My intent was to explain the conflict, not the reason for war. sm
Posted By: MT on 2006-07-22
In Reply to: I watched in on youtube.com...sm - Democrat
Thanks for watching.
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
I see no conflict between these two concepts.
in his responses to questions about when life begins. The fact that he considers this to be beyond his pay grade and thus NOT an issue the government should be pursuing is exactly why those of us who share this belief support him on this question, separation of church and state and all. You make your connections any way you like and conduct yourself accordingly but try to endcode this into our laws and expect a tall wall of opposition every single time.
How did you intent it to be taken?
Actually I have very little interest in whether you are surprised or not at my comments. You were merely using this as a venue for your sarcasm and demeaning comments.
Speaking of "conflict", I have a real conflict with
nm
I think you misunderstood the intent of my post.
I, and most of the people I know, don't think that government should be involved in our lives on a day-to-day basis. We think that government should only do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves--deal with foreign entities, defend our borders, create laws, maintain our infrastructure.
Government gets away with all they do because we do not hold them accountable. We are too busy attacking each other instead, which is not productive of anything and the way those in government like it. Just because I think we will need to work together to do what is best for our country does not mean I expect government to cater to my every need. In point of fact, it has been my experience that the more the government gets involved, the more screwed up things become.
So if the intent is solely to mate and
did god create infertility and is it against god to undergo fertility treatments?
Bridger, you are so intent on posturing that
you can't even include the link to your link.
Don't bother posting your link unless you have done your research on internet postings and how copyright laws apply to the it. Most articles are copyrighted, and you must have the permission of the author to post it in full.
Let me give you an example: "You are welcome to make copies for FREE distribution or re-transmit the devotional via e-mail but all devotionals must be copied or re-transmitted in its entirety. However, devotionals may not be posted on any website, printed, or used in any other media without written permission from ****. Each request is considered on a case-by-case basis. Please contact ***, Inc by selecting the following link: **
Do you get it, or is YOUR posturing more important than the facts?
I agree, and am not an Obama supporter. Just tired of all the racial conflict sm
tired of everything being all about race. If they were both black candidates, then people could all just vote their conscience without even thinking about race.
Fears of Brutal Outcome In Iran Conflict Rise
More at the below link:
"Reporters Without Borders said 20 journalists were arrested over the past week. The BBC said today that its Tehran-based correspondent, Jon Leyne, had been asked to leave the country. The BBC said its office remained open.
Today, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held a news conference where he rebuked Britain, France and Germany for raising questions about reports of voting irregularities in hardline Mr Ahmadinejad's re-election - a proclaimed victory which has touched off Iran's most serious internal conflict since the revolution.
Mr Mottaki accused France of taking "treacherous and unjust approaches". But he saved his most pointed criticism for Britain, raising a litany of historical grievances and accusing the country of flying intelligence agents into Iran before the election to interfere with the vote. The election, he insisted, was a "very transparent competition".
That drew an indignant response from Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who "categorically" denied Britain was meddling. "This can only damage Iran's standing in the eyes of the world," Mr Miliband said.
An eerie calm settled over the streets of Tehran today as state media reported at least 10 more deaths in post-election unrest and said authorities arrested the daughter and four other relatives of ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of Iran's most powerful men.
The reports brought the official death toll for a week of boisterous confrontations to at least 17. State television inside Iran said 10 were killed and 100 injured in clashes yesterday between demonstrators and black-clad police wielding truncheons, tear gas and water cannons. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fears-of-brutal-outcome-in-iran-conflict-rise-1712147.html
GOP alert memo states intent to bust the union
With 3 million jobs hanging in the balance.
Countdown has obtained a memo entitled "Action Alert - Auto Bailout," and sent Wednesday at 9:12am, to Senate Republicans. The names of the sender(s) and recipient(s) have been redacted in the copy Countdown obtained. The Los Angeles Times reported that it was circulated among Senate Republicans. The brief memo outlines internal political strategy on the bailout, including the view that defeating the bailout represents a "first shot against organized labor." Senate Republicans blocked passage of the bailout late Thursday night, over its insistence on an immediate union pay cut. See the entire memo after the jump.
