That's because people continue to post on a non-politics issue
Posted By: IMHO on 2009-03-12
In Reply to: It seems that - sjk
I got over her a long time ago. Obama and Biden won. McCain and Palin lost. Doesn't bother me one bit they lost because I didn't vote for them. I was upset the GOP put in such a lame candidate to begin with. But when you post a non-political issue on the political board gloating about the hardships they are going through and are gleeful about it because of the hatred for Sarah Palin, then yes, I will reply and I'll keep replying and will reply in the future. And if any picks on Obama's daughter's either I will reply with a rebuttal and keep replying. These people are not in politics. I followed Obama's advice he gave during the campaign - leave the candidate's family alone. Especially the kids. There is nothing lower that finding happiness in other people's sadness. And the kids did not do anything wrong.
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
This is a place for politics posting and that is the issue important to me...
if you don't like it, again, don't read'em. To quote you, enough already enough already.
Why must you continue to post?
Nah, just someone who cannot imagine why a neocon dinosaur who knows she/he is not wanted or needed on the liberal board would continue to post.
Then idjit, why do you continue to post?
//
politics or people?
http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory
People - take it to the gab board - bf is not in politics
So what he never graduated high school. My dad never graduated high school and he's held jobs his whole life. Raised two kids, nephews. Sacrificed everything for us and I love him for it. He's no less of a person than people who did graduate high school, which some of them are bums!
So what her bf didn't graduate high school. That has nothing to do with politics.
People keep insisting BC issue has been debunked
You really do need a reality check here. Obama "could be" the next president? The electoral college is going to confirm the WAY more than comfortable 192 electoral vote lead he holds over McCain (365 vs 173). I hate to break this to you, but the pubs' October surprise is not going to be a November surprise, December surprise, a 2009 surprise or any other kind of surprise. I have answered your BC ramblings before and will not take any more of my time to try to get this through your thick skull again. Like I said, if I were you I would not hold my breath. Everything else in your post is pure fantasy. I prefer to take my politics with some semblance of substance.
At first I thought these people pushing the b/c issue
were just plain ole MTs with inquiring minds, however, wrong they might be. The poster above who said "put your money where your mouth is" finally got a light bulb to come on in my brain. These people have an agenda, whatevier it may be, but it is NOT the Constitution or they would have trampled Bush a long time ago. I doubt they are MTs. I believe they have an agenda that is way darker than the birth certificate issue and I am going to keep posting to their posts so that hopefully unsuspecting, well-meaning MTs might THINK and see them for what they are.
I think a major issue people ignore...(sm)
is why we are a target of terrorism. US policies towards the middle east thus far have been nothing less than selfish. What US news doesn't tell you about is how these policies actually affect people living there, and more often than not it is devastating. That is where it began.
Granted, regardless of how we got here, we're in the middle of it right now and actions should be taken, but not actions like those that have been taken by the Bush administration. The prisoners at Gitmo are a prime example. They should have tried these people to see if they even needed to be there instead of holding them with no charges and torturing them. The ones who are guilty should have gone through the legal system and suffered the consequences whether it be death or imprisonment.
Here's what I see. We went into Iraq on false pretenses about WMDs. We found that to be false, so the cause was changed to saving the people of Iraq from a dictator -- a brutal dictator at that. We were supposed to be providing them with democracy. So, what do you think the Iraqi people think of us now? Have we killed as many people as Saddam did yet? Have we tortured people just like Saddam did? Yes. So, in their eyes, if this is now democracy, how much better is it than what they started out with?
If we are to set the standard by which other democracies use as a guideline, we need to get it right, and that includes respecting the culture, religion and social norms of other countries instead of trying to make them into something they are not.
I think a major issue people ignore...(sm)
is why we are a target of terrorism. US policies towards the middle east thus far have been nothing less than selfish. What US news doesn't tell you about is how these policies actually affect people living there, and more often than not it is devastating. That is where it began.
Granted, regardless of how we got here, we're in the middle of it right now and actions should be taken, but not actions like those that have been taken by the Bush administration. The prisoners at Gitmo are a prime example. They should have tried these people to see if they even needed to be there instead of holding them with no charges and torturing them. The ones who are guilty should have gone through the legal system and suffered the consequences whether it be death or imprisonment.
