I never meant to discuss the money -
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-10-31
In Reply to: so how do you think that children - Kendra
my point, Kendra, was just that these kids can already be treated without their parents consent, that that part of it was nothing new.
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
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
I was trying to discuss things with you
You obviously have a great hatred for our country and our president and cannot see the difference between Bush and world leaders who are set on the destruction of the United States and Israel. The Iranian president has made his intentions known about what he wants to do to Israel and the U.S. In fact, he had a nice little P.R. campaign in his country this past week detailing what he wants to do to us. If you are so naive to believe he just wants his country to have energy from nuclear plants then I guess you deviate from what much the U.S. and the rest of world thinks about Iran's intentions.
I said the nuclear option should be the last resort as I believe our president would make it, but you are so lost in your world of conspiracy theory on Bush's character and intentions that you evidently missed that part of my post.
I would like to know where you got the so-called Bush quotes. This is the first time I've heard people actually use quotes--where did those come from? I hope not a hearsay opinion piece, because that wouldn't lend much credence to those so-called quotes.
I was actually joking with you when I made the *shopping spree* remarks. I know you are much too intelligent to actually go and do that. You may, in my opinionm be a little misguided by your emotions but I know you're not that stupid. I'm sorry you cannot see humor in someone discussing this topic with you. I'm even more sorry that you feel you have to label everyone who disagrees with you as uninformed and unthinking. People will have different opinions with you on many issues but that makes them neither stupid or uninformed. Have a nice day...
I am not asking you to discuss Israel. sm
I know that it happens all the time. I am sorry that it does.
I refuse to discuss
religion with Moonies or Scientologists. There is just no common ground. The same way as I refuse to discuss politics with people who actually consider Fox a news station. They are indoctrinated and innoculated from the truth by daily coordinated talking points to distort any event (such as saying Charlie Gibson looking down his nose at SP or was too rough on her) to favor their desire to keep the corrupt repubs in power. It's a waste of my time.
Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
No, I don't argue much. I discuss or
post articles I think would be interesting to people on this board. I try not to tear down the people who post, either, not like some on this board. They have their opinion, I have mine.
No, I don't argue much. I discuss or
post articles I think would be interesting to people on this board. I try not to tear down the people who post, either, not like some on this board. They have their opinion, I have mine.
Your idea of a reply very often isn't up for discussion. You seem to think it's the only one that matters. End of discussion.
Okay - let's discuss the $9 mac and cheese.
Personally, I love bacon crumbs on my mac and cheese. Anyone else?
What do you expect? You just come to antagonize not discuss.
But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.
In order to smear it.
No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush. 
A time to dissect and discuss a war...
is after your military is at home and safe, if you want to debate it pubically. The time to discuss the war and how you as an American feel about it is in private until they are safe. If you want to discuss it while they are still at war, discuss it in town hall meetings. Discuss it at your house. Discuss it at Wal-Mart. Discuss it in your front yard. Write to your congressman. But do not do it publically while men and women are still fighting. You are entitled to your feelings and to express them. However, common courtesy, in my opinion, should keep a person from going public while men and women are still fighting. All that does is embolden the terrorists. They have said so themselves and it is pretty obvious that it does. I saw an interesting report on it this morning, how that is the number one *battle front* for AL Qaeda now...just feeding the propaganda machine with the daily stuff from the American public. Frankly, I don't think that is anything to be proud of. But that is just me.
Sam does discuss issues and gets attacked for it.
nm
What about parents who don't discuss with their kids?
And so you know right off, I'm not a Barack fan nor McCain fan. However, my own personal beliefs aside, I believe "it takes a village to raise a child" and there are FAR too many parents NOT doing their jobs these days, which forces schools, governments, etc. to jump in to help. I see far too many parents who'd just as soon go to the bar than raise their child. There are parents who are apathetic, and there are parents who are embarrassed or ill-informed themselves to teach their kids sex ed. I don't think sex ed is a problem at all in school, so long as it's in the context of health education and not presented to students in a biased manner of some sort. It IS how mammals reproduce and therefore does have a place in education.