Subject: Action Alert -- Auto Bailout
Today at noon, Senators Ensign, Shelby, Coburn and DeMint will hold a press conference in the Senate Radio/TV Gallery. They would appreciate our support through messaging and attending the press conference, if possible. The message they want us to deliver is:
1. This is the democrats first opportunity to payoff organized labor after the election. This is a precursor to card check and other items. Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it.
2. This rush to judgment is the same thing that happened with the TARP. Members did not have an opportunity to read or digest the legislation and therefore could not understand the consequences of it. We should not rush to pass this because Detroit says the sky is falling.
The sooner you can have press releases and documents like this in the hands of members and the press, the better. Please contact me if you need additional information. Again, the hardest thing for the democrats to do is get 60 votes. If we can hold the Republicans, we can beat this.
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/12/1713569.aspx
Then explain his church and minister. Explain that to me. nm
x
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.
Please explain to me what we are not
doing to protect ourselves here? You just assume there's nothing in place here to protect us because you believe all the unsubstantiated liberal talking points that come out ever day. Believe it or not part of protecting us here at home is making the world a more stable place. We can't just hope they won't make the long journey over here like they did in the 1700 and 1800s. Today, in just a few short hours they can walk off of any commercial airline or private plane. We are in Iraq for a myriad of reasons including protecting our own boarders. Why does this have to be explained over and over again to you? A lot of liberals call conservatives narrow minded, but many of you have tunnel vision to a degree I've never seen before.
Let me explain how I can say that.
I agree with you that there were inciting posts from both political viewpoints on the conservative board, myself included. However, I think what is being pointed out was a general trend of "anything goes" for the conservative posters and high deletion/banning rates for the liberals. This has been apparent for a long time and complained about many, many times (usually complaints are deleted so they are virtually impossible to document at this point). I personally was warned once for "picking on" Nan, when objectively, it really was more the other way around. There is a sickness of spirit on the conservative board at times. I was drawn into this and became "ill" also at times. I am not proud of this.
As far as the moderator or administrator, she did post in the Christian board some time ago regarding her beliefs. They were evangelical Christian, kind of extreme. That, coupled with occasional comments on the political board in addition to deleting LOTS of liberal posts and actively supporting and not reigning in the Conservatives is, well, just common sense as to her political leanings.
Explain please
I don't have ESP...
So please explain this:
If marriage is for procreation, and Mary and Joseph were married, why and how was Mary still supposedly a VIRGIN when Jesus was born?
Well, then perhaps you could explain to me
why Saddam's atrocities didn't seem to bother us in the 80s when we wanted his help against Iran?
This might help explain why.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
7, 2006
Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.
We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad, the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. That's a problem.
A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.
The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.
The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote The Turner Diaries, the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.
The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.
The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members.
Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military, he said, because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists.
The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.
The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.
They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military, he said. Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq.
The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. There are others among you in the forces, one participant wrote. You are never alone.
An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.
The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's military unit coordinator.
Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war, he wrote. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.'
He concluded: As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Like I said....we all only have to explain our
own decisions to God. Remember your argument here to me. It may come in handy.
God bless.
Someone explain this to me...
If you are a suspected terrorist or suspected terrorist sympathizer you can go to Gitmo or sent out of the country to a place where torture is A-OK for the rest of your life w/o being given a reason for the incarceration or access to our legal system, even if you are an American citizen but....if you are on a list of terror suspects, you can buy a gun just like everyone else.
Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by Associated Press
NRA: Don’t Ban Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
by Sam Hananel
WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.
In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ’suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.” 0506 07
“As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ’suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,” Cox wrote.
In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.
Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.
Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.
“When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg’s bill.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.
“Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it.”
A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.
© 2007 The Associated Press.
Will someone please explain to me -
Why do you keep saying our vote does not count and that the next President has already been chosen?