Here's what I see. We went into Iraq on false pretenses about WMDs. We found that to be false, so the cause was changed to saving the people of Iraq from a dictator -- a brutal dictator at that. We were supposed to be providing them with democracy. So, what do you think the Iraqi people think of us now? Have we killed as many people as Saddam did yet? Have we tortured people just like Saddam did? Yes. So, in their eyes, if this is now democracy, how much better is it than what they started out with?
If we are to set the standard by which other democracies use as a guideline, we need to get it right, and that includes respecting the culture, religion and social norms of other countries instead of trying to make them into something they are not.
Another note: You are saying that terror should be met with like force. So, should Bush be waterboarded?
Where are the politics in this post?
nm
So the post really is about Sam and nothing about politics?
Your post about MTs and politics
This is no different than other post. If you don't like it, perhaps you should go elsewhere.
Did you ever wonder why most Democrats in politics don't embrace people like Phil.
or should I cally him Phillie. There are some far leftist Democrats that no Democrat worth their salt wants to be hooked up with. Phil is one of them. He has a long list of hates, some of which include cops. He hates them. If you remember his shows from eons ago, he had several shows about them. No politician worth his salt has someone like that on his ticket. Think about it. When was the last time you saw Phil with a politician?
I have yet to see you post a liberal issue...
unless Bush bashing is a liberal issue.
She was in state politics at the time, not national politics......
how much foreign policy experience did Bill have when he went to the presidency having only been a governor? The same as Sarah Palin. Because he was concentrating on his job...the state of Arkansas (and Paula Jones and what was that stripper's name?). Sarah Palin was concentrating on the state of Alaska.
Good grief. lol. Why don't you poll all the governors in all the states in the union and ask them how much they think about foreign policy?
I know more than you! Some people post under sm..s/m
And you posted under 'm'.
I know that sm means see message and NM means no message.
Why do you then enter 'sm.. m'....this is very confusing.
Pick another posted-by name and STICK TO IT.
So that you can be identified by other posters.
Coward.
It is very inappropriate when posters just jump into the middle of a thread with an answer, out of context, not knowing what was going on from the beginning.
People just putting their nose into everything.
YOU NEED SOME REST!
For the post below......Why do you people always have
As I said, I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears who have no relationship with God.......
but without God in EVERYTHING, you're up crap creek without a paddle deary....
My question to you is why not bring God into it? What gives you the right to say God shouldn't be brought into every aspect of our lives.....just because you have no relationship with God doesn't mean we all feel the way you do.
By pushing God aside, it generally gives those who want to justify their causes the lack of conscience in order to push their agendas. BTW..... it's not necessary to put parenthesis around God; for most of us God is God......doesn't require your description as if it's a bad thing.
For the post below......Why do you people always have
As I said, I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears who have no relationship with God.......
but without God in EVERYTHING, you're up crap creek without a paddle deary....
My question to you is why not bring God into it? What gives you the right to say God shouldn't be brought into every aspect of our lives.....just because you have no relationship with God doesn't mean we all feel the way you do.
By pushing God aside, it generally gives those who want to justify their causes the lack of conscience in order to push their agendas. BTW..... it's not necessary to put parenthesis around God; for most of us God is God......doesn't require your description as if it's a bad thing.
For the post below......Why do you people always have
As I said, I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears who have no relationship with God.......
but without God in EVERYTHING, you're up crap creek without a paddle deary....
My question to you is why not bring God into it? What gives you the right to say God shouldn't be brought into every aspect of our lives.....just because you have no relationship with God doesn't mean we all feel the way you do.
By pushing God aside, it generally gives those who want to justify their causes the lack of conscience in order to push their agendas. BTW..... it's not necessary to put parenthesis around God; for most of us God is God......doesn't require your description as if it's a bad thing.
And you tell the people here when and where to post?
Are you the moderator?
Lurker, 3/4 of the people who post here leave no name. That is nothing new.
