If you don't have any figures to back up your statement....
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-15
In Reply to: You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need - to back up my opinion to you.
just say so. Of all the catholic priests in this country, I have no idea what percentage have turned out to be sexual predators, but I am unwilling, without figures, to say it is disproporinately high.
Now in this post you have amended your position from disproproportinately high to a "little bit fishy."
Big difference in disproportionately high and "a little bit fishy." I think blindness refers more to an attitude which wants to ssume "disproportionately high" without some proof of that statement.
That is all I am saying.
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
Can you back that statement up?
Immediate White House statement on Dr. Tiller - still no statement on
Having had at least three relevant opportunities to make a statement about the killing of an Army recruiter and wounding of another since this occurred on Monday, Obama has not said a single word about it - but a statement was forthcoming from him immediately concerning the killing of Dr. Tiller.
The media coverage of the two events has also been strikingly different. Please note that the sympathies of the liberal cause provide a complete explanation of both of these phenomena.
More than passingly strange that they think we don't notice stuff like this, n'est-ce pas? Well, they'll discover their mistake soon enough. The election cycle of 2010 is already starting up - and it isn't going to look anything like the cycle of 2008.
That figures. (sm)
So that means you have chosen to disrespect the moderator’s rules and come here (now suddenly on purpose) when you choose to, but you still post things such as: “Well, really, you ain’t supposed to be here and don’t tell me you’re a moderate conservative cause I ain’t buying it. <<<<<Liberal board's that way...if you can stay awake more than five minutes there” when a liberal visits your board? Figures. Fits perfectly in line with the rules only applying to some and not others.
I can’t believe you wrote *I understand that some of the terrorists may have worked or dealt with the UAE, but they did not carry out any attacks through them* and act as if that’s okay. The Kool-Aid must be especially tasty today.
Do I advocate racial profiling? I advocate historical profiling. Historically, they were tight with bin Laden before, and there is nothing to suggest they don’t have the capacity to be tight with him again.
In short, the REAL kind of profiling I would endorse is limiting this kind of deal countries who has NEVER had ties to terror in the past.
You may consider the below too long to read. I’ve bolded and underlined the important points in case you give up after the first 3 words. I truly feel that Dubya is selling out every American’s safety for money, and I don’t understand how you, as an American, can support or trust this. Of course, you do obviousy still trust and support Bush, so that explains a lot.
Considered an ally now, UAE backed bin Laden
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
February 23, 2006
The United Arab Emirates has become what the Bush administration calls a reliable partner in the war against Islamic terrorists, but its rulers maintained close ties to Osama bin Laden before September 11, and the cities of Abu Dhabi and Dubai have since served as operations and financial bases for al Qaeda terrorists.
But the United Arab Emirates, the most Western of Persian Gulf nations, also has become the United States' closest military ally in the region. Its ruling emirs permit Navy warships to dock in the bustling commercial center of Dubai on lengthy liberty calls. It also hosts U.S. Air Force warplanes, refueling jets and spy planes at the sprawling Al Dhafra air base near Abu Dhabi. The base sits across the gulf from U.S. adversary Iran.
During the Clinton administration, the United States even considered killing bin Laden when he was on a hunting expedition but did not because one of his hunting partners was one of the United Arab Emirates' emirs.
They have been helpful and supportive and a good partner in the fight against terrorism, said a U.S. counterterrorism official.
It is these two faces of the Arab nation -- a one-time sympathizer of al Qaeda, yet strong post-September 11 U.S. partner -- that Washington is considering in the debate over the Bush administration's proposal to let United Arab Emirates company Dubai Ports World run six large U.S. seaports.
The U.S. September 11 commission's report is replete with accounts of some of the 19 hijackers -- two of whom came from the United Arab Emirates -- using Dubai's permissive banking system and lax passport certification to gain entry into the United States and bankroll a mission that killed more than 3,000 people.
During bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan -- where he built terror training camps, a personal army and a financial network -- some of the United Arab Emirates' upper crust, known as emirs, visited him. The United Arab Emirates was one of only a handful of countries that recognized the harsh Taliban regime, bin Laden's protector.
In 1999, bin Laden spent time in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar near the Sheik Ali hunting camp. It was regularly used by visitors from the United Arab Emirates, according to the September 11 commission report. U.S. intelligence detected an official United Arab Emirates government airplane there on at least one occasion.
According to reporting from the tribals, bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis, according to the report.
In fact, the presence of the United Arab Emirates rulers at the camp gave the Clinton administration second thoughts about ordering an air strike to kill bin Laden, more than two years before the attack on the United States.
