Not "bull". Read messages above to
Posted By: see what YOU got going. nm on 2009-04-12
In Reply to: That's bull - and you know it
nm
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
Read prior messages...
Messages seem to say prepared = gun ownership/usage
And if you read the previous messages
Nice try!
I think one of his messages was GOP needs to
x
why do you keep replying to your own messages
and the messages are too bizzare. First you answer this post by saying no rest for the wicked, then you answer that post by saying take the day off, then you answer that by saying cough, snort???? None of this makes sense. Are you losing it? Maybe you do need a day or two off (your words).
To answer this original post, first his name is John McCain. It would be a good idea to stick to his name and not the childish words that keep getting posted. I have never seen an independent or conservative say any other name except Obama. So if you go there then expect some posters to call him Obrother, Oliar, OmyGodNo, Oflipflopper, etc, etc. Yes, Bush attacked McCain when he was running for president. Same as Obama attacked Biden, Biden attacked Obama, Clinton attacked Obama and Biden, etc, etc. Everyone attacks everyone during primaries. At least McCain didn't pick one of the other running mates from the primaries. Obama did. Obama promises change he gives us the same. Obama promised he was going to bring the troops home, now he's going to leave them there. I also read recently that Obama has stated he will support a draft and that everyone should fight, not just some. Obama keeps flip flopping everytime he turns around. I had great respect for him during the primaries, but now his lies and flip flops are so obvious. I know you would prefer that Obama can attack McCain anyway he sees fit (lies, misstatements, calling the oponents pigs, etc) and McCain is supposed to be kind to him because he didn't like it when it was done to him????? With all the attacks Obama and his camp is pulling on McCain & Palin for no good reason and not even sticking to the issues, I can see exactly what his character is like, so yes my friend, that does speak of his character. It is not a pretty sight.
Answers to messages below
I watched the film again. Yup, still am disgusted. I looked for those "subliminal" messages. Even backed it up and went through it clip by clip. Nope, nothing "subliminal". The film is telling you about Obama, Ayers, Weatermen, Acorn, etc. The films clips are of actual footage of the outcome from the horrendous crimes. While Obama will quickly dismiss these associatios as "coincidence" or "he just happened to be a person in my neighborhood" he is not being truthful. Read the history. He has had long-term associations with them and still does (maybe he stopped while campaigning, but no doubt he will pick back up once the election is over) - and if he happens to be elected? Well nothing subliminal there. You know what will happen. If you're in agreement with what Ayers did, what Acorn does, etc, then I'm sure you think it is fine, and if some people don't love America like a lot of us do then I can see why they would think this is the greatest man since the invention of sliced bread. But a lot of us do love America. A lot of us do want America to be free. A lot of us do want to own our own business and invest in America and not have our money "stolen" from us by government that we worked 60 or more hours a week for to make ends meet and now have to work more hours cos the people who aren't working but could are receiving their welfare check (i.e., my money that I had to put in an extra 20 hours a week of work to get it).
If you don't like the film fine. That is your opinion. But plenty of us want to know who Obama really is. Who are his ties? Who are his allegiences? And more importantly - why did they choose him? He didn't pick them, they sought him out. Who got him elevated to where he is at so fast? Who made it possible for him (without experience) to rise past Richardson (a governor with more experience), Biden (over 30 years experience), Edwards (over 10 years experience), Kucinich (close to 40 years experience), and others. And even Hillary (8 years experience and 8 years as first lady (16 if you think being a first lady is experience - I don't but its still more than Obama has).
Who is this Obama guy who so quickly was placed into the position when now (even though I voted for Obama over Hillary) we are finding out that Hillary actually did win. Has to make you wonder who put him where he is (hint - it is not the American citizens - not conspiracy - FACT). There are too many unanswered questions. It has nothing to do with propaganda - it has everything to do with learning who and what Obama is.
To the other poster who thinks poor Obama gets slammed 24/7. Looks like somebody googled a dictionary to find a whole bunch of words. Funny how it's okay to slam McCain/Palin 24/7. As would be described by others "we're just trying to get out the word about them". I'm not slamming any posters on the board. I simply am posting a link about a candidate that I feel very strongly is one of the worst choices for a candidate in history. I'm trying to get people to open their eyes and learn more about them. If you don't want to believe this fine. Google Obama put in everything you can. Even use other search engines like Dogpile and others, but for Petes sake, don't go by what's on Obama's website, or stop the smear or any of those other propaganda websites that pull the "poor Obama, everyone is picking on him, he's so innocent, don't beleive them, call them racists, etc, etc." That is propaganda. And if your going to be getting any "subliminal messages" it will be there. When you have 2 candidates you cannot honestly believe any of their info they put out. Candidates lie to get your vote. That's the ways it's always been done. The only thing the conservatives ask is that people educate themselves about each candidate (both of them). Who are they. Who did they associate with. How did they get where they are at. Who is financing them. What organizations did they belong to and what was the purpose of those organizations. Did they attend secret meetings and if so where and with whom and what is the purpose of those secret organizations. What have they done in their careers. What are there voting records like (i.e. if someone (any candidate past, present, or future) votes for the past 2, 3, 4 or more years to raise taxes but now all of a sudden during the campaign has changed their tune and they are promising you they won't raise your taxes or they'll lower your taxes) has to make you think. Also, and most important to me - Is the person we elect going to uphold the constitution or going to change it because it doesn't align itself with their ways of thinking. In knowing everything I know and in other people's feeling Obama is not. Obama associates with people who say "God D@m American" and people who say "American makes me want to throw up".