Ok....then don't attack when people post things about...
Barack Obama. He put himself in that position, to be put under a microscope...using your logic. Since it doesn't matter to you whether what is posted about Palin is true or not, you should not get all up in arms when someone posts something about Obama. But of course, that would indicate you had a sense of fairness, wouldn't it?
What is wrong with you people. Post, ignore,
nm
My post ' I defend all innocent people' was a reply to the
question
'Do you also defend the innocent people in our local prisons because I'm sure that there are a few in there who are actually innocent..'
No issue is no issue. Denying that
nm
Just today....and theboard is dominated by people piling on me every time I post.
What you don't like is anyone who disagrees with you. Sounds a whole lot more like Nazism than American democracy. But I don't suppose a socialist party would recognize that.
It may continue until........sm
about 3-1/2 years before the end of time.
Your refusal to pull your head out of the sand, in my opinion, regarding what will happen makes any further discussion of this issue futile. Hope the sand protects your little head when all heck breaks loose.
why do we have to continue with what others before
did wrong?
Tit-for-tat and 2 wrongs doesn't make anything right.
Obama is a very promising and respectable 44th President of the United States of America and if you do not see that, I feel very sorry for you.
and yet you continue...
to slander everyone on this board who doesn't agree with you.
I will continue to care for the little guy
Well, you go ahead and defend big corporations and the rich..frankly, they could not care about you one bit. I will continue to care for the middle class, the poor, the disadvantaged.
go ahead...continue...
....being rude.
Life's too short to be so full of hate, directed at every member of the opposite viewpoint.
But as you say, the silence is deafening....maybe you need a hearing aid??
Big 3 talks continue....... sm
According to the article linked below and others I have read, the two of the three auto makers who will be receiving these emergency loans will be required to either show a viable plan for their industries by March 31, 2009, or face repayment of the loans. While I agree with the premise of this requirement, I have to wonder if, given the amount of time that it took them to get into this situation in the first place, will 3 months, more or less, be enough time for them to find a way to save their dying companies? Is this bailout/loan just a temporary fix to a more permanent problem? What happens, if on 03/31/2009, the automakers have spent the money fronted them, are unable to come up with a plan to satisfy the stipulations, and can not repay the loan? Is it fair for taxpayers to bear the burden of this as well as the other bailouts that have been given and are likely yet to come?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/business/11auto.html?ref=us
Not what I said. Just wondering why we continue getting
and not a single person can stop and show a bit more humanity....that's all.
And I suppose you would rather we continue...(sm)
to run that torture chamber in Guantanamo. Yeah, that would be the one where they can hold supposed SUSPECTS for how long without trial? Maybe you should rent the documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side."
Not that I feel I need to continue.... sm
this seemingly endless and mindless banter, but rather to just satisfy your apparent thirst for blood, I went back and looked to see what I had posted that I felt the need to apologize for. Here is the post that I made to abc that sent her off into a tizzy about it being her body and her embryo, etc.
""And I prefer an abortion to giving up my baby for adoption. I would not be able to sleep a single night, having given my baby to strangers." (Note: This was a quote from abc that I was addressing. )
But you could sleep knowing that you took your baby's life? I am not trying to criticize but simply trying to understand this line of reasoning. " (This was my answer to her quote.)
Now..... go cool off! 
Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
Why do you continue to ask "where" when you have
=>
Obama will continue to act like he did regarding
nm
and the personal attacks continue
Go ahead continue to talk about which you know nothing about
Go ahead, then, continue to talk about what you know nothing about other than news reports and slanted history books and we, who truly know a bit more about jewish issues and Israel will sit back and continue to smile and, of course, like I said in my previous post, there are always courses in the local synagogue that you can take. Join a jewish discussion group either in the net or in your home town, that is if your home town even has a jew in it, and learn the truth. Not what is being put out there by radical orthodox jews. Those are the ones that you see fighting in Israel to stay in Gaza. The radical orthodox jews. Sharon, as much as I dont like him, is right in what he has decided. It is unfortunate but it is just and right.
The gullible continue to hit themselves with hammers.
