I think you are saying the same thing. No need to argue when you're making the same point...nm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-09-30
In Reply to: The rich DO give back... Your problem... - SM
x
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 won't argue that point! nm
.
The bully thing would argue in favor of
nm
You're right...you shouldn't argue with me....(sm)
you should argue with the founding fathers themselves because that is exactly what you are attempting to do, rather unsuccessfully I might add.
Your're right -- it's hard to argue with . . .
what the CONSTITUTION SAYS!!!!!
Thank you for making my point...
"their crimes, if brought to light and hopefully proven, will be far worse than Clinton ever did." Sigh. They are guilty in your mind as I knew you thought (was in the windy post you did not read). Which makes your comment about innocent until proven guilt worthless and the "wind" you refer to. It only applies to those you want it to apply to. Yes, that IS hypocrisy.
Worse than Clinton did? In a FAIR world, perjury is perjury and is a crime. No matter what they were lying about. Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice. Which is what they are talking about impeaching Cheney with. The judiciary committee is talking about the Plame case, nothing else. That is what is on the table. Obstruction of justice and perjury. Same thing we already know Clinton is guilty of, because we saw him do it.
And yet you make excuses, as I knew you would. Sigh. You are nothing if not predictable.
Again...I wish the WOULD investigate. I wish they WOULD impeach if they think they have the goods. And if he is proven guilty of perjury and obstruction, then I hope he is removed from office. You CANNOT, and WILL NOT, EVER say that about Clinton (oh because he only lied about sex), and that is a BIG difference between you and me. Maybe I was wrong about your morality. Maybe I gave you too much credit.
Try making some sense. What is your point? nm
x
I was just making a point that if somebody gives you something, they cannot dictate how to use it -
x
What exactly was Bennett's point in making this comment?
I guess one could say that statistically he could be somewhat right, but then you could also say that since North Dakota has the hightest alcoholism rate that perhaps we could hypothesize the elimination of all North Dakotans, or all Alaskans since it has the highest illicit drug use rate. Yes, one could break down all the social ills of our country by region or ethnicity and make assumptions and point fingers but what is the point? It seems to me his ethically tactless comment serves to inflame a great racial and socioeconomic divide in this country.
This is a kid you're making fun of
Why does this upset you so? If a student had taped a pro-Bush student would you be making fun of him? I highly doubt it. This kid was concerned that he was being continually being taught a particular political viewpoint in geography class. It happened more than once. I think the kid showed a lot of courage--it wouldn't have mattered to me what his political persuasion was. He should been learning geography and not subjected to political rants on either side.
You're not making much sense.
You don't seem to realize there's a written record of all your posts for folks to review. Many of your posts with other folks are quite strange and don't seem to make much sense.
Well, at least you're having a big laugh.
I know you're both making jokes....
...at Chuckie's expense....
But he has more true intelligence in his little pinkie, than you or I or could even imagine.
He is one of the few original thinkers left in the country...who happens to be a Republican (I think he can be more center of the road also, and is very articulate on both sides, if you ever really stopped to listen to him)....and the dems think that because he is Republican, that he is to be despised.
I hope that isn't how you're making your choice
I don't care who the better speaker, they both scare the you-know-what out of me. Unfortunately, I don't think all that much of McCain either. Not a stellar choice of candidates this time around.
You mean we wont be hearing, "war is hard work...we're making progress," etc? sm
Out with the old BS and in with the new. This should be interesting.
The only point I can see is....he keeps denying the rock star thing...
and then has a rock star set designer do the set. Okay...so which is it?
McCain is not a Bush clone. The two are nothing alike. But, of course, to know that you would have to research it and would actually have to care about accuracy.
'Nuff said.
I think you're right, up to a point.
"Shambles" is probably somewhat extreme, but I've seen the pieces that you're reading using the word.
