RIGHT, but it was actually a statement that was
Posted By: made. Of course they will deny it. on 2008-10-21
In Reply to: Try the MOAT website. They state categorically - this is not their position. nm
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
Immediate White House statement on Dr. Tiller - still no statement on
Having had at least three relevant opportunities to make a statement about the killing of an Army recruiter and wounding of another since this occurred on Monday, Obama has not said a single word about it - but a statement was forthcoming from him immediately concerning the killing of Dr. Tiller.
The media coverage of the two events has also been strikingly different. Please note that the sympathies of the liberal cause provide a complete explanation of both of these phenomena.
More than passingly strange that they think we don't notice stuff like this, n'est-ce pas? Well, they'll discover their mistake soon enough. The election cycle of 2010 is already starting up - and it isn't going to look anything like the cycle of 2008.
Sorry. That last statement should have been
x
What an odd statement
"God's will has been done"???
Whenever somebody gets what they want they always say it's "Gods will" or what "God wants". As though they know. Then as if to try to convince us it's true they will throw in a "I prayed and was shown a sign". Well I know a lot of people who are priests, biships, and very spiritual and religious people and they were praying for a different outcome. They were praying for McCain to win. So are you saying 50% of Americans praying for a different outcome all have a different God than yours who "answered your prayers"? Also I have found that when things don't work out they way they want they'll have a different answer (but usually the same canned answer).
There is good and evil in this world. I'm not saying Obama is either. Only he and his family know his religious viewpoints. This is the kind of conversation that is 1/2 religious 1/2 political. If your talking about our government (DC people) I would say that is the least likely place to find "God". Then if your going to go there you should say say "Allah" has spoken and wants him in the office, after all that is who the muslims pray to.
Yes things happen in the world. I think that's were that phrase "$hit happens" comes in.
You said all things happen in this world for the good of those that love the Lord. Does this include the parents who murder their children because God has told them to do so, or even just murder their children for no reason (like that lady in Florida). How about the senseless shootings, robberies, gang rapes, do you think all that happens for those becuase I'm sure those victims loved the Lord too. Oh what about 9-11 all those victims who died. I'm sure there were a lot who loved the Lord. Like I say I don't want to make this a religious message because that is for the faith board but you are mixing the two together and they are very different things.
My aunt does the same thing though. She will talk of something and then add in "I prayed about it and the lord told me this or that" I guess she's trying to put validity behind her statement but it has the opposite effect.
We all hope Obama becomes a great president and does good things for the country. That is the hope of any president elected. Nobody is saying he's going to do a bad job. We're all saying we hope he will do good, but we know about his history/background, associations, voting records, and inexperience, and there is a lot that is not sitting well with us. I believe we all hope to be pleasantly surprised but only time will tell and we will be keeping our eyes open just like we would do with any person elected.
I'm just trying to figure out the logic of this post and it makes no sense and is an insult to those of us who feel differently and "prayed" for a different outcome.
I have to wonder at your statement... sm
""Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country" used to hold a positive meaning in this country."
How does this apply when people like Peggy Johnson (or whatever her name was) proclaim on national tv that they are so glad they don't have to worry about paying their mortgage or putting gas in their cars? I wonder how people who are getting ready to quit their jobs and live off the government will react if they find out that the gravy train is being pulled by the engine of "serve your country?"
I would agree with you. America has gotten greedy and spiteful. I also feel they have gotten lazy, apathetic and complacent and depend on the government now more than ever to meet their needs instead of the other way around.
Your statement a few posts above that (SM)
liberalism is the problem with this country is BASHING.
If you want to bash Liberals - go do it on your Conservatives board.
I see you haven't changed. BTW, Nan, who in the world supposedly "invited you back" as you state below? Perhaps you were invited back to the Conservative board? LOL
A statement from Shrub!
