OMG. I disagree!
Posted By: Is that better police grammar? on 2009-04-06
In Reply to: Also, too bad of grammar to post... - Galloping grammarian
Either way, I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DISAGREE! Rick Warren also disagrees and it should be 1 man and 1 woman when it comes to marriage.
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
And I still disagree. We shall agree to disagree. But....
welome to the board! A new voice is welcome, whichever side the voice decides to fall. :)
Disagree..sm
It takes a heartless person to say that the 9-11 widows are doing this for money. WHAT MONEY??? The insurance policy? Stop kidding yourself. Losing a love one and gaining an insurance policy is not everyones object of affection. This is the same effect of a mother losing her child to a drowning and then pushing for swiming safety, or victim of a sex predator pushing for tougher sex laws.
As far as Hillary, I think she is just as outraged as anyone else should be at Ann's comments, and the fact that Ann gets media coverage to tout this stuff is just as mind numbing.
All you said about Ann I agree, plus add hatred, evil, and prejudice and you have her pegged.
disagree here also
Colter is a hatemonger, thats all. I heard every hour of AL Franken's program and he never said anything outrageous like she/it. Al Franken was quite witty and entertaining and merely give his listeners the facts that were suppressed elsewhere. He was on the story about Asian factory workers forced to have abortions by their American bosses way before other outlets were discussing it. Really!! Stop trying to pull the wool ....
I would have to disagree with you.
No surprise there right?
I would like to note that all social reform to take place in the United States has been at the heels of a liberal movement. From our breaking off with Britain in the mid 1700s, to civil war in the mid 1800s, and the liberal movement of the mid 1960s. Liberalism as a belief has moved from Republican to Democrat and back again more than once. Taking your stance on pro-life and moving it to the time of mid 1800s would put you for all intents and purposes under the Democratic wing.
As the saying goes, complacency breeds contempt, and I believe that we are now in the beginnings of another liberal movement. A little quicker than our 100 year mark, but with the speed that the world is changing, so must we.
We as a people and government have to embrace change, that is the true nature of liberalism.
Realistically, your views/postings justify the label. You may not wish it, but by just expressing them promotes it. The fact that you have never mentioned the remote possibility of voting Democrat, which at this point in our history leans toward the liberal, and only looking at the Republican party is labeling. If you did not want to be labeled or wish not to be, you wouldn't be so quick to make your conservative opinions heard.
As I frequently tell my husband, if you get too caught up in the details, you will lose the bigger picture, which usually leads me to telling him that he gets in his own way more often than not. 
I disagree
First these are pics of him NOT in his uniform. True, there are some pics of him in his uniform in some of the ads, but others he is in civilian clothes. It gives me the same feeling as when I went to the health food store and spent $50 for a large can of protein powder and got got home and the can was half empty. I call it "deception". I also think by reminding us of his time in the service he is reminding us that he was a POW and he's got a grudge against people in other countries and he's going to use his position for revenge. That's what I see when I'm reminded of his uniform.
Second - his mind. No it's not a cheap shot, its the truth. Everytime he speaks he misstates himself. When talking about the countries at work he gets the different countries mixed up and has got to constantly be correct by Lieberman or others standing around him. When asked about his voting record on important issues he can't remember how he voted and he even stated so. One time he said "I can't remember how I voted on that issue". It was an important issue and I looked at my DH and said what does he mean he can't remember, how would you forget something like that. So I think the state of his mind is an important factor in whether I will vote for him.
As for Obama...I was not talking about Obama in my post. I was talking about McCain, but since you brougnt it up, sure there are things I may not like about him but his speaking ability and remembering important issues are not one of them. Saying he can't make speeches without a teleprompter or planned statement is just not true. He has spoken at several events without a teleprompter or prepared speeches and he can think on his feet just fine. I didn't hear him stumble over questions given by audience members or media. I'm sure you probably heard that from some conservative programs like Fox or Rush Limbaugh.
i must disagree
I have read many of his columns. He is a right wing extremist.
Disagree....
...and really, just have to laugh out loud.
Sarah Palin has more experience than Barack Obama. Just wait and watch.
Every time, every person, be in on Obama's own team, Obama himself, Biden, or you for that matter....say that she has no experience....
