That is so narrow-minded and not true. You are so judgemental (sm)
Posted By: MeMT on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: we love foreigners - hang on a minute
apparently, you are the only non-racist, good person in the United States, aren't you? Take yourself off your pedestal. Many of us are just as kind-hearted and see race as a nonissue as you claim to be. Get off your high horse.
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
Are you that narrow-minded?
Are you so stuck on being "anti-religious" or amti-Christian or whatever that you don't realize everyone that opposes abortion is not a Christian?
Why is it if someone opposes abortion they MUST be Christian. If someone opposes abortion that has no religious beliefs, what do you call them? Maybe they just know murder when they see it?
only the conservative, narrow-minded ones!
nm
That is the MOST narrow-minded post....
I have seen here. Got a mirror handy? :-)
narrow minded? yup that is the O lovers
P.S. - last time someone was called stupid they were banned.
You don't like what I have to say fine. Maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself. No need to be rude - oh wait! Your an O lover. Guess you do feel you have the right to be rude.
As Ben Franklin said, which fits perfectly about your post, .... "Better to keep silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
More like narrow minded people
Without resorting to throwing out some silly retort.
Who says your way is the right way? That is why we live in AMERICA - we are FREE to make our own choices. It is not up to the government to watch your children. That is YOUR job. Their job is to uphold the Constitution OF the people BY the people...lest you forget!
Nor I with the cloistered and narrow-minded.
>>>>
No, I challenge you to show me mean, narrow minded,
shallow, pure hatred from the reps to the dems on this board.
I think you libbies have it won down pat. Same on other boards, not just this one.
And for that matter, show me anywhere, that same degree of "hatred" toward Obama, that is now being shown to Gov. Palin.
I don't mean mere dislike, or spoof of his lack of anything, either. I mean the hatred.
Republicans don't act that way. But if they have, please give me an example, please.
You've got to be kidding! How narrow-minded
nm
Tolerant and non-judgemental my a$$
Could you be any more judgemental, any less compassionate?
You said: "I do not want to TAKE CARE of any more people. He should be preaching get up, get an education, take care of yourselves."
Do you think he should preach 'GET UP" to people flat on their back?
Your mentality is sickening in America - and you are far from alone. PULL yourself up by your own bootstraps and don't whine to me that you don't even own boots!!
UNTIL you walk a mile in the shoes of those who many need a helping hand, dont you dare judge whether or how much we CIVILIZED Americans should assist them.
There but for the Grace of God go you 'my friend' -
IF THIS GOVERNMENT CAN RAP E THE TREASURY TO PAY FOR FAKE WARS, IT CERTAINLY CAN CREATE A SAFETY NET for its most vulnerable citizen. Shame on anyone who says otherwise.
Wow--and you paint me to be the judgemental one?
you seem to have a "my way or the highway" attitude yourself.
That sounds pretty judgemental to me. ;-)
'
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Must have. Guess my scope was too narrow.
Besides that, while comparing one to the other, some folks might make a few distinctions between the 2. Studds was openly gay US federal level politician, a seat he held for 24 years. In 1973 he had a legal, consensual relationship/affair with a 17-year-old minor congressional page (age of consent being 17), Dean T. Hara, who became his partner for life and who he later MARRIED in 2004 Evidently, they had to wait for gay marriage to become legal, or would have married much earlier. Hara had clearly stated "knew exactly what he was doing" when he had the affair with Studds. Since the act was legal, no charges were filed and Studds received a congressional censure for inappropriately engaging in a relationship with a subordinate, after which he was re-elected to 6 consecutive terms. Studds worked consistently for same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and civil rights for gays and lesbians. His behavior was entirely consistent with his politics. Studds was no hypocrite. He died 2 short years after he was finally allowed to marry the love of his life.
Fast forward to the current century. Mark Foley one of the foremost opponents of child porn, worked on behalf of missing and exploited children and worked to outlaw web sites featuring sexually explicit images of preteen children, which he considered as a "fix for pedophiles." He also worked for tougher sex offender laws. Upstanding guy, yes?
Enter the creep factor. Behind the scene, he was sending solicitous e-mails and IMs to former teenage male congressional pages OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. To his credit, I suppose, in at least 2 cases, he waited until after the boys turned 18 and 21 respectively, before having sex with them. He sent 5 emails to a former 16-year-old page in 2004, when among other things he requested the minor send his photo and remarked about the great physical attributes of another underage page to him. He reported this to a senior official and said he had been warned about other female pages who had been "hit on."