I posted the video link because it is one of many films (we won't even go into Obama's ties with Kenya) that is trying to put out the truth about Obama. He used video clips of CNN reporters asking questions and everyone KNOWS that CNN is one of the most liberal (MSNBC is the most liberal - CNN is 2nd) TV stations. Do you disagree with what Hillary Clinton was saying? Do you think anyone wanting to know the truth about Obama's affiliation with Ayers should be just shut up?
So until this election is over I will continue to try to get the word out about Obama life (the one he is hiding from Americans and covering up by instructing his followers to call people racists and insult them if they say anything negative about him).
sorry sam, got the messages mixed up
your right. I thought that gourdpainter was saying people on this board were going to be responsible for attacking Obama then I thought she was calling us skinheads. HA HA HA HA....definitely good thing I went and took a dinner break. Now I understand what she was saying and what your reply was. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry, didn't mean any offense to you. I just get irrited at being attacked all the time.
Mixed messages...(sm)
You basically just said we are all in this together but pi$$ on the poor people. Unbelievable. 
There were subliminal messages
encoded on those CDs Obama gave Brown. He has now been assimilated and reprogrammed (not that he needed a he!! of a lot of rewiring to start with.)
Then quit asking questions and posting messages
If people stopped posting then it wouldn't have come to this.
Stop complaining about where she gets her sources - see messages
Especially since you only post from MSNBC. Who cares that someone posts from Fox, MSNBC, CNN or whoever. You have nothing to complain about the content of the information, just where she posts from. Personally I trust Fox over MSNBC, CNN, Huffington post or any of the far left liberal rags. At least we get the truth from Fox. If all Fox did was praise the annointed one up and down and all over and was giving us lies 24 hours a day like MSNBC, CNN and others you'd be praising them. You just don't like to hear the reality of what is happening.
Here's a hint - Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN all report the same exact news. They just have different commentator shows.
P.S. - Louis Farrakan called Obama the Messiah. I'm sure he's not a conservative (could be wrong, but I don't think he is). Also, Obama NEVER came out to say I am NOT the Messiah. He let people think this with all the miracles he was professing he would do once he got in. The liberals are the one who have said "Obama is the new Messiah". So, everyone just picked up on what the liberals were taughting (sp?) throughout the campaign. Unfortunately too many ignorant people believed it.
So please, enough with whining that someone posts an article from Fox.
Words can come off sounding like an attack, because these messages lack..sm
facial expressions, demeanor, so it leaves the reader to interpret the mood.
I don't know if you were saying me or Sir Percy was a recovering Democrat, but either way I'm a registered Democrat and have never voted for a republican president because of where I stand on social and civil issues.
Speaking of frustrating democrats, and I never thought I would be going here because I have a lot of respect for her. I was even bidding for her to be the first woman president, but Hillary needs to take a stand and stand firm on it, and let us know what it is. Her centrist stance is frustrating because I think she is the one democratic model out there that could speak and be heard and respected. Yet she has been quiet, and too her lack of opposition to the war has taken my respect down for her a few notches.
That is CLASSIC propaganda, music and subliminal messages too
Wow, holy cow is right. How can you allow yourself to be fed this hateful propaganda. It's one thing to take something out of context, but to add in characters and newsflashes about the markets tumbling and to add the dreadful music and paint Barack as some kind of partner in Ayers activities is just anti American. This is anti American crap and you should get educated instead of being a patsy and letting your mind soak in these images. God help you if you ever watch a cult film, you will be drinking the Jonestown Kool-Aid.
I reported 'Ahem's' and 'Anon2's' messages to the moderators
I suppose it is the same person.
Does anybody else get error messages half the time they try to post on this board. ?
.
I have posted many many nice thought provoking messages here and have been called
s
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
Have you read it? nm
nm
We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:
Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm
Then you don't read enough.
nm
Should read 8 above - nm
x
when I read the first one
I was flying to Arizona to visit my daughter. In the book the setting is on an airplane (one of the main characters is the pilot). Suddenly half the people on the plane are gone and all that is left is a little pile of their clothing on the seat when they had been sitting before being raptured. I had to take a quick look around to make sure all the passengers were still on board! But do try to read at least some of it. I think there are now like 10 books in the series but within the first couple you will know when I am talking about. I believe they have a web site and I know the first 2 were made into movies.
Not what I said. Read it again. am
I said/meant collectively, the hardworking/undereducated/less intelligent/mentally or physically disabled/, any of the above, the poor and middle class.
Did you even read what I said?
A. Lincoln: " It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Is there anybody here that can't read?
nm
not if you read it all
maybe it appears to be contradicting because you haven't opened your heart when you read...... that is a big book... if you just read a couple things here and there, it may appear to be contradicting itself... if you actually read and study what it's telling you... no contradictions....
Read it again
and see you weren't happy with the email your friend sent. Therefore, my other comment is for all those who feel the way she does; and, to my huge surprise, there seem to be many on here. I don't see how so many people actually do ... but it certainly seems to be the case!
|
