Taking it to a new level meaning posting a whole new thread
Posted By: trying to get people to respond on 2009-01-18
In Reply to: If your not getting responses - see message
I still say no response is the best response.
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
I'm taking my response to a new thread
nm
Why are you taking drugs and then posting on this board?
Your mind seems jumbled and confused. Remember this one?
Antiwar Protestors Feed Muslim Murderers.
There are too many others to cut and paste. They are slanderous and at times shocking. They fuel intolerance and negative stereotypes. We have some of the same on this board, but cannot even begin to approach what is posted on the CON board. Not all of this scum journalism passing for the truth that is posted on the CON board is even commented on by the libs.
You don't play fair, you don't tell the truth. You are only making these ridiculous and moronic claims in order to get a flame going. I am going to ignore you and hope others will, too. (It's a hard thing to do when someone is posting such nonsense).
Meaning what?
is this a veiled suggestion I move to France?
If so, I got a hot news bulletin for ya, pal: THE FRENCH WERE RIGHT!
Vive la France!
The meaning -
the woman said it was the shadow of death behind Obama...
Is there a meaning in there somewhere? nm
nm
I said *over there* meaning the C board
and you all definitely need to grow some skin. We we question you about ANYTHING you accuse us of stalking and attacking. We are talking with adult liberals over there (the C-board) who understand that true debate is about giving opposite opinions and hashing things out.. a concept which is evidently lost on most of you here.
*The bill is about when and not now, meaning NOW* HUH??
Then let's get out of there and let them control their government. Let's take off the *training wheels* (like Murtha has been saying) and let them learn to ride their *bike* while we observe from the periphery, there if they need us to *catch* them. As long as we are there doing it for them, they will never do it on their own. And by agreeing to amnesty, we're publicly telling the world that the lives of our soldiers aren't important, regardless of how you try to spin it.
And, yes, the media is eerily silent about this. The last article I read last week indicated that the Iraqi Prime Minister was AGAINST amnesty for anyone who kills an IRAQI but was in FAVOR of amnesty for anyone who kills AMERICANS. What a wonderful plan. 
There is more than one meaning for jihad...nm
I didn't come away with that meaning......sm
I read it to mean that if a woman wants an abortion and goes to a doctor or hospital to have it performed, the doctor or hospital cannot not refuse to perform it based on their own religious beliefs.
Very hypocritical, if you ask me (and not direted at you in particular), to say "keep the government out of my uterus because I can do with my body what I want" and then demand a doctor who does not believe in abortion to perform an abortion on you, in essence dragging him into your uterus where he does not want to be doing something he does not want to do.
If this is truly the meaning of the whole thing
fine. I could never have an abortion because I personally believe it is wrong. However, if people are bound and determined to terminate their pregnancy, I'd much rather it be done by a professional instead of these girls having babies in bathrooms and throwing them away, going to some whack job who does permanent damage or have some girl take poisonous things into their body to try and get rid of the pregnancy.
There are pros and cons to abortion whether people want to see it or not. Abortion will not be stopped and so I have to look at it like population control and just go on about my business.
Unfortunately, to get to that level he'd have to
Hee
On one level, it's rather
Think about it. Here we have Evans, Editor of Newsweek and one who is in the vanguard of elitist agnosticism (remember "The Decline and Fall of Christian America"?) who seems to acknowledge, at least tacitly, the need for some sort of God to mediate and reconcile the nations.
So far, Evans has only managed to stagger toward a rather pitiful concept of God in the form of a being as miserably inadequate as Obama, but perhaps there's hope that he'll mature to an adult notion of God, which is a bit more sophisticated.
I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM
*No more of a radical than Jesus* IS a comparison.
True meaning of Christmas...sm
I have been watching the discussion on the conservative board about Christmas, it's origin and how it is celebrated. While there are a lot of charitable things that go on during the holiday season that are commendable, like Toys for Tots and food drives, I think it is sad how materialistic this season is. If you have kids it is hard to explain to them why one of their classmates got a Playstation 3 (600 dollars), games for the PS3 (200 dollars), laptop (1300 dollars), namebrand shoes and clothes (500 dollars), jewelry (200 dollars), etc, etc, when you can not, or have better sense than to spoil your child (and finances) like this.
