I just do not like the way he is handling things, spending money, etc. The ideas that he has and the government assisted programs he wants to institute will not only bankrupt us even more but I feel are bad ideas because people shouldn't rely on government to live. They need to rely on themselves. I feel that these programs will not encourage personal responsibility or hard work. It will reward irresponsible and lazy people. It will crush the American dream. So yes....in that sense....I want him to fail. I don't want Americans to have to rely on government for everything. I don't like the idea of our government getting bigger and controlling more and more things.
I look at Obama and I see a typical politician. He did nothing but try and make everyone feel all warm and tingly about change and hope and all he has done since he has been in office is lie one right after another.
I feel that if Obama succeeds in his personal agenda....America will fail.
Depends on location.
If it is Podunk, Nowheresville--probably. If it is NYC or Boston or even someplace like Wichita--not so much.
It all depends upon the culture.
The hand-holding custom among Arab men as they walk does not signify that they are on a 'date' but is a symbol of mutual respect and/or friendship.
As far as greetings go, a handshake with direct eye contact is becoming more acceptable, but some ethnic customs do persist. The European double-air-kiss is a greeting between equals (and pretentious New Yorkers). Among Japanese the relative depth of bows acknowledges who has the superior rank, but both bow. Bowing of one Arab to another or one European to another (not to be confused with a smart click of the heels and bob of the head, a sort of antiquated European salute) is a sign of subjugation. I am acknowledging you as my superior in rank. I am your humble subject.
There was only one guy bowing. It was our president, and his upper body was nearly horizontal to the ground, far lower than shaking hands with a shorter man would seem to require. I don't mind if Obama thinks he needs to appear friendly, I just don't want him acknowledging subservience.
It depends on the legs! Why should and would
a woman with ugly legs expose them? Then it gets indecent and fugly. If the legs are nice it's acceptable.
Regarding what you state that the IQ depends
solely on the DNA, similar to the color of the eyes, height, etc.... ..I disagree. disagree. Therr is this theory that the realtive IQ score is already set at the age of 7 and cannot be improved. In my opinion it can be improved by ongoing education.
You should definitely try it.
When life begins depends on
someone's religious beliefs. Not all people believe that life begins at conception.
I don't think the beliefs of any religious group over another religious group should be shown preference when it involves the law.
I guess it depends on your perspective...
if you are as far left as Obama, I guess CNN WOULD look conservative...lol. I guess it is in perspective. The point I was trying to make but obviously failed is that no one is going to learn anything if they only listen to one side...and people who automatically yell yeah you got that from Fox or Rush Limbaugh are exactly the kind of people I am talking about. You give an opinion, and if it differs from theirs it automatically came from Fox or Rush Limbaugh and that makes it wrong. I just wish people would not listen to the party line on either side and would use due diligence and research for themselves. The Obama website is not where to go to learn about Obama. The McCain website is not where to go to learn about McCain. Voting the party line is just too Pied Piperish for me. Although I am not and never was a Democrat, I have to applaud that PUMA bunch for having the gall to buck the system and fight for what they think is right. I am not crazy about their candidate either, but I admire their guts, and that is what America is about, by golly. Hil has every right to put her name in nomination at the convention and people who support her have their say. That being said, I noticed Obama caved on that and came out with that placating and to MY thinking condescending thing of "letting women and Clinton supporters feel vindicated." Yeah right...lol. He wants their votes. Period. Go PUMA!
guess it depends where you live because...
where we live, the entire region, all I see are small businesses starting up, then they are gone within a year, one after another, ghost towns in all the cities of empty businesses being literally destroyed by Wal-Mart et al.
