If we give up all this money now and do NOT demand full disclosure/accountability to these foul thie
Posted By: Cyndiee on 2009-01-27
In Reply to: And that's why I vented this morning. - Backwards typist
despite all the duplicity in the banking crisis, are STILL in corporate positions, then we have just thrown good money after bad and our whole system will go down faster. These guys do not even know what accountability means, and someone has to TEACH THEM, if not, be replaced, no more hand-outs, and face stiff fines for misappropriation of tax payer's money/government funds. We need to act fast, but not BLINDLY AND RASHLY!!
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
Take responsibility. Demand accountability.
Why do you cut Republicans to ribbons the largest financial disaster we have faced in decades can be laid at the feet of Democrats in Congress and all of a sudden you guys are saying stop blaming. You want to stop blaming Bush for the war?
yeah demand accountability -- keep
I love watching the stocks plummet, since my money isn't there.
Hmm...in the interest of full disclosure...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/where_in_the_world_is_obamas_m.html
Don't care where Waldo is, but would like to know where the thesis is...and also the rest of the missing Columbia records. If people are so concerned about where what the #2 on the other ticket did in Wasilla, Alaska, and how many colleges she went to, I would like to know what the #1 on the Democratic ticket was doing during his Columbia years. After all...he IS running for the #1 slot.
What is wrong with full disclosure?
Criminals use the legal system to hide things. Why should Obama? Unless he has something to hide, that is.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, other members of the Carlyle Group....
They include among others, John Major, former British Prime Minister; Fidel Ramos, former Philippines President; Park Tae Joon, former South Korean Prime Minister; Saudi Prince Al-Walid; Colin Powell, former Secretary of State; James Baker III, former Secretary of State; Caspar Weinberger, former Defense Secretary; Richard Darman, former White House Budget Director; the billionaire George Soros, and even some bin Laden family members. You can add Alice Albright, daughter of Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Arthur Lewitt, former SEC head; William Kennard, former head of the FCC, to this list. Finally, add in the Europeans: Karl Otto Poehl, former Bundesbank president; the now-deceased Henri Martre, who was president of Aerospatiale; and Etienne Davignon, former president of the Belgian Generale Holding Company.
I never knew George Soros was a member. I never bothered to check. Now THAT is interesting.
Also, in the interest of putting it all out there...the bin Laden family disowned Osama years before 9-11.
Well, he ain't alone.......congress full of money
xx
FED money give away
Read a report that the FED was just recently found to have given 2 trillion dollars away to someone for some reason. They wont say why or who but it is OUR money. Nice that they do not have to answer to anyone. Obama is putting lobbyists in his administration even when he said he would NOT and just about every person that he picks are tax evaders but they get away with it basically. The media doesnt even bother to report on the detention centers that they are wanting to build in our country to have in case there is a martial law and they never even broach the subject of the civilian military that O wants to start. O supporters can flame me and try to tell me that this is because there is no truth to it. PLEASE. When will you guys stop allowing yourselves to be fed like a bunch of babies by the media and O? COME ON. It's like you guys dont have eyes in your heads! THANKS. You guys wanted change so badly you were willing to jump at the first thing that sounded good. America is going to be so changed for the worst, I doubt it will ever be the same again and all of you who voted this fool in will be responsible for allowing it to happen. I am voicing my opinion now because I feel that in the very near future, I wont be allowed to.
Yea, keep it in your pants and give that money to
!!
Why don't you give your time & money to the
She's obviously living your idea of the Model Life.
What a fine, upstanding woman that Nadya is. She's a real beacon of inspiration to the rest of us to 'go forth and propagate.'
You people are too blinded by your own sense of self-worth to ever be of any worth to anybody else.
Get a job. Put a low-income student through college. Pay some single mother's rent or buy some groceries for her kids. Go help out in an underdeveloped (and over-populated) 3rd-world country. Read books other than the bible. You might actually learn something of value that can be put to use in the real world, not the fantasy-world you live in.
Good point. We give money because we want to.
nm
If you are going to give money to re-educate the auto workers....... sm
then it would follow that money should be given to sustain and re-educate the people in other industries (MT comes to mind) that are suffering because of big suit mismanagement and jobs going overseas. What about the thousands upon thousands of other displaced workers in the public sector that have lost their jobs? Will they need to be re-educated as well? Will there be jobs available to them, even if they are re-educated?