Actually, I didn't think it was funny either when he made that statement as our troops were and are being maimed and dying for him, and he thought it was funny that "whoops, no WMDs!" Rude indeed!!!!!
dumb statement
she gets what she deserves? All the woman wants is to meet with the person who is supposed to be our servant, the person WE put into office. That is not asking too much, in my opinion. It is not like he is a king or dictator. He is supposed to be working for US. If he had met with her, she would have went home and none of this shooting guns, crashing into crosses, etc., would have happened. He is the reason she is getting all this press coverage. Gets what she deserves? What a dumb statement. He should get what HE deserves, impeachment, a criminal trial and imprisonment for this illegal immoral war of his.
broad statement
And have you taken a poll of every democrat in the country as to whether they love or hate Phil? These broad statements are not helping your credibility.
Not a broad statement at all.
And since you make broad statements all the time, that's a little disingenuous, don't you think? I asked a question. You didn't answer it. How many politicians have you seen embrace Phil? As far as credibilty, let's be perfectly frank. I don't care if you find me credible and I am sure the same can be said for your feelings about me. We are worlds apart in our thinking. Thank God.
broad statement
I make broad statements all the time? When, where? LOL. That in itself is a broad statement from you. I make statements with facts to back them up, I post articles. As far as how many politicals back Phil, who knows, who cares. Is he running for office? I must have missed it if he is. He is a tax paying, charity giving, hard working adult who has opinions and ideas and beliefs on how our country should go and I applaud him for speaking out, with his own independent ideas. As far as your and mine ideas? Sure they are different. I dont thank god for that..Frankly, I dont think god has anything to do with that. We are free thinking human beings (at least I am..are you?) and it is great that you have your ideas and I have mine. That is what this country was built on..differing opinions. Heaven help us all if this country ever becomes one thought and one opinion..that is called a dictatorship. I dont know about you but I could never live under that situation..So, long live your opinion and long live mine and never the two shall meet.
true statement
This statement shows that architects of war and politicians, they know just how to manipulate the nonpolitical masses and do it well.
If that's not the most pompus statement ever
I don't know what is...it's a wonder you can breath with your nose so high in the air
That is just as much a racist statement as the one above. sm
Racism goes both ways. How about let's not labeling people at all.
I borrowed that statement from you by the way.
I'm not sure where you get your history or how it go so skewed; Johnson didn't run from war in the Vietnam, he started it, and you consider the way John Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis as running from war? As opposed to the alternative? Nuclear war.
What you fail to understand is that the conservative party is not running on the political theory that it was intended to.
Emancipation proclamation is a LIBERAL idea. Voting for women and African American is a LIBERAL idea, not a conservative one.
You have absolutely succeeded in proving that you are not only uneducated but incredibly misguided. You are a political conservative's wet dream.
This is not an accurate statement
Please provide non-partisan sources that state that the majority of scientists state that global warming is bunk.
Your statement, and I quote....(sm)
"A half a Xanax works just as well as a full one."
NOT TRUE. A half a Xanax will take the edge off. An entire Xanax will afford you the opportunity to take a 2-hour nap.
McCain had a statement...
"Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me. So, I strongly disagree," McCain responded. "America's in great difficulty, and we are experiencing enormous economic challenges."
I agree somewhat with what Gramm said tho...things have gone really well for a long time...gas was low, home values were high, joblessness was at all-time low (yes, during the dreaded Bush administration), and now we are entering some tougher times...and instead of hitching up their bootstraps and moving on through the tough time, a lot of Americans are just whining...well, more than whining, screaming at the top of their lungs for the government to bail them out. Well, again...overtaxation is the prime reason we are in the fix we are in. Democrats and their never-ending social programs, throw more money at problems approach, and to fund all that...higher taxes. Higher taxes for ALL of us, including the so-called "rich" (who employ 75% of the people in the US and pay 85-90% of the taxes already). I would like to know how many people in the good old US are on some kind of government assistance. I think the numbers would astound most. And what are the Democrats doing this election season...hawking yet MORE taxes. Obama wants higher payroll taxes. He wants to tax small businesses even more. Well, something has to pay for the largest entitlement EVER...government-run health care. What a debacle THAT will be if it ever happens. Better be careful what you ask for...
