I picked up the quack word from the original post.
Posted By: Are you following this thread at all?...sm on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: sorry 4 u - shelly
No double standard here...unless only Obama detractors are allow to use the quack word. Since you have a hard time talking about more than one thing at a time, let's not divert our attention to include the third subject of homosexual marriage, OK...just keep it simple so you can keep up.
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
Where does it say that in the original post?
Please read the post again, and show me where it says that I am sick of hearing about anything.
The original post was about the judiciary...
committee wanting to talk to Scott McClellan about the Plame case and whether or not perjury or obstruction of justice happened. There is all kind of crap rolling around out there, but what the judiciary committee is looking at that had everyone so excited is about the Plame case and nothing else. THAT was my point and that is what the thread was about.
You are the one who made the innocent until proven guilty comment. And now you have to backpedal because you don't actually believe nor adhere to what you yourself posted. That is the truth, and if that is nasty, so be it.
Well, I don't know how you define morality,piglet. You will have to tell me. Being for the law and innocent until proven guilty for only people who espouse your beliefs...in my book that does not equal particularly high moral values. My opinion, just as it is yours to call me nasty. As if you have never been nasty. But I digress.
And like I said...over and over again. IF and when either of them is impeached, and if they are proven guilty, I will be the first to say they should be removed from office...as I have said over and over today. We all know because we witnessed it that Clinton did the crime. Just because the Congress did not have the guts to convict does not make him any less guilty. If they impeach Cheney and I see evidence that convinces me he is guilty I will say so whether or not Congress has the guts to. Again...difference betweenou and me.
They can list charge after charge after charge. Until they prove it, they are innocent, according to your own post (which you don't believe across the board, but I do).
So we will wait and see. And I still say that the reason Pelosi and the hierarchy are against is because they don't want to open Pandora's box. At that point they will not be able to control what comes out. Give me another good reason why, if she really felt like they were guilty, she would not go forward with impeachment.
Actually, it was your own typo in your original post...nm
nm
What the original post stated
is that one of the issues that should be foremost on people's minds is why did we go to war with Iraq after 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? At the time the Bush administration linked Iraq to 9/11 as justification for going to war with them. He lied. He knew the people of this Country were vulnerable after 9/11 and he used that vulnerability. Look at what his lie has cost us. Not only should the people in this Country be outraged, they should be asking why.
John McCain supported this war, as did many others at the time. Barack Obama did not. He knew the facts, understood the situation and made the right choice, though it wasn't a popular one at the time. Why didn't John McCain?
Read Bob Woodward's books. He got his information directly from interviews with Bush and his admininstration. Remember the 9/11 Commission Report? These are not opinions - they are facts.
People are being diverted from the issues for a reason. John McCain doesn't want people to think about his lack of sound judgment at such a crucial time.
I did not post the original comment -
and I do not feel that way. I was on the fence myself about which way to go until McCain picked Palin. That toppled me right off...
I was speaking of the original post
My response was to the original post.
As to the Palin thing (no where does it mention McCain, who was also implicated in the original post), did they expect the campaign to make no references to O's shady past? Maybe they should have handled him with kid gloves, like the media did. If O can't handle the scrutiny, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.
Part of the original post by Anon.
If memory serves, the poster did advocate looting and was encouraging it.
My source was cited in the original post
I'm not being presumptuous because I don't assume anything. What I am waiting for is the debates. I want to see how they all equal against each other.
so, just like I thought, the original post was pointless!
nm
I didn't post the original message
just love how people don't post facts, whether McCain or Obama supporter.
FYI - her original post didn't contain *****, it was changed
x
you missed the point of the original post
The supreme court has not ordered him to produce the original; they are simply reviewing the lower court's ruling regarding Berg bringing the suit in the first place. There is no order to produce the document. This is simply a measure that Berg and the other attorneys requesting the writ are now hoping will bring pressure on the electors to force them to demand the document be presented. But at this point there is no order to produce.
The original post was about Bush not Clinton.
Bush is the one who is trying to claim that he has kept the United States safe from terrorist attacks, not Bill Clinton. You are right about one thing. I cannot stand George W. Bush. He he has been an embarrassment to the United States, destroyed our economy, and sullied our reputation throughout the world.
Re-red the original post with the CBS link/article on his
At least it wasn't Fox covering it, so you should believe eyewitnesses, shouldn't you?
Original post is not true - see link for truth!
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
By the way, we have not heard peep from the original poster since the quotes she posted were proven to be, at best, grossly inaccurate and completely out of context, and, at worst, downright lies!