Without any question, the Republican Party lost its sense of direction in recent years. And, without any question, it will take time to repair the damage that has done. And, without any question, the very best people in the world to help us do this - who are already helping us do this, in fact - are Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress. The more blunders they make, the more arrogant they become, the more they ram programs down the throats of Americans, and the more they pile the burden for the cost of all of this insanity on the average American - well, the better it is for all opposition parties.
You might be loving the drunken party at the moment, but watch out for the morning after.
You're right about one thing
People had better smarten up but I doubt that's likely to happen.
So we don't have socialism now. What exactly do we have? Our government (Democrats AND Republicans) support more illegal immigration and rewarding the criminal illegals with citizenship, never mind what the people want. Didn't they both support the huge bail-out? BOTH parties. How many of the people supported that? What good is it going to do? None. Now aren't they saying that we'll have to wait and see if it works and more bail-outs may be necessary.
So will someone tell me just exactly what kind of government it is we have now? The Republicans had rule for the past few years. Very recently both dubya and McCain...didn't they say the "economy was fundamentally sound?" LIES??? Youbetcha.
How any sheep can follow either of these parties to the slaughter is far beyond me. And sheep is what most Americans are. I'm tempted to say that those who enthusiastically support EITHER candidate deserve what they get. The problem is, I, myself, don't particularly want to go along for the ride.
You're right about one thing...(sm)
there will be 2 parties, but the current religious right wingnuts won't be one of them. There were only 3 moderate pubs left in the senate. With Specter moving to the dem side, there are only 2, and they vote more like independents. What does that leave the GOP with? The religious rightwing nutjobs...and yes, they (you) are losing ground on a daily basis.
Well, you're right about one thing....(sm)
He doesn't call himself a republican. He calls himself a "conservative traditionalist." What does that mean?
Definition:
Traditionalist conservatism, also known as "traditionalism," is a political philosophy that developed in the United States. It tends to emphasize cultural renewal and is characterized by an adherence to the principles of prescription (law), custom (law), social order, hierarchy, faith, the natural family, ordered liberty, and tradition. It may be said to have affinities with reactionary thought, and some adherents of this movement perhaps embrace that label, defying the stigma that has attached to it in Western culture since the Enlightenment.
Traditionalist conservatism emerged after World War II in the writings of a group of university professors (labeled the "New Conservatives" by the popular press of the time) who rejected the notions of individualism, liberalism, modernity, and social progress[1] and revived interest in what T. S. Eliot referred to as "the permanent things" (those perennial institutions that ground society: the church, the family, the state, community life, etc.).
_______
In other words, far right republican. And no, he doesn't defend "anybody." He is notorious for promoting the far right's agenda and has been for years. Believe me, he's not laying off of Sotomayor because he doesn't want to discriminate. He's laying off of her because he knows it will hurt his party.
You're missing the point.
Her age dictates his eligibility to run for president. There are lawsuits out now regarding this.
I think you're missing the point...(sm)
World economy, eliminting industries, creating new ones -- all things that can be dealt with.
Extinction of humans -- not so much.
You're right - the whole SP thing is the 'pubicans
tactics for distracting the public so that they won't notice that by voting for Sarah (and oh, yes.... JM goes along with the package as a 'token' presidential figure), they'll be voting themselves another 4 years of economic misery, and world instability. If that happens, then the US deserves whatever nastiness is waiting around the next corner.
For one thing, that you're not informed
of the truth (which I posted below) and are spreading the "mandatory" myth, which inflames and upsets people.
Obama's programs are inclusive and designed for those who choose to participate for the good of the country, to bring us closer together. If you want no part of that, then, that's your choice, and though I personally think it's sad, it's probably for the best. Either way, it's your CHOICE and is NOT MANDATORY.
The thing is you're not giving him
I agree, we were brutally raped by the last adminstration and I am also wary, but for crying out loud, you are making these statements after less than a week in office. You can't justify that by saying you're "keeping an eye" on the government? If that statement is true, then you have to give the man a REASONABLE amount of time to implement his agenda. The engine hasn't even cooled down on the moving trucks yet. Don't be unrealistic, you lose credibility that way.