What we need to do is cut all programs except those absolutely needed, that being people who because of health or injury absolutely cannot work. Stop keeping families on welfare generation after generation. Stop making it more profitable to sit at home and draw a check than it is to get out and work. And, in my humble opinion, I don't mind an interim check if someone finds themselves out of work, or while they are in job training. But it should NOT be open-ended. Criminal laws should be tougher and anyone in prison should have to work. Period. It should not be 3 squares and a roof without work. There is plenty they could do.
I believe we need to move back to what made America great..the chance to, through education and/or hard work to better yourself, and family responsibility to one another (meaning moms and dads need to work to feed their own families)...back when welfare should be the LAST resort and effort was made to get off as soon as possible.
Okay, off my soapbox now. I do not mean to offend anyone...just giving my opinion.
hello? the statement that the woman
loves to fire people? pretty simple what i was responding to.
LOL - It was a blanket statement
I said my pet peeve is when people make fun of other people for the way they talk. But now that I think of it, it's not a pet peeve, its more of an irritant. Now I know why my parents taught me not to make fun of other people for the way they talk or look.
Can you back that statement up?
This is like the statement that one poster said- nm
.
There is a substantive statement. nm
nm
Now that's a right bright statement!
I don't think this statement was racist.
I'm sure that there are some white people who are so nuts in their racism that they could potentially assassinate Obama or at least attempt to. That doesn't insinuate all white people. As for riots....I'm sure there are some black people who are so racist that they could potentially riot if Obama loses. That isn't saying that all of them will. You need to pull back the race card you just threw out there and perhaps lay off of the caffeine as well. Making these statements doesn't make someone racist.....it just points out that there is racism out there in the world and it comes from all sides.
This is a hurtful statement
Guess I was stunned when someone calls you a name because the can't see you face to face. I don't need to explain my nationality to you. Do you know how many black people there are who are not supporting Obama. Are you gonna call all of us racists.
What do you define as a racist? Just becuase people don't vote for Obama doesn't make them racist. Not once in my post did I mention his race. It's the facts and his policies I am against.
I like the idea at the end of your statement
I like your statement "I also believe a system such as this, in place for a number of years, would tremendously cut the waste in America drastically by causing the American people, especially those in the middle class and lower class to consider their purchases more carefully. However, I doubt it would have as much of an affect on the higher income class in terms of wastefulness"and agree with it. We used this principle while trying to teach our kids some financial responsibility. We used to buy their school clothes, etc. When they got to the ages where shoes were $100 a pair for tennis shoes and jeans were outrageously priced as was everything else in a teenager's wardrobe, and they were old enough to babysit or whatever to earn a little money, we told them they could pick what they wanted and we would buy it but they would have to pay the tax portion of those purchases. They learned a lot about responsible spending at that time and cut back a lot on their wants. Small scale, but I believe your idea sentiment is correct.
Yes that's me - and I still stand by my statement.
I just agreed that the site has been changed; however, if you compare the 2 sites they are virtually word for word until you have to add the part about the college credit (which I posted 4 links below that show that that has been part of the "requirement" all along and not a new idea). That is why I say that it was a mistake on somebody's part that was doing the typing.
I am telling you, when I am wrong, I am admitting I am wrong, and I will continue to admit I am wrong.
If Obama does something that is wrong, then in the next election, I will most definitely not support him again. I am, however, giving him the benefit of the doubt until he is actually in office and doing the job of the POTUS, and not condemning him on typos, rumors, innuendos, outright lies, hypothetical situations, fear and hatred...
I base my decisions on that person's actions, not the public's opinion.
What a stupid statement by........sm
Randall Terry: "It's not a frog or a ferret that's being killed. It's a baby."
Life is life, why is it right to kill a frog or a ferret?????
I think that's a really unfair statement.
To say that we are afraid of him because he's black? I personally don't care what color he is as long as he does his job for the good of America instead of the good of himself, like too many other "leaders" in Washington.