Well guess what? She has more leadership experience than Obama.
She has been in charge and running a government.
She has been the governor of Alaska since 2006.
She was the mayor of a city, Wasilla, Alaska.
So I ask you. How can you, or anyone out there, sit there and say she has no experience to be VP....when you have a candidate running for President who has even less experience for her.
Explain that one to me.
And while you're doing that, think about how bad Obama will look every single time anyone, anywhere, brings up her lack of experience....as that will only highlight and reinforce his own, sadly lacking leadership background and experience.
Disagree. sm
I feel the reason New Orleans went under was because the National Guard, tanks, etc. were all in Iraq.
Doesn't it bother you that Palin actually said, her son was going to Iraq to fight the people that attacked us? Clueless.
I agree that McCain is a war hero, so is my dad, but he certainly is not qualified to be President.
I have to disagree with you on that.
Nm
and I disagree with you so
maybe we both will be kicked off too for disagreeing.
Sam does research before posting an answer to some of the statements told here, then posts the links so we can all see what is the truth, not just a few. Anyone who cares anything about this country would do the same. It's not rocket science. The problem is some people on this board don't care to listen. They're right and everybody else is wrong.They think sam is attacking them personally, when he/she is not, just stating FACTS, not untruths.
Sorry, OT, but I must disagree
The liberal media would be analyzing his choice till the cows came home.
Well, I disagree. s/m
Did you miss the part where he said, "I'm the decider."? His old buddy Richard (message says *ick is a bad word.........well, on that we can agree) is guilty right along with him. I do not think history will be kind to him. But then it WAS kind to FDR until the republicans came out with their "study" to excuse the fact that Hoover was, before Bush, acknowledged to be the worst president in history.
I say while you're putting Palin on her dogsled back to Alaska, hitch up a couple of longhorns and point Bush and Cheney back to Texas. Trouble is I don't think Texas wants them.
Again, you and I disagree.
While I do not agree with you, I do respect your right to your opinion.
disagree, because
McCain has plenty of energy to get the job and more done; and Palin has more experience than even Obama... Yes, our govn't has lots of checks and balances, but if you put a democratic pres in, with a democ house and democ senate, you have a steamroller effect and dem's have not been very good about 'reaching across the aisle'. Besides, some of the "changes" that may occur in an obama reign may take decades to un-do (appointments of judges for example) and if it makes our country more unsafe and we suffer an enemy attack, that's irreparable damage to lives, and longterm for economy, etc. What about all the jobs lost with his economic (so-called:) plan, and taxation which will hurt small business and cost jobs? (100% of job growth has been in small business) How many more will lose homes, etc under Obama after losing their jobs? How screwed up will our healthcare system become? No, i want a safe USA, i want a stable growing economy, etc and will vote McCain.
I disagree
McCain is not throwing people off his bus because they don't report him in a good light.
McCain is not banning newspaper interviews because they ask him serious questions.
McCain is not banning networks because they ask him serious questions.
The O is doing all of this.
Just because I disagree with you...
does not make me any more closed minded than you apparently are. It is painfully obvious that neither one of is interested in what the other has to say. If you are not interested in debating with me, you could have just ignored my post. I would not, however, count on those greener pastures.
I disagree
What the president elect does in the days prior to his inauguration is important in terms of choosing his staff, etc, but we're not all as enamored of him as some of you, to want to sit googly-eyed in front of the TV and watch his every photo op.
The important points of his pre-inauguration decisions can be covered in the news or newspaper. I think a lot of us still watch the news and read the newspaper.
Anyone can disagree
with one another. That is human nature. I can respect someone that can give point and counter point without getting nasty. There is no need for name calling or veiled side of the mouth comments. I would love a decent conversation with others whose opinions are or are not always the same as mine.
I have to disagree..........sm
With the government overseeing and directing healthcare to the point that a doctor cannot treat a patient the way that patient needs to be treated, it will be much worse. This measure would also discourage or possibly prohibit the development of new medications and new therapies that could, for instance, cure cancer (or the common cold, which the way I have felt for the past 3 weeks, wouldn't be a bad thing). It could also prohibit the treatment of patients with too many comorbid conditions. Would you want your doctor to tell you that he can't treat your mother for cancer because she has Alzheimer disease and she's terminal anyway? Would you want your child who has cystic fibrosis denied treatment of leukemia because the cystic fibrosis is terminal? Personally, I don't want the government taking over my healthcare, regardless of how much money it might save me.
