Not changing the subject.
Posted By: Just asking the same of you. sm on 2008-11-29
In Reply to: No............. sm - m
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/13/poll-obama-facing-high-expectations/
Poll: Obama facing high expectations. Refer to the "overall approval rating" paragraph toward end of article.
http://www.gallup.com/video/111904/Most-Expect-Obama-Make-Effort-Republicans.aspx
Most Expect Obama to Make Effort With Republicans
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
Yet again changing the subject...(sm)
My original post merely pointed out that Olberman had a good question (which has yet to be recognized on this board). Just as a refresher, the question was, why is Coulter trying to get on NBC to promote her book (in which she talks badly about NBC) when she has such a low opinion of the network. This is not a battle of the networks, just a simple observation that anyone with half a brain can see.
I guess it's easier to change the subject than to actually answer a question or post an opinion on the subject matter. 
Yet again changing the subject...(sm)
My original post merely pointed out that Olberman had a good question (which has yet to be recognized on this board). Just as a refresher, the question was, why is Coulter trying to get on NBC to promote her book (in which she talks badly about NBC) when she has such a low opinion of the network. This is not a battle of the networks, just a simple observation that anyone with half a brain can see.
I guess it's easier to change the subject than to actually answer a question or post an opinion on the subject matter.
Changing the subject to the tax rant
nm
Changing the subject does not change
I agree. Any undecided voter should read the entire fact check site AND both candidates issues platforms on their websites.
why do you insist on changing the subject
when Bush was in and we mentioned Clinton we'd be hemmed and hawed at that Clinton and Gore were gone and to get over it. Now that we say something about Mr. Messiah and we get Bush/Cheney comments.
Give it a rest. They are gone.
Kindly stop changing the subject. Still waiting for examples.
You made the charge, so back it up or admit that you can't. And if you don't even have that much integrity, then at least please stop saying things that you can't support.
It isn't changing, it's in the details
Obama says if you are making under $250K you will not see your taxes go up a dime. If you are making under $200K you will see your taxes decrease. Basically if you are between $200K and $250K it's a no-change. He always gets this right, it's just that the wording on it seems similar so people get confused (or think he is).
Consider changing your moniker to IAlwaysGetTheLastWordNoMatterWhat. nm
Ummm. Fox is changing its tone and now
"a problem with semantics," trying to slither out from under its legendary erroneous biased reporting.
Man, what a sick reason for changing
Here is a blurb from an article I read..........changing a vote just IN CASE Obama becomes president........what a sell out.
Among the 21 converts was Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois, his chief of staff, Kenneth Edmonds, said.
Edmonds said Jackson was changing his vote because "he received assurances from (Sen. Barack Obama) that, if elected, his administration will aggressively use authority in the bill to prevent foreclosures and stabilize the housing market."
You're changing your tune
You make comments you want to make with no regards to anyone feelings and you call it being funny but someone else makes a comment you don't like and you call it racist and start yelling for the moderator. Maybe they thought their comment was funny.
I give up...I keep typing 7 and it keeps changing it.
xx
You seem to remember wrong, and why would I be changing races...sm
Find this and post it.
Yeah, Obama also keeps changing his definition
nm
LoL! Must be changing of the guard in crasher-trasher land.
The solution is pretty simple. If you don't like the liberal sermon, then don't attend the liberal church.
Other than that, I couldn't care less what you think. Have a nice day.
Bush starts changing his tune/rhetoric.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
LOL...off the subject
Don't know if that's true about Bill or not, but the graphic showing the top 3 newsmakers with Mr. Floatie--join the movement gave me my much needed gut laugh for today.... 
What can I say...I like potty humor...please don't flame me 
On every subject
one can see good and bad. All people will never agree on anything.and there is good and bad in all people. I most certainly do not think blacks need to be compensated for their ancestors but count on it, that will happen no matter who is in the White House. I don't think slavery was right either but you know what? I wasn't around 150 years go to own any slaves so I'm not accepting any guilt trip. The repatrition (or whatever the word is), if that gets seriously considered in CONGRESS, you can bet my Senator and Representative will get an ear full from their old "friend" the gourd! LOL
I certainly don't mean to start a race war but blacks have the same opportunities in this country as whites. Have a look at one of the presidential candidates.
Do you even know what the subject is here?..(sm)
Yeah, I think I'm through with this board. The incoherent ramblings from pubs on here is getting boring.