I'm afraid because I don't think his bailout plan is going to work. I'm afriad that instead of surrounding himself with intelligent people, he's surrounding himself with crooks (Geithner). And I'm afrid that there are too many people up on the hill that are going to make life impossible for him when he actually has a plan that will work (and I'm not just talking about republicans - there are now fellow democrats that are voicing concern). THAT'S what I'm afriad of.
I agree that there's a lot of hate on this board, but that's indicative of America - there are some very narrow-minded people in this country and many that just aren't happy unless their side wins. But to say that we're afraid of him because he's black is just utter nonsense, at least for the majority, so please don't lump us all into the same category.
I don't think this is a true statement........ sm
"I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him."
It has been reported that the mother of one of the men killed on the USS Cole regrets that she voted for Obama, so there is at least 1 person who does not support him.
I didn't vote for Obama and am not too crazy about his plans for America, but I hope like heck that his stimulus package will help (not holding my breath, though) because it would mean our economy would rebound and Americans can dig themselves out of the hole we are in.
Mission Statement
The GOP Mission Statement!
GOP Rep: "Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers" For Democrats
'GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.
"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint." ' -Huffington Post
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/house-republicans/gop-rep-our-goal-is-to-bring-down-approval-numbers-for-dems/
You see the Republicans are always up to something. Too bad it is usually no good for the American people.
You made the statement:
'It's just downright immoral (again, my opinion) to profit from someone's health (be it good health or bad health) because sooner or later, we're all going to get sick, especially the older we get. '
(You were the one who drew the inference that insurance companies had something to do with transcripts. I did not imply that. However, now that you mention it, insurance companies one of the main reasons we transcribe reports.......)
I replied that all who work in healthcare-related fields (including MTs) profit from people's health.
We make a living from the transcriptions of doctors who are charging money to treat people who are staying in hospitals that charge patients to stay there. Nurses are also paid to take care of the patients, and insurance companies make money as well, all from people's illness. Unconscionable! We all should just donate our services!
The deal is, we all try to charge more money than it actually takes us to perform the job, so that we can earn a living.
Might as well say that home repairmen are immoral for charging for a new roof, because everybody needs a place to live. Are grocers immoral for charging for the food we all need? Should they just give it to you if you can't pay? Should our electricity be free because everyone needs light and heat? How much of a nanny state do you want to live in?
That would be a feasible statement...(sm)
if we actually had gotten any useful information from it, but reports thus far have shown the exact opposite.
I think it's more making a statement
I don't think they're necessarily making the interstate trip for the sake of getting married per se; I believe they're doing it because they can do that thing that they felt it has long been denied to them. Many have had their own private/personal commitment ceremonies. As an example, I started going out to clubs when I was 17 (back in the days, 18 was the drinking age). However, it was still an "occasion" when I turned 18 and went out. I went to the same club I had been going to for the last year, drank no more than I ever had, and danced the same way I had for the last year. But that didn't make it any less special. I'm guessing it's the same kind of thing.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT!
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON H.R. 1913, THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE
CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009
"This week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance - legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association. I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action."
In answer to your statement that there is
only one true God, the Christians' God, who is also my God as I am rom. cath., do you really believe that only the good Christians will be allowed into heaven?
And all the good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc....will all go to he**, the fire, because they were born into the 'wrong' religion?
I believe that there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, there is only one, with different names for each religion, but it is the same for all religions. There is only 1 heaven for all the good people and 1 he** for the bad people.
Last not least, we are all humans with the same aspirations, wishes, hopes, troubles, problems, struggles and diseases, hoping for a good life and entering heaven in our afterlives.
What an asinine statement.............
If you're not against abortion, then you are for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too! You can't say you're NOT for abortion but then turn around and criticize those that are against it!! Saying a woman has the right to make that decision is saying the same thing.........twist it all you like... it all says the same thing!!
Odd that you're so worried about the woman's reproductive rights but you don't seem to give a rat's butt about the unborn child's rights!!!
