Inciting hatred is SP's special mission.
Posted By: Evidently, she is extremely successful in...sm on 2008-10-21
In Reply to: That's a lot of hate! nm - sbMT
this endeavor. The more she does it, the lower those number falls. McCain is back in double-digit deficit territory again.
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
There's a difference between inciting hate and inciting violence
I don't really even think that MSNBC incites hate, but that could be that I lean a little more left than right. I don't know what you know about Savage, but I do think he has been suspended a time or two for attempts to incite mob type violence. And I personally never said anybody should be banned from this country...the topic of this thread was Great Britain banning Savage. But there is a degree of hypocrisy coming from the right on this issue, though. You tell "us" (which is really pretty crazy because my politics are all over the place, left and right) that because we expressed our views, we should head for Russia, which, correct me if I'm misinterpreting this, seems to be like you are not in favor of "our" free speech.
Olbermann makes me laugh, I like Chris Mathews because he will occasionally surprise me and ask the tough questions. I didn't care for Rush before, but when he mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease, I wrote him off forever. I find myself agreeing with Bill O on some social issues, at least until he gets a little too pompous. I just like looking at Anderson Cooper and don't care what he's saying, I'm buying it. For the most part, though, I listen to my local newscast and sometimes network news, but that's usually just so I know what Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are talking about, who are my favorite source of news.
Obama knows exactly what he's doing inciting
@
Just to clarify, inciting one is a felony. sm
That would include just warning people to get their money out. They warn us about this in discussions we have in finance forums.
Washington Mutual was limiting or refusing withdrawals to depositors. I am not leaving my money in the bank, only enough to keep the account open. I do not want them making money off me. For every $1,000 you leave in the bank, they create $10,000 in credit, and debt is our biggest problem.
Is this mission impossible...
Every time I decide to give this site another chance I find posts like this....is this mission impossible and are there spies among us?? ha ha
The majority of them truly believe in their mission.
I'm simply not in a position to judge all that stuff. There's far more going on behind the scenes than we know. That's not to give Bush (or any politician, for that matter) a free pass.
The big threat approaching is Israel & Iraq. A war there is inevitable (& soon), and they're a huge ally of ours. The not only deserve our help, but will likely need it.
Mission Statement
The GOP Mission Statement!
GOP Rep: "Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers" For Democrats
'GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.
"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint." ' -Huffington Post
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/house-republicans/gop-rep-our-goal-is-to-bring-down-approval-numbers-for-dems/
You see the Republicans are always up to something. Too bad it is usually no good for the American people.
Nope, not mission impossible, not spy, not anything like that...
just the drive-by LINO poster using different monikers to attack me personally to make it appear that there are more on the board who want to make personal attacks than just the one...safety in numbers, I suppose, even though they are pseudonumbers. The poster comes and goes, attacks and runs, attacks and runs...it is what it is. If liberals are into that, fine. One poster just comes on and does post after post after juvenile Bush-bashing post. Is that really what you guys are about? Flies in the face of the way liberals describe themselves. I said I wanted to understand, and understand I do...thank all of you...so much.
A mission accomplished for bin Laden.
In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.
Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.
One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:
“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington. “He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.
Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.
Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:
[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. […]
I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.
First off...Obama would make sure that there was a mission...sm
if he had to put soldier's in harms way...not like Bush or McCain that attacked Iraq aimlessly without thinking of the consequences or a way to end the war. We've lost more lives (not to mention billions of dollars) in Iraq than we did on 9/11 and we still are.
Why wouldn't Obama want to protect the country and family that he loves...that makes no sense.
He has ran a very well organized campaign which gives us a good indication on how he will run this country - with great leadership and INTELLIGENCE -for once!
Is that your mission in life? To try to prove that
Rather sad, really.
Obama did not plan the mission.
He only signed off on it after it had been planned and then vouched for by a whole lot of other people. The CEO of a car company does not design a car or put together a sales campaign. He only gives the go-ahead after others have figured out what to do, then takes credit for it.
The only thing this guy has ever made in his life is reservations.