I for one, have too much to do, to try to explain it....sm
to you, because frankly, I'm getting so I don't care.
There's nothing to find out, and they're making stuff up, so until you have something substantial, I have work to do.
However, if you would have posted about the screaming witch woman from up north and her rag on her, I would have really busted a gut being upset.
As it is, I'm just letting it all go, because Gov. Palin is better than you, better than me, and better than the media.
She will rise above it all, and come out on top. Of this, I have no doubts whatsoever.
That's all I have to say on the matter, cuz I have too much to type for more here....
Look at who you are trying to explain this to
xx
Please explain...
Please explain exactly how Democratic voters are misled. How are they being misled??? What, can they not read the English on the voter card? All I know is Ohio had 200,000 dead and nonexistant voters voting for Obama. I don't think it's the Democratic voters who are being misled, I think it's the American people, who don't realize what a complete scam is going on with this ACORN group.
Would someone please explain
How McCain can "guarantee" he's going to win as he said on Meet The Press yesterday?
Perhaps this will help explain....
Remember him talking about the tax "credits?" That is his way of floating giving tax rebates to people who pay no taxes. This is the opinion from someone on the other side of the pond...and explains it pretty well.
OBAMA TAX PLAN – 95% BULL?
Obama’s tax plan is receiving much praise from some elements of the Tory blogosphere. Promising tax cuts for everything and everyone is certainly a very attractive position, and I can see why so many ObamaCons are attracted to it; but does the claim really stand up to scrutiny?
Firstly, if you look at Obama’s promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans and then look at the billions of dollars needed for the government programs that he has pledged to implement or expand, and common sense should tell you that thing simply do not add up.
Secondly, the 95% of all Americans figure is suspect. Since more than 30% of working Americans don't pay any income taxes now - many in fact get a welfare check - how can they get a "tax cut?" So how does Obama back up this 95% claim? Well those of you with long memories may remember Bill Clinton’s battle to change the definition of what “is” is? What we are witnessing here is an attempt to change the definition of tax cut. To me, and I am guessing to most people, a tax cut means you get to keep more of what you earn. But for the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts disguised by the infamous "tax credit." All but one of these tax credits would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for an income transfer -- a government check -- from taxpayers to non taxpayers. In other words, increased welfare, a Demogrant if you will. Obama's marketing genius is to call this increase in welfare a tax cut; and given how UK conservatives have watched the collapse into failure of Gordon Browns tax credit system, I am mystified why they would support Obama’s.
That being said...he says it expands welfare. I say it is socialist. Same end result. Marxist redistribution of wealth. But it is working...LOL. He is sure hiding it from YOU.
Let's see if I can explain this to you..
most blacks voted for Obama; most are against gay marriage, as their vote points out. How hard is that for you to comprehend? The black vote FOR Obama hurt the gay marriage vote. Is that simpler for you to understand?
I really tried to explain to you......... sm
in my other response to you above that I don't hate you and that I don't hate gay people or teach my sons to hate them. I don't know in exactly what way you think I should reach out to gay people. I do know some gay people, and as much as I may like them as a person, I would have to tell them if they presented the subject my feelings on it and why.
Please explain....(sm)
why you think it would be *trickle-up poverty* and how that works. I can't wait to hear this one...LOL.
explain to me
all their "tax breaks" then
because maybe im missing the bigger picture.
the middle class... (ME included) got a tax break... my first one EVER... so until I see a better one under Obama's administration, I'll stick with what I believe is a tax break for everyone that pays taxes...
and how is it a fact that the "rich" pays what, like 80% of the taxes?
That would explain why
why a clear 7.2% margin of victory mandate was handed over on Nov 4, why seas of humanity were jumping for joy that night, why DC is filling up to the rafters as Jan 20 approaches and why the rest of the world is joining in our single-digit T-minus-9 countdown. The transition is coming off without a hitch despite your best efforts to protest otherwise, the guy has assembled a blue-ribbon team, has plans in place and is ready to roll. Like I said, you are not handling defeat very well and cannot stand to see REAL leadership emerge after W's scorched earth administration.
