In a word, no. Besides that, it didn't work for them
Posted By: Did it? Now they're taking it to other side. on 2008-08-29
In Reply to: It was ok for hillary supporters in the millions... - sam
Same thing by the same people, expecting a different result? Let's see how well that works for them.
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
It didn't work
You can't make up whatever you want and everyone knows that graph and what it means. It didn't work. Are you discovering history for the 1st time? I know it can be exciting, but get it right. Thanks.
Well, that didn't work! LOL.
If anyone is interested in seeing the ASTRONOMICAL amount of money these corporations are costing Americans with their offshore tax shelters, please open the links I posted. 
no, it didn't work for me either
I couldn't send the vote, but then I read where it said before Friday so maybe they stopped taking votes today or something.
funny, sam didn't want the last word on this
nm
The link didn't work.
It took me to the YouTube site but gave me this error message, "The url contained a malformed video id."
sorry the link didn't work...sm
Type it into your browser and it appears to work..
Well, link didn't work. Try this.
http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Articles.Detail&Article_id=573a46c4-822c-435c-8405-8b4c93516b52&Month=12&Year=2008
Didn't work very good - did it? nmx
x
Sorry, that link didn't work - here it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_correspondents
Sorry, that link didn't work - here it is.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_correspondents
Tax cuts didn't work - what is your cure? nm
x
Show me proof that it didn't work......
Maybe you just got your history lesson from Faux Noise. The New Deal DID work until the Republicans pressured FDR into instituting tax cuts - then we went into a recession - after that World War II pulled us out of that. It sure doesn't look like Ws wars have helped our financial situation.......perhaps that's because he told us all to SHOP till we DROP instead of asking Americans to sacrifice like FDR did.........but. WWII wasn't based on lies, either......
Embed didn't work. Anyway, here's my question:
As you can hear, the Congresswoman from Illinois gets a lot of cheers when she declares that the plan for national healthcare would drive private insurers out of business.
The private health care insurance industry is one that involves around 5000 companies, almost a million workers and $1 trillion in annual revenue.
Let's put aside for a minute the trivial consideration of the government bureaucracy that proposes to replace all of this, and instead ask how deliberately destroying an industry that hasn't needed bailouts, that employs so many people and generates such revenues (with the corresponding tax revenues) squares with saying that we should bail out the auto industry in order to save jobs?
Ooops, didn't work..what happens when you're in a hurry.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/print.asp?id=1412
sorry the link didn't work - its on MSN front page today
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29697096
You cannot type it word for word, just provide a link.
.
Deny, deny, deny. Didn't work for Bill either. (nm)
nm
I remember the debate. And of course this is not word for word, I NEVER said...sm
*because I'm not.* This is a LIE that I got tired of arguing with them about then. Unless you are confusing me with an old poster that went under the moniker Demo.
Sambo thinks last word=best word...
su
yep. Its Fox. Just googled it. word for word. nm
nm
Not one word. One defitinion of a word.
Cult: 1. A system of religious worship or ritual.
Or how about this:
Cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
Or my personal favorite:
Cult: A self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
At least he's using the O word
He's at least a little closer to the actual truth this time. How come no one important seems to care about all these changes in reasoning? Does anyone notice??? (Except us?)
There's that word again.
.
With or without the *word*
I agree with the post. Thanks for posting it. I'm sorry this entire thread has been invaded by those who are only here to attack. They are showing their true colores, though. They want to control what eveyone reads, sees, speaks, thinks and which God they believe in. These boards are only a microcosm of the country, and they are quite representative of their party. The more they reveal their controlling selves here and places like this, hopefully, the more people will see it for what it is and finally feel they've had ENOUGH! For that reason, I personally hope they keep it up. 
When is the key word.
And when will it be? Bush has already admitted that solving this quagmire will be the responsibility of a future President. If we *stay the course,* any terrorist or insurgent would then be given a free pass to kill our American soldiers (brutally, like they did this morning) while these soldiers are trying to fight for the Iraqis. They scream and yell against amnesty for illegals who want to come here to work, but they're in favor of it if it involves our troops being killed.