Maybe that's what all those re-education centers all over America are for. hmmmmmmm
Yeah, lets give our money away and make our
nm
Well, they already made him give back Hamas' money.
nm
Excuse me while I cry foul over "kill him" and
lynch mob mentality IS alive and well in the McC camp. For those of us who are old enough to remember the 60s, John Lewis is right on with his reminder of what this sort of "enthusiasm" can lead to...and so is this poster.
This reminds me of Bill O's cry foul, declaration of war
proclamations that the ratings "MUST" be fixed after his show took third place behind MSNBC (x2 with KO and RM) and CNN (Anderson Cooper). Early on, McC camp started screaming bloody murder and boycotting the media when it began to become apparent that SP could not handle one-on-ones very well. Don't know what a camp sould expect when they declare their own wars on the media. Talk about whiners.
Luckily, your foul tricks won't work this time. Begone, NeoCon.
You guys have tried this before and the only reason it worked was because a) you had a fresh crop of victims every few months or so as the liberals you didn't like got banned from the board, and b) you know the ins and outs because you yourselves were posting under multiple names repeatedly for a very long time. Your favorite trick was always to accuse others of doing what you yourselves were constantly doing, and you vicously accused a lot of innocent people who had no idea what you were talking about. I believe the Bible calls this false witness. Not that you'd care.
The liberals don't have to resort to such deceit. They actually say something in their posts and they believe in what they say. They stand by their words.
It's the one-line slimers who post and run anonymously and try to pump themselves up to look like more than they are by posting under multiple names, agreeing with themselves - they have nothing better to do, no real thoughts to offer, and no real desire to communicate. Hence the anonymous posts they don't want to own. All they are about is tearing down and creating conflict - kind of like the administration they revere.
So don't try it, NeoCons - your habit of blaming others for the deceit you practice yourselves isn't going to fly anymore. You're busted.
freedom of speech excludes and stops at slander and foul language...sm
You are slandering the President of the United States out of ignorance, shame on you!
Where is this written in the Constitution that it is allowed to grossly insult the President?
Even if I disagree with the decisions of the President, I would NEVER slander him.
I am an independent, not a liberal, and I never slandered Bush, although I very much disagreed with him.
Therefore there are presidential elections set every 4 years, when we can elect another President, but we are disrespecting ourselves by slandering the President the majority of the population voted.
And you are calling yourselves
American citizens?
What a hypocrisy.
You are insulting the incumbent President of the United States of America and it is not even PROVEN that he made mistakes up until now. That you disagree with him, does not make it a mistakes from O's side. Or do you want to say that you are better qualified to be the President of the United States?
Can you all look into the future, like Nostradamus?
The difference is accountability. There is no he said she said...
in this. The Republicans tried to get them to act before it happened and they refused. That is the bottom line.
Bush DID press it. But who has the majority in congress? You know, Congress, who has to pass any bill? That would be democrats. Look it up...John McCain tried in 2005, this is what he said:
join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
He named the problem, said what would happen, Democrats killed the bill...and here we are. Bush admin tried 17 times:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
It was the dems who did not listen to the Bush admin. None of them deserve to retain their seats. NONE of them.
It's called accountability...(sm)
That's something we never saw out of the last administration. Instead of trying to bully Europe, he listens, owns up to the mistakes of the US, and comes out with some pretty impressive results.
Examples: When was the last time you heard the French president say that he TRUSTS our president? Yep...that's what he said. A very important result is the fact that France is now willing to help with Afghanistan as well as willing to take select prisoners from Gitmo. 
Russia is now more willing to work with us on reducing nukes (You do know that those treaties were about to expire in the fall?). 
We have a consensus when it comes to dealing with North Korea (I think Hillary gets a big kudos for that one -- working with the 6 party talks). 
20 countries have now come to an agreement about how to work on the world economic crisis (including more effective regulation). 
These are only a few things that he has accomplished on this trip. All I can say is  Obama!!!!!
Speaking of truth and accountability....
or lack of it........good grief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/08/AR2006080801276_pf.html
War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 9, 2006; A01
The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.
Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.
The draft U.S. amendments to the War Crimes Act would narrow the scope of potential criminal prosecutions to 10 specific categories of illegal acts against detainees during a war, including torture, murder, rape and hostage-taking.
Left off the list would be what the Geneva Conventions refer to as outrages upon [the] personal dignity of a prisoner and deliberately humiliating acts -- such as the forced nakedness, use of dog leashes and wearing of women's underwear seen at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq -- that fall short of torture.
People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope, said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.