I meant to post this link in the original message
Really connects the dots
http://patterico.com/2008/09/25/the-annenberg-foundationobamafactcheckbrady-center-connection/
Please see original post, link for video included..nm
x
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
The price of shampoo or McDonalds WAS NOT my original post at all.....sm
Wow, someone tries to come up with a viable solution to just one of our myriad of economic problems in this country, something that will work in the long haul, and we cannot have an intelligent,respectful discusion, sharing ideas and thinking aloud? When all anyone can contribute is insults, put-downs, etc., this board starts to look like worse than the floor of Congress, and these days that is saying a lot. What we have been doing in this country has OBVIOUSLY not been working, has it? So perhaps new persepctives would work. I am not new. the minimum wage battle has been going on forever. If no one can see that giving workers a fairer wage, an incesntive to work hard, pay into the tax system federal and state, become consumeers of good, housing, etc., if you think that one-shot tax refunds are the answer, you are sadly wrong, because that has been the status quo for years and has led us into this giant hole. I am just saying, when it is more profitable for someone to be on welfare and foodstamps than to work what we now have as pitiful minimum wages that WILL NO LONGER in today's economy feed, cloth, and shelter a family today adequately, then I believe an overhaul and new solutions might be in order. And the shampoo thing was a metaphor, if you can understand THAT concept. When you are keeping a household of five going, on a budget, in the North East, and not surviving on credit and borrowing, loans, etc., but truly working for it, and putting kids through college as you go (even state colleges), it is tough, we pay our bills on time, don't get behind, are trying to teach our kids fiscal responsibility, and live within our means and our budget. Bully for your vacations and restaurant meals, it is a luxury for us, and I am not ashamed to say it but proud....perhaps we are relatively poor according to you, but we are honest, hard working, don't owe anyone, and we are rich in family and friends. Guess it is your prespective, dear.
Original pledge by forefathers didn't include God. I agree with keeping the original.
http://www.usflag.org/history/pledgeofallegiance.html
The original Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all.
On September 8,1892, the Boston based The Youth's Companion magazine published a few words for students to repeat on Columbus Day that year. Written by Francis Bellamy,the circulation manager and native of Rome, New York, and reprinted on thousands of leaflets, was sent out to public schools across the country. On October 12, 1892, the quadricentennial of Columbus' arrival, more than 12 million children recited the Pledge of Allegiance, thus beginning a required school-day ritual.
At the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C., on June14, 1923, a change was made. For clarity, the words the Flag of the United States replaced my flag. In the following years various other changes were suggested but were never formally adopted.
It was not until 1942 that Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance. One year later, in June 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that school children could not be forced to recite it. In fact,today only half of our fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom!
In June of 1954 an amendment was made to add the words under God. Then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower said In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war.
Did he ever!!!! He's such a quack anyway!
xx
You saw the word "Christian" in that post?
WHERE???????????
The operative word in your post
It comes as no surprise that when a person frequents the same blog sites over and over and over, focuses on and seeks out only those sources which support a given viewpoint, that the view would "seem pretty large."
Mainstream media LOVES a good scandal. One only has to review the recent coverage of cabinet appointees to verify the truth of that statement. They place inordinate amounts of emphasis on negativity and "problems" that might be encountered with a nominee and somehow fail to give equal time to the more positive aspects, strategies behind the selection process or analysis of possible scenarios of opinions, advice and policy initiatives (the real meat behind the circumstance) that would emerge from such an administration. Having said that, at the same time they DO have to uphold certain principles of ethics in their reporting. IF the BC issue had any semblence of legitimacy, they would be all over it. We would be getting wall-to-wall, night and day "breaking news" coverage for weeks on end. It is curious that you do not say exactly who is "telling" them not to cover it. Guess that means you cannot back it up with any sort of fact.
Hawaiian authorities are simply following their own legal framework and abiding by the release of information policies of their state. No deep dark hidden agenda in that since there is no boat to rock. The fact that Californian electorates are parties to suits against Obama only goes to show us all that there is no end to the ridicule the plaintiffs are willing to bring down upon themselves in their attempt to overthrow a legitimate election result.
Judges in the lower courts have been unanimous and consistent in the decisions they have rendered and, again, it is curious that you have provided no specifics on just who has "bought them out" and what they are afraid of....perhaps for the same reason...no available proof to the allegations.
Please spare me any concern you may feign over "civil unrest." That is precisely the goal of these legal proceedings...the same tired failing tactics used in the McC camp that failed during the election process. Unless and until the pub party understands their own pressing mandate to CLEAN HOUSE, find some new leadership and perform a platform transplant, they are doomed to lose future elections, especially if they continue to try to rely on Rovian campaign stategies.