Please explain this one........ sm
"*..., even a black man.....*
That's right....even a black man. Is it so hard for you to fathom the idea that someone of a different skin color would be of equal standing to you? Do you just completely reject the ideas of civility and equality? Has it ever occurred to you that this *black man* has every intention of trying to help YOU keep your job and help you keep food on your table?"
Why is it that this inauguration is being tauted, especially by the Democrats, as "an historical event" in which the first African-American man will become POTUS and that is supposedly politically correct, but when a Republican or non-Obama supporter dares utter that he is a black man, they are jumped on like white on rice for being racist and bigoted?
Please explain.....nm
x
Please explain something to me.
It this is taxpayer money were are fronting and president and Congress are our electd representatives, why SHOULDN'T they regulate the use of that money to safeguard against excess, mismanagement and misuse of the funds?
Please explain to me how this is
all W's fault? Creating a breeding ground? What....do you want us to kick out all arab looking people and their arab children so we don't have homegrown terrorists? We can't do that.
As for terrorists threats....don't we generally get a lot of those? How do we know which ones are real and which ones are pure BS?
W is out of office. Now it is Obamarama's turn. What will you do if we are attacked and Obama fails to listen to warnings? Are you going to rake him across the coals too or are you still going to blame W?
Why does this guy know all this stuff about terrorists and attacks? Who are his sources?
Please explain....(sm)
How a stimulus package with spending (not the pub tax cuts) will encourage a depression. 
Could someone explain to me........... sm
why it is really necessary for Obama to go on the trail around the country to promote his stimulus package? Shouldn't he be doing this with the Senate and working with them to reach some sort of middle ground? Seems to me that, whether the people support it or not, if it passes, we are stuck with it in whatever final form it takes. Why not just save the cost of loading up Air Force 1 and work it out in DC?
I'm not trying to pick a fight over Obama's use of AF1 (certainly, he is entitled to use it). I am just asking what is the point in trying to garner public support when he should be working with the Senate on this.
Please explain!
I've never heard "trout pout" before in my life? What is that all about and why it is a racial insult?
Okay...so explain to me
why Pelosi went to Italy on taxpayer's money! What I am saying, which you obviously failed to see, was our government needs to cut back as well. I think it would allow Americans to see that they are cutting back and willing to sacrifice in order to set things straight just like they want the CEOs to do. Instead, they continue to point their fingers at the CEOs and lecture them and yet they make no effort at all to change their spending ways as well.
Let me see if I can explain it this way, sm
Say I give you a birthday gift of $20 out of my pocket. That is a gift and you are welcome to use it in any way you see fit. I gave it of my own free will.
However, if I am forced to pay taxes to a government agency to give you help in buying groceries, I feel that the funds should be regulated inasmuch as what they will buy. If I am forced to pay taxes to support another person, it is not of my free will.
So many people see food stamps and Medicaid as a "gift" from the government when it is not that at all. It is taking money that I worked for and earned and giving it to someone else who did not work for it. "Gift" and "give" are not necessarily interchangable.
Can someone please explain why -
Mrs B thinks calling someone a miserable little wretch is better than nasty little wretch and why that is not insulting????
And what a bunch of hooey on the Darwin, Einstein or Newton comment. It was meant as an insult so I wouldn't even try pulling that...
You want to know what I mean when I say Mr. Dean talks through the mouth of a horse - it means he doesn't know what he's talking about. Did I say in my post "you" are the one doing the talking. No, I did not insult you. I spoke of my distrust of Mr. Dean, so what it was the wrong Mr. Dean, who cares and that's not the point.
You said you didn't insult me? Calling me Darwin, Einstein and Newton was certainly an insult. Tell me I'm talking like an a@@ is an insult and sure as you can bet calling me an miserable little wretch is certainly an insult.