God gave us free will and if you try to control the free will of someone else, how is that right? I believe in consequences of free will when someone chooses wrong, which is why we have laws in place. I don't believe it's any one person's or party's place to tell another how to live their life, period.
Personally, I'd like to see more parents do their jobs at home so gov't and schools didn't have to do it for them (and all the rest of us too as a result), and sure, ideally I'd like to see more kids abstaining from sex altogether. But I'm also a realist and know that my beliefs and willpower aren't the same as everyone else's. That's what is supposed to be great about USA.
The reality is that not all kids have the willpower to abstain in the heat of the moment, no matter WHAT their upbringing or what wonderful parents they have. As you said, it's everywhere - on TV, movies, ads, games, you name it! It's in their face now more than ever, so to ignore it and act like it won't ever happen isn't the answer, either. No, I don't know what the answer is, either, but I don't think that's it.
Also, to take away any access to sex ed and/or birth control at all is in a sense forcing the ideals/morals of one group of people on another and basically taking the free will of the other group - how do you reconcile that? I'm being sincere, as this question plagues me often when considering these issues.
Honey, I would glady discuss this
with you privately. Since you seem to be so well-read, as I am also, we could have a great discussion on this subject. The market can easily be manipulated by speculators and the outrageously rich to sway political minds. When the market is down it favors the dems, it's a fact. When the economy is good, the current administration gets the credit; when it's bad the same also happens. You don't think that can be manipulated at all?
My own humble opinion on why O will be elected are these: The economy, hatred of Bush, white guilt and uninformed voters, period.
Maybe she just doesn't have anything to discuss with you....pitiful
nm
I like it here. Besides, mostly all they discuss there is current events. Imagine that. nm
Well pardon me, but how can you discuss the present without a history of sm
what shaped it? It isn't possible.
Well, by all means lets discuss pertinent
xx
Of course, because it takes high thinking to discuss
//
Why don't we discuss the Republican candidates for a change?
This is just like a dog chasing his tail! 
It takes money to make money. nm
Don't worry JR - very easy to trounce them AND discuss the issues.
They're dumb, and they lack conviction, and they do most of the work of exposing themselves for the lackeys they are so that we don't have to spend much effort at it. I mean case in point - that the Freepers would even THINK it was a good plan to tie up liberals on chat boards to keep them from grassroots organizing. Hey, if they can get paid for it more power to them - but sheez, are they really that stupid? Or, just that desperate, heh.
Why don't you discuss like an adult instead of throwing temper tantrums?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
It's like trying to discuss Dante's Inferno with someone stuck in My Little Red Reader. nm
nm
We'll discuss that crime when Bush et al are done with their trial.
nm
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
What I meant was....
why can we not protect the unborn children first? Are they not as deserving as homeless, poor, etc.? That was my point. I do not see, nor do I ever expect to see, liberals exhorting us to take care of unborn children as a part of taking care of the least among us. I have seen Conservatives exhort to take care of the least among us, including unborn children. Conservatives just want to put a limit on it, and regulate it a little more closely (as far as welfare, etc.). I don't have a problem with that either. And I give privately to Christian organizations that DO take care of the least among us. It does not have to go through the government to be effective. I guess that is where we differ.
What I meant was...
He should have said "no comment" first thing when he addressed the American people - when he said the whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing. At that point he was not obligated to comment, and he shouldn't have.
I am not a "Clintonite" or whatever you said. I just think he was a more intelligent person than Bush. Although I despise Bush, I really do like his wife Laura. I think she seems like a very caring, very genuine person.
I do NOT plan to vote for Hilary. I plan to vote for Barack Obama if he makes it that far. I think he could really improve the health insurance crisis in America. I never hear Republican candidates talking about making healthcare more affordable, and therefore I will probably vote for a Democrat.
I meant
In the last paragraph I meant to write posting "false" information, not "fall".
Not quite sure if it is a pub or a dem who meant DNC....lol nm
nm
Sorry that was meant for OP nm
x
I think you meant that some
or maybe even many Obama supporters are educated. Just like McCain supporters.
Meant I wonder......
.