According to CIA and defense officials, policy-makers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by, the commission said. The Clinton administration was so concerned about the emirates' cozy ties to bin Laden that one official called a United Arab Emirates political leader to complain.
Weeks later, the camp was dismantled, and bin Laden disappeared. The implication was clear: Someone in the United Arab Emirates tipped off bin Laden, the United States' most-wanted fugitive, who then was planning the September 11 attacks.
The United Arab Emirates was becoming both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem the commission wrote. It said President Clinton personally pressed United Arab Emirates leaders to break financial and travel ties with the Taliban, but they refused.
Hamdan bin Zayid, United Arab Emirates foreign minister, told a U.S. diplomat that his country maintains relations with the Taliban to counterbalance Iranian dangers.
Those dangers are one reason that the United Arab Emirates stands as the United States' best military ally in the Gulf, opening key parts of its country for U.S. operations.
Its Mina Jebel Ali port, the largest man-made harbor in the world, hosts more U.S. warships than any other rest stop outside the United States. CIA and FBI agents collect intelligence there on militant Islam. The United Arab Emirates has cooperated with the U.S. Treasury Department in shutting down bank accounts linked to al Qaeda.
The United Arab Emirates is a country that's been an ally in the global war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said on the Michael Reagan radio show this week. We have a port there where they help us. They have an airfield. We share intelligence, and we have a partnership that has been very, very helpful to the things we do in that part of the world.
Figures, please? Thanks. nm
nm
Figures....nm
Figures.
x
sorry where did you get those figures?
It cost 43.5 million for Bush's inauguration
reported yesterday in new stories
i will find the link if I must
Here's some figures
It doesn't take away from what you said of people voting for him because of his skin color and not qualifications, but doing some research I found these facts interesting and now I don't feel so bad (of course this is not down to the exact number but only what is on the statistics through the internet).
Population in USA 303,824,640
# people who voted for President Obama - 69,456,897
# people who voted for Sen. McCain - 59,934,814
# of people under the voting ages - 60,764,928
That means that 113,668,001 did not vote at all. So if you put the people who didn't vote, and the people who voted for McCain together that means that
# people who voted for Obama - 69,456,897
# of people who did not vote for Obama - 173,602,815
Kind of puts things in a better perspective.
With all due respect....way off on figures...
Abortion in the United States - Statistics
There have been over 48 million abortions since 1973.
The annual number of abortions went from 744,600 in the first year of legalization, to a high of over 1.6 million in 1990. In 2003, there were 1,287,000.
There were over 3,500 abortions per day in 2003, 146 per hour, about one every 25 seconds.
For every 1,000 live births, there were 312 abortions in 2003.
There were more than 148,000 second and third trimester abortions in 2003. (that is appalling)
In 2003, more children died from abortion than Americans died in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars combined (This is a true statement, even if you go only by the CDC number of 853,000 plus (the million plus is the AGI numbers...contributed by all abortionists. The CDC readily admits their numbers are probably way off due to reporting mechanisms). The total number of Americans killed in all wars was 653,708. Add the 3192 killed in Iraq so far and you get roughly 657,000. So, in one year alone more babies died than all Americans in all wars. That 653,000 figure includes the Spanish-American war, indian wars, etc. ALL American wars.
A 2004 survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only about 7% of women cited typical “hard cases” (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion.
An April 2004 Zogby Poll found that 56% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother.
At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry.
Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion.
(The good news is that the number of abortions is going down. However, it will take several MORE wars to come close to the number of babies killed by abortion in this country.)
It was estimated back in 2003 that at that point over 48 million babies had been aborted in this country. How you can say you are okay with that and slam me because I say a country has a right to defend itself is beyond me. I have no more to do with the war thanyou do with abortions, yet you think it is inconsistent to be against abortion but for defense. By the same token, I think it is inconsistent to say you are against abortion but for giving the woman the right to kill the child. I frankly see no difference in your position than mine.
The Civil War...the bloodiest of all the wars...was that one worth fighting? WWI? WWII? The Revolutionary War? Surely that one was worth fighting...so is it some wars are worth fighting? Some aren't? I don't know what wars you feel are justified or if you feel none are justified....I don't know if you would feel fighting was worth it if we were attacked again like 9-11....of if you feel it is ok to fight in Afghanistan....or what you would have us do if they flew over and dropped bombs on NY? I just don't know. What I do know is that many more thousands of babies have died than Americans in wars, and as long as all abortion is legal we will continue as a country to kill babies at a horrifying rate, war or no war. And yes, the thought of that is sickening to me. No war...yet the numbers dying are HORRIFIC. Where is your outrage about that? Justified in the name of choice? Yep....I don't get it...and am glad I don't.