The plan has provoked concern at the International Committee of the Red Cross, the entity responsible for safeguarding the Geneva Conventions. A U.S official confirmed that the group's lawyers visited the Pentagon and the State Department last week to discuss the issue but left without any expectation that their objections would be heeded.
The administration has not officially released the draft amendments. Although they are part of broader legislation on military courts still being discussed within the government, their substance has already been embraced by key officials and will not change, two government sources said.
No criminal prosecutions have been brought under the War Crimes Act, which Congress passed in 1996 and expanded in 1997. But 10 experts on the laws of war, who reviewed a draft of the amendments at the request of The Washington Post, said the changes could affect how those involved in detainee matters act and how other nations view Washington's respect for its treaty obligations.
This removal of [any] reference to humiliating and degrading treatment will be perceived by experts and probably allies as 'rewriting' the Geneva Conventions, said retired Army Lt. Col. Geoffrey S. Corn, who was recently chief of the war law branch of the Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General. Others said the changes could affect how foreigners treat U.S. soldiers.
The amendments would narrow the reach of the War Crimes Act, which now states in general terms that Americans can be prosecuted in federal criminal courts for violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States ratified in 1949.
U.S. officials have long interpreted the War Crimes Act as applying to civilians, including CIA officers, and former U.S. military personnel. Misconduct by serving military personnel is handled by military courts, which enforce a prohibition on cruelty and mistreatment. The Army Field Manual, which is being revised, separately bars cruel and degrading treatment, corporal punishment, assault, and sensory deprivation.
Common Article 3 is considered the universal minimum standard of treatment for civilian detainees in wartime. It requires that they be treated humanely and bars violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. It further prohibits outrages upon personal dignity such as humiliating and degrading treatment. And it prohibits sentencing or execution by courts that fail to provide all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
The risk of possible prosecution of officials, CIA officers and former service personnel over alleged rough treatment of prisoners arises because the Bush administration, from January 2002 until June, maintained that the Geneva Conventions' protections did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
As a result, the government authorized interrogations using methods that U.S. military lawyers have testified were in violation of Common Article 3; it also created a system of military courts not specifically authorized by Congress, which denied defendants many routine due process rights.
The Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, however, that the administration's policy of not honoring the Geneva Conventions was illegal, and that prisoners in the fight against al-Qaeda are entitled to such protections.
U.S. officials have since responded in three ways: They have asked Congress to pass legislation blocking the prisoners' right to sue for the enforcement of those protections. They have drafted legislation allowing the consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations, in place of an absolute human rights standard.
They also formulated the War Crimes Act amendments spelling out some serious crimes and omitting altogether some that U.S. officials describe as less serious. For example, two acts considered under international law as constituting outrages -- rape and sexual abuse -- are listed as prosecutable.
But humiliations, degrading treatment and other acts specifically deemed as outrages by the international tribunal prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia -- such as placing prisoners in inappropriate conditions of confinement, forcing them to urinate or defecate in their clothes, and merely threatening prisoners with physical, mental, or sexual violence -- would not be among the listed U.S. crimes, officials said.
It's plain that this proposal would abrogate portions of Common Article 3, said Derek P. Jinks, a University of Texas assistant professor of law and author of a forthcoming book on the Geneva Conventions. The entire family of techniques that military interrogators used to deliberately degrade and humiliate, and thus coerce, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at Abu Ghraib is not addressed in any way, shape or form in the new language authorizing prosecutions, he said.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last Wednesday, however, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales complained repeatedly about the ambiguity and broad reach of the phrase outrages upon personal dignity. He said that, if left undefined, this provision will create an unacceptable degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack.
Lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism at the hearing. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the military's top uniformed lawyers had told him they are training to comply with Common Article 3 and that complying would not impede operations.
If the underlying treaty provision is too vague, asked Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), then how could the Defense Department instruct its personnel in a July 7 memorandum to certify their compliance with it? Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who had signed the memo, responded at the hearing that he was concerned that degrading and humiliating are relative terms.
I mean, what is degrading in one society may not be degrading in another, or may be degrading in one religion, not in another religion, England said. And since it does have an international interpretation, which is generally, frankly, different than our own, it becomes very, very relevant to define the meaning in new legislation.
This viewpoint appears to have won over the top uniformed military lawyers, who have criticized other aspects of the administration's detainee policy but said that they support the thrust of these amendments. Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the Army's judge advocate general, said in testimony that the changes can elevate the War Crimes Act from an aspiration to an instrument by defining offenses that can be prosecuted instead of endorsing the ideals of the laws of war.