Disagree
Where are you coming up with this stuff? That doesn't make any sense at all. Boy, are we in trouble with this kind of nonsense.
I disagree with you.
I have owned Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, American Motors, Rambler, etc. I have been a fan of Oldsmobilie and Buicks since We bought our first one back in the 80s.
GM's problem is they stopped producting the good cars. I was on their website today. No Olds, only 2 Buicks left. They only produce expensive gas guzzlers like Cadillacs, Saab, and Hummers.
Our LeSabre got 30 mpg and still running strong at 175,000. Shame the rest of the car is not good enought to pass inspection. Same with our Olds. Are they producing them? Nope. Why? They were mid-priced cars with great reliability, great gas mileage, and I like to say popular with middle class people. They now only product the LaCrosse and Lucerne in the Buick line. They don't even produce the Park Avenue which was a luxurious car and one I always wanted (champagne tastes on a beer budget - LOL).
I won't be buying a new car from GM. There's nothing there I like. They should have thought about phasing out more of the expensive lines than the middle class lines. That's where they went wrong. They probably thought if they stuck to the expensive models, they'd make more money. WRONG!!! They didn't take into consideration the ratio between middle class buyers and upper class buyers.
As for Chrysler, I owned 2. They were lemons from the get-go. Hubby owned a couple Fords and they were not very reliable either.
I must disagree with you on this one.
At least the part about Obama being the best thing that has ever happened to us. I don't think that is true at all. I think he has wasted more money spending in such a short time that I hope and pray we don't have him for 8 years. 4 is long and bad enough.
I disagree with you.
The only reason Aunt Louise mentioned how hot it is going to get was to further her religious agenda. She was not referring to global warming in her post, she was referring to what she believes will happen to those who do not hold her same religious beliefs.
By the way, I have never said or implied in any way that posters are not entitled to their own opinion, whether it differs with mine or not. Every person who posts on MTStars is entitled to express their opinion and agree or disagree with the opinions of other posters.
Sorry, but I so disagree with this.
x
if you disagree
Don't marry someone the same sex as you. I think it is a wonderful thing whenever 2 people that love each other make a commitment to be wed.
I disagree too!
.
I disagree.....
For most blacks in this country (those that voted for him) it is about nothing but the fact that he is black...... plain and simple and I have had them tell me that!
No. I disagree, a
big thing, no.
Last not least it is an office. Imagine everybody would bring his supersized flag alont into the office.
BTW,
No. I disagree. she cannot do this,
because it is an OFFICE.
A 'little' flag on her desk, o.k., but not a supersized thing, no.
Last not least it is an office. Imagine everybody would bring his supersized flag into the office.
Her supervisor did not agree with the supersize of the flag.
BTW, I find this part of your comment
..'Maybe her visa/citizen-ship papers need to be reviewed. Perhaps she would be less "offended" if she were to go back where she came from...'
extremely nasty, imposing and intruding and even against the constitution.
Her supervisor is, most probably, alredy for a long time an American citizen, with all the rights and duties.
You have nor right, at all, to make such a remark.
It is people like you Obama is referring to when he mentions that Americans are 'arrogant.'
BTW,
No, not something I disagree with.
Something God disagrees with. He has used lots of people to wage wars and kill others. Try reading your Bible. Just because abortion is legal doesn't make it right. Men make bad laws. It doesn't coincide with God's law. That makes it wrong on all counts. I'm not ok with any murder, but maybe God isn't ok with it. The doctor performed murder... legally. Doesn't mean what he did was right. If you live with evil people, you may suffer along with them when bad things happen to them. My God is a loving God who will dole out vengeance to those who disobey. Believe what you want. That is what He says.
You have a point but I disagree with the other
The age 18 issue was an issue decided decades before this administration. Not that I drink or care anything about drinking I do think that the issue of military service and drinking is a valid one.