You're right about one thing, Patty.
Your mental disease is downright UGLY!!
Yes, you're right. It's the kindest thing to do.
x
A racial post shooting the finger. Must be a conservative thing. Point this out.
I just read the thread and don't know what the heck you guys are talking about.
Sounds like you are all just trying to be disagreeable, no wait that's why you continue to post on the LIBERAL board. I see, that's the point. Excuse me.
I guess we're going to have another 9/11 to prove our point
because your little mind doesn't even remember the first one. You guys need to give it up, because your lilly livered thought processes are losing. Nobody wants you all in charge that's why you keep LOSING ELECTIONS...that's because if you were in charge you would be hugging Muslim terrorists and telling them it's okay and that you understand them.
You can argue semantics of bills all day, but it doesn't make the fact of the dying liberal theology any less of a reality.
See? You're proving the very point made about
right wing rage. Sure hope you and your fanatic friends don't all own guns......
You're missing one crucial point
No where in there did you say that these white evangelical ministers are spouting hatred towards black people, calling them "less than human" or spouting about "black liberation theology" or the teaching of "Dr. James Cone".
Now if our "white preachers" were to go on and on about "white theology" and if our websites said "a white congregation" we would be immediately portrayed as racist. But it's okay for the United Trinity Church of Christ (Obama's church or former church, whatever) to have all over their website that they are a BLACK church. See for yourself:
http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27
So I take it a white person walking in there wouldn't be very welcome?
Talk about racism.
Good point, if you're going to support something, you should be able to look at it (sm)
and still think you're right, right?
You're missing the point. She's not talking about
people like your stepdaughter. She's talking about all the free loaders who won't get off their lazy butts and get a job even when they are more than capable of doing so.
When I was little my mom struggled to feed the two of us because my dad was a deadbeat. She went to the welfare office asking for just a little help to feed us. They told her that she made too much money but if she quit her job, they would pay for everything: housing, food, everything. She could have easily taken the easy route and taken them up on their offer but had too much integrity. Here she was making too much money in their eyes but many weeks only had $5 after bills to feed herself and her only child. Now that is a messed up government. I'm all for helping people help themselves. Pay for day care while they get an education, pay for food while they work to better themselves but NOT pay for them to drive fancy cars, have satellite that they watch on big screen TVs, and eat potato chips and ice cream. Get real, open your eyes, and quit making excuses for the lazy! We're not talking about the needy. Yes, there are people are mentally or physically unable to work. That is NOT who we are talking about!
You're obviously one who has missed his entire point
nm
You're stuck on pub thing aren't you.... not
prefer to think for myself unlike you who obviously needs someone to do it for ya. I don't care for government, let alone more of it.
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.
"We" did not do the righ thing...
Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....
We may never recover from President Obama, at least not in my lifetime.
I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren.
Libs refuse to call it socialism.
But that's what we're putting into office.
Bush opened the door a crack.
Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.
Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
"we" did the right thing....no, you're wrong there.....a lot of
people, mostly young, were bamboozled.
"We" did not do the righ thing...
Unless you like total government control, and social medicine, and social economics.....etc......
We may never recover from President Obama and his "change", at least not in my lifetime.
I did not vote for him. I wish him well, but his choices as he is leading up to his inauguration do not bode well for our country on a whole, especially our children and grandchildren, who will be left to foot the bill, and have less rights than we do now.
Libs refuse to call it socialism.
But that's what we're putting into office.
Bush opened the door a crack.
Obama intends to play on our fears and take full advantage of them.
The barn door is wide open, and the winner take all (Obama). "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as his team has recently stated.
He has, and will, take full advantage of our fears, as even he, Obama, was the fear monger today.
