I refuse to discuss
Posted By: sissa on 2008-09-13
In Reply to: It's too bad you stopped reading...sm - ms
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.
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'm sorry you refuse to see their teachings as
I can give you confession after confession of Muslims who have denounced those teachings once they were free from that country. They admit they are teachings of hate; even though they believed some of them were similar to Christian teachings, they couldn't understand why they were taught to hate by their teachings. I can give you many who say this....but of course I suupose you will say they don't know what they're talking about either.
Pay close attention to a paragraph under the head of Christianity and Islam, where he quotes a verse from Sura 5:51......and what he has to say after that.
http://www.everystudent.com/wires/abdul.html
But they refuse to understand.........
He has yet to prove citizenship.... and for those that say he IS a citizen, even if he were born in Hawaii, his stepfather (who is Muslim) adopted him in Indonesia. Once he was adopted by his stepfather, his stepfather renounced Obama's U.S. citizenship. The United States does NOT recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia....never has in the past either. Indonesia does NOT recognize dual citizenship, so Obama cannot have dual citizenship. The only way to reclaim his U.S. citizenship is to go through the Immigration Dept just like anyone else, fill out the necessary paperwork, and wait for his hearing. He has no paperwork to prove that either. He knows he does not. If he did, all he would have to do is show his immigration papers but he can't because he doesn't have them.
You can only have dual citizenship with a country that allows that. Obama's stepfather renounced Obama's U.S. citizenship and claimed him Muslim, as was his father. His stepsister even says he is Muslim through and through....
Now, that being said, supposedly Indonesia had tried to begin a new dual nationality law as of ག or so, but Obama hasn't filled out any paperwork for that as an Indonesian either. As of གྷ the new law in Indonesia had not even been implemented. There is a lot of red tape and still many who object to dual nationality allowances.
Our law says in order to be a "natural born citizen"..
The U.S. Law in effect during Obama's birth stated if you are born abroad to one U.S. parent and a foreign national, the U.S. parent must have resided in the United States for ten (10) years, five (5) of which were after the age of Fourteen (14) in order to register the child's birth abroad in the United States as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.
Either way.....he AIN'T a citizen of this country....
I refuse to waste my
time reading biased, inaccurate opinions. Got a prob with that? Yours only.
I did....you refuse to accept it.
Go tweak someone else for a while.
No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore
because you can't be anything but condescending and ugly.
Those who refuse to learn from history..... sm
are doomed to repeat it. The following is a link written by an elderly woman who grew up in Nazi Germany. See how many dots you can connect.
http://carylmatrisciana.com:80/x2/content/view/74/1/
I refuse to conform and I just don't fit in," .......so he was fired!!
'TOO PATRIOTIC'?? That's reason for dismissal from a job? What the h@ll is this country coming to?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=576612
I was trying to illustrate that you REFUSE to see what's in front of your face, that you must twi
it and turn it and manipulate it until it becomes something completely different and ugly, and you adopt THAT as the truth, when it isn't even close to what the real truth is.
Three fingers are three fingers. Nothing more. Nothing less. No hidden meaning. Just three fingers that the rest of the sane, intelligent, reasonable WORLD sees and recognizes as THREE FINGERS, as I said in my post.
A simple "I refuse to hear the truth" would do.
What Conyers is doing is playing by the rules. This is a HJC hearing, not a congressional hearing. There have been a number of ridiculous restrictions on what they can or cannot say imposed on this process. For example, they are not allowed to utter the word "impeachment" and Bush's name in the same sentence. Absurd. In spite of all the obstacles, he opened the hearings and has vowed to see it through and to bring the truth into the public discourse once the investigation is concluded. He is quite aware of the fact that he is putting his reputation as a senior member of Congress on the line, so it would make sense that what goes on there is compelling. He is doing nothing to distract or circle around THE ISSUES. He is moving the process along. He is chairing the committee. All the details of the restrictions, who put them there and why, Conyer's position, etctera, can be found in the numerous links that have been provided and is well summarized in DK's interview.