Now, about signing up for the military, when you sign up for the military you are signing up to go WHEREVER you are ordered to. After you enlist you don't have a say in the matter It doesn't matter if you agree with the current president or agree with the current war. When you sign up you agree to go wherever the government sends you. Without a draft the decision to enlist is ENTIRELY up to you. If you have political problems with going to war at any place, anytime, and under any political circumstances you should exercise your right not to enlist.
My point to you is if you're old enough to a make decision about mind altering substances then you are old enough to make an adult decision which may require you to put your life in jeopardy. Military service and drinking require adult decision making processes, and if you can't live with the consequences of doing either then you should do neither. Works both ways.
We will have 2 agree 2 disagree on this one.
I think he knew exactly what he was doing just like Sheehan knew when she wore that shirt 2 to the White House. I say, have the power of your convinctions and be a stand up person. I don't have a problem with making a statement, just obey the rules.
Agreeing to disagree...
What if someday someone decides that along with abortion, you should have a right to choose whether or not to kill yourself (we are already going down that road with assisted suicide). Then whether or not to let the government euthanize you if they decide you are no longer a productive citizen. Or euthanize the retarded. Or euthanize the disabled. They are already doing it in Holland. This stems from much more than my faith. It is a fact that when the sanctity of life at any stage is eroded, when we begin as a people to decide some are allowed to live and some are not, that individuals have the right to decide that for other individuals (as a mother does when she chooses herself over the child), some have value and some do not, some have souls and some do not, it leads to more and more moral degradation, until the moral compass gets all twisted, and that creates a climate where one madman can make thousands of people believe it is right to kill millions because they are inferior, not human. Pardon me if I do not want to see that happen again. You are told to do in other ways...you are told not to steal. You are told not to kill. You are told not to commit adultery. There are a great many things you are told not to do. Why is this one thing that you are being told not do cause so much more grief than all the other things you are told not to do?
Again we agree to disagree...
I do not believe there is any valid motive to show the footage, blacked out or not. I think it is tasteless. I believe I know how snipers operate without having CNN air a wonderful propaganda film for jihadists...see, this is how we kill Americans, thank you so much CNN. I am sure there were high 5's in Al Qaeda camps all over the world. They get most of their information from CNN. CNN is their friend. If you don't believe that, look at some of the early footage and how CNN could get in places where no one else could and the big exec knew Uday Hussein on a first-name basis. The same CNN who knew for years exactly what Hussein was doing to his own people, but I didn't see THAT running on the 6:00 news. They stood idly by, on the pretense of keeping their reporters safe, and let the mass murder, rape rooms and various other human rights violations just keep right on keepin on. Instead of pulling their people out and telling us the truth, like you are saying they want to do now. Pardon me if I think, no matter what the faults of Fox, do not even come close to that. That alone shows while Fox may not be perfect, they certainly have higher values than CNN. As to sponsors of the programming about OJ, find out, and write to them. If you believe strongly what Fox is doing is wrong (I have already voiced my displeasure and have encouraged friends to do so), I encourage you to find out who the sponsors are, or at the very least, bombard Fox with emails. It is your right and you should exercise it. I certainly did with what CNN did, and I did bombard them with emails, not that they give a hoot what a conservative thinks, but I did it anyway. If enough people complain, it could have an effect.
People who disagree...
do not necessarily have their heads in the sand. They disagree. You do realize that the majority of Americans, according to your assessment, have their heads in the sand. Most of us want out of Iraq and it is not because of heavy-handed tactics of scaredy cat liberals. As I have said many times, we have no clout whatsoever with this administration. So if we are not **allowed ** to **win** whatever that means this **war** undeclared, it will not be because of liberals. It will be because it was a flawed plan from the beginning, starting in 1997 with PNAC which now has 1 employee by the way, and a website. They have given up trying to be the cops of the world which leaves Bush and Cheney the last 2 die-hards standing. And MacDill is still talking draft. They have been for some time, said it would not be seriously debated until after the election and, guess what, we are talking about it. Don't see how the military can be bulked up without it.
I am truly sorry that any of you on the right equate not wanting to fight, not wanting to kill, eshewing revenge shrouded as justice and preferring diplomacy to preemptive attacks with **lily-liveredness.** I see those as strength of character, the courage of conviction and fairhandness. No need for you to comment on this because I already know **I have my head in the sand** and do not need to hear you tell me again what a naive person I am, but they are my beliefs and I honor them and are proud of them because, no matter what happens, they are good and decent values and Iraq will not change my mind or my values.