Programs the conservatives make a life long mission
nm
An IQ of 135 is nothing special? I bet you never took
an IQ test and if you did, your score is probably judging on the substance of your posts, I would guess below 90.
Average is 90.
Special rights
I don't believe any group of people should have special rights, but I certainly believe they should have equal rights. I do believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, be entitled to family health insurance coverage, etc. I am not sure what special rights homosexuals are looking for, other than fair treatment. If we continue to look at them as sinners, which I cannot believe God created a whole group of people and they are all sinners because they are homosexual, they will always be thought of as outcasts, as other races were (and still are) treated in this country.
Hopefully your children will never have to make the abortion decision, but I have learned to never say never. My best friend is the daughter of an Assembly of God minister, and she had an abortion at age 16. She has never told her parents to this day (24 years later).
Thanks, TLD. That is a very special video. (nm)
nm
Well aren't you just special then.
xx
We do think it is special. Everyone has access to...sm
affordable healthcare. We have one of the highest minimum wage rates, quite exceptional since we are a very rural state, and great support taxwise for small business. Please don't come here, you would not fit in.
You obviously have no idea just how special she is...(sm)
Whether you agree with her views or not, M is one of those people who deserve respect. From what I know of her, she is well-written, intelligent, can express her views logically, and has no problem with providing documentation/proof for any discussion. Pay attention, you may learn something from her posts.
And special rights for
the sexually confused.
It's 4 hours 15 minutes, an HBO special...sm
Yeah Spike Lee put it together.
You have to have special license from the state....
and it is done specifically to reduce the predator population where moose and caribou populations are in danger from too many predators in the area. It is not done for sport. It is done all over our western United States to reduce predator populations.
People don't want oil drilling to disturb the caribou, but don't mind large wolf populations taking them out? As far as hard to watch videos, have you ever seen a wolf pack attack a carbiou and devour it while it is still kicking? Not pretty.
This aerial hunting practice has been used for years, and while I would not engage in it, sometimes it is necessary to control predator populations. Environmentalists sometimes make a mistake in going overboard to protect predators, then when other species are endangered by the overpopulation, things like this become necessary.
Special about Obama's Neighbors on now
Hannity's America, FNC. It's on now, but will be repeated at 11PM (CST, I think).
Flame all you want, but can you refute it? Seriously?
I saw (but didn't read) a post in passing about Alaska and its meth labs. Shoot, I grew up in Nebraska, and back in the 70s it was totally out of control. Rural areas seem to be magnets for them, regardless of who's in office, so in my opinion neither party who is in control at this time or another can't and won't stop it. It's sad, but true.
HBO Special Hacking Democracy sm
Here is the link to the trailer for the HBO Special Hacking Democracy. There are also links up there to the whole thing (9 parts).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8O43LxV_Xw
Gosh: Hukabee had a special on TV
I'm sorry I missed it because I as out when his program was on. I saw the tail end. I'm sure it was interesting. If anyone knows of a link or something I can go to to see his whole program, please post a link. I'd really like to see what it was all about.
Not wearing any special, but my hubby
wants to bring a cooler with some cold ones in it in case there is a long line. LOL
There's a special on PBS tonight about Lincoln
The author stated Lincoln suspended the right of habeus corpus and the constitution to justify his causes....so maybe this is why O is following along those lines.
Hope it's not on late. I can't stay awake past 8:30 anymore. 
Who would Jesus Whack. Oh that's charming, just really special. nm
Yes! It's not the rich & special treatment that bothers me.
He made tougher laws for drug crimes. The rich will alwys get better treatment. Paris Hilton's special treatment doesn't scare me. She isn't putting people in jail for her same offense.
How many of you would leave your 4-month-old special-needs baby to run for VP? nm
So I guess your okay with insulting special needs people
by calling Bush "retarded". Have you addressed the people on the other side to ask them to stop calling Bush retarded because of the lack of compassion for the people who really are special needs. My best friends brother was born with mental retardation (yes I know they use another word nowadays) but he gets offended when he hears people calling Bush retarded. But I guess your okay with that. Only on your side do you want it stopped.