There has to be a middle ground, and there has to be more tolerance or there will always be division more and more, rich or poor, and there will always be revolution and unrest.
and what are you talking about 'sharing' with people. you think paying taxes and contributing to road work, infrastructure, everything paid by taxes should be on the backs of poor people and middle class, which excuse me if I am wrong, but does middle class even exist anymore in reality or just in people's own truths of what they want to see.
we see every day more and more people down scaling their lifestyles, sacrificing whether to buy groceries or gas, more and more people cannot even get jobs because of credit checks and background checks (guess working now is also only for the elite, well-off people, and no one should ever be forigven for their past or allowed to progress). who then is promoting social programs - seems to me right now people are being pushed into eventually making all the same pay, fixed income.
...and excuse me forefathers but do did they think they could enslave people, force them to leave their own countries and families, tie them up and bring them to America, abuse them, torture them, treat them less than animals, and then have no responsibility for them.
this what people are calling 'sharing' with people less fortunate than ourselves was created here and we are left to resolve it.
I would rather have a leader in this country who would at least recognize it, try to fix it, then to just have the same old rhetoric and division, pushing people farther and farther apart so only a few people can make profits..
gotta run -
I am not sure what your family above would have to 'share' but I do respect your point of view...
Depends on what part of California - sm
it's like 2 states sometimes. The central portion of the state: Central Valley in the north, Orange County in the south, chock full of narrow-minded midwest transplants, many of whom are evangelical christians. The coast and mountains have more progressive and free-thinking people. (Also the more highly-educated, as a rule). You couldnt pay me to live anywhere but on the Calif. coast.
Depends on who he campaigned or voted for
If he wanted O in, it will probably be one-sided like all the rest. If he wanted McC in, it will be one-sided, too. If he remained neutral, like newspeople SHOULD be, then it should be interesting. I do like him, though.
I guess it depends on what affiliation you have.
It seems to me that there is just as much, if not more, bashing by Republicans/conservatives as I see directed towards them. In actuality it is probably fairly evenly split.
depends on how you measure success I guess....
He only got a 4-5 point bounce in the polls and lost that the next week. Not all Americans were impressed with his "citizen of the world" speech. There are those of us who wonder where his real allegiance lies. No wonder.
By the way, when I say "hoohah" I don't mean the word you refer to. Apparently it does not mean the same thing in my neck of the woods. If I want to intimate the 4-letter word I would certainly do it more directly...not my style.
There is no way that little speech in Germany was "diplomacy." And gee, call me old-fashioned, but I think if you are running for Pres of the US, you should give your political speeches HERE.
I did not demand, nor have I heard anyone else demand that Obama admit the surge is working. It is obvious that it is. The fact that he chooses to ignore it does not give me any more faith in his ability to run the country or take care of national security issues, and makes me doubt his honesty. As to being true to his beliefs...didn't take him long to throw his lifelong friend and mentor the Reverend Wright under the bus for political expediency. There's that trust thing again.
How anyone can say, faced with all the info out there about him and how he handled the Wright thing (which was in name only, you don't stay in a church for 20 years that is built on black liberation theology if you don't believe it)...and say with a straight face he is being true to his beliefs.
Well, I take that back...he IS being true to his hard left socialist/Marxist beliefs. Already wants to redistribute wealth aka economic parity, a big element of the black liberatin theology...by taxing oil companies and redistributing their profits to people who did nothing to earn it. How much more socialist approaching Marxist could you possibly be? In that, yes, I would agree...he is being true to his socialist/Marxist beliefs. You got me there.
I guess it depends on your view of the beginning of
is life. I'm not advocating third or even second trimester abortions but believe me it's far better for a woman to abort a child than have one that won't care for it. Take Casey Anthony, for example...
We need to vote as if our entire future depends on it,
x
All depends on what news you watch, polls
are all over the place
Depends on what you call racist I suppose
@
It all depends on what news station you listen to
I talked to my best friend the other day (whom I met when I was in the Army). Her husband is in Iraq. Her son is in Afghanastan, and her daughter is in Iraq. None of them like war (who does) but the consensus among them and their fellow soldiers is that it is worth it. Do they want the war to end, heck yeah. Do they want to come home, heck yeah. Do they want to give up everything they've been fighting for. NO WAY! They say if they leave now everything they have done to help the people of Iraq will all have been for nothing. They want to stay until the job is finished and not any sooner. They say if we don't do this it will be left up to our children, our nieces and nephews to take care of when they get older.