My children know the value of a dollar. They also know that this season is about the birth of Christ, the spirit of giving, whether that be love or gifts.
I said all of that to ask this question. Do you think the majority of people who celebrate Christmas know the true meaning of Christmas or are they caught up in the hype of the latest best technology, the best decorations, the most expensive tree?
"present", meaning he showed up, but could not
nm
Hate to say it, but they aren't well-meaning at all s/m
They're blatantly peddling socialism..."spreading the wealth around?" So if you make more than I do, Obtama will take from you & give some to me. How can people NOT see this?
As far asa I'm concerned, these Obama fanatics can move to Canada, Cuba, etc. Look how well that's workin' for them.
Some believe O stated 57 states meaning
x
I'm not understanding the meaning of your post
Actually it almost sounds like something Hemmingway would write. HA HA. Anyway...just confused by the post. Are you talking about the record breaking snowfalls and bone chilling cold spells all over the world (oh so not global warming), or are you refering to the incoming president, and the last part of the post just lost me. Please explain.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Do you understand the meaning of the word...(sm)
racisim? Dictionaries are printed for a reason.
Kruschev said they (meaning, their philosophy) would take us over from within.
One only has to imagine: Would Kruschev be laughing or crying over the direction the current administration is taking?
Not a tough question to answer, so there's no prize offered.
What's different is that on a state level in CA,
in the form of ballot measures, ballot initiatives, propositions or referendums. They can be heard in the California Supreme Court on any or all of these bases and are entitled to seek relief.
Just above your level of showing your
stupidity for trying so hard to appear to be intelligent.
The real meaning of happy holidays.
Ever since I can remember, and I am 50, everyone said Merry Christmas AND/OR Happy Holidays and no one gave a flip either way. However, in my youthful naivete, little did I realize what happy holidays REALLY means. It is a code. It means that anyone who says it is really saying, I want to take Christ out of Christmas, and by the way, I hate America and I want the communists/terrorists to win. So if you hear someone say happy holidays and the other person answers back happy holidays you know you have 2 people of interest who require, at the very least, a wiretap or two and surveillance for an indeterminate amount of time. They should be reported immediately to the FBI. Happy Holidays is a serious threat and a Code Orange.
God save us from well-meaning people as my mother
.
One would have to have a certain level of intelligence to be bored. sm
You are the weakest link. Buh-bye now. 
Thank you so much for your concern about my energy level.
That just shows the level of insensitivity....
this is an anonymous posting board. You people have posted nastiness about someone and named them. Dailykrap posted it where the entire nation can look at it. You have invaded the privacy of a 16-year-old girl who has done nothing to deserve it and made her public fodder. Perhaps you are proud of that. I cannot imagine that you would be, yet you attack me and support those who would do such a thing. Amazing.
That's the only level pubs will react to.
Put your money where your mouth is. You want real issues. Just post a request for a list and let's get started.
How can you retain something at 2009 level....
when it is 2008?
With the economy the way it is, he CANNOT implement his health care plan. If he does, the fragile economy will tank. I am not an economist and I have sense enough to know that.
The estate tax is the most unfair tax ever levied. All that money has been taxed already, and they want to tax it again just because someone dies. It should be repealed. That is not a Republican or democrat thing. It is just wrong.
Think about this...when the stock market lost 700 points that day...many of the americans earning more than $250,000 lost a ton of money. And he is NOW going to roll back tax cuts for them? Is he so naive or want to get elected SO bad that he does not understand that most of the small businesses in this country fall in that category? And moderate-sized businesses? Who do you think are the employers in this country? Can he not see that will result in businesses closing or downsizing or offshoring just to SURVIVE?
I guess he doesn't. And that means he SHOULD NOT be President.
Also enjoys one-on-one ground-level
Wonder if she follows indigenous rule and only slays what she can eat? Not likely, considering her affinity for guns. What a gal, what a gal!
You don't need to attack me on a personal level... sm
by calling names.
I looked at your supporting web site and find that it is a Democratic web site, so I automatically discard it as biased.
