Sp be it, but your line of reasoning is skewed
Posted By: ??? on 2006-06-11
In Reply to: To answer this I would only repeat my prior statements..nm - Democrat
What if a sex offender was running loose in your neighborhood. What if he had raped a child 10 years ago, went to jail with a slap on the wrist (like what happens these days), and got out in ten years. He shows up in your neighborhood, and you see him out on his porch everyday when the school bus arrives and leaves. Not only is he leering at the school kids he's making outrageous comments on a daily basis. Would you say, *Oh, he went to prison. He did his time. Hopefully, he's rehabilited. Yes, he's a little strange and outrageous, but so far, as far as we know, he's not touched a kid again so we need to leave him alone.*
Would you trust this guy? Especially if you then found out he has a *rape room* in his house? What if his sons were running around the neighborhood reeking havoc and doing the same things but in a more merciless way and you found out they were going to inherit his house when he died?
Well, this correlates very well with Saddam. Almost too closely in fact. Like many of you say here on a daily basis, the world is our neighborhood, and in many neighborhoods there are bullies, and they don't quit being bullies until you take them out. It's just the way the world works.
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
Excuse me, but I don't need your skewed
description of what I care about, and of course I care about fighting terrorism. If Bush cares so much about it, why did he thumb his nose at the 9/11 Commission?
And I don't just care that Bush lied about warrants and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. I care very much that Bush has done nothing BUT lie since the day he entered the White House, if not before.
I can't trust a liar, and I can't trust Bush. Sometimes he scares me more than the terrorists he claims to care so much about fighting.
By the way, can you tell me how letting people carry knives on airplanes again is helping to combat terrorism?
Your version of the truth is skewed.
The Lebanese militia executed the people in the camps, though Israel took the blame for it. Why don't you go whine about the Lebanese, instead of transposing all your vitriol on Israel? Like most of the world, you seem to have given the Lebanese Phalangists a free pass. If you were so 'outraged' about S&S, why don't you actually hold the people who did the killing accountable?
Or are you unsure of the difference between Israel and Lebanon?
And isn't it odd that hardly anyone in the Arab world gave a rip about Sabra and Shatila? While in Israel there were protests and the Israeli government itself conducted an inquiry. (Which proved that, at most, we were only guilty of not forseeing the potential for the LEBANESE MILITARY to do what they did.)
And 3000 is ridiculous. The Lebanese reports were 450 or something, and the Israeli inquest reported 800 (of which I think 35 were non-soldiers). But it sounds better for your propaganda to make it THOUSANDS, so knock yourself out.
And let's not forget that the S&S massacre, by the Lebanese militia, was in retaliation for the murder of the president of Lebanon. Once again, the Pakistani brought wrath down on themselves and then claimed to be the victims.
And I noticed you didn't mention the ྑ attacks on Palestinian refugee camps.
Why? Oh, I know.
Because those were carried out by Muslims, and that just doesn't suit your cause, does it? So the PLO (Palestinias!) can massacre 2000 people and you're fine with that.
But Israel defends itself by returning fire on the Palestinian enemy and you condemn them.
Curious, don't you think?
last line of Matthews piece cut off in error. 1 line sm
complained in a letter to his boss that Matthews had shown a pattern of sexism.
Actually, I answered your posts line by line
about not "allowing" you to have an opinion. Those are your words, not mine. This is a good example of how this discussion has escalated from a simple link to this utter squashed bug nonsense. Why are you not able to simply debate the original issue at hand...the Eric Holder appointment? Too much of an intellectual challenge when somebody presents a THIRD-PARTY alternative viewpoint? You are the one who mentioned losing sleep and I remarked that it was probably unnecessary since you were blowing something out of proportion....something you have been doing all afternoon. You takes things WAY too personally.
So, by that reasoning....
how many Americans would be excluded from this club?
There's no reasoning with them when they
Reasoning? Not here.
Aside from the fact that I find it distateful and unhelpful to rehearse pure policy disputes over presidential appointments, it is "terrible" reasoning to derive objections to Ogden's presumptive policies as Deputy AG from a brief he submitted on behalf of a client.
Reasoning........... sm
The man is not family-oriented in the instance that he argued FOR p*rnography and that schools and libraries should not be allowed to filter such filth from their users. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want my kid to be able to surf p*rn sites while at school or at the public library. I don't need any reason beyond that to oppose the appointment of David Ogden to DAG, and frankly I am shocked and disappointed in anyone who feels otherwise.
There is no reasoning with anyone who would
unbelievable...
By your own reasoning............... sm
MT companies should take their business back into the confines of their headquarters and stop employing people at home. Going by your barometer, our work would make our homes a business.