In 2002, he invited a 17-year-old over for oral sex, an offer the youth declined. He had asked another for a photo of his erect penis. That guy knew 4 or 5 other pages who had received similar sexually explicit emails. There were at least another half-dozen or so pages who received the sexually explicit IMs.
There's more, but it is pretty sordid and would be quite time-consuming to get into on this forum. Suffice to say that these "advances" were unwanted and unsolicited. They occurred over a decade with so many pages one loses count and were reflective of a pattern of sick, sick behavior. There was the spectre of stalking underpinning the episodes. All of this was occurring while the HYPOCRITE was doing the above described "good works" legislation.
Studds and Foley were both indiscrete, to be sure, but beyond that, there is no real comparison. Call me crazy here, but somehow, I do not see these 2 behaviors as being the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps your narrow world, not mine.
Trying to figure out exactly what a community organizer does (besides having dinner with terrorists, listening to - but never actually hearing - hate speech in church, rallying fraudulent votes, etc.).
Perhaps you could enighten me, o wise one?
It doesn't narrow our view of the world,
it expands it.
Isn't google wonderful? For expanding your narrow scope? sm
I also remember them comparing the two a while back, especially since Studds passed away recently. I guess it does depend on whose imagination you're stretching, doesn't it.
Nice of you to be so graphic about it.
Your views are so narrow. Blind religious fanatacism
Sad.
simple minded? Nah.
Nah, the simple minded and hateful are on the conservative board..you got the wrong board..sorry, sweet cakes..
I am open minded
but I'm also not gullible to anything that floats down the river either.
If you are as open-minded as you say you are
why does a countdown that millions of people are doing, whether its openly on a forum, or under their breath, nauseate you so much? Just like the 10-paragraph diatribe above someone launched in reply to the 2930 post, me thinks you doest protest too much. I mean, really, what is the harm in someone being excited and happy at the idea of a changing of the guard?
Wow, you don't even know me and you have labeled me. How fair-minded of you.
Can you even see how silly you are? Probably not.
You aren't even open-minded enough to think about this...
He has already said he wants to practice redistribution of wealth (tax oil companies and give it back to people who did not earn it). That is Marxist theory. And now we have son of Alinsky high-fiving him in the Boston Globe. I am seeing stuff that I am still confirming that he taught the Alinsky theory. One thing alone, maybe not so alarming...but the preponderance of evidence....the jury is still out, but it does not look good.
comment from your like-minded friend
You know there are some who believe that this is not like the Great Depression, not like the civil war (with the hyperinflation) but actually more like the revolutionary war because of the violations of our constitution. I think it will be very interesting to see how many people will want to preserve it, sacrifice to preserve it, once they realize how threatened it is.
Yes, that is close minded' and 'ignorant'..
Don't you see?
Typical closed-minded, my-way-or-the-highway,
(which means, "Waste of Our Time").
This poster is obviously simple minded and likes to
stir up trouble. Probably has never voted.
I hope you are not that small minded. You may quit your job
any time you like and apply for welfare and see if you get it. Maybe, Bush will let you draw it now.
Actually, I find YOUR post closed-minded
nm
Only the open minded and forward thinking
There isn't anything he can do about narrow-minded, self-righteous divisionists. Obama has won over the educated majority of the entire world.
Great Britain has been so "open minded" they now
have an out of control Muslim population. The neighborhoods have become so violent, the police won't even venture into the neighborhoods! They're trying to run the european contry.... GB is now trying to curtail anymore Muslims from coming into the country and that is why the "black list" started in the first place. I say GOOD FOR THEM! They are sick and tired of others trying to control their govt and people....same thing is happening in this country!
My mistake...I thought you only tolerated like-minded people....
hence Berkeley.
LOL! Ain't that the truth! "Fair minded"..."well-researched"...
I haven't seen one scintilla of anything that could properly be called 'research' in any of Just Terribly Bad Breath's posts.
Question....you tout yourself as open-minded and tolerant....
when are you going to start posting as such? Just curious. Not exactly tolerant and open-minded to make blanket statements about "pubs" when you certainly cannot POSSIBLY know or have talked to every single registered Republican in this country. And how do you know what political affiliation someone is? Do you decide based on how they feel about Barry from Chicago? I myself am registered Independent, and to quote from a post I have seen on this board before but which sums it up...because you have to register as something in this country to vote. I was a Republican once, but they have become Democrats lite. Yes, my politics would be considered conservative. I don't believe the Constitution is a "living" document. I believe is fine as the founders wrote it and not as the ACLU would like it to be re-written. I believe in God. I believe in a free country. I believe in capitalism. I believe in more power at the state level than the federal government level. To name a few. I certainly don't believe in socialism, in making people dependent upon the government for their every need. I believe in hard work as a means to bettering your situation, not handouts from the government paid for on the backs of those willing to work hard. To name just a few. What do YOU believe in besides Barry from Chicago?