You said it alright, there is ignorance in some posters.
I am not offended by any of it. You want to call Bush retarded fine (sure he's one fry short of a happy meal), you want to call people kool-aid drinkers that's fine too because they are. But you don't see me up here asking people to please stop and be nice to only one specific side.
The Jonestown tragedy (and yes it was a tragedy, just like Waco and Heavens gate and all these other cults), and I have great compassion. But that happened in 1978 - 30 years ago. Would be nice if you could use some other excuse to not want to hear people being told they are drinking the kool-aid.
By the way "drinking the kool-aid is not just specific to Jonestown. The saying "Do not drink the kool-aid" does, but the phrase "Having drunk the kool-aid" or "kool-aid drinkers" also means being a strong believer in a particular philosophy or mission - wholeheartedly or blindly believing in its virtues.
From Wikipedia - The expression also refers to the activities of the Merry Pranksters, a group of people associated with novelist Ken Kesey who, in the early 1960s, traveled around the United States and held events called "Acid Tests", where LSD-laced Kool-Aid was passed out to the public (LSD was legal in the U.S. until 1966). Those who drank the "Kool-Aid" passed the "Acid Test". "Drinking the Kool-Aid" in that context meant accepting the LSD drug culture, and the Pranksters' "turned on" point of view. These events were described in Tom Wolfe's 1968 classic "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". However the expression is never used figuratively in the book, but only literally.
I do have to laugh at your last paragraph because you must realize that I too find myself "fortunate not to come into personal contact with people such as yourself" (whatever that means), but if it means you don't want to know me personally then I'd just say I feel the same way.
Compassion goes both ways.
My last suggestion then if you want to continue coming would be just to skip over the posts you don't like. I do that a lot and it saves on the frustrations. There are people of all cultures that come to this board and speak their minds (on both sides). Both sides insult the others and that's just the way life goes.
What about special rights for the 'morally confused?'
Talk about special privileges.
Thanks. Was going to mention there's a special "monitor" board for reports.
Hope it works!!
special assistant to reagan sees the picture clearly
Federal Failure in New Orleans
by Doug Bandow
_Doug Bandow_ (http://www.cato.org/people/bandow.html) , a former special
assistant to president Ronald Reagan
Is George W. Bush a serious person? It's not a question to ask lightly of a
decent man who holds the US presidency, an office worthy of respect. But it
must be asked.
No one anticipated the breach of the levees due to Hurricane Katrina, he
said, after being criticised for his administration's dilatory response to the
suffering in the city of New Orleans. A day later he told his director of
the Federal Emergency Management Administration, Michael Brown: Brownie,
you're doing a heck of a job.
Is Bush a serious person?
The most important duty at the moment obviously is to respond to the human
calamity, not engage in endless recriminations. But it is not clear that this
President and this administration are capable of doing what is necessary.
They must not be allowed to avoid responsibility for the catastrophe that has
occurred on their watch.
Take the President's remarkable assessment of his Government's performance.
As Katrina advanced on the Gulf coast, private analysts and government
officials warned about possible destruction of the levees and damage to the pumps.
A year ago, with Hurricane Ivan on the move - before veering away from the
Big Easy - city officials warned that thousands could die if the levees gave
way.
Afterwards the Natural Hazards Centre noted that a direct strike would have
caused the levees between the lake and city to overtop and fill the city
'bowl' with water. In 2001, Bush's FEMA cited a hurricane hit on New Orleans as
one of the three top possible disasters facing the US. No wonder that the
New Orleans Times-Picayune, its presses under water, editorialised: No one can
say they didn't see it coming.
Similarly, consider the President's belief that his appointee, Brown, has
been doing a great job. Brown declared on Thursday - the fourth day of flooding
in New Orleans - that the federal Government did not even know about the
convention centre people until today. Apparently people around the world knew
more than Brown. Does the head of FEMA not watch television, read a
newspaper, talk to an aide, check a website, or have any contact with anyone in the
real world? Which resident of New Orleans or Biloxi believes that Brown is
doing a heck of a job? Which person, in the US or elsewhere, watching the
horror on TV, is impressed with the administration's performance?