You can bet if that were to ever happen, this board would become a ghosttown and there would be a lot of unhappy MTs.
I don't follow your reasoning...because there are a lot of
gays you think God made them that way? Years ago, sex before marriage was unheard of, but so many people over the years have done it openly now it is accepted. The Bible speaks frankly against it. Same with adultery. The Bible speaks frankly against it. People still do it. And it is still wrong. The Bible speaks against homosexuality. People still do it, it is still wrong. More people kill and steal nowadays. Does that make it right? There are more serial killers today than 20 years ago. Does that make it okay? I believe you are rationalizing. Why would God call something an abomination and then make people that way? That is like saying people are thieves because God made them that way...people are killers because God made them that way...sorry, we will have to agree to disagree big time on that kind of reasoning.
with unsound reasoning
her reasoning was unsound as well - dear
Obama's reasoning for not
having his hand over his heart is that he said they were not saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag when that picture was taken. He said that the Star-Spangled Banner was being played or sung and states he was not raised to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.....only when you pledge to the flag. That was his reason. I know his grandparents lived in Hawaii and he spent some years living in Indonesia living with his muslim step father, but even so........I've always been taught to put my hand over my heart during the national anthem as well as during the pledge. Maybe he truly wasn't taught to do that, but given all the experiene he claims to have in government, you would think he would hold the national anthem dear to his heart and put his hand over his heart like everyone else on that stage did during the Star-Spangled Banner. Take it as you will.
Don't confuse them with reasoning.
You've given REASONS why you're glad Bush is out and Obama is in.
They don't understand REASON and common sense. It's something scary and foreign to them. So they call it cult worship. This very thinking is something that will get Obama killed, and when it does, each of these morons on this board will have blood on their hands.
Nobody can reason with these people. I'm personally tired of visiting this board and being brought down by all the UN-American posts I see.
I'm interested in having a better life. All visiting this board does is show me enormous ignorance concentrated into one little site. There are other sites where people make sense.
This site is starting to become too toxic and hazardous to my health. I'll check back in a month or so, and if no common decency has returned, then there's no point in my coming back here any more.
Here is my stance and my reasoning
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
Here's my reasoning on stem cell research
It's not been made illegal, it's simply not funded with federal money, i.e. taxpayers money. The pendulum has swung so far to the other side. There are lots of people who have serious objections to abortions and also stem cell research, because of their objection to using live embryos. People who want abortions have them paid for by people who don't believe in them. That's unfair. So, let the private market do the stem cell research and leave the taxpayers out of it. If you feel very strongly about it, donate your own money to those doing it in the private market.
Gotta love the reasoning of these pirates
'Killing our boys was aggression.' I guess you're just supposed to pay them the money and let them keep pirating. Nobody was ever supposed to fight back.
And, as they have threatened to 'deal harshly' with any US or French sailors they capture in the future, is there any reason why now we should not simply hunt down and blast each and every one of them out of the water? None that I can think of. I think they just declared war on us.
You are so right, question everything, it is the blind condemnation and deafness to reasoning that i
nm
you aren't reasoning out issues, you are being downright rude, crude, and nasty. nm
nm
Don't you get it? SP 1st in line. JM=72.
nm
That is really out of line and
comparing Obama to Hitler? Talk about paranoid. There is nothing to suggest Obama is Marxist or Nazi. This is all hate and pot stirring rhetoric. Boy some people just operate on fear and are sour grapes that the majority of the people have spoken and Obama was chosen.
You really should come up with a better line.
No such thing as Bush juice. But I wouldn't expect less from someone on the kool-aid.
That's the only line you took from the speech...sm
But you think Bush who admits that he did drugs - obviously inhaled or sniffed, and was an alcoholic is a living testimony of credibility. Is there a double standard here?
Newsweek on-line
nm
Oh geez. The least you could do is get a new line...
you asked me that same question under a different moniker not long ago. At least get some new material. Geez! And as far as emailing you...not in this lifetime. I did that once...once burned, many time shy. You guys can get pretty hateful on this board, but a sailor could take lessons from you when you are uncensored...LOL Had enough of potty-mail all-tolerant liberals to last me a lifetime. And anybody knows you can have more than one email going to the same place. Geez. Get a new schtick. This one is oldddd.
The bottom line is....
from 1870 to the 1960's the majority of elected Democrats in Congress, with the help of a small minority of southern Republicans, effectively denied African Americans the right to vote for 90 years FOLLOWING the civil war. If you are saying that seeking their freedom and giving them the right to vote is a "liberal" movement, then it was the Republicans in majority, not the Democrats in majority, who were the "liberals" of that time.
