Proves you don't read anything..Says in the 1st sentence he is Gov. Lynch of
Posted By: New Hampshire. nm on 2005-09-19
In Reply to: I have no idea who this Lynch person is nor do I care. - Libby
x
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 his letter. That pretty much proves it.
nm
I read about her yesterday. Obama proves again
nm
Pulling things out of context when people can go read the whole thread proves nothing...
when someone says something posted from a court document with all the references in place is a lie simply because it was reprinted on a conservative website cares nothing about the truth. I said it and I meant it. That is not calling that person a liar. Stop twisting things to your advantage. Not all the liberals on this board play that game. Only a few of you do. Won't debate an issue, just say it is from a right wing rag (even if it is the original court document) and will absolutely not look at both sides of an issue. And based on what I have read about liberalism and what liberals posted on this very board in response to my question...that is the antithesis of true liberal behavior. So there are some of you who do not agree with the tactics either. So please...stop with the attacks. Does not look good on you.
I have no idea who this Lynch person is nor do I care.
As far as Bush is concerned, it isn't just one isolated incident. Drug and alcohol addiction that seems to have plagued most of the Bush family, including your president and his out of control daughters.
By the way, you obviously haven't noticed that this is the liberal board. If you don't like the fact that liberals don't care for Bush, perhaps you'd feel more comfortable on the con board.
Have a blessed day. 
I saw Jim Cramer this morning too. I have J&J stock and my 401K through Merrill Lynch
I am really upset and not sure what to do.
blah, blah, blah, I read only the 1st sentence and
here we go again...blah, blah, blah...broken record!
Whom do you Republicans try to convince?
Youselves?
Like McCain and Cheney who
are hoping and even wishing for further attacks on the American soil, so that they can prove that all the B* they did during these 8 years was justified?
And to prove that O's strategy is wrong and they were right.
The 9 years are over!
Your first sentence says it
It's a question of who is shouldering the burden. Well apparently you're a billionaire,'cause I know many hardworking, responsible, professional middle-class people (no one looking for a handout)working pretty darn hard just to stay afloat...people with degrees who are delivering pizza. Our local food pantries can't keep up with the demand and this was before Katrina. There are Meals on Wheels volunteers, who pay for their own gas, have had to stop because they simply can't afford it. And the meals that WERE being delivered weren't even hot, because THAT was cut back. Go, good for you on your shiny throne passing judgement on who is or isn't looking for a hand-out, but I can tell you that even with every kind of insurance and adequate income, I pray my husband or I don't get sick or have some unforeseen catastrophy, because in many cases that is all it takes.
You said it all in one sentence...
Hindsight IS 20/20, something Democrats tend to forget. The pre war intelligence was very ominous, and it was international intelligence, not just ours. If an attack had come our way which was then traced to Iraq, you would have placed the blame squarely on the back of GWB. Of course, now that we have hindsight, he's blamed for the war being not worth it, wrong war, ad nauseum. Apply a little logic and you can see that it's a no-win situation. I believe the man did what he had to do, AT THE TIME. You can't play Monday morning quarterback. The prominent Democrats were all on the same page before the war, just read some of their quotes.
I think the last sentence says it all..sm
Either way, even if you believe McCain's health plan is a train wreck and that none of his math adds up, he proposes to fix that with Medicare savings, not with $882 billion worth of "cuts."
Tell me what the difference is, one says medicare savings and one says medicare cuts. Both mean less money for medicare, no? Semantics on both sides I think.
We can sum all of the above in one sentence:
LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!
me neither......Your sentence that
I quoted in my former post reminded me so much of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, therefore I swerved away from the issue at hand.
Ahmadinejad should step down and give his position to Mousavi. Same with Khatami.
On what are you? In your last sentence
of your post you contradict what you wrote in your subject line!
Hahahaha! LMAO !
You are a joke, 'Backward typist,' are you really .....?
Confused or imbibed?
Your last sentence tells it all
Your last sentence concerning ammo, in my opinion, sums up your beliefs, i.e., republicans, versus democrats. Everything to you righties is fight time, attack time, war time whereas we lefties post something for people to read or debate, not to fight. I cant speak for all, but I believe negotiating, talking out problems, trying to understand each other works better than slinging insults, attacks, and using ammo. A nonpartisian person reading these posts would be able to see, the attacks more often than not are from the right wingers.
I do believe that the last sentence is especially true.