Lawyer David Rivkin, formerly on the staff of the Justice Department and the White House counsel's office, said it's not a question of being stingy but coming up with a well-defined statutory scheme that would withstand constitutional challenges and would lead to successful prosecutions. Former Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo similarly said that U.S. soldiers and agents should not be beholden to the definition of vague words by international or foreign courts, who often pursue nakedly political agendas at odds with the United States.
But Corn, the Army's former legal expert, said that Common Article 3 was, according to its written history, left deliberately vague because efforts to define it would invariably lead to wrongdoers identifying 'exceptions,' and because the meaning was plain -- treat people like humans and not animals or objects. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice, said that laws governing military conduct are filled with broadly described prohibitions that are nonetheless enforceable, including dereliction of duty, maltreatment and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, the Navy's top uniformed lawyer from 1997 to 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center, said his view is don't trust the motives of any lawyer who changes a statutory provision that is short, clear, and to the point and replaces it with something that is much longer, more complicated, and includes exceptions within exceptions.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Lest we forget accountability, how-dare you ask?
x
Demand the truth, regardless of R or D
Ah, the drive-bys: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN for starters. The facts are literally everywhere to refute many of the stories being discussed. NBC/MSNBC is the very worst for being in the tank for Obama. PBS and NPR are also on the list, among plenty others.
It's shocking that so many people would literally give any network (and I said any) a free pass and take what they say as gospel, esp. when these "reporters" as they call themselves are very well aligned with the Dems. I scrutinize what the right says, too. Giving a free pass to reporters is not only foolish, it's dangerous. I don't ever want my candidate of choice to win by cheating or distorting things. Of course, politicians deserve a great deal of scrutiny. Just like we work for MQ, politicians work for us. We should demand the the same from politicians as our employers expect from us.
Tonight on Hannity & Colmes will be part 2 of Sean's interview with Sarah Palin. I copied it below from FNC.
Also, The Obama campaign has distorted Rush's words about Latinos. That will be disputed tomorrow on his show (and in Spanish). He also has an op-ed coming out in Friday's Wall Street Journal about this. It's disturbing to me that Univision & Telemundo didn't run the RNC convention on their networks. Not even close to fair and balanced. If I were Hispanic I'd be furious that both sides weren't presented so I could make my own decision. Next they'll be selecting our cars, etc.!
Exclusive: Sarah Palin on accepting McCain's VP offer and reforming the economy
I've also put a link below where news stories can be verified.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/
This isn't meant as a "shootin' match." It's simply an avenue many may have not considered.
Supply and Demand
What gives you the right to impose your beliefs on others? Ever hear of supply and demand? Do you really believe that it is only those of other religions that are participating in the sex, drugs, and violence to which you refer. Since Christians are the majority, according to one poster, there must be plenty of Christians who are living the lifestyles you want to suppress. There are all kinds of Christians. Which Christians do you want to be in charge of all of our lives...the fundamentalists, the KKK, the Aryan Nations?
Now wouldn't that bring accountability to the government?sm
If people could choose which programs they want to fund. I think we should all be given a form with our tax form and we get to choose where we which programs to fund. That way if no one supported a program it wouldn't happen.
The government should really do this.
Wanting truth and accountability = hatred?sm
Dissent, not loyalty to the almighty State is patriotic.
I don't demand anyone respect Obama. However,
I feel certain he will more than earn his respect in the way he's planning to deal with Bush's depression whereas Bush never earned any respect.
With all the supply and demand stuff...
...I'm guessing the price of tea may have increased since yesterday.
With all the supply and demand stuff...
...I'm guessing the price of tea may have increased since yesterday.
I noticed yesterday that several food items went down in price. (Maybe others went up in price and I didn't know it because they wouldn't be items I would normally purchase.)
Things like butter being $2.00 (last week was $2.68), bread $1.12 a loaf (last week was $1.36 a loaf), American cheese $2.38 a pound (last week was $3.36) -- stuff like that.
With all the supply and demand stuff...
...I'm guessing the price of tea may have increased since yesterday.
I noticed yesterday that several food items went down in price. (Maybe others went up in price and I didn't know it because they wouldn't be items I would normally purchase.)
Things like butter being $2.00 (last week was $2.68), bread $1.12 a loaf (last week was $1.36 a loaf), American cheese $2.38 a pound (last week was $3.36) -- stuff like that.
You think he's full of himself? Well, I think you're full of something else. SM
Something brown. You think on it for a couple of months and I bet you'll figure it out.