Maybe when all your rights are gone, when govt has total control over your healthcare, your mortgage, your loans, your 401K, (and other things I can't even imagine as of yet unveiled b....maybe then, you will understand what is happening right under your nose, and finally see what you have lost.
ROFL! I guess the same thing you're doing.
 Have you noticed that your neck hurts from shaking your head a lot??? 
They're always putting out this sort of thing, actually.
...just round-file it.
You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything. It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap. Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
We can argue this....
until the cows come homes, but how can you explain the fact that the tax cuts have produced HIGHER TAX REVENUES THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, EVEN WITH HIS TAX HIKES?
Yes, the rich get the bulk of tax cuts, that's because THEY pay most of the taxes. They also pay them at a higher rate. And lest we forget the millions who dropped OFF the tax rolls after the Bush tax cuts.
Who am I to argue
I guess they could get a million African-Americans to say he was not a racist, but as long as you say so, it must be true.
One could argue that.
x
Oh, please. Why argue about
how something might not be true because someone with a beef against Bush said it? Sure, take it into consideration but then go find out the truth! You seem to imply that people must be lying about anything they say if they don't like Bush. Where did you get such a notion, if you really have it?
Newsflash! - People can disagree with Bush policies and still be telling the truth! But ultimately it's up to YOU to judge the truth of any claim from EITHER side - and using a measure of who likes him and who doesn't like him to decide what truth is, is not going to cut it for whoever thinks that's going to work.
I'd like to see someone argue with this.
The next to the last paragraph was the most telling. I wonder if this prediction will come true before the end of 2006 (after the elections, of course).
Dr. Charles finally goes to bed after this, his first bit of Google-cut-and-paste-environmental-journalism, fully expecting but hoping not to wake up in a world in which gas costs $10/gallon and we're at war with Iran.
No, I am not going to argue with you...
I wanted to know your reasoning and now I know it. Thank you for your honesty!
you can't argue with
the True Believers of JM/SP. There is no fact or situation that would deter them from their dogged quest to drag the country to even lower depths.
Can't argue with that...how else will they ever
xx
Sam, you just want to argue -
You know that if you don't pay taxes you cannot get a tax cut - you know what he means when he says 95% of Americans. You are just trying to blow smoke so that people who read what you say and nothing else will vote your way and think Obama is just this horrible person who is going to take all their money and give it to those scumbags who don't do nothing...
Nothing anybody say is going to satisfy you - you are just going to keep going in circles...
we understand that you do not like Obama, but you don't have to just deliberately act dumb because it is obvious you are not dumb!
There is no way I will argue with
on high with this breakdown of her most despised party's ideology. I am just a meager 4-decade party member in need of enlightenment on my own party's platforms.
But I will say this much. Within his own party establishment, Rahm Emanuel is NOT considered to be in ranks of the left or progressives. One only has to tune in to Pacifica and listen to Amy Goodman tear him inside out to understand this particular concept. That discussion will be aired on Democracy Now! if anyone out there is interested in such analysis. But then again, none of us could possibly know as much as Sam does about this pick.
The examples of his support for the war and his pro-Israel stance are diametrically opposed to left-wing views. Since I am not in the habit of researching right-wing blogs for my education, I am also not qualified to comment on the rest of this propaganda. Take it away, Sam. That's your territory, not mine.
My OP would argue otherwise.
RE: Smoke and mirrors. I never said I disbelieved the report. I simply decided to research it for myself and draw my own conclusions, based on the facts at hand, not some incoherent and not terribly credible right-wing rant. You might try it sometime. You know what they say. It's not the destination, but the journey.
exactly, how can they argue this... SERIOUSLY
Ghostmom... how highly observant of you, why didn't anyone think of that before...
I just dont know how they will respond to you and spin it. or they wont respond because they can't defend it...
exactly, how can they argue this...
Ghostmom... how highly observant of you, why didn't anyone think of that before...
I just dont know how they will respond to you and spin it. or they wont respond because they can't defend it...
|