Indeed, in the midst of the firestorm of criticism, including by members of
his own party, the President allowed that the results are not acceptable.
But no one has been held accountable for anything. The administration set this
pattern long ago: it is constantly surprised and never accountable.
The point is not that Bush is to blame for everything. The Kyoto accord has
nothing to do with Katrina: Kyoto would have a negligible impact on global
temperatures even if the Europeans complied with it.
Nor have hurricanes become stronger and more frequent in recent decades.
Whether extra funding for the Army Corps of Engineers would have preserved the
levees is hardly certain and impossible to prove. Nor can the city and state
escape responsibility for inaction if they believed the system to be unsafe.
Excessive deployment of National Guard units in the administration's
unnecessary Iraq war limited the flexibility of the hardest-hit states and imposed
an extra burden on guard members who've recently returned from serving
overseas. But sufficient numbers of troops remained available elsewhere across the
US.
The real question is: Why did Washington take so long to mobilise them? The
administration underestimated the problem, failed to plan for the predictable
aftermath and refused to accept responsibility for its actions. Just as when
the President took the US and many of its allies into the Iraq war based on
false and distorted intelligence. Then the administration failed to prepare
for violent resistance in Iraq. The Pentagon did not provide American soldiers
with adequate quantities of body armour, armoured vehicles and other
equipment.
Contrary to administration expectations, new terrorist affiliates sprang up,
new terrorist recruits flooded Iraq and new terrorist attacks were launched
across the world, including against several friends of the US. In none of
these cases has anyone taken responsibility for anything.
Now Hurricane Katrina surprised a woefully ill-prepared administration.
President Bush and his officials failed in their most basic responsibility: to
maintain the peaceful social framework within which Americans normally live and
work together.
Bush initially responded to 9/11 with personal empathy and political
sensitivity. But his failures now overwhelm his successes. The administration's
continuing lack of accountability leaves it ill-equipped to meet equally serious
future challenges sure to face the US and the rest of the world.
This article originally appeared in the Australian on Sept. 5, 2005
Not worried. O's request for a special prosecutor to investigate
DOJ regarding the pub party's umpteenth chapter in dogging this group will undoubtedly uncover both sides to this story...can you say voter suppression? How about election results challenges ala 2000 and 2004? Third time isn't always the charm.
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
McCain made tougher laws for drug crimes. It's not just rich and special treatment he is putting
nm
Well of hatred???
Extremist talking point. Do you realize that this entire plan of attack, i.e. liberals hate this and hate that and ooze this and ooze that and spew this and spew that requires not one iota of rational or analytical thought. It is simply responding to just about anything a liberal says with bumper sticker talk, no cognitive thought going on whatsoever. It is becoming tiresome.
No hatred
for a group of people but a nasty, immoral type of behavior. There is a difference.
Hatred
for immoral acts is not a sin.
I don't see her as being consumed by hatred.
From her posts, it's clear that she's a very compassionate, kind, intelligent person who is capable of thinking independent thoughts. She cares about people who need help in this country. Nobody who is consumed by hatred can do that.
She's expressed fear and concern and frustration at this administration and where it's taking us, and she expressed anger at the person who's leading us in that direction. She's not alone. An increasing number of Americans feel the same way.
The only person I see consumed by hatred is YOU. You've repeatedly littered this board with your hateful posts. It's very easy to see who the hateful people are.
I suggested below that you/all the others (assuming there really is more than one) should be ignored. You contribute nothing to this board but anger, rage, hatred and skewed thinking.
Having said that, I won't bother reading/responding to your posts any more. It's simply not worth it because you don't want to debate. All you want to do is attack others.
I pity you.
River of hatred???
If Michael Moore has tapped into the river of hatred of the Democrats, what about a guy like Rush Limbaugh? What has he tapped into, the river of good will of the Republicans?
Elections are held every two years, and this election the people chose a majority of Democratic candidates. I for one am glad that they did if for no other reason than it will bring new perspectives into a government that has been completely controlled by one party. Further hope is that it may bring changes that work to the good of all of us.