It all depends on who you listen to for news. Of course MSNBC, CNN and other liberal news agencies say its a mistake we should not be there, need to come home now. But my freinds said her husband and two kids and all their fellow soldiers say stay until the job is done. For every soldier on video saying we shouldn't be here, etc, etc., there is another soldier like the one in the OPs link that say, don't tell us its not worth it.
Depends on the mistake. Making the case for war in Iraq on a stack of
lies from Curveball, not your everyday ooops.
As if.
Diaper Dave in airport rage "Do You Know Who I Am?" umm...depends
Report Of Vitter In Airport Rage: Do You Know Who I Am?!!
Roll Call reports that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the staunch social conservative whose career became bogged down in the 2007 D.C. Madam prostitution scandal, was sighted this past Thursday night having an incident of airport rage at Dulles Airport.
Vitter arrived 20 minutes before the plane was scheduled to depart, and found the gate locked. He then opened the door, setting off the alarm and inviting the attention of an airline worker:
Vitter, our spy said, gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn "do-you-know-who-I-am" tirade that apparently grew quite heated.
That led to some back and forth, and the worker announced to the irritable Vitter that he was going to summon security.
Vitter, according to the witness, remained defiant, yelling that the employee could call the police if he wanted to and their supervisors, who, presumably, might be more impressed with his Senator's pin.
But after talking a huffy big game, Vitter apparently thought better of pushing the confrontation any further. When the gate attendant left to find a security guard, Vitter turned tail and simply fled the scene.
Late Update: Vitter is now responding to the story, after a spokesman declined to comment in the initial reports:
"After being delayed on the Senate floor ensuring a vote on my anti-pay-raise amendment and in a rush to make my flight home for town hall meetings the next day, I accidentally went through a wrong door at the gate," Vitter said in a statement. "I did have a conversation with an airline employee, but it was certainly not like this silly gossip column made it out to be."
What is your definition of..
winning the war, Iraq and Viet Nam. What exactly does that mean, that there will democracy, an industrialized, technologically adept population? that we will overthrow the **terrorists** (where will they go??) and peace will be restored to the kingdom? I don't get what you think is going to be achieved by staying in Iraq. There has never been peace in the region and there never will be, NEVER unless Himself comes down here and changes things. And another question Islamofascists, who on God's green earth came up with that moniker? It is really quite bizarre, and a mouthful.
Where did you copy the chickenhawk piece from, just curious.
Thanks for the definition!
That is me..liberal to the core and so proud of it. Watching the debate last night I was shaking my head watching those old men with old ideas, so out of touch. Made me so happy that Im a liberal democrat.
Okay but by your definition
His BROTHER is in need! And if not him, definitely his aunt who is living in public housing, illegally at that (unless it's been refuted and I missed that part)
All I'm saying is you have to start at home. Family should come first. I would believe him a lot more about taking care of others if I saw him doing that, instead of just trying to tax us to take care of others.
On a side note, why in the heck does someone who makes almost 1M in 2006 get to claim a child care credit? Like they need that.
By definition it is...
a servile (submissive) self-seeking flatterer
Definition of NWO from wikipedia
The term new world order has been used to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. The first usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of the Second World War when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association the phrase would bring to the failed League of Nations. In retrospect however, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a new world order. The most recent, and most widely discussed, application of the phrase came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try and define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and pragmatic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the First Gulf War. Perhaps not surprisingly, the perception of what the new world order entailed in the press and in the public imagination far outstripped what either Gorbachev or Bush had outlined, and was characterized by nearly comprehensive optimism.