I still am seeking an answer for my original question. What has changed? His mind, in my estimation, is not a suitable answer as that does not address the FACT that he himself stated that he did not feel he was qualified to run for POTUS.
By the same token, if he can "change his mind" on an issue as important as being qualified for POTUS, what is to keep him from changing his mind on all the promises and pipedreams he was selling while he was running. Oh wait....I think that is already happening. He is already stating that he cannot fulfill all his promises and he is not even in office yet.
If he is the "best" that this country has to offer, we're in worse shape than I thought we were.
They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.
Starting at the community level......... sm
is a great thing to do and I am proud of you for the work you do. I have read here before some of the things you are involved in, and you are making a difference in your community. I'll be right here, ready and willing! LOL
You sank to their level but beyond, and continue to do so.
I give up.
The playing field has never been more level!
Thanks to affirmative action, white heterosexual males cannot get jobs especially when competing with a person classified as a minority. Mintorities get college scholarships and acceptance into good schools so universities can meet their quota. It's ridiculous! There is a black man in the White House --- I think affirmative action has done its job!
It's time for everyone, no matter their race, be treated equally. The best PERSON for the job should get the job. The best student with the best transcipts should get the admission letter and scholarship. There shouldn't be quotas to fill. NOBODY should get preferential treatment anymore!
Good for you....don't stoop to that level!!
x
Plus - does the Republican party understand the meaning of MAVERICK?
Agree with you - what did they expect with her zero experience (in foreign policy) AND the fact that she's under investigation?
Re: maverick. There are subtle variations of this word like "eccentric" that could apply to just about anyone, but the central meaning is 'nonconformist'
When you look at someone who has VOTED WITH GEORGE BUSH 90% OF THE time, where do you see 'nonconformist'?
And this from a man who was hammered by Bush when they went toe to toe. Please sir can I have another?
I see REPACKAGED MATERIAL, not 'maverick.'
That said, I have TONS of respect for his POW experience - all the MORE reason for him to NEVER ALLOW AMERICA TO ENGAGE IN WARS BASED ON LIES!!!
What's nonconformist about his support for our current fake war?
He should under the banner of HYPOCRITE, not maverick.
Meaning, I read and try to find informative sites
xx
Oh gt, one would have to go a long way to reach YOUR level of hatred. nm
The level of maturity in producing that clip
is just astonishing!
You sound like one of the more level headed posters here
I'm glad you don't hate him. Disagreeing with his viewpoints and policies is one thing, but I'm reading a lot of posts and you can tell a lot of people really hate him. I don't agree with some of his issues. I don't agree with some of McCain's issues. I think your also one of the first posters who said anything good about McCain. What just really worries me about McCain is his attitude, his mean temper, and his readiness to send us to war anywhere.
Oh, I think I may have not quite said it right in my original post. I wasn't blaming oil companies and CEOs for the mess we are in, I was stating (or trying to state) that they are the ones who decide who our next president will be (that and you know that secret group that meets every year "behind closed doors"). I still have very high doubts that the "people" pic our president (but I could be wrong of course).
Take a good look at your level headed poster...nm
000000
On a level playing field that would be correct...
this is not a level playing field. I don't see her encouraging Obama to do town hall meetings with McCain...and after 18 months running for the #1 seat, he just this past month sat down with someone who was not in the tank for his candidacy. You really don't see how lopsided this is? Obama being inteviewed by the lambs and the left wanting to feed her to the wolves.
Mocking SP delivers the message on a level
respond well to colloquial discourse and positively bristle at the introduction of serious dialog on those doggone pesky issues.
It just seems to me to be wrong on a basic moral level....
Christianity aside...that the power of life and death be given to one individual over another. Any OTHER time than abortion that is murder, not negotiable. Yet for the most innocent among us, the most vulnerable, in the eyes of some it is fine for one human being to decide to terminate the life of another on the basis of choice...and inconvenience.
I do not believe Obama sits around and thinks about how many babies will die every day (to the tune of over a million a year...!). I don't think he thinks about it much at all. How lucky for him his mother chose life.
There are also those more level-headed Obama opponents
the "country first" message of the McCain campaign and who realize how dangerously destructive this divisive rhetoric can be. They have shown the courage and wisdom to embrace the outcome of the election and made the decision to MOVE FORWARD along with the rest of us. That would account for the additional support reflected in the 75%.