What a hypocrit!!
What a ridiculous statement
Some of you sound like you are tripping over your lower lips. Your assertions about our president are unfounded and childish. He is not the hypocrite. It is the right wing nut job republicans who are the hypocrites. Religious freedom? But it's okay to wish harm on another person, specifically the president of the United States? (a very popular president I might add.) Now THAT is hypocritical!
This statement is so funny ---
I sat here through the whole election process and heard people saying there would be no change in the presidency because Bush was going to invoke martial law and not give up the office.
Now here we go again with Obama is going to invoke martial law and not give up the office.
Is this a common thought among people that each president is going to refuse to give up his office? I looked it up and martial law has never been invoked since World War II, so why such fear of that happening?
I had never even thought of it until I started reading this board.
a weird statement in this article
"Scarborough, no longer obligated to toe the pathetic Republican Party line, says it's totally irrelevant if Joe Wilson is a preening partisan who misled investigators about the role his wife played in recommending his Niger trip. The frantic efforts of the GOP attack machine to change the subject to Wilson shows how scared Republicans are that the master of their universe will be held accountable for Rove's destructive carelessness.
___________
So, Joe Scarborough and this columnist is admitting that Wilson mislead, but it's irrelevant. So, what's I'm getting out of this is that it does not matter what we know Wilson did but it matters a whole lot about what we don't know for sure Karl Rove did.
That's just not passing the smell test one bit with me.
I won't even go into how offensive and wrong this statement is. sm
and I mean wrong ethically, morally and spiritually.
She ignored that ridiculous statement and responded to the
*nice* reference where she was called an elitist pig.
She replied with Yup, elistist pig here..Yeehhaaww~~
Where DOES one find glasses that can twist and contort a statement out of recognition until it reflects what you want it to say? 
Your statement was *they* are not true conservatives.
I was merely asking who *they* are.
Administrator: I am at a lost as to your statement...sm
And realize I am only trying to understand what is going on here. Both boards have had their fair share of attacks, but there is rarely a day that goes by that it does not happen on this board.
That said, when you say no *slurs* against the president that leaves a lot unsaid. Are you instructing us not to speak unfavorable to the president on forumatrix?
If this is a pro-Bush forum then I would be wasting my energy to come here. I missed the posts that got this started so again realize I am trying to understand what is going on here.
A powerful statement I ran across today...sm
Regarding whether we are winning or losing the war in Iraq.
*Who can win or lose a battle of morality, religious beliefs, and or political ideology? Nobody wins or loses. People just continue to fight until one side finally decides it's futile to try and change the minds of the opposite party!
Peace and love...*
The statement was made irresponsibly.
I listened to the whole statment. Of course everyone is interested in avoiding a world war, for him to assume and outwardly say it may come from Iran if they have the knowlege was irresponsible of him. He is the president. He should think these things through before he speaks. What about North Korea? What about Afghanistan? They already have the knowledge and the weapons and I don't believe he used those terms during the crisis with North Korea.
I believe he made the statement concerning Iran...
because Ahmadinejad has said publically that Israel should be wiped off the map and he had a vision of the world without the United States. Don't recall North Korea saying anything remotely like that. The big difference in Kim Jong IL and Ahmadinejad is that Ahmadinejad does not care what happen if he nuked Israel or the US...because to him, being martyred is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anyone. And if his attack ushered in the coming of the 12th Imam, mores the better. If you will look at his statements, especially the one about the 12th Imam...that will tell you why he could very well be the one to start a world war III if he had nukes. I believe that is what was meant.
And one could surmise he used that word to shock some out of their complacency.
And Let's face it...if Iran nuked Israel, WW III would be on.