He already has been subject to a different
standard. He had to run a campaign with little or no mistakes, which he did. He has always been held to a higher standard. If he had run a campaign like Clinton's or McCain's, he would have been a laughing stock. Being held to a higher standard will probably make him the best president we've seen in our lifetimes.
Just a little touchy about this subject.
Get so darn mad about the whole Iraq mess we are in, and wish it would go away. Bin Laden is a thorn in Bush's side because of the friendship between their families that it would be obscene for him to kill his friend. So transparent. Makes me ill to think of what he has done to this country, when there is a REAL threat with Iran. Now what? Our troops in Iraq fighting a war that can't be won, but Iran is now free to do whatever they want. Sorry about the harsh words earlier, just sick of the whole matter, and where we as a nation are headed. And it is good to see that his lying is finally coming out, what dispicable things he has said and done, and what a can of worms! Thank goodness it is coming out.
The subject in this thread is a cat.
How did we get to this? And is it really necessary to call names? I mean, we are civilized people after all. It's rather hard to understand why you attack someone even when they are AGREEING with you. I try to be respectful here, but it's very hard to communicate when the subject is changed constantly in a thread. Perhaps an I hate Bush and all conservative thread would be best started and all posts to that effect might go there. Nothing is being furthered here except what seems to be a very bad grudge. In a public forum. Really not cool.
On the subject of Plame...
what about Richard Armitage? Certainly no conservative, certainly no Bush lover, definitely against Iraq war...he said HIMSELF that he talked to the Washington Post about Plame being in the CIA before Libby said anything to Novak. He felt comfortable doing so because "it was common knowledge around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for trhe CIA." Wilson himself brought all this on with the op ed piece he wrote in the times trying to smear the administration. That is what made Novak say...hmmmm....why would the administration send a Bush hater to Niger? Welllll because the CIA suggested him...and whoooo in the CIA suggested him? Valerie Plame. But no one, including the illustrious Patrick Fitzgerald, paid a lick of attention to that.
Agendas, agendas, agendas. Wilson and Plame out to get the administration, Patrick Fitzgerald to get a name for himself...no matter what the cost. And poor old Scooter took the fall, along with the first amendment.
Oh well....all for the cause right? Get Bush no matter what. Sigh.
Looks like you want to keep arguing on a subject that's old and done with
We don't need to keep going over issues on abortion. We all know what abortion is. I started reading your post and didn't know if you were trying to give us a medical course on "what to expect when your expecting" or if you were preaching to us from a religious standpoint. This issue was discussed and debated and argued over extensively below. It looks like you were'nt satisfied and want to argue some more - and from what it sounds like from others this has just bored all of us to sleep. I thought the political board was for political discussions, not pregnancy lessons or religious beliefs about when a fetus actually becomes a human being.
Move on...too many other topics to discuss. BTW, no need to shout at us with your headline.
Well, on the subject of sex education...
I doubt Bristol thought what she engaged in could not cause pregnancy. I feel sure she knows what makes babies.
Now I am sure that out here in real america there are many thousands of families who have had a pregnancy like this in their families or know of one in close acquaintances. I don't think this argument is going to hold any water with them and I think they would be insulted by this.
Your Candidate knows that, that is why he just wishes that all his supporters who think they are helping him would just stop.
Your subject is JM's temper....sam's is
media bias, which is rampant, 100 to 1, if not more on the side of democrats. It's a fact. Period. No amount of spinning off subject can change that.
NP. This is most definitely a touchy subject
You got the right idea. Wish I had that kind of self control to just say no.
Yes, let's change the subject, shall we? NOT
nm
Not going to broach the subject with you nm
x
the subject is deregulation
of insurance companies which would result in collapse of the industry. Can you image the results of that? Do you think it might affect your teeny tiny job in any way?
the subject is mccain's
suitability for president not your sick interest in Bill Clintons sex life. Contemplate it as much as you want to; the issue today is McCain vs Obama.
We are getting off the subject here...your point was...
why should anyone be afraid of him because he is just one man and he would have to get past Congress. My point was...they will have the majority. THere is no getting past then...clear sailing. Whatever agenda he wants...goes through. THAT was my point.
what does dancing have to do with the subject?
nm
Try reading up on a subject
See post under sam's blather.
This is just a very emotional subject
It definitely isn't for the weak at heart. ;)
Don't take anything on here personally.
The least you could do is stick to the subject...(sm)
As far as how I could vote for Obama after 911. Well, probably because he won't go running all over the middle east starting illegal wars in the name of fighting his "the axis of evil." My guess is once he straightens out Bush's mess, which is a job all by itself, he'll do what this country needs him to do -- restore credibility.