What I also know is that we have not had to fight any wars other than the Civil War on our own soil, and I believe that is because we have taken the fight to the enemy rather than wait for the enemy to come to us.
Don't want to fight with you, piglet...I still feel that someone needs to speak for the babies. You speak for the mothers. They have many to speak for them. Some of us believe we need to speak for the babies. And I will continue to do so.
Figures the people who are for Ono are for this
I received a message from an Obama supporter who tried to justify why its a good thing to vote early. Makes me wonder if it was going in favor of McCain would you all be in favor of this? No. This is an outrage to be able to register and vote at the same time. So if I want to do that, lets see, I'll go to my county and do that, then I'll drive to the next county, and the next and next and next and keep doing this so I can keep voting for McCain like some of the democrats will be doing. Oh no, that's not fair. Truth be known this has been the democrats operandi in the past. I have never seen such a big bunch of cheaters ever. They don't care if they cheat as long as their guy wins.
This is not right. If you can't vote in your state then you do an absentee ballot. Or will you be doing one of those also. America's election day is November 4th.
If you feel so strongly about voting you would find a way to legitimately vote on 11/4. Wonder how many other fraudulent votes will they find. At least the rupublicans are smart and are trying to verify how many of those new voter registers names and addresses are linked to the local cemeteries.
I was just giving figures from what they said.
Dont' burn me for that.
I agree! Here are some figures.
The total cost is a whopping $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR
14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.
12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”
It figures - a liberal station
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Figures McCain would pull something like this
Well I guess he saw how well it worked with the HC supporters (most giving their opinion that we need a woman in there, we are voting cos its time for a woman, etc, etc and some only voting for her only because she's a woman). Guess he's so concerned with losing he'll stoop to anything. Talk about calling the kettle black. He proclaims Obama doesn't have the experience and he's young and new, and then he picks her? She's not ready to step in as President, she doesn't have any experience whatsoever. He's going to have a hard time explaining that one.
Again it goes to show McCain is not in touch with the American people. He picks a woman thinking that what all the women want, but luckily the women who supported Hillary are coming out saying we supported Hillary because of her position and viewpoints, not just because she was a women. I just believe he has just lost any chance to win.
She has no international experience, been governer less than 2 years and has no experience at anything. Guess he's making it perfectly clear he wants a running mate who will never question him. His ego is taking over and its going to sink him. He'll need the Swift Boat Veterans to fish him out of the water. Never mind her radical christian viewpoints. Everything he's been attacking Obama for being, he has just picked a running mate who is all that. How could he have gotten it so wrong? Any chance I had of electing him flew out the window with that pick.
Brother...he would have been better to choose Hillary as a running mate. Hello President Obama.
All you have to do is look at the figures and when they started declining....
and 20 months is about right. This democratically controlled congress sat on their hands even when Greenspan was telling them they needed to tighten up on Freddie and fannie. Instead they made their hold on the housing market even bigger.
They failed to act to do anything about rising cost of fuel, went on freaking vacation rather than vote on energy bill. Not only do we need to vote in McCain/Palin, we need to clean up that viper pit that is Congress and finally start acting like adults and work together to clean up that viper pit. Only one candidate is talking about that, and it isn't yours.
The figures taken were from the US Treasury's website
Whether you want to believe it or not this info comes directly from the US Treasury website. You can't make up the figures no matter what political party you belong to.
I know lots of people were in love with Clinton and thought him to be a good president. I too voted for him the first time (after 2 months realized his agenda and got the heck out of the democrat party), but figures don't lie. I guess you didn't finish reading it because you didn't like that it favored the Clinton.
I just go by the facts and I don't care who it favors. I am one of the very few who want to know truth and would like some decent politicians.
Unfortunately we don't have any decent politicians - not one, nada.
They are all liars and crooks and thieves. It's just how they all spin everything.