Merry Christmas to all, Mitakuye Oyasin (we are all related) A happy Hannukah, Kwanza, winter solstice and whatever other holiday may be observed at this time of the year and to those who observe. May 2007 be a genuine new beginning. Aho.
And last but not least, in the immortal words of Bob Dylan, **What's so funny about peace, love and understanding..**
And to all a good night.
Again we agree to disagree...
I do not think the Democrats are that much different today than they were during Civil War days, during the 60s, or today. In my opinion, Democrats still seek, as I said, to keep people enslaved by tying them to the government for survival instead of instead developing programs to make people productive citizens. So we will agree to disagree on that.
Johnson may have signed the bill, but go to the Congressional Archives and look at the votes. Democrats fought it tooth and nail. Had Republicans not voted it in, it would not have been there for him to sign. I would not say he carried anything into fruition, other than signing the bill.
Teddy said the same thing, that the parties are not what they once were. But the basic fiber is the same...one conservative...Lincoln...slaveowners and pro-slave...Democrats. In the 60s...Republicans for...Democrats against. Same way with the womens' vote. Most of the women who took to the streets to get women the vote ....were NOT Democrats. They were Republicans. It is there for anyone to look up. It is just that you could not convince half the country today that any of those milestones were brought about by Republicans...and they were. Are you saying that since the 60s the Democrats have suddenly transformed into the warm and fuzzy party of the people? Yep, that is their message...but in my view a lie. They used to be open about what they were about...now it is hidden. But to me, the agenda is the same. Again we agree to disagree.
Okay, agree to disagree and all that...
how about the question...is war ever justified? You never have weighed in on that one though I have asked numerous times.
As I stated, you did the graphic description of maimed and mangled war dead. I simply added that babies sliced and diced amount to the same thing. And it is way past the embryonic sac stage when it is aborted and I believe anyone who has looked at the stages of a baby's growth in utero knows that.
You don't have to keep justifying what you believe to me. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Just like I won't change your mind, you won't change mine.
Again...agree to disagree. I am sure, if the child were able to choose, it would not choose to be sliced and diced and left alone to mature and be born and live like it was supposed to had someone not "chosen" to end its chance to do that. But, you want to give that choice to someone else. I don't think that is right. Any more than it would be my right to kill someone who was inconvenient, annoyed me, or was too much trouble.
Why do you not support a woman's right to choose to kill the baby if the baby is too much to handle when it is a day old? Two days old? A week? A month? It certainly cannot live on its own without a lot of care for a whole lot longer than that. Somehow taking one breath makes all the difference. Yep. Uh huh. Whatever.
Human embryo, plants, animals?? Now I've heard it all.
Then we will agree to disagree....
if you have to kill it to keep it from being born....my friend, it is viable. You started as an "embryonic sac." Without intervention...here you are. Tim Tebow who just won the Heisman trophy...had his mother decided to dispose of him when he was an "embyronic sac" (she chose not to) that young man would exist today. There are consequences of every action. Every abortion prevents a life from continuing to maturity and being born. There is really no other way to look at that, that I can see. And to me, that is the most precious, most innocent of all human life. And I feel that someone should speak for them. You do not have to, you do not consider them "alive" until...well, I don't know when you consider them "alive." There are plenty in the world to speak against war, and rightly they should if that is what they believe. I just don't understand why someone would be so strenuously against someone speaking for the child. Because to me, from the time of conception it grows. If it grows, it is alive. That is simple biology.
So we will agree to disagree. Or just disagree.
No harm, no foul. Each of us entitled to their opinion on the matter. That is what makes America great.
Agree or disagree
If somehow the American people can put aside bias and have an open-minded discussion, then and only then will real change happen. I respect your opinion and I read what you and others say with an open mind. My problem is that neither the Democrats or Republicans have come up with anything I can support.
As for Palin, yeah, I relate to her "soccer mom" status. I was a football and cheerleader mom. My kids being only 2 years apart, there were times when my husband would go to one event and I would go to another so they all had a parent present. As a mom, I balanced family and a full-time job. There is NO WAY I could have balanced my family and the second most important job in the country. Maybe she is a superperson but I was not, although my kids will tell you I was "supermom." As for me, my job suffered before my family. Which would she chose to come in 2nd place? Think about it.