Glad to see you are so open-minded and tolerant of diversity, as your party proclaims.
I am not set in my ways, I have embrace some of the liberal notions although not enough to vote that way say far, and welcome INTELLIGENT debate and discussion. And I'm suppose to be from the party of intolerance and racism. I think you should reread some of your posts and see who is intolerant. I don't come here to poke fun at anybody on either side, I come here because I don't get much out of just agreeing with everybody, I like to hear different ideas and to debate the issues. But, I guess I could find another liberal board where some mature people hang out and I might be welcome to do that, instead of just reading stupid childish jokes and laughing with each other.
That's true - and Barack Obama is a true Patriot too.
Again we can agree to disagree. How John McCain has voted goes against everything I want as a President, but there are an equal number of people to me who feel opposite. That's the way it goes.
Your last comment brought to mind how true that is. Being a true patriot is not harmful in a candidate. John McCain is a patriot. So is Barack Obama.
Everything you said is true and can be
easily seen by just reading the board.
At least it can be seen by most of us.
But it IS true.
I saw a feature on it. They had videotapes of the recruiters coaching the kids on how to pass a urine drug screen. It is absolutely true.
I don't think that is true at all. sm
I think a lot of people are pretty sick of Cindy and her histrionics. I don't see it as political at all. A lot of people aren't going to sit by this time for another Vietnam where the antiwar crowd totally influenced the way the war was run.
Not true. sm
They are pro troops and pro Israel. You are definitely not reading that board right. Is it the guns that offend you? Or the war with Islamic radicals who all want us dead? I mean, what EXACTLY offends you the most?
LOL!!! Oh how true! nm
Not true
Re-upped? He joined the military because all his friends did. Read Cindy's description of how he got hoodwinked into going. Re-upped? No.
LOL. I like that...so true...nm
When in doubt, blame Clinton.
the true me
Happy and peaceful but when I deal with rabid conservatives attacking me..I attack back..Happy and peaceful in my life and in my beliefs, you bet, totally..I can sleep well at night cause I know my ideology/politics help people, I help people..I am an extremely happy peaceful accepting person..However, when I get attacked, I can give as good as I get..I do have to say, the net does not show the true person, so I dont see the true you and you dont see the true me..I have met people who I have only known in the net and when we met, we became friends..So I would take with a grain of salt the impression you get of people over the net..we are much more..
So true sm
That clip would be hilarious if it were not so true. It is frightening how true it is.
It's true. SM
I remember Nan talking about it. It was way way back when some of us used to put our e-mails on line here.
This is SO true.nm
nm
True that is.
Lesson good.
Even if that was true (and I don't believe it is), so what?
The one thing the radical right wing HATES is the fact that we have freedom of religion in this country. We are all free (so far, anyway) to believe in whatever religion we choose. It might be Christianity, or it might be something else. Why does it even concern YOU how many Democrats are Christian? It's simply none of your business, yet you want to jump to conclusions that may or may not be true and judge an entire group of people based upon religious beliefs, some of which might be different from yours.
This is my main problem with the radical Christian right. They don't seem to believe that other religions are just as good as theirs. They believe theirs is the best, and anyone who doesn't share their specific religious beliefs are judged to be inferior people. You want to force your narrow views on everyone, and surely you must know that just isn't going to happen in America.
However, if Americans don't wake up soon and if you manage to wreck America and turn it into a theocracy, I can and WILL move to Canada in a heartbeat to escape your religious bigotry. By the way, wasn't that the reason this country was formed to begin with -- to end religious persecution?
I can only wonder why YOU haven't been nominated for Supreme Court justice, since you seem to have the only qualification required by Bush.
Oh, that's right. You're obviously not one of his close personal *friends* who worships him like a god and licks his boots.
Why should she? It's true!
NOT TRUE!
MT was responding to a CHALLENGE to people to put their *money where their mouth is* and if they think this war is so *noble,* then why don't they either enlist or sign up for civilian services over there.
MT said she WILL. NO PROBLEM. SHE WILL.
No spin. They are her words. She didn't say *might* or *would* or *maybe.* She said she WILL.
You're the one who's doing the spinning.
|