If your definition is accurate
which I highly dobut then I guess I'm a liberal because I don't pledge blind loyalty to Bush. On the other hand I don't think every word he says is a lie either. I think he is a human capable of human mistakes, but I don't think every problem in the world at this moment is Bush's fault like many on this board do. I think many people are obsessed with the fact there's a conservative in office. It wouldn't matter what their name was Bush or Smith, the obsession would be the same. There are many wacko theories out there on all sorts of issues, but some I have read here take the cake. You don't talk about any other issues other than Bush is fault of everything wrong in this world. To me, liberal or conservative, is a little off the deep end no matter what political ideology you come from.
Do we have a different definition for the word lie?nm
z
If you want a definition of racism...
read the creed for Obama's church...and read some of his pastor mentor's sermons...and some of the speeches and quotes of their friend Louis Farrakhan. That, my friend, is the very definition of racism. When you read the creed of the church, substitute the word "white" everywhere the word "black" is used and tell me it is not racist. We do NOT need a racist in the White House.
Liberal: A definition.
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties. 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets.
What is the definition of "wind bag"?
Once again, I just skimmed your post. You are much too fond of your own words.
I am pretty succint in my posts. There is no flip flop. I am stating history in black and white. It doesn't come from Common Dreams. I am explicit in sending the links for those to read them if they wish. I don't quote it. I think you got the market cornered on that maneuver.
Not much of value has come out of the coservative sector, from my point of view. All the sustainable social movements have been on a liberal front. It just so happens that we are a small faction and can get very little leverage, but when we do, it is for the benefit of all not just a few. Can the conservative sector say that? I don't think so.
This is not childish. It's political fact. If you makes you feel better to place the blame everywhere, well that's your right.
If you don't like my liberal thoughts or progressive ideas, don't read my posts. Continue to be a sheep.
Thanks, but I did not want a dictionary definition....
I wanted a *liberal* to define what that means to them...what are their views...what is the *platform* so to speak...what makes a *liberal* different from a *leftist?* Why is Obama not a liberal? That is the information I am seeking...not a dictionary definition. In a liberal's own words, so to speak.
I think that might be a stretch in the definition of
socialism.
Definition of choice
Choice consists of the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action. Some simple examples include deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route for a journey. More complex examples (often decisions that affect what a person thinks or their core beliefs) include choosing a lifestyle, religious affiliation, or political position.
You choose your path, I'll choose mine.
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
FYI...Here is the definition of stalking.
Fundamentally, stalking is a series of actions that puts a person in fear for their safety. The stalker may follow you, harass you, call you on the telephone, watch your house, send you mail you don't want, or act in some other way that frightens you.
The exact legal definition varies from state to state, but all states now have some kind of law against stalking. Virtually any unwanted contact between a stalker and their victim which directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can generally be referred to as stalking, whether or not it meets a state's exact legal definition.
Stalkers use a wide variety of methods to harass their targets. The inventiveness, persistence, and obsessive nature of stalkers is almost unimaginable, until you have experienced being the target.
Stalking is a serious, potentially life-threatening crime. Even in its less severe forms, it permanently changes the lives of the people who are victimized by this crime, as well as affecting their friends, families, and co-workers. Law enforcement is only beginning to understand how to deal with this relatively new crime.
What's the definition of pubic?
.
Quick definition..sm
Marxist-Socialist
A philosophy-turned-governmental-ideology, usually mistaken for Stalinist/Leninist-Communist. This philosophy, although greatly misunderstood, is nothing more that the belief that the strong, the capable, and the powerful should support those too weak to support themselves. This philosophy, created by Karl Marx, was meant to be the fundamental building block for a utopian society, but was later taken up by a man named Lenin, who twisted and warped the pure isea of Socialism and turned it into Leninist-Communism. Later adopted by Joseph Stalin, who made the idea of Socialism a cruel cycle of death, hatred, and intolerence.
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
|
