Let's talk about attacks....

• Thank you Sarah Palin & Team McCain - Are you proud of yourselves?
  • ARE you serious??? - Quit the sniveling already and get yourself a life
  • You know, needlpoint's a good hobby - sm - Harbinger
    • And these are the WINNERS crying - Never heard of a poor winner
  • STOP! The election is over or didn't you know that? - Backwards typist
  • Let's talk about attacks.... - me
    • So, how many assassination plots against Palin - are the SS investigating? sm
      • Time to come back to reality - see message - me
        • Reality: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, - Jackson, TR, FDR, ....sm
          • Gosh, why don't you read the post - See message
        • Bravo - Old part-timer
          • Thank you - it gets frustrating - me
      • Losers usually aren't assassinated - See message
        • It is sad that some people can't - sm
        • The conclusion you have drawn about Palin's detractors - is unfounded and uncalled for. sm
        • Thank you - very well said (no message) - me
          • What about the hate speech and assassination threats? - Is there not a single.....sm
            • I will address it - me
            • This is where it will begin - Loss of freedom of speech
              • It would be a waste of time to try to address - this level of ignorance.
              • That is ridiculous. - sm
                • Rediculous is not looking at who the O is and - me
              • Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct. - MTQA
    • You're wasting your breath - with these loonies
  • See message - Hmmm
    • Here are the dots. - sm
  • Doesn't even deserve an answer - Old part-timer
    • The Secret Service is idiotic? - Interesting. -nm
      • OK show me - Old part-timer
        • Just one of - sm
          • I was speaking of the original post - Old part-timer
            • The OP says "Team McCain," - Not John McCain
            • This silly diversion only shows just how hard - you're trying to miss the point. sm
              • I'm not happy - Old part-timer
                • Did you skip the part about the palpable surge of activity - after Palin rallies? sm
  • Why are u putting blame elsewhere. - O is judge who he hangs around with and
    • It might be time to - gourdpainter
      • GP, breathe, breathe, no reason to give up ....sm - oldtimer
        • Oh believe me I haven't given up hope - gourdpainter
      • How can you already judge that he is messing things up? nm - Amanda
    • Do you also blame victims of crime and - domestic violence for....sm
    • Arab African???? - nm
  • And this is their fault because....nm? - voteinde
    • Team McCain should include any and all who - engaged in promoting and...sm
      • What about the crazed people trying to rush in and overtake Palins motorcade? - Just me
        • So how many threats on Palin's life is the Secret Service - investigating? sm
        • Good grief. - Enough already.
      • That's right, the libs never say anything inflammatory about anyone...nm - voteinde
        • It's not about conservative vs. liberal. - smp
          • EXACTLY ! - NM
        • Why is it such a challenge for conservatives to - simply recognize cause and effect...sm
          • Free speech is alive and well, as is free will... - voteinde
            • There are libraries full of scholarship on - the issues that you are....sm
    • Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over - against Barack Obama
      • Instead of cutting and pasting, what website is this from? nm - voteinde
        • They posted the website - and link on that message.
        • Click on the link that is posted - at the bottom of the above message.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

nm

not allowed on this board. Stop immediately.

not allowed on this board.  Stop attacking me personally with your imagining what I have or don't have in my work area.  Stick to the issues.

This has nothing to do with this conversation.  What this person makes and why they make that is none of our business.  The point was that she didn't live beyond her means and doesn't want a handout and that right there makes her a heck of a lot better than a lot of people. 

they happened in London, England and you don't see people London whining and acting like the world is coming to the end.  They got up and got on those darned buses and trains.  These terrorists made very little headway at all yesterday. 

You all don't get the point do you?   You really don't.  No matter where we are in the world you're going to find fault with it as long as it is done under conservative leadership.

I think I understood every word you said loud and clear. 

Stop with personal attacks, the vile name-calling, grammar policing and foul language.

Debate the issues.  Respect opinions. 

I'm not moderating for niceness but there is some troll behavior going on and it has to go. 

Moderator

And it's the fault of this president for obsessing about Saddam Hussein (since he's been doing since the early 1990s) and not doing enough to protect his own people from future attacks.

The terrorists have all the power here.  They're holding all the cards.  They once again managed to scare a large part of the world.  They also know something that American soldiers DON'T know.  The know what the outcome of their plan is going to be.  They use the element of surprise, and when they wake up in the morning, they don't wonder if they're still going to be alive the next day.  They already KNOW they won't be because they've planned it that way.  They control their own fate, as well as the fate of everyone who gets in their way.

Our soldiers have to deal with that every single day.  A car bomb here.  A suicide bomber there.  Every single day is 9/11 for them.  It sounds real nice to pretend to respect and honor them when participating in a photo op on an aircraft carrier.  Why doesn't he care enough about their lives to provide adequate body armor and Humvees for them?  He has no problem giving big tax breaks to his rich base (and YES, they are his REAL base, not the Christian right; just wait till he betrays you all with his moderate Supreme Court nominees). He has no problem giving free healthcare to all Iraqis. Forget about the American people for a minute. Why can't he care about our troops -- our CHILDREN -- enough to supply them with adequate equipment?  Of course, he personally would not know what constitutes adequate equipment because HE WAS TOO MUCH OF A COWARD TO EVER SERVE IN COMBAT.

As far as giving this President too much credit, you obviously didn't comprehend one word of my post.

HELLO!

Debate opinions, argue conflicting viewpoints.  Steer clear of personal attacks.