It's really amazing to see. In the first place, Bush's tax cuts mainly affected investment income. Do you think the ultra wealthy 1% do 9 to 5 at Burger King and report their wages like the rest of us working slobs? Please. They don't have wages and so, do not even contribute to the Social Security coffers (though that doesn't stop them from accepting huge chunks of OUR hard-earned money in Bush free for all tax refund giveaways). Bush took OUR money and gave it to his friends - and himself, by the way.
But here's the real story without the skewed numbers (excerpt):
Grossly Unfair: Evaluating the Bush Proposal
By Ron Sider, President
Evangelicals for Social Action
It is true that the wealthy pay a lot more taxes than others. But even though the Treasury Department reports that the top one percent pay only 20 percent of all federal taxes, Bush wants to give them 40 percent of the tax cut. The bottom 40 percent get only four percent of Bush’s tax cut—i.e., about 1/9 of what the richest one percent receive. The bottom 80 percent receive only 29 percent.
The more closely you look at what has been happening in the last few decades, the more outrageous this 40 percent tax cut for the richest one percent appears. The income of the top one percent has grown vastly more that the rest of the population. From 1989 to 1998, the after-tax income of the bottom 90 percent grew by only five percent, but the richest one percent enjoyed a 40 percent jump. That means the income of the top one percent grew eight times faster than the bottom 90 percent. (That explosion of after-tax income happened even though President Clinton and Congress raised the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent in 1993—a small tax increase that apparently did not discourage investment, harm the economy or prevent the richest from significantly widening the gap between themselves and everybody else.) Furthermore, the total effect of changes in the tax laws between 1977 and 1998 has already lowered the federal tax payments of the top 17 percent of families by over 14 percent ($36,710) whereas the bottom 80 percent of families saw their average tax payments fall by just 6.9 percent ($335).
It gets still worse. President Bush says his plan is fair because it lowers the tax rates for everyone. In fact, the poorest 31.5 percent of all families do not get a cent from Bush’s proposal (even though 80 percent of them are working) because their incomes are so low they do not pay any federal income taxes. (They do pay substantial payroll taxes, but the tax cut does not change that.) More than half of all black and Latino children are in families that would not benefit a cent from this plan.
Abolishing the estate tax is also wrong. Of course it needs to be revised so that children can inherit family farms and small businesses (that would cost only a fraction of what abolishing it will cost). When fully implemented in 2010, the repeal of the estate tax would provide a mere 64,000 estates with a tax cut of $55 billion—which is the same amount that the poorest 74 percent of all U.S. families (192 million people) would receive in tax cuts.
Abolishing the estate tax is misguided for several reasons. It would discourage charitable giving and thus undermine civil society. Wealthy individuals today can avoid estate taxes on wealth they give to charitable organizations. Consequently, abolishing the estate tax would almost certainly reduce charitable giving to a vast array of private agencies., including precisely the private, non-profit social service agencies in civil society that President Bush (wisely) wants to strengthen and expand. His proposal on the estate tax fundamentally contradicts his desire to expand the role of civil society in general and FBOs in particular in combating poverty—which is why John Dilulio, the head of Bush’s new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, recently criticized abolishing the estate tax. Fortunately, some of the wealthiest Americans (including Bill Gates’ father) have launched a campaign to preserve the estate tax!
The whole article can be read at www.christianethics.com, issue 35.
Don't let anybody be misled by the sneaky claim that the rich pay oh so much more of the tax burden than you do. Say you make 30,000 and you pay 20% of your wages in taxes - 6000. Along comes rich guy who makes no wages but has to pay 20% of his 3 million investment income in taxes - he would pay 600,000.
Oh my God!!! The rich guy has just paid 600,000 and you only paid 6000! He paid 100 TIMES what you did!! Oh the poor, poor overburdened rich guy! That's how they devise their 80-90% figures. Never mind about fair share, never mind that you are paying taxes on wages that would otherwise go to rent and food and utility costs, while they are paying taxes on free money they get just for having huge sums of money invested wisely, as the rich certainly know how to do. And why shouldn't they? But let's not pretend they need that money for food or shelter. Let's not pretend that they should be in any way exempt from contributing a fair share to the system that makes their happy lifestyles possible.