Nobody wants to listen to liberal talk radio..look at bankrupt Air America. No demand for it...
//
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
It takes money to make money. nm
Oh whatever, gt, you are full of it. nm
You are full of it. sm
I know and you know that if Bush signed a bill that would cost us 400 billion dollars and 4.2 million jobs, you would have a stroke. Conservatives want to protect the environment as much as our Birkenstock-wearing liberal counterparts. But conservatives dont' base their environmental policies on emotions, hysteria or junk science, gt. Conservatives like warm fuzzies just as much as the next guy but that should not require us to walk lockstep with the radical environmentalist agenda. Environmentalists have watched way too many Star Trek episodes and seem incapable at times of distinguishing between science fiction and science fact. They won't tell you this at the DU or the New York Times but we don't even know scientifically if carbon dioxide actually affects the Earth's temperature. We live in a polluted world. Surely the manufacture of disposable diapers (never used em), plastic containers, and styrofoam is a huge contributor, not to mention toxic waste from manufacturing. KYOTO DOESN'T EVEN ADDRESS THESE! It's worried about CO2. GET REAL. As a nation, we need to get back to washing our own dishes, washing our own diapers, and drinking out of the old faithful mason jar. THAT' S environmental protection. You don't know what you are talking about. You only think you do. You can't go around reducing every argument to conservatives are mean cruel hateful liars and just ignore the crux of the problem. Well, I guess you can. You keep doing it. Try independent thought for a change.
Full of what?
Joy? Hope? Enthusiasm? Positive energy? Cheer? Delight? Elation? Anticipation? Promise? Optimism?
Evidently, in view of the response she is getting, she is not exactly sitting there talking to herself. Making it up? She speaks for many of us.
One has to wonder why it is you find this so disturbing and you have such low tolerance for happy.
Here's what you are full of: Woe, adversity, distress, abjection, discouragement, pessimism, despondency, misery, sorrow, doubt, antagonism, suspicion and misgivings.
Good luck with that. Most of us don't choose to live that way.
You are full of yourself. No one can take you seriously
is spread lies and deceit. Read the article. Where does it say that Abd Al-Rahim will get off with a free pass? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29042139/
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.
The nerve? GT you are so full of it. sm
Take a good long look at page one of the Conservative board. Tell me you see no postings of an inflammatory nature by liberals. If you did, you would be lying.
He is full of nothing but hot air. Amazed at the following he has.
fffffffffffffffffff
Is there a particular reason you used his full name ... sm
Making sure you put the Hussein part in, when I have never seen you address him that way before. Yes, it is his full name but some people (are you included?) love to add that in just to make people think he is Muslim or make references to it.
Not saying that was your intention but it smells kind of fishy.
Know-it-all '[Psycho Sam' is full of B.S.
X
full coverage for how much
x
do you not understand that he is full of
how do you possibly think he can offer tax breaks with all of the government programs he is proposing?
Will you tell me exactly what kind of breaks he is going to give?
He may very well win but I'm terrified of what his real plans are.
Oh please. This post is so full of it
He "accurately assessed the country was ready to elect an African American president". My gosh, did he do that all by his little ol self. Excuse me but he didn't choose this. People above him who pay him told him he would run.
He by all means did not run a clean campaign. Don't you even remember what he did to Hillary??????? Not only with Hillary, but all the other primary runners and with McCain he DID resort to dirty tactics and tained election antics. And ESPECIALLY, most ESPECIALLY manipulated the courts decisions. That whole deal about him not releasing his BC is such a farce. He is illigitimate plain and simple. Does that change anything NO, it does not. He has enough rich lawyer friends and super wealthy friends who have manipulated. I am dealing with the fact that we have a foreign born president and that our constitution has been changed. I'm dealing with it, but for you to come out and say he didn't manipulate anything. Please. From his friends in the legal offices always overturning everything that people are doing to come to the truth. That spells SLEAZE in capital letters. I am dealing with it and I don't bring it up anymore but your blindness to the facts is astonishing.
His cabinet appointments have been very well orchestrated. Yup, you got that one right. One sleazeball Clinton has been after another. That is what I call very well orchestrated. Now if he would only pick some people with intelligence and knowledge to fill the cabinet. Not the people he owes favors to who will be the downfall of our country.
He has world leaders enthused? Have you even read how outraged some of the other countries are about some of his picks - especially Dillary! Puten and people in his country sure are not enthused. Iran sure is not enthused that he picked the lady that stated she would obliterate their country. No doubt Germany is enthused. The embrace socialism there.