Change the subject? LOL
I thought we were talking about ILLEGAL. Isn't that what you've been ranting about....Obama not being a "legal" citizen? So how is asking about ILLEGAL parents natural born citizens changing the subject? I don't notice any explanation as to where in the Constitution it says ILLEGAL parents can give birth to legal citizenship to their children. I do believe that the Constitution just might be referring to kids born to LEGAL immigrants being automatic citizens.
obviously no one wants to talk to you on this subject.
There's no law against it
Change the subject? You are the one
can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If no one believes this, who are all those people interviewed that voted for O and cannot tell you why? They all had a fairy tale image of him. That, my dear, is much more documentably effective than your stereotyped opinions.
What's wrong...don't like this subject? LOL...nm
x
Read the posts below about the subject
President Bush has thrown more money at poverty than Clinton, and I do not dispute the fact that Clinton went a long way in reducing poverty. Workfare is one of the best programs to come along in a long time, and one thing Clinton did right, however, it needs to be to be expanded.
Poverty is not solely a lack of financial means for many people (not everyone), but poverty in this country seems to stem from moral poverty in many cases.
Wasn't trying to change the subject
I personally, don't think that Coulter is a bottom-feeder. She directs her barbed remarks towards adults who should be able to take it and not innocent children. However, I believe Al Franken and Michael Moore, and most of the folks at Daily KOS and The DU are just as vicious. You all love Molly Ivins here, and she's just as rough around the edges as Coulter too. However, I defend their rights to free speech just as much as I do Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly etc. The left's problems with the latter three (and more) is the fact they tend to pull the highest ratings. It makes them litigatory and ready to censor. The left wants to stack the deck in their favor.
The subject in this post is bashing...nm
My take on the subject, the short version.
Every country has some form of socialized medicine. Ours is comprised of the poor, the elderly, and those giving service to our country (military and political of which number in the millions) both past and present that encompasses their family members as well through different benefit packages depending on where they fall within the system. I believe the major argument is about extending those benefits in a social manner outside of what is already in place.
oops - my subject line got cut off
I just like that she is "up" on energy policies - not sure if that's coming out right, but i've been reading good things about that.
I wasn't trying to change the subject
just stating something that I thought I had observed. I'm sorry for being so stupid and uninformed and I will go crawl back in my hole now. Good luck to you, Sam. My heart can't handle being talked to this way, especially when I didn't respond in a manner deserving of such a tone.
Here is some info I found on the subject.
Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the under-representation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisers, only one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart - while adding $10,726 to her annual income - by leaving Obama's office and going to work for McCain.
How could this be?
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women - much more than men - for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.
Also, let us look at the fact that Obama could have picked a woman as his running mate and did not. McCain, however, did pick a woman.
We've BTDT with this subject.
The "sex education" being discussed relates to the kind where children are empowered to recognize inappropriate touching by adults and encouraged to report such molestation incidents to schoold counselors and parents. By best friend is an adult survivor of molestation that occurred between ages 4 and 7. Her 2 sisters were also molested. She has schizoaffective disorder, had a psychotic break at age 30 (when her first and ONLY relationship with a man ended) of the sort that disabled her from being self-supportive for 2 years.
Since that time, she has been in individual and group counseling twice weekly and has been on heavy medication consisting of anxiolytics x2, antidepressants, antipsychotics and sleep medications ever since. She is 53 years old now and continues to live a tortured existence and is barely able to hold down an hourly MT job...production being out of the question because she can't handle the stress.
I have to wonder how her life and the lives of her 2 sisters (one a life-long alcoholic, the other with manic depression) had someone told her that sitting on grandpa's lap and bounching up and down was not a good game to play with him and that her father was not supposed to touch her "wee-wee" when he puts her to bed at night.
what are you talking?? You go off the subject, stay with US..NM
nm
Yes.....changed the subject from Obama.......sm
to anchor babies growing up to be president. And didn't I say that I would help you rant and rail over it when the time comes?
If a person is born on US soil, they are considered a US natural born citizen unless they choose to denounce it. They are therefore "endowned with certain inalienable rights" one of them being citizenship.
Whatever happened to staying on the subject? (sm)
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the original post -- but I guess Bush is just an embarrassment for the republican party. I guess if I had supported a war criminal [aka -- that guy with a lower approval than Nixon (who resigned)] I wouldn't have anything to say on the subject either.
|