A 9-letter word meaning "Thinking 'Everyone's out to get me'" 'Paranoiac.'? Nop
The security aid package the United States has refused to give Israel for the past few months out of concern that Israel would use it to attack nuclear facilities in Iran included a large number of “bunker-buster” bombs, permission to use an air corridor to Iran, an advanced technological system and refueling planes.
Officials from both countries have been discussing the Israeli requests over the past few months. Their rejection would make it very difficult for Israel to attack Iran, if such a decision is made.
About a month ago, Haaretz reported that the Bush administration had turned down an Israeli request for certain security items that could upgrade Israel’s capability to attack Iran. The U.S. administration reportedly saw the request as a sign preparations were moving ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran.
Advertisement
Diplomatic and security sources indicated to Haaretz that the list of components Israel included:
Bunker-buster GBU-28 bombs: In 2005, the U.S. said it was supplying these bombs to Israel. In August 2006, The New York Times reported that the U.S. had expedited the dispatch of additional bombs at the height of the Second Lebanon War. The bombs, which weigh 2.2 tons each, can penetrate six meters of reinforced concrete. Israel appears to have asked for a relatively large number of additional bunker-busters, and was turned down.
Air-space authorization: An attack on Iran would apparently require passage through Iraqi air space. For this to occur, an air corridor would be needed that Israeli fighter jets could cross without being targeted by American planes or anti-aircraft missiles. The Americans also turned down this request. According to one account, to avoid the issue, the Americans told the Israelis to ask Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for permission, along the lines of “If you want, coordinate with him.”
Refueling planes. An air attack on Iran would require refueling of fighter jets on the way back. According to a report on Channel 10 a few weeks ago, the U.S. rejected an Israeli request for more advanced refueling tankers, of the Boeing 767 model.
The refueling craft the Israel Air Force now uses are very outmoded, something that make it difficult to operate at long distances from Israel. Even if the Americans were to respond favorably to such a request, the process could take a few years.
The IDF recently reported that it is overhauling a Boeing 707 that previously served as the prime minister’s plane to serve as a refueling aircraft.
Advanced technological systems. The Israeli sources declined to give any details on this point.
The Israeli requests were discussed during President George W. Bush’s visit to Israel in May, as well as during Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s visit to Washington in July. In a series of meetings at a very senior level, following Bush’s visit, the Americans made clear to the Israelis that for now they are sticking to the diplomatic option to halt the Iranian nuclear project and that Jerusalem does not have a green light from Washington for an attack on Iran.
However, it appears that in compensation for turning down Israel’s “offensive” requests, the U.S. has agreed to strengthen its defensive systems.
During the Barak visit, it was agreed that an advanced U.S. radar system would be stationed in the Negev, and the order to send it was made at that time. The system would double to 2,000 kilometers the range of identification of missiles launched from the direction of Iran, and would be connected to an American early warning system.
The system is to be operated by American civilians as well as two American soldiers. This would be the first permanent U.S. force on Israeli soil.
A senior security official said the Americans were preparing “with the greatest speed” to make good on their promise, and the systems could be installed within a month.
The Israeli security source said he believed Washington was moving ahead quickly on the request because it considered it very important to restrain Israel at this time.
At the beginning of the year, the Israeli leadership still considered it a reasonable possibility that Bush would decide to attack Iran before the end of his term.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in private discussions, even raised the possibility that the U.S. was considering an attack in the transition period between the election in November and the inauguration of the new president in January 2009.
However, Jerusalem now assumes that likelihood of this possibility is close to nil, and that Bush will use the rest of his time in office to strengthen what he defines as the Iraqi achievement, following the relative success of American efforts there over the past year and a half.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019989.html
Hmmm...Gives new meaning to "He's an empty suit", doesn't it?
x
You sound a lot more clear and level headed than most on this board...
even in your drug-induced state! Feel better soon!
JTBB - If you find a higher-level forum where
intellect is respected and informed debate is possible, please post that info a time or 2. I'm looking for a spot like that myself and this sure ain't it.
|