Thanks,

Moderator

White House plays chicken with a war hero

By Derrick Z. Jackson  |  November 19, 2005

THE WHITE House is so deluded, it actually believes it can turn a soaring hawk into a scrounging chicken. Stung by the call by US Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania to pull out of Iraq, Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary, said this week, ''It is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Talk about playing the chicken-hawk card. A White House where most of the architects of war avoided combat in their own lives dared to associate two people who are worlds apart in world views. Moore made the anti-Bush ''Fahrenheit 9/11, which infuriated the right wing by breaking box office records for a documentary film. Moore was booed at the 2004 Republican National Convention.

Murtha is the 73-year-old recipient of two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for combat duty in Vietnam. He is a Democrat whose three decades in office are marked by support of President Reagan's policies in Nicaragua and El Salvador. Murtha was a top Democratic supporter of the 1991 Gulf War. He wants a constitutional ban on burning the American flag.

In a 2002 press briefing, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz termed the support of politicians like Murtha for the Pentagon as ''wonderful. In the 2004 vice presidential debate, incumbent Dick Cheney said, ''One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha.

For all those shows of patriotism, Murtha was skeptical about the rush to invade Iraq in 2003 of Iraq even though he voted to give President Bush the authorization to go to war. He publicly said Bush beat the war drums before building an international coalition. Murtha said he had not seen anything in intelligence reports that indicated an imminent threat. Murtha said Bush ''has put the country in such a box. He can say, 'You'll undercut me if you don't vote for this resolution.'

One month after the invasion, when no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, Murtha warned that American credibility was at risk. By the September, the absence of weapons of mass destruction made him join the much more liberal House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, in calling for Bush to fire the planners of the invasion. Despite the proclamation that ''we achieved a marvelous military victory, Murtha became increasingly frustrated with the chaos of the occupation. This summer, Murtha said administration officials were ''not honest in their assessment that they were winning the ongoing battle.

Finally, this week, Murtha unleased a scathing attack on Bush's Iraq policy. He called it ''a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. He said he believed military officials when he visited Kuwait just before the war and they showed him where American forces would be attacked by weapons of mass destruction when they approach Baghdad. But now, with no end to the killing in sight, he said, ''The US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It's time to bring the troops home. . .They have become the enemy.

Murtha talked about soldier after soldier he has visited in hospitals, wounded and maimed by the invasion. Yet, there's more terrorism now than there ever was and it's because of what? Is it because of our policy? I would say it's a big part.

In perhaps the most humble admission of his press conference, Murtha said, ''The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.

This came the day after Cheney threw mud in the direction of critics who gave Bush his war authorization. Cheney accused them of making ''irresponsible comments. He accused them issuing ''cynical and pernicious falsehoods to make ''a play for political advantage.

He said, ''The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory -- or their backbone.

This was the same Cheney who gave us some of the greatest falsehoods of this generation with ''There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons, and that we would be ''welcomed as liberators.

Murtha clobbered Cheney's words the next day, saying, ''I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.

This hawk still soars, above the scrounging chicken hawks.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.  

© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
 

For the slur that was dead on arrival, go here:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/the-khalidi-gam.html

socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards.  Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable.  It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes.  The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country.  In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets.  Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket.  That is why they have been put in the closet.  Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin. 

And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing.  Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage.  For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue.  I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.

I do not get.

Me need new insult, yes.

It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult.  I think that was obvious to most people.  Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that.  As I said it was an example.

Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant.  And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few?  ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.

You said:

There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board. 

As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board.  Liberals post on the conservative board as well.  I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.

You said: 

You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience. 

 On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience.  Pot calling the kettle black, I would say.  You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it.  If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.

You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery.  At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then.  Could you share your facts?  Just the facts, ma'am. 

I again refer you to history.  History is full of the people who opposed slavery.  We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war. 

The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country.  Try twisting that one.  That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery.  But I think that was obvious to most folks.

Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it.  Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it.  That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them.  But I do not condone it, nor do many others.  I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone.  And I think that is obvious to most folks as well. 

Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's.  Well, we know that is not true either.  It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11.  There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.

I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense.  Erroneous evidence presented to Congress?  The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had.  And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them.   What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything?  None, because there is none.  As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.  

  If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence.  However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? 

I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.

There you go again.  First, my friend, I do not feel guilty.  I have nothing to feel guilty about.  I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism.  I do not readily forget 3000 people dying.  I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what?  Simply because they were Americans.  How easily you seem to blow that off.

And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.  I did not defend slavery.  Both were wrong.  Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW.  There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples.   Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year?  Why don't you get involved to stop that?

My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country.  I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long. 

Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said.  The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that.  But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values.  What set are you talking about?

 The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run.  Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power.  I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.

I never said questioning was unpatriotic.  What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain.  What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing.  Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean.  Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it.  I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home.  Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.

It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool.  Playing right into their hands.  And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.

proves my point.  To believe that all media except Fox is biased and that they were forced to chose the LEAST biased is franky cult-talk  He did not try to trick her.  he asked her straight out "what do you thank about the Bush Doctrine?" This is the definine doctrine of the Bush years that will be remembered in history.  She did not know it.  If she where honest, she would have said "I am not familar with it." Instead, she squirmed in her seat, thrust out her chin and tried to bluff him into giving her a hint. 

He had his glasses on the end of his nose because he is over 40 and wears reading glasses like most older men.  You knew that.  You are trying to distract from the point again. 

You never have anything good to say about McCain.  You are focused on your hatred for Obama and frankly, it is creepy.