As for Global warming? If you believe in that I guess you still believe the world is flat. That has been debunked by top scientist. Don't people get that. Scientists...people who have degrees. People who have studied climatology. People who are educated. They all say the earth is in a cooling trend, not warming. AL Gore has not studied this. He wrote a book filled with lies and misinformation and everyone who felt he was cheated out of the president (which even though I was against Bush know this isn't true), but feel sorry for the guy fine, but don't buy into his fantasies (just like he invented the internet and he and Tipper were the role models for the guy who wrote Love Story). Al Gore is a megalomaniac. You know, just cos your ice cube melts faster in your drink doesn't mean this is global warming. If it's global warming tell me then can you dispute these news articles:
Headline: Arab world shivers in unusual cold snap
Jordan's airport shut down by ice, other nations shiver as well - see link below
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22782918/
Headline: Anectodotal cold weather news from around the world - There continues to be a number of reports of colder than normal weather and seasons from around the globe. Here are a few. - see link below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/16/anecdotal-cold-weather-news-from-around-the-world/
Headline: Brrr! State braces for unusual cold - see link below
http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2008/04/18/news/doc4808db9f73005670297734.txt
Headline: Unusual cold weather strains Argentina’s energy grid - see link below
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/12-07-2007/94848-cold_weather_argentina-0
Headline - Karachi shivers in unusual cold snap - see link below
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/970965-pakistan-degrees
Those are just a few. You have got to open your eyes and look at things objectively. Al Gore knows absolutely crapola about global warming. He has an agenda. He's becoming richer and richer off of the whole thing. He is benefitting from people buying "carbon credits". He invested big time in the company and gets kickbacks from all the suckers who believe it.
P.S. - I am certainly not going to take any advice telling me I have to cut back on energy when their driving around in SUVs, limos, fuel eating buses, and who knows how many planes.
All public figures are scrutinized, especially
presidents because they supposedly represent we, the people. It's not just O that is being scrutinized. Past presidents were too, along with movie stars, sports figures, you name it. If you have a big name, are in the public eye, you will have your life spread all over the media.
Do you have more recent figures, and what is this source, if you do not mind? and..
and again, if you will actually read my posts before attacking, I said we had more social programs than others...I would also like to know if they are comparing apples to apples...meaning countries the same size as ours with the same population as ours. You also quoted from 2001. I am sure the number of people in worst-off houses increased...they probably had more children. Does not make sense to me to have more children when you are already struggling to feed those you have. But that is what the welfare system in this country encourages. When you have second and third generation families on welfare, there is something WRONG with the system. Again...read what I actually post and then come with your rebuttal, and come with a rebuttal that has substance and not cut and paste from some old statistics (probably Wikipedia, right?).
Moores facts/figures from US info
This same old argument was brought up on Oprah when Moore, a lobbyiest for insurance companies and a professor who is for universal healthcare for all were on her show. In fact, they even invited CEOs/representatives from the top insurance companies but none would even talk to Lisa Ling. Moore stated, once again, that his figures/facts come directly from the US figures/facts and the facts used to argue against him come from insurance company facts. He stated to go to his web site and the information would be there.
I sit back and laugh..if a republican had thought up universal healthcare or was a pioneer on global warming, the right wing would be behind it 100% but since these are essentially positions hardworking thinking caring democrats back, the radical right wing is going to fight these issues no matter what.
I dont care if you call it socialized medicine, which is a knee jerk response..just what is socialized medicine? What the Congress has? Then give it to me. I most certainly would rather have a universal healthplan, backed by our government, than no insurance at all. To me it is a no brainer. I would rather have a little bit of medical care and medicines than no medical care and no medicines.
Your figures just further validate Taiga's post.
She said, "Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below." Your figures support that statement.
Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Figures....sm
That's why I usually use non-Fox links, so the demmies will "try" to read with open mind....lol....or maybe not.....whatever.....ciao
Figures. Eventually, there's name calling from you. Twice. You must be proud. nm
Yeah, figures that Hollywood is almost all democrat
nm
O's plan is WELFARE, figures you dems want that
nm
Figures....if you can't address the problem...deflect.
What possible difference does what Bush did make? That was then, this is now. We are in a huge financial crisis (largely brought on by Democrats in congress blissfully ignoring the looming housing crisis and the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac debacle...yet you want to trust them now that we are up to our eyeballs drowning in debt with more on the way). Bush did not spend a much in 8 years as Obama has spent in...oh wait...how many WEEKS? Good grief!!!!! Don't you even WONDER how he possibly hopes to recoup all this?
Gracious enough to grant him more time? To do WHAT? Triple my taxes about the time the economy straightens out? If you think taxing the "rich" will fix this...get out your calculator and try again.
Look...I don't want to fight with anyone, but I do not understand the total blindless being exhibited here, when the microscope was used to examine Bush. Take that same microscope and start examining Obama...if you can.
