I figured you were talking economically, but it
Posted By: wwannie on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Well most certainly I agree with you s/m - gourdpainter
sure wouldn't hurt any for us to get on our knees and ask for guidance from above. 
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
I think in saying "poor" she means economically poor - see msg
I am agreeing here that there are a lot of "poor black men" in jail because of drugs when the others are not because the laws are not equal - the "poor people" use meth or crank or something else that is made up and those drugs carry a much harsher sentence than using "cocaine" which is the drug the "unpoor people" tend to use.
You done figured it all out
Already coming up with conspiracy theories about losing even before losing the 2006 elections. Talk about defeatism. No wonder you all can't win elections. You defeat yourself before you even lose. If I was a Democrat and/or liberal I'd just buy a gun and shoot myself, because the world you all live in is pretty bleak.
yup - that's what I figured
.
I figured seeing as
I figured I'd like many others. Close my eyes, spin around in circles, say there's no place like home, there's no place like home while listening to Farrakan profess about the messiah. I wanted to try to feel what it must feel like on the kool-aid without actually having to drink some. So turned on MSNBC to listen to them.
After being a grown up, it sure is hard to be a kid again.
You think they might have figured out hip-hop won't be enough?......nm
x
That's what I figured
Can't argue with the truth.
That's what I figured. In fact,
it truly was a rhetorical question. 
I figured he'd be right up your alley...
He'll argue a point to the death regardless if he is wrong.
Yeah, I figured it was that way...sm
Are they like that to Obama when they spoof him? Riduculing, I mean?
How were they to Hillary, nice or not
Just wondering, cuz I don't stay up to watch that kind of stuff anymore. I think every president I ever saw them make fun of, they were, well, making fun of them....usually in an slightly underhanded way. But hey, it's a spoof, I understood that. I especially remember Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan spoofs. Not kind at all.
Are they nice spoof to the dems?
Thanks if you answer....
I figured it must be really funny
Farley & Grammer were on O'Reilly (Friday) talking about it & naturally Bill's cameo in it. It should be up on his w/s tomorrow. I'll look for it and post it. Otherwise, check it out.
It's about time we get some "fair & balanced" comedy for a change. That's why I never miss RedEye, either.
Sounds like you got it all figured out . . .
tell me where you got your crystal ball, 'cause I want one!
yea, I figured this would shut a few of them
xx
Have you figured out why the GOP imploded yet?
on how to save themselves from themselves? You really do have more important things to do with your time that make yourself look like a fool.
That's what I figured. - no message
.
Haven't you figured out yet that
obviously according to JTBB that black people are allowed to be racist. It is the white fold who aren't allowed to make any sort of comment against any other religion or race or their career will be in the dumpster. Minorities are the only ones allowed to be racist vocally.
To me....Rev. Wright is nothing but a racist black man who is bitter with a huge chip on his shoulder. He says what he wants when he wants and obviously there is as reason why Obama was made to get away from him....even though he really didn't want to in the beginning.
Haven't you figured it out yet?
Some of these folks are so caught up in the Obama "blind" love affair, they can't focus on reality!!
I figured that'd bring out the first-graders:)
Nice to know I'm not yet over-estimating the self-flagellating opposition.
Ahhh...okay...I finally figured out who you really are....
and now this makes sense. You hide behind different monikers and pitch a fit and attack posters personally because you are incapable of handling disagreement. Frankly, I am not insisting anyone play with me. That, again, had nothing to do with any liberal poster other than you...and I likened you to a spoiled child, which is obvious from your actions...hardly name calling. My original post, after which you went off on me for no good reason, merely stated I was going to respect what two of the posters here were complaining about, that they did not want conservatives coming here and *making* them defend their positions because they were good people and knew they were right. I said I would respect that and just read, although I did not really understand why someone secure in their view would mind presenting it while also respecting the right of someone to disagree. Yes, that is definitely extending an olive branch. There is no need to fight and there is certainly no need to make it personal like fighting kids in a schoolyard. And, typically, under whatever moniker you use, you swoop in with the snide personal attacks. I guess you just can't help yourself.
I said I used to enjoy coming to this board because there were liberals who posted here who WERE secure in their beliefs and did not mind a lively debate at all. We did not always agree, but in some cases we did, and we respected each other's opinions. And you know that, because when you took time out from personally attacking me and every other conservative who came to this board, I am sure you read some of those posts. Yes, I know you are going to deny that I know you...but I know you. You stand out, believe me, because even if you change your moniker, your style of posting gives you away. It is always *us* and *we* like you are speaking for every liberal who comes to this board. You just gotta be you, I guess. Well, if it makes you feel better to attack me, have at it. Knock yourself out. Enjoy!
Spongebob and Patrick? I figured as much. nm
x
She's that young? I figured McCain was at
I figured your post was for me. I know I couldn't be the only one!
Thank you for standing with me!