I would agree with part of your statement...
however, the major difference is that there is Congress between the "radical Christian Texan" and those weapons. There is no such in-between for Amhadinejad. In other words, no checks and balances. If he decides to nuke Israel, it is a done deal. He doesn't have to go to anyone for permission. That is the big difference. Yes, Democrats did vote for the use of force in Iraq, just like the Republicans did. But I seriously doubt, unless we were attacked first, that Congress would vote to allow the use of nukes on another country, and then it would be a completely last ditch choice. I have at least that much faith in Congress on both sides...there is a lot of rhetoric thrown back and forth, jibes, political posturing...but when it came down to a decision like that...I have faith that Democrats AND Republicans would not allow the use of nukes even if the "radical Christian Texan" wanted to. Which he does not. He just does not want Ahmadinejad to have them, and frankly, those countries closer to Iran than we are should be very afraid unless they are Muslim states. It would be harder for him to get to us than it would be for him to get to them. And if he hit one, you do know who they would turn to first for help, don't you? The good old US that they hate and despise. WWII all over again. They didn't like us much before WWII, loved us when we were pulling their fat out of the fire, the instant they were safe again they were yelling "get out of our country." Same old, same old. It is not like the loved us when Clinton was President and hate us now. They love us when they need us and hate us when they don't. History bears that out.
As to overpopulation...what is the answer to that? Like China did, limit the number of children a couple can have? Use abortion for population control? Force people to be sterilized? I am not ranting, just asking the question.
As to the global warming thing...there is so much information out there to both sides of that issue, I frankly am not sold on either side yet. I am still researching that one. I do believe that some of Gore's assertions don't hold water, like catastrophe is imminent...I can't find a lot to support that. But I am open-minded and I continue to research.
I guess the statement escaped you...
"100% of Southern Republicans voted against it."
If you look at the actual figures, it was one Senator. So I think that figure is a little misleading. And the percentages of Republicans were very much higher "yes" than the percentages of Democrats.
It also discounts the fact that the Democrats managed to stonewall it from the 1870's to the 1960's. It doesn't matter if it was by 1 vote or 5000 votes. They kept African Americans from getting the vote for 90 years. Had it not been for Republicans like Abe Lincoln, they would not have been freed in the first place. That is history and it cannot be changed. So those who like to blame Republicans for all the country's ills should also realize how instrumental Republicans were in shaping many of the GREAT things that happened in this country as well.
That is the point of the whole exercise. I think we can agree that however it finally came out, it is a blessing that it did, right?
Your last statement is extremely ignorant
There are nearly 1.5 million abortions performed in the U.S each YEAR, more than the entire death toll in Iraq thus far.
Still standing by the original statement.
Google "population trends" using the quotes to get exact phrase matches and voila…2,240,000 hits emerge. Scroll on down through the first couple of pages and notice that the links do not take you to blogs and chat room forums. This is the language of academic research scholarship, government institutions, statistical databases, etc. Maybe they too need to be scolded and sent to the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion
1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army
2. The entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. Entrance as if to take possession or overrun.
4. Infringement by intrusion
Invasion is what we did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. Legal and illegal immigrants alike are not enemies. They do not arrive in armies, nor are they a disease. They do not come here with the express intent to cause trouble, inflict harm, possess, take over, infringe or intrude. These are living, breathing, impoverished human beings who come here looking for work in an attempt to feed themselves and their families.
The underlying causes, conditions and political circumstances have been examined and debated on this forum in excruciating detail and will not be repeated here because that was not the intent of the original post. An opinion was expressed and countered. Some choose to embrace diversity, others choose to fear, still others become outraged and even hateful. The population trend is what it is. The US is a developed country with low birth rates per capita with an aging boomer population. Mexico is a developing country with a much broader youth base with many fertile years in front of them and a much higher per capita birth rate. It is a difference in cultures.
It is quite natural in this circumstance (which also exists in other western developed counties) that the population growth in developing countries like Mexico outpaces that that in the developed countries and, yes, white folks will be outnumbered. It is a simple fact of life and one that we probably should be addressing realistically.
The issue is global, not national. The equalizing affect could be manifested in another "natural" progression…the evolution away from racial division and hatred. I only regret that I will probably not live long enough to see it.
|