Well, I guess she figures if whichever cheating...
husband Republican used state funds to meet his mistress she could use federal funds to shop. I'm sure in the world of politics that seems fair tit for tat. LOL!! Sigh.
If we are going to investigate everybody why aren't we investigating John Edwards to see if he used campaign funds to meet his mistress? How do we know for sure Bill wasn't using tax funds...well heck, he WAS. We were paying him to run the country, not have leave stains on Monica's dress. Geeez!! lol.
Stomp and whine then stick your hand out.........figures.........nm
x
Asked for proof, suddenly she's too busy. LOL. Figures. nm
nm
Not true. This is the latest poll, figures submitted just today. nm
.
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
Sorry. That last statement should have been
x
RIGHT, but it was actually a statement that was
nm
What an odd statement
"God's will has been done"???
Whenever somebody gets what they want they always say it's "Gods will" or what "God wants". As though they know. Then as if to try to convince us it's true they will throw in a "I prayed and was shown a sign". Well I know a lot of people who are priests, biships, and very spiritual and religious people and they were praying for a different outcome. They were praying for McCain to win. So are you saying 50% of Americans praying for a different outcome all have a different God than yours who "answered your prayers"? Also I have found that when things don't work out they way they want they'll have a different answer (but usually the same canned answer).
There is good and evil in this world. I'm not saying Obama is either. Only he and his family know his religious viewpoints. This is the kind of conversation that is 1/2 religious 1/2 political. If your talking about our government (DC people) I would say that is the least likely place to find "God". Then if your going to go there you should say say "Allah" has spoken and wants him in the office, after all that is who the muslims pray to.
Yes things happen in the world. I think that's were that phrase "$hit happens" comes in.
You said all things happen in this world for the good of those that love the Lord. Does this include the parents who murder their children because God has told them to do so, or even just murder their children for no reason (like that lady in Florida). How about the senseless shootings, robberies, gang rapes, do you think all that happens for those becuase I'm sure those victims loved the Lord too. Oh what about 9-11 all those victims who died. I'm sure there were a lot who loved the Lord. Like I say I don't want to make this a religious message because that is for the faith board but you are mixing the two together and they are very different things.
My aunt does the same thing though. She will talk of something and then add in "I prayed about it and the lord told me this or that" I guess she's trying to put validity behind her statement but it has the opposite effect.
We all hope Obama becomes a great president and does good things for the country. That is the hope of any president elected. Nobody is saying he's going to do a bad job. We're all saying we hope he will do good, but we know about his history/background, associations, voting records, and inexperience, and there is a lot that is not sitting well with us. I believe we all hope to be pleasantly surprised but only time will tell and we will be keeping our eyes open just like we would do with any person elected.
I'm just trying to figure out the logic of this post and it makes no sense and is an insult to those of us who feel differently and "prayed" for a different outcome.
I have to wonder at your statement... sm
""Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country" used to hold a positive meaning in this country."
How does this apply when people like Peggy Johnson (or whatever her name was) proclaim on national tv that they are so glad they don't have to worry about paying their mortgage or putting gas in their cars? I wonder how people who are getting ready to quit their jobs and live off the government will react if they find out that the gravy train is being pulled by the engine of "serve your country?"
I would agree with you. America has gotten greedy and spiteful. I also feel they have gotten lazy, apathetic and complacent and depend on the government now more than ever to meet their needs instead of the other way around.
Your statement a few posts above that (SM)
liberalism is the problem with this country is BASHING.
If you want to bash Liberals - go do it on your Conservatives board.
I see you haven't changed. BTW, Nan, who in the world supposedly "invited you back" as you state below? Perhaps you were invited back to the Conservative board? LOL
A statement from Shrub!
Actually, I didn't think it was funny either when he made that statement as our troops were and are being maimed and dying for him, and he thought it was funny that "whoops, no WMDs!" Rude indeed!!!!!
dumb statement
she gets what she deserves? All the woman wants is to meet with the person who is supposed to be our servant, the person WE put into office. That is not asking too much, in my opinion. It is not like he is a king or dictator. He is supposed to be working for US. If he had met with her, she would have went home and none of this shooting guns, crashing into crosses, etc., would have happened. He is the reason she is getting all this press coverage. Gets what she deserves? What a dumb statement. He should get what HE deserves, impeachment, a criminal trial and imprisonment for this illegal immoral war of his.
broad statement
And have you taken a poll of every democrat in the country as to whether they love or hate Phil? These broad statements are not helping your credibility.
Not a broad statement at all.