In my mind, we are all tied up in semantics. The passion and commitment to something that to each of us is morally right is not liberal nor conservative. It is a human characteristic. None of us, I suppose, are truly liberal or truly conservative. It is a mixture. Some "liberals" agree with me that abortion is morally wrong and are against it for that reason, yet still consider themselves liberals. Some "conservatives" (such as Guiliani) do not agree on abortion and are pro choice, yet still call themselves conservative. I made a comment on the conservative board regarding the fires in California and was accused of sounding like a "bleeding heart liberal." So, in essence, over time people have identified certain characteristics and tried to put them in a liberal or a conservative box. And because we are human, and because we are different and have different ideas, we do not fit into boxes and ideas cross over. Hence, no true liberals or true conservatives....and that fact does not bother me at all, though it does bother some.
It is just that some of us love the labels more than others, I guess; the labels make them feel good, like they are affiliated with something noble...and what the labels mean to us individually, and some get very angry if someone questions the label.
I guess my prefrence is not to be labeled.
And that is what it is...a label, in the grand scheme of things. Because no one can really agree on what it means. Everyone puts their own personal spin on it. That is the nature of the human condition.
The last line of your post is....
So, the "God is telling me I need to fight for all unborn fetuses" is a religious issue and should be there. Tired of seeing line after line after line of religious opinions on the political board.
You also said this: If your trying to make an argument with the "I'm fighting for all the unborn fetus'" and God is telling you this, blah, blah, blah, that's all great but it should be on the "Faith" board.
I never said anything remotely like that. To suggest I did is not true. TO use your own words, I take offense to someone who makes judgments about me without knowing me. You can make judgments about me, but no way should I make any about you?
Generally when something is not true it is a lie. I did not directly call you a liar. However, I apologize for any inference if there was any. How's this? What you said is not true. I never said God told me to do anything. I never said religion was my motivator. You made assumptions about me and you don't know me.
It is not hard to read posts on abortion at all, in caps or not. Just don't click to open it.
You and the others have made your point ad nauseam about how tired you are of it. I am tired of being told what I can post and what I can't, just as tired as you are of seeing abortion threads. And none of the threads would be near as long as they are if "they" ( I won't include you since you say you are not one of them) didn't pile on and bash me. It would just beone lone post. And believe me, as tired as you are of seeing abortion posts I am tired of the endless bashing that goes with them.
Yes, I said if it chaps you so be it, and it obviously does. You are basically saying the same thing to me: stop the abortion posts or take them somewhere else, and if it chaps you, so be it. Okay for you, not okay for me.
And to use your words..enough has been said about it and it is getting old.
Get a new line. That prayer cop-out
nm
Look down the line...sure are a lot from YOU..with no point
other than to bash sam. Pot callin' the kettle wouldn't you say?
Disregard name line.
nm
The name line should read
continue with body of original post.
Bottom line
Obama is going to win, that's what counts.
He must do something right, if the majority wants Barrack Obama.
bottom line...
After the attack of 9/11 something HAD TO BE DONE.
What other options were there?
Doing nothing was sure not an option.
Why is it out of line to say things about
O, yet for years Bush has had some horrible things said about him, Palin was maligned, etc ( I know, I know, you're going to respond by saying the things about Bush and Palin are true..beat ya to it). We have this thing called Free Speech, a wonderful thing, the beauty of the United States. And please don't pull the "racist" card out either, it doesn't fly. This PC, touchy-feely, give peace a chance. can't we all just get along business is grating on the nerves.
That is really out line and distasteful
Very disrespectful to her as a person. I am not going to read your posts anymore because you dont write what I like.
I do not make as much as many per line
but I make a decent amount of money, especially to stay at home. I hear some people whining about how they cannot get more than 10 cpl and think that there might not be so much out sourcing if these folks might be willing to work for less. However, I might take a pay cut if I had to in order to keep my job. It would sure beat forcing my company under and having no pay at all.
Those one-line wonders are just too
are so direct and to the point. Most of us don't have time to write volumes here like some folks! Besides, the questions, or statements, are so simple-minded, it only takes one line to respond.
And then STAND IN LINE for your
You sound awful happy about old Barry. Another welfare millionare in the making, methinks.
That IS the bottom line...
That's the only reason it is being offshored. It has nothing to do with "free trade" and everything to do with corporate greed.
He can say whatever he wants about "line by line" but...sm
O can go through every budget bill, addendum, omnibus, whatever you want to call it line by line. However, until he gets the power of "line item veto, he can take out whatever he wants when he wants, he can veto all he wants until the cows come home. However,
the congress can, by a 2/3 majority, over ride his veto. And guess what??? Pork is still king and earmarks and lobbiests still reign supreme.