The difference between him and you? Are you serious? He is familiar with every single player, position, stance, viewpoint, piece of evidence and rebuttal. He is a fact checker. He is not considering this evidence on the basis of hearsay. He is evaluating the integrity of the proof as it is presented. You, on the other hand, say you know all you need to know because you have "heard it from other democrats." In other words, you are not willing to even listen to the prosecution case or its evidence as it is presented directly from the source. Instead you talk all around what is really taking place inside those chambers. You are still doing it, trying to twist this into something it most definitely is not. Here's the deal. When you can't win on the issues, out comes the smear and smut.
No one said anything about your having made anything up about Niger. No matter how hard you try, you cannot make this about that one single subject. There are literally scores of talking points and hundreds of pieces of evidence to sift through. You are not the least bit interested in any evidence. If you were, you would watch the interview and post you rebuttals. You're not doing that. You are obsfuscating. It's what you do. What possible difference could it make in terms of valid claims and conclusive evidence whether this process occurs in formal or informal impeachment hearings? Truth is truth. Proof is proof.
You are not interested in hearing from all the witnesses or seeing all the proof. Exactly the opposite. You want to see no witnesses and no proof, unless of course it backs your own contentions. Stop trying to imply that the process is rigged. In the post 9/11 politics of fear world, the republicans would classify the White House address, if they could get away with it. Preponderance of the evidence usually is all that is required to achieve majority vote. If that evidence is incomplete, you have the republicans to thank for that. Do you really think that all that info held in secret is vital to national security? The only thing it is vital to is covering the neoCONS behinds.
You doest protest too much. More obstacles. Be honest. This is not about you want this and you want that. It's what you DON'T want that is plain to see. You don't want to face the reality that they just might be onto something. Another pot shot at Clinton. You really think that lying about an affair is a more serious impeachable offense than misleading an entire nation on the reasons for going to war? One thing is for sure here. As long as you continue to refuse to view the process as it is happening, instead of what you speculate about what may or may not be going on, you really do not have any way to justify anything you are saying about it. You say you have heard what DK has said. Okay. Did you watch the interview? What was in it? You must have skipped over the stuff about the live blogging from inside the chambers. The information is available for those who are interested. Go to the links. It's all in there….including information on how to follow it on a day-to-day basis.
Since the rest of this post has disintegrated into non-stop personal attack, I will not waste my time with it. Clearly, you will not engage yourself in any direct, honest, informed dialogue on this subject. This is still about your comfort zone. This just goes to show how extremely intolerant you are whenever anybody tries to challenge your ideas and how terrified you really are with what might be coming out of those chambers.
Just ignore them, ms, obviously they refuse to read the whole thing....nm
x
And yet you STILL refuse to condemn child sexual abuse!
When this was first posted, it was posted before there were separate political boards. Still, there was no response.
You people have done nothing by drive-by sniping posts for the last couple weeks, to the point where some of them had to be removed by the moderator.
Yet you're AFRAID to post outrage over child sexual abuse?
I guess we can leave it at that. You're obviously more outraged that I posted regarding this subject than you are at the subject itself.
And THAT speaks volumes.
Yeah, guess Obama supports refuse to look at all
nm
Yeah, agreed. Obama supporters refuse to see his
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.
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?
It's actually more distracting to refuse to do someting that is a traditional symbol of our count
You are an American, right? You better enjoy your free speech while you still have it.
Facts are always called opinions by the left when they refuse to acknowledge them...sm
The facts within the article are true. No matter how much you want to ignore them.
You are so blind.
I refuse to forget history...can't afford to be "condemned to repeat it"
He created this cluster with his cronies and they should be held accountable.
Soldiers and peace officers pledging to refuse to obey sm
An invitation to soldiers and peace officers across the United States to pledge to refuse illegal orders – including "state of emergency" orders that could include disarming or detaining American citizens – has struck a chord, collecting more than 100,000 website visitors in a little over a week and hundreds of e-mails daily.
Link to article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91530
Oath Keepers website: http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html
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.
I never meant to discuss the money -
my point, Kendra, was just that these kids can already be treated without their parents consent, that that part of it was nothing new.
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! 
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
|