And since you make broad statements all the time, that's a little disingenuous, don't you think? I asked a question. You didn't answer it. How many politicians have you seen embrace Phil? As far as credibilty, let's be perfectly frank. I don't care if you find me credible and I am sure the same can be said for your feelings about me. We are worlds apart in our thinking. Thank God.
broad statement
I make broad statements all the time? When, where? LOL. That in itself is a broad statement from you. I make statements with facts to back them up, I post articles. As far as how many politicals back Phil, who knows, who cares. Is he running for office? I must have missed it if he is. He is a tax paying, charity giving, hard working adult who has opinions and ideas and beliefs on how our country should go and I applaud him for speaking out, with his own independent ideas. As far as your and mine ideas? Sure they are different. I dont thank god for that..Frankly, I dont think god has anything to do with that. We are free thinking human beings (at least I am..are you?) and it is great that you have your ideas and I have mine. That is what this country was built on..differing opinions. Heaven help us all if this country ever becomes one thought and one opinion..that is called a dictatorship. I dont know about you but I could never live under that situation..So, long live your opinion and long live mine and never the two shall meet.
true statement
This statement shows that architects of war and politicians, they know just how to manipulate the nonpolitical masses and do it well.
If that's not the most pompus statement ever
I don't know what is...it's a wonder you can breath with your nose so high in the air
That is just as much a racist statement as the one above. sm
Racism goes both ways. How about let's not labeling people at all.
I borrowed that statement from you by the way.
I'm not sure where you get your history or how it go so skewed; Johnson didn't run from war in the Vietnam, he started it, and you consider the way John Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis as running from war? As opposed to the alternative? Nuclear war.
What you fail to understand is that the conservative party is not running on the political theory that it was intended to.
Emancipation proclamation is a LIBERAL idea. Voting for women and African American is a LIBERAL idea, not a conservative one.
You have absolutely succeeded in proving that you are not only uneducated but incredibly misguided. You are a political conservative's wet dream.
This is not an accurate statement
Please provide non-partisan sources that state that the majority of scientists state that global warming is bunk.
Your statement, and I quote....(sm)
"A half a Xanax works just as well as a full one."
NOT TRUE. A half a Xanax will take the edge off. An entire Xanax will afford you the opportunity to take a 2-hour nap.
McCain had a statement...
"Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me. So, I strongly disagree," McCain responded. "America's in great difficulty, and we are experiencing enormous economic challenges."
I agree somewhat with what Gramm said tho...things have gone really well for a long time...gas was low, home values were high, joblessness was at all-time low (yes, during the dreaded Bush administration), and now we are entering some tougher times...and instead of hitching up their bootstraps and moving on through the tough time, a lot of Americans are just whining...well, more than whining, screaming at the top of their lungs for the government to bail them out. Well, again...overtaxation is the prime reason we are in the fix we are in. Democrats and their never-ending social programs, throw more money at problems approach, and to fund all that...higher taxes. Higher taxes for ALL of us, including the so-called "rich" (who employ 75% of the people in the US and pay 85-90% of the taxes already). I would like to know how many people in the good old US are on some kind of government assistance. I think the numbers would astound most. And what are the Democrats doing this election season...hawking yet MORE taxes. Obama wants higher payroll taxes. He wants to tax small businesses even more. Well, something has to pay for the largest entitlement EVER...government-run health care. What a debacle THAT will be if it ever happens. Better be careful what you ask for...
What we need to do is cut all programs except those absolutely needed, that being people who because of health or injury absolutely cannot work. Stop keeping families on welfare generation after generation. Stop making it more profitable to sit at home and draw a check than it is to get out and work. And, in my humble opinion, I don't mind an interim check if someone finds themselves out of work, or while they are in job training. But it should NOT be open-ended. Criminal laws should be tougher and anyone in prison should have to work. Period. It should not be 3 squares and a roof without work. There is plenty they could do.
I believe we need to move back to what made America great..the chance to, through education and/or hard work to better yourself, and family responsibility to one another (meaning moms and dads need to work to feed their own families)...back when welfare should be the LAST resort and effort was made to get off as soon as possible.
Okay, off my soapbox now. I do not mean to offend anyone...just giving my opinion.
hello? the statement that the woman
loves to fire people? pretty simple what i was responding to.
LOL - It was a blanket statement
I said my pet peeve is when people make fun of other people for the way they talk. But now that I think of it, it's not a pet peeve, its more of an irritant. Now I know why my parents taught me not to make fun of other people for the way they talk or look.
This is like the statement that one poster said- nm
.
|