The O is off to a good start??? That is your opinion. There are many of us who were hopeful for him when he was elected, but seeing the decisions he is making so far we are thinking twice about that.
He will be dazzling us with his brilliance?????? My-oh-my, did you read that in a Romance novel. You really need to stop drinking that Kool-Aid and join us in reality. Only after he is present will be be able to say whether he "dazzled us with his brilliance" or "baffled us with his bullsh!t".
you are so full of it, this is hilarious! Just
you sit and talk to yourself and make up this crap?
You sound so full of yourself
bust a gut at any moment, so could be all that mountain biking has been in vain and instead your perfectly proportioned bod is bloated with bull.
Your OP is a good example why there is a difference between those folks you claim to hang with and the ones here who have to endure the cesspool that those types of remarks turn this forum into on a minute-by-minute basis.
You missed the point of the other post. Here's a hint. It was not about chili dogs and cheese and going gaga over Obama, but you were in such a hurry to try to be cute while you post your disgust, you didn't notice.
I too would like to suggest that it might be a good idea to at least CONSIDER keeping your pot shot drive by negative snipes to yourself every now and then.
And some of us with a full brain knows this is (sm)
also about Israel.
From another Republican under the Reagan Administration, Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/090508_hate_crime.htm
Since the passage of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act in 2004, the US Department of State is required to monitor anti-Semitism worldwide. The State Department is not required to monitor anti-Americanism or sentiments against Christians, Muslims or Arabs. Thus, the act created a specially protected class worthy of careful monitoring by the US Department of State of negative sentiments expressed against Jews.
In order to monitor anti-Semitism, the term must be defined. The definition is subjective and will be widely, rather than narrowly, interpreted.
The State Department has come up with its attempt. The State Department’s approach could include any truthful statements about Israel and its behavior toward the Palestinians that the Israeli government or AIPAC or the Anti-Defamation League would deny or contest.
Anti-Semitic speech can be interpreted as inciting hatred. Inciting hatred can be interpreted to be a violent act. “Excessive” criticism of Israel is a subjective, indefinable concept that can be used to determine anti-semitic speech. It is easy to conflate “excessive” with “strong”.
Thus, demands that Israel be held accountable for war crimes committed in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, or elsewhere become acts of the “hate crime” of anti-semitism.
glass empty/full
LOL, ya know, reading your post about glass half empty, geez. I used to, in my younger days, be a glass half full. I used to debate with friends and coworkers, especially liked debating with cute doctors (smile) about their glass half empty view and my glass half full view..However, as I have gotten older, wiser and more tired, yes I guess my view is glass half empty. However, I do think if the situation in this country and the world and the job situation, heck the respect for each other situation was better, my attitude would change.
Your post is so full of holes that I won't even....... sm
bother to address all of them, but I will address a couple.
For starters, "sam" apparently no longer posts here, or if he/she does then it is done under another name. If so, I could not blame him/her because of the regular attacks he/she also received. The ball bounces both ways, you know, so you can come out of hiding now.
My moniker has always been "m" which is the initial of my first name. I stand behind what I post, regardless of how "juvenile" you seem to think they are. I have had many conversations with other posters on the board with no complaints at all apart from my particular political stance on a subject which is to be expected on such a forum as this.
The last thing I would address is the fact that you say I should just avoid your yellow-bellied posts if I don't care for their convoluted, high-brow attitude and move on. A good portion of the time, I do just that, but it is hard to always correctly identify you amongst all the other NM and SM "monikers" on this board, again people who like to throw out barbs without sullying their reputation. Further, when someone attacks another poster as they did BT above, and I am assuming it is you by the nature of your posts, I feel that something should be said. Rude and inflammatory posts such as you are accustomed to making are hurtful and completely unnecessary. To have simply disagreed would have been one thing, but to call someone a "psychopath" is something else entirely. I, of course, have no proof that you made the original post, but neither do you have proof to me that you didn't. I will leave it at that.
I have nothing else that I wish do discuss with you in terms of political views at this point. If and when you do decide to post something of interest, be it political or a personal attack against me or another regular poster of this forum, I will speak to that as the situation arises. Until then, have a nice day.
The full report is due to come out today. The..sm
preliminary report is that the first dude lied and did talk to multiple government officials, not just one as he says, regarding the case, and he relentlessly pushed to get the trooper fired. It will be interesting to see what the full determination will be.
|