Line item veto power is goingto be harder to come by than a choice of a viable 3rd party. But that is JMO.
You obviously just read one line in
my post. I said it cannot be done correctly if it is rushed. They are trying to rush this because it is such a controversial thing. We cannot afford it right now without taxing people more. This is something that needs to be looked at very carefully with the kinks worked out before they go on passing it. Things that are rushed often have a lot of flaws.
The bottom line is....(sm)
Torture does not provide reliable confessions.
Torture has not and will not "save American lives." If it has done anything, it has put more lives at risk.
Waterboarding was used in WWII against US personell by the Japanese. We prosecuted those who used torture and executed them. Why? Because it was against the law. And what did the Japanese get for their efforts with torturing? False information and a bad reputation. What makes you think we'll get anything different from that?
The only thing torture is good for is revenge. That's not what this country is about, and its not what I'm about.
If they had pulled him from a picket line that would be different...sm
He was arrested for wearing a Veterans for Peace T-shirt.
I come from a long line of military. sm
And none of them feel that way. To each his own.
Bottom line, Taiga....
did Murtha or did Murtha not say "The surge is working?" Yes, he did. Why did CBS choose not to print all the disclaimers? You got me, I don't know. As to Murtha adding the disclaimers, he probably suddenly remembered he is going to have to talk to Pelosi come Monday. I don't blame him, I would be backpedaling too. lol.
Okay. This is exhausting. Bottom line...
I did not say Teddy you are a liar. Nor will I. Only you know for sure if you are lying. And you have said ad nauseam you don't care what I think or say, so why do keep protesting so much? Sigh.
What I believe or do not believe does not matter at this point to anyone but me. I vote we stop whipping this dead horse.
Then I expect you to be the first in line for the draft.
Everyone has the right to protect themselves, their beliefs, religion, and country, but it seems that yours takes precedence over everybody elses and you can't seem to bring yourself to that level of understanding.
I don't have a stomach to being lied to and I especially don't stomach flippant remarks about my beliefs, as I have a right to protect them. Hatred is formulated. It has been formulating for years. Love turns to hate. Jealousy turns to hate. Intolerance turns to hate. Just give the right stir, formula 101.
2006 NIE report findings stated the the occupation of Iraq is creating more Islamic radicalism.
"An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official."
Who's wearing the blind fold? Two hates to do make peace or tolerance.
Go on line and read up on the black...
liberation theology, which is central to the teaching of his Trinity church, of which he has been a member for 20 years. Look at the "economic parity" part of it. If you think Hilary has socialist leanings...Barack is way to the left of her on that score. His little lets do a windfall profits tax on oil and take that money and redistribute it in $1000 energy rebates. That, my friend, is socialist to the hilt, redistribution of wealth, taking from those who legally made the money and giving it to those who did nothing to earn it. Extreme socialism. He is already calling for it and doesn't have the job yet.
And yes, I think that kind of thinking and action could destroy America as we know it. America is built on free enterprise, the freedom to be and do what you want to be, through hard work and dedication move up in the world and if you become rich, more power to you! We can't all become rich, but let me tell you, I don't blame the rich for being rich. I am responsible for my own destiny and I do not expect an oil company or Bill Gates or anyone else to share their wealth with me and I sure don't think the government should be taking from them and giving to me. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Also...look into what happened to the US economy when Carter issued a windfall profit tax on oil companies during his administration....BIG mistake. All that will do is discourage domestic production and drilling, and what happens then? INCREASED dependence on foreign oil and prices through the roof.
All Obama is doing is playing that old socialist trick of pandering to the have nots in the world who want to blame the "rich" for everything. By the way, Obama is by no means poor...why doesn't he divy out some of his bucks to the have nots? Put his money where his mouth is so to speak. You know why? Because it is a lot easier to give someone else's money away and keep yours...another typically elitist socialist ideal. We will keep all OUR money, we will just take some of THEIR money and dole it out to the have nots to keep the have nots beholden to us, thus insuring our control over them for the future.
No thanks.
No, hard line Democrats probably won't...
but a lot of those mad Hillary voters probably will. A lot of Republican and conservative women who were on the fence will now fall to the repub side. at least that is my take on it.
It is a good day for America, the republicans, and women. A very good day!
geez. Look at your own time line...
Nagin asked that Bush declare an emergency. Bush declared an emergency. That's all Nagin asked for.
Bush tried to get Blanco to abrigate authority to the feds so they could do what they needed to do. Did you not listen to any of her press conferences where she said she was not going to do that? She was a Democrat, it was a Republican administration,. You do the math. You should at least be fair enough to distribute blame to ALL.
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.
|