Isn't it amazing. So many here with ties to Vietnam veterans and so many differing viewpoints. Nearly every male in my family has served in the Armed Forces and this down to third cousins. Many of them served in Vietnam. Every one of them has bad feelings towards the peace movement in the 60s and 70s.
I will finish your sentence. sm
an impossible thing for YOU.
regarding your list sentence
your body might not be there anymore.
is there a subj in that sentence?
just does not make sense. Please proofread what you post so you don't look illiterate.
I just went to the link and the first sentence
states it was from January. I am not even sure he is saying rates will skyrocket, but that will be the argument against his plan to cap greenhouse gases and retrofitting.
Your last sentence of the third paragraph was just as...sm
uncalled for, I believe, and untrue.
ADD time. The end of that sentence should be
shares in the responsibility at this point.
Don't need to explain to you, you explained yourself in your last sentence.
t
Thanks for the post. I was especially impressed by the last sentence...
of the article. At least they showed both sides (good for them), albeit three paragraphs on Palin and 1 line on Obama. Big sentence tho.
Can't ge past the ignorance of the first sentence here.
the constitution is not a static document and is, in fact, a living, dynamic, changing, vital document. To wrap you brain around this concept, consider this. The orignal Constitution contained 10 amendments. Amendments 11 through 27 commenced over time as such: 1795, 1804, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1913x2, 1919, 1920, 1933x2, 1951, 1961, 1964, 1967, 1971 and 1992.
There. You see? The (progressive) authors of the constitution in their wisdom provided the mechanism of amendement, that would allow for change and growth. That makes it a living, breathing, dynamic document. Got it?
Next time you try to interpret Obama's book, watch your step.
That last sentence just didn't EVEN sound right! sm
And I think the missing sheep brains is the main thing in this picture.
Did you forget to finish our sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Did you forget to finish your sentence?
Are you psychic? I watched those posts be ignored all day. I realize this is a hot topic in the parallel universe, but back here in the real world, not so much.
Your very first sentence, "Trying to bomb...
... a grassroots political force into extinction will be about as effective and trying to bomb Iraq into democracy," reminds me very much of a quote by Michael Corleone in Godfather II, where they're in Cuba trying to "do business" while in the midst of unrest and rebellion of the people.
Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.
Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?
Michael Corleone: It means they could win.
Although Israel has very sophisticated American-made weapons, maybe, as above, that won't be enough. 
Interesting sentence construction.
I would have gone with the adjective ''grammatical'' to modify the noun ''mistakes'' rather than using the noun ''grammar'' to modify another noun, or perhaps ''bad mistakes in grammar.'' Then again, I might have linked ''bad-grammar'' as a compound modifier, but then that's just me (as well most who are truly English literate.)
The last sentence is particularly worrisome for Michigan.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061804053.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Senate's Health-Care Draft Calls for Most to Buy Insurance, Nixes Obama's 'Public Option'
By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 19, 2009
A draft proposal in the Senate to overhaul the nation's health-care system would require most people to buy health insurance, authorize an expansion of Medicaid coverage and create consumer-owned cooperative plans instead of the government coverage that President Obama is seeking.
The document, distributed among members of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday afternoon, addressed none of the funding questions that have consumed House and Senate negotiators in recent days. But it included an array of coverage provisions that were drastically scaled back from earlier versions, as lawmakers seek to shrink the bill's overall cost. The proposal, for instance, would reduce the pool of middle-class beneficiaries eligible for a new tax credit meant to make insurance more affordable.
The absence of a "public option" marks perhaps the most significant omission. Obama and many Democrats had sought a public option to ensure affordable, universal coverage, but as many as 10 Senate Democrats have protested the idea as unfair to private insurers. In its place, the draft circulated yesterday outlines a co-op approach modeled after rural electricity and telecom providers, subject to government oversight and funded with federal seed money.
Yesterday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) met with four Republicans, including Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking GOP member on the panel, along with two Democratic colleagues in an attempt to find bipartisan consensus. Baucus dubbed the group "the coalition of the willing."
Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats are exploring a range of funding options, including a surtax on the rich and an increase in the payroll tax imposed on all U.S. workers. The list also includes new taxes on sugary drinks and alcohol, along with broader levies, such as a national value-added tax of up to 3 percent.
The Senate's preferred option -- taxing the health benefits that millions of Americans receive through their employers -- is also on the House list. So is Obama's favorite idea: limiting the value of itemized deductions for the nation's wealthiest 3 million taxpayers.
Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee charged with developing a financing plan, said lawmakers have not "embraced any particular source of revenue." But he confirmed that big, broad-based taxes like the payroll tax and a value-added tax are under discussion, mainly because they have the potential to raise "a lot of money" for an expansion of health coverage expected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
The House will not unveil a financing plan until after the July 4 recess, Neal said, though House leaders were expected to release an outline of the rest of their plan today, with a goal of putting a bill to vote later this summer. The Senate is aiming to debate its legislation in July as well, and is seeking a bill that would cost less than $1 trillion.
Maintaining that tight schedule could prove difficult, though, because daunting issues remain in both chambers. One area of contention is the extent to which private employers must subsidize public coverage for their workers if the companies don't offer their own plan or if the premiums are unaffordable. The Congressional Budget Office has warned that if lawmakers don't find the right formula, employees may flee their company plans for federal coverage, sending government costs soaring.
The draft in the Senate committee spells out one possible solution: It would require employers to pay 50 percent of Medicaid costs for workers enrolled in the low-income program and 100 percent of the cost of health-insurance tax credits for eligible employees. Workers could forfeit employer coverage only if the cost exceeds 12.5 percent of their income.
The draft, earlier reported on by washingtonpost.com blogger Ezra Klein, spells out four options for requiring employers to provide coverage, with exemptions for firms with up to 200 employees. It would fine individuals who do not purchase coverage, though certain groups, including Native Americans and undocumented workers, would be exempted.
It also would loosen eligibility requirements for Medicaid, a proposal certain to alarm many governors who are grappling with budget crises.
This actually proves that...
global warming is a naturally occurring event. Not manmade. No greenhouse effect by man.
You helped my point, in a roundabout way. Thanks!
By the way, your first link didn't bring up anything but someone's nightly news blog on MSNBC. Was there something important on there you wanted us to see?
This proves it
These posters are paid political trolls. I knew they would think up something else. This post is absolutely laughable, asking MTs to come up with $50,000 to $60,000 for such a ridiculous cause so they can become heroes" ....baaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
I think most MTs these days are more concerned with having enough work to pay the light bill and buy groceries.
Hardly? Proves it every day, many more to come.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$444
oops, ignore the last partial sentence....nm
Did you just use the name Rush and the word honesty in the same sentence? (sm)
Limbaugh lied about 9-11 Commission report
Limbaugh falsely claimed "Nobody ever said there was" a connection between Iraq, 9-11 attacks
Limbaugh misrepresented Duelfer report on Iraqi WMDs
Limbaugh lied about AIDS
Limbaugh overstated the minimum wage
Limbaugh made false claims about the Democratic National Convention
Limbaugh distorted the Kyoto Protocol
Limbaugh falsely accused Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Limbaugh claimed Clintons are funding Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
Limbaugh lied to defend Swift Boat Vets
Limbaugh misstated Pew report on journalists
Limbaugh mischaracterized the federal deficit
Limbaugh misstated federal education spending
Limbaugh lied about Bush's false uranium claim
And that isn't even the tip of the iceburg for him. And by the way, what's with the *he owns his problems* junk? Does that mean that since he admits he's a drug addict then he's not a bad drug addict? Give me a break.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
oops...first sentence posted twice by accident.
:)
Haha! I so agree, she summed it up in 1 sentence, there is nothing more to say!..nm
nm
This proves only 2 things.
First, that Scarborough can criticize Bush, as well as compliment him. He can do both, unlike you. If he sees something wrong, he has the courage to say it; however, he is still a conservative and he still supports Bush. As I said before, he just doesn't *blindly* support him, and he has the ability to be objective.
The second thing it proves is the CON method of doing things is to silence and disparage those who have the audacity to exert their (so far) constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
Scarborough is a respectable man. He loves America and he respects the Constitution. Unlike your *God Bush,* who thinks the Constitution is only a *piece of paper.* The fact that you so aggressively defend someone so obviously devoid of morals and ethics tells me way more than I want to know about you. People like you give me the heebie-jeebies, and I'd just rather associate myself with your kind of people, so I won't be responding to you any more.
You really do belong on the CON board, you know. Your nastiness and constant harassment of people on this board is getting old, is incredibly distasteful and just might wind up being brought to the moderator's attention if it continues.
This just proves my point.