HOW TWISTED IS THAT?!!
I'm grateful the majority of these Senators showed support for our troops and respect for their lives.
I have one word. sm
Bull.
N-Word
Regarding the definition you posted: “deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense,” I submit the following:
I think there is much ado about nothing here. Does anyone say the "C-word" when blacks refer to whites as "crackers?" I don't even bother finding that offensive. Again, political correctness. Such as one time I received an email saying "black" was ALWAYS capitalized but "white" was never capitalized. Fine with me. So if "black" is capitalized why is "white" never capitalized??? Black and white are colors, why should either be capitalized? Which, by the way is what the next QA person informed me of, as if I didn't already know that.
I have used the infamous "N-word" but never in connection with the color of a person's skin. I used the term exactly as described by Mr. Webster. Most usually I have used it to describe what we Caucasians would call "white trash" or people who have 50 cars up on jacks in their front yards. I grew up in a community where there were no blacks so I certainly grew up with no predjudice and I still have no predjudice. Black or white we are all God's children and one is no better, or worse, than the other. Not meant to be off topic, just to say that in my opinion, Obama should not be viewed as being "black" or "white." He should be judged based on his own merits, or lack thereof, as a human being. While I don't support him, I am probably less critical of him than I am of McCain.
but not without the last word, right? YOU...
are the one keeping the thread alive...can't resist that one more little twist of the knife. Grownup? I don't think so. Mob mentality? You bet. That has been well demonstrated here. Only thing missing is the pitchforks, torches and castle bridge. LOL. Sheesh.
Word up
Twelve more people dispatched by McCain to Alaska to further vet Palin (AFTER she was announced). Things not looking good. Speculation is that her name will be withdrawn. No communists are involved in the vetting.
In a word...Always. That is if you believe
nm
key word here is
SOME people are worth defending . . . (not all) Katrina deja vu. The true conservative mind unmasked. Thanks for the insight.
Well...but it is the last word.
nm
So, does anyone believe a word of
banks & the stock market? Instead of giving $700B to them, maybe some of it should go to helping Galveston & New Orleans.
The average Joe is gonna take a hit in this, either way. And, that being the case, I'd feel a lot better about all of us kissing our retirement goodbye, and most likely spending our old age on the government dole, if all those greedy fat-cats went down the toilet with us.
to last word sam - where did I say
I simply answered as to where they were when the vote was being taken.
You'd make a good politician with your constant need to always have the last word and manipulating every post you read.
In a word, yes.
It is apparent that the sanctions have not had the desired result as was their original intent. In fact, typically economic sanctions DO only end up hurting the populations of countries with dictatorial leadership...people who have little or no power affect change.
Another side to this coin would be the need for an attitude adjustment on the part of the US. I am referring to the notion that the US should be "toppling" the Castro brothers or any other regime not to our liking. Preserving our national security is a legitimate concern. Fomenting violent overthrow, bankrolling coupe d'tats, installing puppet governments that that carry out the shots we call....NOT. We are not in charge of the world and need to evolve into relationships based on peaceful coexistence, period.
How can anyone believe a word the man says....
why, how silly of me. Because they have walked the yellow brick road to the great and powerful "O." He counts on it.
I know the word has been used a lot but...that's SAD.
nm
In a word.......... sm
No. The middle class seems to be shrinking every day, and it does not appear to be migrating north into the rich class either. Like you, I am concerned for our future and whether I will even have a home this time next year.
Please don't take this as a Christian "rant" but last night during my prayers, I literally cried because I fear for the world that my sons will be going out into very soon. Their generation is going to have a very rocky start, much more so than we did and certainly much more than our parents did. I am also very concerned for my mother and all elderly people like her. Will she be able to continue buying her medication, even with Medicare and supplement insurance? This month, she fell in the donut hole and had to pay for part of her medications from her own pocket to the tune of some $400. Her monthly income is only just over $900.