I figured using an article that was not biased by. . .s/m
your so-called ""liberal spin"" might hold a little more credence. After all, the Canadians don't have a partisan agenda and are just reporting the facts.
I figured it out...because we didn't change his name...
With the collusion of the courts and some unknown official in Hawaii, this was all covered up, but it remains quite certain to this day that we DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE that Obama is even a natural-born citizen as requird for his office. If I absolutely HAD to bet everything on this question, I would bet he's not.
I figured out Silly Sally! See inside!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Silly+Sally
Have any of you pubs figured out why your party imploded,
your leadership deficit, whether your party is going more right or more central or what kind of paltform transplant you will be seeking? Let me give you a hint. Relentless Obama stalking, witch hunts and outlandish fabrications and criticisms did work real well for you in 2008. I'm with Just the Big Bad....you might want to rethink this strategy.
Well, Freethinker, if you haven't figured it out, this board is really into labels.
Though they will protest they aren't. It's obvious from a look at this board why there are two boards.
Well....good for you....you figured out that this is a democratically-dominated board...
profound grasp of the obvious. lol.
I guess she figured a way around that super majority thing, huh....
with no checks and balances from the minority, they will, in essence, make themselves a super ruling body, i.e., dictatorship, under Obama.
Heaven help us all.
I didn't watch that part. I figured it would be ridiculous. What's the scoop?
x
When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO
who provides campaign funds. Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines? Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills? Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head? Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble. God, I could go on and on here but I get tired. The nation is in such trouble. Serious serious trouble. There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics? did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference. lol.
Well I want you to know what fascism. And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks. Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself? There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota. You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice. Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened.
THINK ABOUT THIS!!!! Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake!
Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.
Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking
about the torture of prisoners, crimes against the Geneva conventions.
It seems that you did not read the last sentence in my former post.
Are you saying that crimes from the near past should all be forgotten?
Excuses, excuses - just what I figured.
Funny how it's only congress that prevents the democrats from keeping their promises but when we have a republican president it's always blamed directly on the president.
These issues I mentioned in my original post had nothing to do with congress. These were the O's decisions. He could have voted to repeal the Patriot Act and kept his campaign promise, but he didn't. He could have read through the spending bill before he signed it and gotten rid of the earmarks and kept his campaign promise. But no, these were his decisions.
But since we now have a democratic congress who are you going to blame for that?
Wow! Talk about double standards
Not really, you'd have to know what they were talking about
which I didn't know about the incident of the soldier accidentally killing other soldiers.
Thanks though.
Wow! what are you talking about???nm
x
What are you talking about?
.
I was talking about myself when I said that.
You might want to re-read my post.
What are you talking about?
I am sure I don't know. I know your game though.
Not what I was talking about
Wasn't referring to WMD, as stated in my post.
Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs, said his son-in-law, quite a few years earlier. If your theory of invading a country that no longer is a threat, then would you also advise invading Germany since they used to have a Nazi regime?
If you are talking to me...
which question did I not answer?
who are you talking to?
I don't understand the anonymous post... there are plenty I think it could be addressed to, why did you not point out what you mean? PS you are just stirring the pot more right?
Exactly what I am talking about. Think for yourself.
xx
Talking about yourself again, huh?
nm
what are you talking about?
straight out of left field... you random people!
Yes the baby has Down's syndrome...
He is so adorable did you see him when she held him on stage?
Babies are so amazing!
Okay, what are you talking about?
I just mean in terms of the baby being passed around. That's what people do with babies. They share the love.
Doncha have any babies in your family?
What are you talking about??
And you still have nothing positive to say about Obama.
All I'm asking for is something positive and you can't even do that.
You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need
You'll just produce your own figures (be they real or imagined) to 'back up' your own claims. But if you truly think the number of priests who have turned out to be sexual predators isn't a little fishy, then maybe that blindness is part of the problem.
No, I don't think he is talking about ...
the same sex ed for high school as he is kindergartners. However, it did describe talking about "sexual intercourse" and how HIV-AIDS is spread. I don't know how that is appropriate in any case for a kindergartner. The bill was specifically intended to open it up to the lower grades...it was already being taught in the upper grades. Why would you open that up to elementary school kids, let alone kindergartners? That was my point. If you want to establish a program for elementary school children about right and wrong touches, I am all for that. But introducing sexual intercourse and how HIV-AIDS is spread makes no sense to me for elementary school children. If they did not intend to teach it to elementary school children and kindergartners, why pass a bill to open it up to them?
Apparently many in the state senate agreed, because the bill did not pass.
That was my point. He in essence did vote for sex education for kindergartners and it was not just right and wrong touching. Thankfully, at least in my estimation...it did not pass. You saw the video...if he meant limited to "right and wrong touching" he would/should have said so.
I was talking about
appointing new justices to the supreme court. I would love to have lots of liberal justices seated on the bench. Has nothing to do with put babies in a closet, but hey, whatever.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
x
This is exactly what I am talking about. nm
nm
|