I challenged you to provide the links where I started in with the name calling and you didn't. You can't and you treat anyone on this board who has a different opinion than you with rude comments (yes I read some of the other comments you made to other people). When you can't argue with something you resort to name calling. Yeah, whose a "miserable..." now.
I'll explain this because you obviously don't understand it. This is a political board where people can share opinions, articles and talk about politics. Moderator has said time and time again no personal attacks, no name calling. People here have tough skins, but when every post they make is met with calling them names like "snake, prophet, newton, einstein, darwin and miserable little wretch (all used in a derogatory sense), and others you have used" that's when it's time to say enough.
If you don't understand that maybe I can ask the moderator to explain it to you. Better yet you should read her messages at the top of this board because you have not yet. One is titled "Message for all posters on Political Board", and the other is titled "Beware of Flaming. Moderation is Kept Minimum on this Board".
Oh yeah, Don't bother answering.
Can someone please explain why -
Mrs B thinks calling someone a miserable little wretch is better than nasty little wretch and why that is not insulting????
And what a bunch of hooey on the Darwin, Einstein or Newton comment. It was meant as an insult so I wouldn't even try pulling that...
You want to know what I mean when I say Mr. Dean talks through the mouth of a horse - it means he doesn't know what he's talking about. Did I say in my post "you" are the one doing the talking. No, I did not insult you. I spoke of my distrust of Mr. Dean, so what it was the wrong Mr. Dean, who cares and that's not the point.
You said you didn't insult me? Calling me Darwin, Einstein and Newton was certainly an insult. Tell me I'm talking like an a@@ is an insult and sure as you can bet calling me an miserable little wretch is certainly an insult.
I challenged you to provide the links where I started in with the name calling and you didn't. You can't and you treat anyone on this board who has a different opinion than you with rude comments (yes I read some of the other comments you made to other people). When you can't argue with something you resort to name calling. Yeah, whose a "miserable..." now.
I'll explain this because you obviously don't understand it. This is a political board where people can share opinions, articles and talk about politics. Moderator has said time and time again no personal attacks, no name calling. People here have tough skins, but when every post they make is met with calling them names like "snake, prophet, newton, einstein, darwin and miserable little wretch (all used in a derogatory sense), and others you have used" that's when it's time to say enough.
If you don't understand that maybe I can ask the moderator to explain it to you. Better yet you should read her messages at the top of this board because you have not yet. One is titled "Message for all posters on Political Board", and the other is titled "Beware of Flaming. Moderation is Kept Minimum on this Board".
Oh yeah, Mrs. B - don't bother answering.
Maybe somebody can explain this...
...in Islam (the 'one true faith' that all mankind must be converted to) the worst sin is to leave and join another religion. It merits death, preferably beheading I believe, (though stoning might do, or maybe bombing if you can't get close). Obama was raised a Muslim, then became a Christinan, he says. Why is all of Islam not calling for the customary penalty against this infidel?
Please, explain what you mean by this.
What has she done, or not done, with her own family at home that would in any way whatsoever effect her political leadership?
You know, my oldest grandchild was conceived by 2 high-school teen-agers. My son has always been a part of her life as have I and my husband. She is a freshman in college, going on a full 4-yr scholarship and a cheerleader scholarship. Yes, we were crushed when we found out, but the minute she was born we fell in love with her and recalled what a miracle a child is.
My point is, that happened, as did other things with my children. But, those things had nothing to do with my abilities to carry out my job at work.
How can you say she cannot lead her own family for one thing? And, even if there was anything to that, what would it have to do with fitness on the job. Now, think about your answer first, be sure you throw in any double standards, considering folks already in or have been in political office.