Before you continue with your generalization rampage
William Bennett's remarks are definitely NOT representative of conservative views as a whole. However, you and GT's comments do nothing...absolutely nothing but make the division between political views that much worse. If you and your ideology truly want unity and peace you would do the cause much good by not adding gasoline to an already bad bonfire.
Your comments cause as much harm to race/political relations as what Bennett said himself.
No. You won't leave. You'll continue on.
Not unlike Bush, who wants to have world domination, you want to dominate all boards here.
Accidents are exused. There's no reason on earth to excuse you.
I don't think it serves any purpose to continue this. sm
Suffice it to say, I can't imagine how I would feel were I in his shoes. Israel is facing some pretty terrible prospects in the days ahead. Anyway, I'd say it's time to let it drop. It's funny, as I am posting this, I see over to the side on the right under the ads by Google, Christian Jewish tours. I have always wanted to go. I have friends who have gone with their churches. I may never get the chance.
You continue to prove my point. (nm)
nm
oh yea, continue the horrors for the victim
Yes, make sure the mother has the baby of the person that raped her. Make sure she goes on for nine months every minute of the day remembering the horrible incident. A lot of rape victims want to commit suicide. Luckily most of them are able to get through it with counseling but most of them don't have a belly to show. But hey, let that belly get bigger. Let her feel the child of the person that committed the horendous crime and violated her body. Make sure she remembers that. Geez - why not just frame the rapists photo so she can see his picture every day. Then the cherry on the cake will be the actual birth when she can once again see the rapist once her baby is born.
And then we have the wonderful knowledge that a lot of times these tendencies are hereditary (not always but a lot of times). Would you want to raise a rapists child knowing that when he/she becomes an adult the likelihood of them committing the same crime against someone else is there.
Oh yes that's a nice 20-year sentance for the victim.
Good. Let the games continue. nm
nm
While you continue to preach to the choir
su
you continue to minimize the gravity of this...
situation. This is not your normal "crisis" for the love of Pete. Whatever McCain has done on deregulation, and I already said he had been for it, when push came to shove, when this looming disaster was foreseen, it was HE who foresaw it, and it was Obama, Dodd, and Frank who ignored everyone, and not only that, ENCOURAGED them to continue the way they were going.
THAT is the point, THAT is what you ignore, and because ou are so enamoured of Barack Obama you do not hold his feet to the fire for his part in this, nor the Democratic party for this.
In THIS issue, NO. The Republicans did NOT have a part in it. They all voted, every single ONE Of them, to push that legislation forward. All the Democrats, eVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, voted not to. That includes Obama and Biden.
Why on EARTH would you trust him as President? I just don't get it.
I'd rather leap into the unknown, than continue
Republican government. We all KNOW we'll lose our shirts with them. It'll be 'business as usual' with those old fossils. At least with some new blood in office, some of us (who AREN'T corporate CEO's) will stand half a snowball's chance in H___ of survival in the future.
Unlike past elections, which I voted in on ideals alone, this one is different. Lots of us are voting SURVIVAL.
For those that want to continue to live in the dark
I do not care to do that. As a democrat, I have watched this man whom so many think will be their saving grace. This man was raised Muslim, is Muslim through and through, and only went Christian on us after he came here and started attending Rev Wright's church.
He is very careful about skirting around questions posed to him. He has never been able to prove US citizenship...refuses to put forth a legitimate birth certificate proving it, and is now facing a suit to hopefully force him to prove just that. I am not so easily led as some O lovers.
I have a close friend in Atlanta, GA, who is an aware winning journalist. This is where one of the most recent honor killings took place. As all campaigns are questioned when something important surfaces, they want to know how the candidate feels about certain things. Well, knowing Obama is Muslim by birth and upbringing, this question was posed out of Georgia to his camp, who would not give a straight answer. They refused to let Obama speak to this. They went round and round the question, but wouldn't even come out and say he would condemn such things. Not even a condemnation of these acts.
Just not easily led about this man.
|