I did not say river of hatred....
I said Michael Moore tapped into hatred and that liberals are on a river of denial...and I believe that. Why else would the very first thing they announced was that they planned to investigate Bush and corruption (not corrupt Democrats, just corrupt Republicans) and at least two have posted on the liberal board that they think terrorism should be on back burner to investigating Bush. Something is VERY, VERY wrong with that line of thinking, and that stems from hatred and revenge, certainly not any concern for this country.
You are so consumed by hatred
nm
Me too. Am so tired of their hatred.
nm
I did check. It is much more hatred for the right
nm
Too much hatred and lies here
I come (used to come) to this board to hear about the candidates. Instead all I'm reading lately is posters attacking others for posting their viewpoints. Someone posts something about Obama and the O supporters attack them "lies" they call them. They don't defend Obama but instead insult and attack the poster. Then they come out and say "oh poor me, you just hate Obama, your so insulting" while at the same time calling them every name in the book. What I'm hearing is the republicans are trying to shed some light on what Obama is but some of the democrats don't want to hear it and already exclaim that Obama has won. They are condescending towards anyone who has a different viewpoint than theirs. They won't read anything that has negative things to say about Obama and they won't read anything that has anything positive to say about McCain. It's just hate-filled spew that comes out. You'll cite polls if they favor Obama, and if they favor McCain you ignore them. You won't even admit that the race is too close to call. In your minds Obama has already won the election. You'll support cheating if it favors Obama and condemn it if it favors McCain. You'd rather live your lives having government regulate your lives, tell you what you can and cannot do, and take all your money to give a check to the people who are able to work but won't because why should they since they are receiving a check from government, while you are being told its your patriotic duty to give to these poor fellow Americans. You'd rather have an inexperienced radical person running the country than someone who has experience and has shown by his voting record that he fights for the American people. Yet not giving any reason (being older is not a reason). I have not yet read any posts that are positive reasons for Obama being president, just hate-filled garbage against Palin. Also makes me wonder why people are trying to keep Biden out of the spotlight. Makes me want to find out more about what he's done in the past.
So I have decided to give the board a rest for awhile and will be back to vist after the election is over. I'm no longer getting any valuable information here. We have not had an election yet. The polls are too close to call and even then you can't rely on the polls to give you accurate information (after all these polls are incuding all the dead people, pets, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, Rama Dama Ding Dong, and all the other fictitious people, not to mention the people who registered 13 and 14 times or more as a democrat) in their polls. I remember back in 2000 everyone was claiming Gore had won the election and it was very very close and look what happened. He lost.
I will also continue to listen to all stations, and read all articles so I can at least get a fair and balance opinion of what is going on.
So have at it y'all. You seem to love attacking people for no reason and when I read these posts I can really feel the negativity and hatred oozing. So maybe I'll just stick to the Gab board - I need some more positive vibes.
P.S. - Just one more note. Whoever wins will win, and whether it is democrat or republican we will deal with it. When a democrat has won in the past there were no riots, republicans continued to try to work with the democrats, but we all know what happened the last two times a republican won. As for the threats of "if Obama doesn't win there's going to be rioting in the streets". Well if that does happen that goes to show you how many biggots wanted him in just because he's black - all the things they claim don't matter will come out.
over the hatred from the left... I see so much of it
nm
More hatred against Obama
This video has the same creep with the monkey in it. He calls the monkey little Hussein. Can't hide this time buddy. Link below.
Sorry, but I am independent. As far as hatred,
nm
Hatred some of you have towards her is obsessive
nm
I absolutely HAVE seen such hatred
before, and it was turned against Bush. 'He's a moron, a retard, a national embarrassment a bumbler, a fool, a cowboy, a yokel.' 'So happy the moron is gone and we have Obama.' yada, yada, yada. And it's still going on, right on this very board, although (and I hate to break it to everyone) Bush ain't prez anymore and did not run in the last election.
I think it's impressive that Obama has managed to draw all this fire in 90 short days! It took some dems twice that long to hate Bush's guts.
|