Then just explain to me
why this should not be investigated. That's what I am asking. Why should they block the investigation into this. I don't think you can make this accusation without at least attempting to uncover the truth. And I will say it again - blocking the investigation only makes the Dems look more guilty. And if the Dems value the truth, then who are these lying _____ sitting in Congress masquerading as truth-loving Democrats (and republicans)? There is no more truth in our government, and I am saying we can no longer tolerate it - Democrat or republican. Perhaps if they were held accountable, they might think about their behavior, rather than just knowing there is no one holding them accountable. In this case, the Dems just said go right ahead and keep on lying and covering up 'cuz we won't make you prove what you say.
Please explain WHY being against
Israel (or, more accurately, holding them accountable for their actions), is a place that no one in their right mind should want to be.
Seriously. I'd like an answer because I don't understand.
Can someone please explain to me
why all of a sudden NK wants to blow us off of the face of the planet. I mean...I know they have never been big fans of ours but why all of these threats all of a sudden? We aren't the only ones who don't want NK to have long range missiles and nuclear weapons. What gives?
I know a gal who was a foreign exchange student to my school. She was from South Korea and super nice girl. I truly wonder what has happened to her and if she is okay.
And PULEEEZE explain why that is!
I said "no problem" and asked her why anyone would flame her for making an honest make, and then, I guess, I did the unforgiveable:
I TOLD HER TO HAVE A NICE DAY.
Which planet are you living on?
Then perhaps you could explain to me how I am misreading this.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land. The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter. Under the Charter, there is no clear legal authority for war on Iraq.
Would someone please explain the humor in this?
Is this an example of conservative humor (since the conservative talk show below wants to be the first to air it)? Apparently (but not surprisingly), Michele Malkin is a huge fan and wants this song recorded. I agree with his First Amendment rights and think he should be allowed to record it, regardless of how obscene the lyrics are. I can't post the lyrics here because of the profanity, but they can be found at http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/06/hadji_girl.html
Sorry, but I don't get the *joke*. 
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060704/D8IKSGI80.html
Jul 3, 9:44 PM (ET)
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - A Marine who wrote and performed a song about killing members of an Iraqi family has temporarily shelved the tune, a record producer said Monday.
Cpl. Joshua Belile planned to record Hadji Girl with Hits Music Studios, and the conservative talk program The Mike Church Show planned to be the first to air it, said Jimm Mosher, co-owner of the North Carolina studio. But the 23-year-old Iraq veteran nixed the plans late last week, he said.
We got a call from him and he just said he couldn't do the recording at this time, Mosher said. I was led to believe that he had it from high command that he wasn't to record the song.
Neither Belile nor the Marines returned phone messages Monday evening.
Hadji Girl surfaced in a four-minute video on the Internet. In the clip, Belile sings about a Marine who falls in love with an Iraqi woman and then encounters hostility from her family. Relatives kill the woman, prompting the Marine to gun down the family members.
An anonymous person posted the recording on the Web site YouTube, but it has since been removed.
Belile has said his song was intended as a joke.
He did not violate military law, Marine officials said last week. Belile's commanders will handle the matter administratively, which can include informal counseling about his actions.
Belile, assigned to North Carolina's Marine Corps Air Station New River, has said he believes the Marine Corps handled his case fairly.
Mosher said Belile still plans to record the song. Belile has said he will leave the military when his five-year enlistment ends in October 2007.
We're wanting to record and produce it, Mosher said. I think it tells a great story.
Please explain to me, oh enlightened one...
all I ever said, and if you read the posts like you say you have, then you KNOW that to be a fact...was that I was not against immigration, I was against illegal immigration. I think immigrants should enter legally, pay taxes like the rest of us, and live happily ever after. What on earth is bigoted about that??? aren't you being exclusionary and bigoted in our attacks on me? Just because I don't agree with you? That sounds more like Mein Kampf to me. Okay, you are not idiotic for having your own perceptions. I accept that. So why am I bigoted for wanting illegals to enter this country legally, become citizens BEFORE they get the rights of citizens, and pay taxes like the rest of us. Where oh where my dear bookworm, is the horrorrrrrr in that??
Please explain where Sam is hateful?
I have seen nothing hateful posted. Seriously, I want to know what you consider "hateful."
|