We are still talking about the MJF ad and I never even heard anything about Ben Affleck which just proves that his voice does not reach quite as many people as Rush does. If I had heard what he said I would condemn that as well. I really really do not think there is ever an occasion when it is all right to malign the disabled.
No, joke is on you and proves you do NOT
The writers of the constitution DID NOT have electoral college. It was not written into law until the 1800s it is called "college of electors" and even then, it did not work because they had to amend AGAIN because political parties emerged, which showed electoral college did not work.
When the constitution is spoke of, it should mean as our founding fathers meant it. I say again, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Just proves one thing. s/m
Republicans are carrying on their family tradition, Democrats do the same thing. WHEN will Americans wake up and realize that neither party is what it was for your parents and grandparents? I had a similar discussion this very morning with my son. He doesn't like McCain but he is voting for him. I changed the subject. At least I taught him to think for himself.
Well, it proves that Obama isn't ...
...a terrorist, as he's been ridiculously accused of being.
I'm still worried about Bush finding a reason to declare martial law and creating a dictatorship before Obama takes the oath of office, and I wonder if a terror attack would assist in that endeavor. 
this proves my earlier
post about the popularity of Fox News and the country being a majority of dullards. Not enough information to understand the debates on Meet The Press or other actual news programs, so watch 2 clowns argue. When finished, turn on the wrasslin' channel.
You got it! Obama proves more and more
nm
Your response proves that you obviously , , ,
didn't REALLY listen to his Cairo speech. First of all, he was not "heaping scorn" on the US. He had FIRM words for all parties involved, including us. After all, the US bears just as much culpability as anyone else and an admission to mistakes in the past is long overdue. ALL PEOPLE want respect and, sorry to disagree strongly with you, but the last administration showed anything but respect to these people. Maybe you should go back and really listen to the WHOLE speech, since it is obvious that you only heard the sound bites taken out of context that Fox News chose to play. Your words sound like they came straight from Hannity's ignorant mouth.
History proves that I am right, you can only
cite the Bible.
That wasn't my whole message - you just picked out the sentence you wanted to
But that's no surprise. There was one sentence in those two paragraphs about how the crats always blame the pubs, but they never take responsibility and blame the people in their own party who are at fault too. So you take one sentence out of the whole two paragraphs and say that's what the whole message was about. Nice try. My message was about this admistration so far being a disaster in less than one month. The only ones who see it okay are the kool-aid drinkers, and that I'm sick of all the people acting as though there was never a United States until Obama came along. Since you evidently did not read my message I'll repeat it now.
American has been around for over 200 years. We've had some good presidents and we've had some bad presidents, but Obama did not discover a new country here.
Since McCain was not elected nobody can say whether or not he would have been a better president or not, so time to put that dog to rest.
In the last sentence of her post she retracts what she said in her subject line, lol!..nm
nm
Bush proves how far removed he is
Rep George Miller
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, President Bush proved once again just how far removed he and his Administration are from the life experiences of most Americans. The President issued an executive order on Thursday that makes it possible for federal contractors to pay extremely low wages to workers hired for the Gulf Coast rebuilding. Bush accomplished this by suspending the 1931 Davis-Bacon law, which says that federal contractors must pay their workers a “prevailing wage” on construction projects.
Contrary to the misinformation coming from the right wing – that prevailing wages are actually high “union wages,” as John Fund wrote on The Huffington Post last week – the truth is that the prevailing wage is just the average wage for a specific job function in a local area. In parts of the Gulf Coast, these wages for construction workers can be low – even as low as $7, $8, or $9 an hour.
Deep poverty is a major part of the story of Hurricane Katrina, as is now plain for all of us to see. How are New Orleanians and other people in the region supposed to get back on their feet if they can’t even make $7 an hour? Hundreds of thousands of people have just lost everything they had. America has to put Gulf Coast workers back to work – and at wages that can help them and their families get back on their feet. Davis-Bacon guarantees a wage floor when they get back to work. If the President wants to help storm victims he should rescind his executive order immediately.
Well these posts proves one thing.
Incredible. But hey, this is truly the left exposed. You don't care about the troops at all. IT's all about politics. Pathetic losers.
Yes, that was very Coulter of you and proves just who the fool really is.
Not the least bit surprised that you're a Coulter groupie, though. I will pray for your sad, sad soul.
Which proves to me it is all about hating Bush and...
very little about *peace.* Sigh.
|