I'm currently paying 11.75% on my home mortgage because it was taken out when interest rates were quite high and my credit is less than stellar. I have asked numerous times, in light of reduced interest rates, for it to be dropped, but the company is not willing to do that. I've been paying on it for 12 years now and I think I might own the back door.
I still hope and pray that our nation can turn around and get back on the road to prosperity for all, but I think about the Great Depression and what it took for this nation to right itself and experience prosperity once again. I don't think I am ready for another World War to happen in order for that to take place.
Everyone is in a tight place now. Even the rich are beginning to "suffer," although I have little to no pity for them as their suffering, while it does impair their lifestyles, is nothing compared to what is going on with the rest of the nation.
Sorry to be a downer this morning, but it's time we "prepare for the worst and hope for the best." It's going to be a long, hard haul back to the top.....if we ever make it.
In a word, no.
Republicans who constantly try to impede the President-Elect and his administration in their attempts to tackle the the wasteland that W is leaving in his dust will only end up digging their own graves. These lame transparent baseless smears are as transparent as Saran Wrap and only end up revealing the ignorance of those who propagate them. Keep up the good work. It is about as effective as the failed campaign that has left this party in shambles.
It's so much more than just one word..(sm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqiPrRG5lNU&feature=related
I think the word you are looking for is.....sm
presumptuous.
I find it rather self-serving of Obama to expect to move into the Blair House before it is available. Events at this house are scheduled months in advance and Mr. Bush was well within his rights as PRESIDENT to turn down Obama's request.
Why does Obama think the earth spins around him?
I think maybe the word you were looking for...(sm)
was "confusing," not "deceiving." Obama was very clear in laying this out time and time again. Youtube is full of videos of his speeches and debates. You might want to browse through them. What is deceiving though are posts like the one you just did.
In a word.................. sm
Yes. On both counts. If the rapist has a true salvation in Christ and the Jew does not .
Friend, you are more than pragmatic. You are hedging a bet that you are bound to lose if you don't accept Christ. It is as simple as that.
And the MSM never said a word about...
The 2 soldiers killed by a
"recent convert" to Islam in a drive-by shooting, but trumpeted how George Tiller was such a fine man cut down in the prime of life.
That could work, PK.
but hey where do you work now
exMQMT? if you do not mind that is. Thanks!
Sam, please let me know where you work.
I am an excellent MT who would love to have enough free time to post messages on this board all day long, but the companies I work for require me to spend most of my day transcribing. I would love to find a company who would allow me the freedom that you have to spend hour-after-hour posting to my little heart's desire. Please point me in the right direction, as I would love to be as free as you are to repeatedly force my opinions on everyone who reads the MTStars board. You can e-mail me if you would like to keep this confidential. I want to be just like you!!!!!
no thanks, does not work for me.
I will never agree with you no matter what you say or do on this board -
As far as taxing rich democrats, I remember President Clinton objecting to not being taxed and coming forward that he was against that from the beginning.
{You really think it is fair for those who have been successful to redistribute their money to other people? Be punished for success? I do not get that mindset}
- hey you are trying to convince someone who is older than 50 that I do not deserve anything for my hard work for some 30+ years, not going to happen.
I am from the days when employers had to pay you what you were worth, health insurance, full benefits, etc etc. You will never ever convince me I am better off just by repeating it over and over.
Sorry, not interested in any how, any way or, any time for rich corps to have the right to make me work twice as hard for less, so they can send the majority of work overseas to avoid paying people decent wages or by contributing anything except by their own will to anything in this country at their own discretion. If I am forced to pay taxes, they should be also.
trickle down theory, what has trickled down to the middle class but hardship, suffering, back to slave labor and poor working conditions...
Sending work overseas and all the side-effects from that directly affects me and my family and our quality of life.
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice - not.
I have done all the work.....all you have to do
xx
|