Her's what I meant
Not true meant that I'm not a rabid Republican (I'm a conservative). That's why the RINOS need to get the heck out of the RNC. They've ruined it. Also, they're frauds.
yes, that is what I meant
I have no idea why I typed Otis Small?? Good night GP
Not what I meant.
What I meant was that I hope he has the opportunity to serve out the full four years and/or that this election isn't contested for some reason resulting in the involvement of the Supreme Court. For example, I see the GOP is filing a lawsuit against Obama, alleging he used campaign funds when he visited his grandmother for the last time.
I hope we can all get along and not be as divided as we have been for the past few years, and I hope that nothing happens that would cause such division.
Again, I thought the post you wrote was very classy. Thanks. 
I meant...
As O's father is Muslim and O's mother Christian, they had to decide how they were going to raise O.
That what I meant.
I am roman catholic.
What? Oh, you must have MEANT to say
nm
I only meant where did it come from?
WHY the OP posted it
but aren't you classy
obviously he meant that he wants
to win over the moderates and fight the terrorists with his strategy.
I believe what you meant to say was
the hard working class of people that this entire country was founded on is going by the wayside, instead being replaced by an invasion of another country and their people to add to the already overwhelmed small population of people that work to pay for those who have spent generation after generation mooching off of the working class.
If not being lazy makes me self righteous, then so be it.
That is not what I meant.
Out of all the earmarks in the bill 60% were dems and 40% were pubs. I didn't mean the whole bill was 100% earmarks.
Meant what I put
knew such smart people here (I) could just get ......
still going at it, thanks for the snippy response.
I meant to say..
We already have laws in place that work to protect people from being harmed or killed.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew. Do you know Noam Chomsky? How about David Horowitz's parents? How about the Rosenbergs? Shall I go on. Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!?
I meant... NOW shoe...nm
But I know you'll stay because you need us to validate yourself. You're not at your best unless you are in your leftist/lib basher mode, eh. Keep it up, and people like you will expose the right brotherhood for what it's worth.
That isn't what he meant but there is no use debating you.
Maybe logical thought escapes you.
Wow, did I say Liar. I really meant sm
deluded liar. Yes, that's much better.
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.
Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
I meant I felt like it was an act....
I believe it was theatrics. The Hollywood reference was meant to say they would be proud of the acting job...nothing to do with all of Hollywood being amoral, though I believe a good portion of it is. But that could be said for other areas as well. I am also aware of staunch conservatives in Hollywood and I think God for them.
I never meant to infer that
W should NOT have gone to VT. If that is how you read it, then you misread or I mistyped. Of course he should have been there; it is just that there was SO much publicity about this tragedy and it does not appear (to me) that there is much of that for the American soldiers in Iraq; nothing on a national level.
I also never said that conservatives did not care about the war. What I meant was that in a country where only 50% of eligible voters turn out it is not unusual that so many Americans are disconnected from this war. I remember hearing people talk about WWII and seeing movies (not valid verification but nonetheless) and it seemed that the entire country was aligned behind **the cause.** I don't see that now. I bet you the family farm that I could go down to one of the city high schools or middle schools and ask a group of teenagers what they know about this war, what do they think we should or should not do and I feel certain I would get pretty much blank stares. That is what I mean about Americans not caring...maybe that is not the correct term. Most Americans are not engaged and don't feel a connection or much of an allegiance to **the cause.** No one sacrifices anything for this war but then that is one definition of secularism I have heard **Secularism is a life without sacrifice.
You see staying in Iraq as creating some kind of democracy where the people will live a better life. I don't. I see that the longer we stay, the more people die, both Americans and Iraqis. Altho I did not agree with this war, or any war for that matter, the possibility that Iraq could have been changed for the better did probably exist 4 years ago, but not now. I really believe our being there will make no difference, aside from more death, than us not being there. It is not cut and run to me. It is cut your losses and in my opinion that would be loss of life.
As far as Clinton and Somalia; I don't know much about the details of that situation. He was concerned about bin Laden; a lot of people were for a long time. I don't think this country would have supported a war in the middle east before 9/11 happened and that played a part as well. There is quite enough blame to go around for not foreseeing (sp) 9/11.
|