Wow - I disagree. This forum is mostly
All I can say is, I completely disagree with you!
nm
So we can agree to disagree
I fail to see her accomplisments but then that's just me and I doubt I'm alone.
I certainly think a redistribution of wealth would not be a bad thing, unless, of course, you're among the richest families in America and I certainly am not. . In the last 8 years the rich have gotten richer while the poor got poorer. Do your research. The Bush tax cuts are what made the rich richer, along with sending good jobs out of the country and allowing illegal aliens to come in and further depress wages. One of the causes of economic depression is when too much money is in the hands of too few people and that's just about where we are now. Palin aside, if McCain is elected I would bet my last dollar that we'll have a repeat of the Great Depression of the 30s. I wouldn't put any money on what will happen if Obama is elected but I expect the economic situation won't be any better. With Bush's popularity being so low, I can't imagine why anyone would want to elect his cronie to follow him but then people have different opinions and that's what makes horse races (or political races) I guess.
I would have to disagree. Pepsi much better!
.
I disagree totally.
I think he will go down in history as the worst president ever aside from Herbert Hoover, or maybe he'll even pass him up. There is so much against him. Remember his perpetual smirk? Someone got him over that but have you seen him walk? He doesn't just walk, he struts like a peacock. Besides I don't think he is all that bright. I expect most of his orders come from Cheney, who I think is an evil, evil man.
I disagree to the point that we
have totally been run into the ground. I believe we are in a recession....which hasn't even been declared.....and are not yet into a depression. If Obama gets in office and raises taxes and government spending.....we will be in a depression. Where were you during history class? Obviously not paying any attention.
Besides, Bush may be the president now but there were many many many greedy hands in the cookie jar who caused this economic crisis and that includes dems and repubs alike. So go spout off your "this is all Bush's fault" to the other ignorant people who believe that. There are many more involved than just him and they should all be held accountable for their participation in this mess.
Trust me, my friends, it will get worse if Obama is elected. Let us not repeat history and do what Hoover did by raising taxes during a recession and leading to the great depression. Let us know repeat history and do what FDR did by starting more government programs that were supposed to help the Americans but actually prolonged the duration of the great depression.
I respectfully disagree s/m
and I say respectfully because apparently you are a sister TTer (I'm an ex TTer). I think McCain will win by hook or crook. Anyway, the rabid Republicans outnumber the rabid Democrats on the forums in which I participate so if I'm correct, McCain won't have to restort to "crook."
Respectully, I will say that I disagree on almost
nm
I whole-heartedly disagree with you on that one, GP....
and I don't think you should be casting aspersions on my intelligence. I haven't on yours. Stubborn maybe...lol...but you are not unintelligent.
Sarah Palin has done a great job in Alaska. She knows the ropes of running a government. Yes, she may be shy on foreign policy, but so was Bill Clinton when he was elected. He said so himself. What I like most about her is that she is not a career politician. She is still in that service to her country thought process. She is not in it for Sarah. She is in it for her country and the people in it. ALL the people in it. I firmly believe that.
And if you think that makes me unintelligent, so be it. I would vote for her in a heartbeat. In fact, I AM voting for her for VP. And if God forbid something happens to McCain, we will be in better hands than we EVER would be with Barack Obama.
And you disagree with everything Obama has to say? nm
.
I am also an OB nurse and disagree.
My conviction that life--even prenatal life--is sacred was the determining factor in my choice to vote for McCain. If you know what you believe and follow your conscience on this one issue the rest of it will fall into place.
Viable babies up to 28 weeks (and beyond with a little fudging) are aborted every day where I live and work. My girlfriend and I took turns holding one in the NICU that was expelled alive and legally required rescusitation attempts, until she quit gasping an hour and a half later. I do believe parents should see the result of their actions, not as a form of punishment but as a form of education.
agree to disagree
sam, you have to just let it go. We will never change the minds of people so hard hearted. Anyone who votes for someone who will allow or encourage such laws will have the blood of innocent lives on their hands.
|