Like I said, this is much more miniscule than you are able to imagine despite the mountains of paranoid delusions you have examined on fringe blog sites. Give up this folly and move on...the sooner, the better.
quack number 1
I am the OP. I never said he WAS the antichrist. I think I said I am not saying he is the antichrist....... or something to that effect. Anyway, he doesnt have to be anything more than Barack Obama who is not following God to me, for me to not vote for him. I will be quacking all the way to Heaven by the way!
So you just cling to one word in my post "scared" sm
and suddenly I am cowering? I said I was not happy with either candidate and trying to decide who scares me less. Thanks for your promise to drag me out of the mire, but I think I'll just vote republican this year so hopefully I can walk out of it on my own. Trying to instill your own scare tactics? Not working.
Yeah, right. We can tell by the Koolaid quack
insight of an independent. Uh-huh. Sure thing.
Nah, he's just a quack and doesn't know what he's talking about, right? nm
x
We all know why he picked her.....
It is so obvious that he would pick a female to back him even though he is not for EQUALITY!!
Picked him probably because
x
Yep and ABC picked that up, plus she
was interviewed on NBC today by Matt Lauer.
Certainly WOULD NOT have picked
x
She was picked loooong before the
xx
And that is why McCain picked SP.n/m
x
Glad I'm not the only one who picked up on that.
It is so dreadfully uncomfortable listening to him. He's got a good speaking voice, but the uhh, um, uh, uh, um gets very old and I sit at the TV and shout "spit it out".
At first I was thinking wow they picked up....sm
on that quick, but I forgot that I get a late showing. It happened less than 5 minutes ago on the 4 pm broadcast.
Well, Obama picked her?
nm
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
My pardons to you, then. It was evidently picked up by
Fox and of course had the 'ole Fox spin put on it, riling up once again the unstable.
On CNN this morning, John McCain picked...sm
Sarah Palin because of her ideology. She was never veted. Investigators are in Alaska now doing so. Smart move John.
Okay....let's see...McCain picked the financial meltdown...
as the #1 issue. OBama picked his run for the Presidency. Meaning he is always going to put Barack first. McCain put his country first. End of story.
And Nancy Palosi hand picked more
than 11 of her people to vote NO, people who owed her favors.
Why I think Palin was picked as VP running mate - sm
I have this feeling that somewhere near the end of this campaign, McCain had second thoughts. I think he changed his mind about wanting to try to lead this mess of a country for the next 4 years. He's no spring chicken. I think Palin was plucked from practically out of nowhere to become his running mate because she was such a joke, so inept and incpable of handling the job of being a US vice-pres., that he knew he would lose, but didn't have to stop running and be viewed as a quitter.
Any thoughts on that?
McCain knew about Bristol before he picked her so what on Earth does that say...sm
about his judgment?!?! Palin has her hands full at home...I understand why he chose a woman but why this one I will never understand?!?!
That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to
But that's no surprise. There was one sentence in those two paragraphs about how the crats always blame the pubs, but they never take responsibility and blame the people in their own party who are at fault too. So you take one sentence out of the whole two paragraphs and say that's what the whole message was about. Nice try. My message was about this admistration so far being a disaster in less than one month. The only ones who see it okay are the kool-aid drinkers, and that I'm sick of all the people acting as though there was never a United States until Obama came along. Since you evidently did not read my message I'll repeat it now.
American has been around for over 200 years. We've had some good presidents and we've had some bad presidents, but Obama did not discover a new country here.
Since McCain was not elected nobody can say whether or not he would have been a better president or not, so time to put that dog to rest.
I think you picked the wrong time to make such a suggestion...nm
nm
I remember the debate. And of course this is not word for word, I NEVER said...sm
*because I'm not.* This is a LIE that I got tired of arguing with them about then. Unless you are confusing me with an old poster that went under the moniker Demo.
Sambo thinks last word=best word...
su
Picked Rahm Emanuel, most left wing liberal for
Wow, real great choice. I wished he would have picked more of a conservative or at least someone for both sides of party. Great way to make start as President.
yep. Its Fox. Just googled it. word for word. nm
nm
Not one word. One defitinion of a word.
Cult: 1. A system of religious worship or ritual.
Or how about this:
Cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Or my personal favorite:
Cult: A self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.
I did see the original s/m
and he didn't appear to be to be joking. If he was, I didn't see the humor in it when so many are losing their homes and can't afford to fill up their vehicles to get to work.
|