Umm.... I think you just proved her point.
Posted By: what mean-spiritedness. on 2009-01-24
In Reply to: Actually, I find YOUR post closed-minded - and hypocritical. You are too blind to see it.nm
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You proved your point to yourself.
I was responding to the he original statement about white reaching minority status by 2042. I was not trying to discuss immigration policy. I stated my opinion and put out some objective facts. I'm am not overlooking the word "illegals"…just refusing to engage in myopic nationalism. Facts are facts. Whites will be outnumbered. I think it's a good thing. You don't. I don't find their presence in the country particularly disturbing. I understand the political forces at play in this issue to my own satisfaction. Personally, I think it has been a long time coming and it has arrived for reasons much more complex than the anti-immigration cult dogma found on this forum. I am very much at peace with the idea. You're not. So sue me.
You proved my point
he can't do both. You're too old, Go home.
Thank you! You just proved the point with the
voting present. That is basically what it means in the Il. state when you vote the present.
You proved my point.
xx
You just proved my point.
I love it when people are too cowardly to give themselves a name and, instead, hide under the "nm" moniker.
You're right.
You have absolutely NO MESSAGE.
Pfffffft.
Yup, you proved my point
Guess I should have expected nothing less than a juvenile reply.
Don't know who "Sue Ann" is. But then again I expected nothing more than in incoherent reply and that didn't surprise me either.
Have a good one, I've heard Obama is planning to pass out lots of Kool-aid at the coronation (oh I mean innaugeration). Don't forget to get in line. Oh yes, and it's free (or so he say's, you'll just be taxed for it later).
Actually, you just proved her/his point.
I just stated the facts. You were the one who stooped to personal attacks. Nice going right back at you!
your post proved my point
My post has turned out to be a right winger nothing to attack GT fall back on that post thingy, LOL, so funny. I love it. Anway, isnt hell and burning in hell where xtians say we all go when we commit crimes, break the ten commandments? Well, that is what I wish for this administration and Bush and his family. It is obvious that is where they are headed when standing in judgment for this war. But, hey, I get it, the old right wingy thingy, do as I say, not as I do. The xtians can spout all the time about burning in hell but if a liberal says it, oopphhss..the worst thing in the world. Right winger, Coulter can say liberals ought to be shot and publish plagerized books full of lies, but hey, she is a right winger, its okay, right winger, Robertson, can call for the assassination of a duly elected leader, but hey, he is a right winger, its okay. Right wingers equals a bunch of hypocrites... Anyway, your post to me proves my point of attacking and ranting and raving from the right wing. *BIG HUG to ya*.
You have just proved the point I made below
While I don't agree with your opinion 100 percent at least you can talk to us without making anything we say personal, A.W. and Carla cannot.
I'll agree that some had a visceral hatred of Clinton. I never did personally. I didn't vote for him, did not think he was a good president, but I didn't walk around everyday blaming everything bad in my life on him either. I disliked by his personal example that he lowered the morality level in our country several notches, and yes, I do think that he should have been thrown out of office for #1) having sexual favors performed just outside the oval office by someone other than his wife, and #2) then looking in the face of every American and lying about it (#2 being the damning impeachable offense).
At this point I haven't seen proof that Bush has done anything impeachable. I think Bush has done some good things while in office and has also done some things I don't agree with. However, if I support the president in any way then I'm accused of bowing down and worshipping at his feet by A.W. and Carla, and let's not forget the late-to-this-board gt. Their reactions are way beyond the rational although it is understandable why Carla may have these strong feelings given what she's gone through this year. I think she may be misdirecting some of her anger though.
do you know what YOU PROVED MY POINT MEANS?
IT MEANS that there is NOTHING else to say to you because you have no intelligence left to discuss with, that's the bottom line. you proved OUR point by just wanting to name call instead of having a discussion. This is so stupid we have to do this back and forth and look you ALWAYS have to have the last word... you'll probably prove my point on that one too!!!
You just proved my point. - no message
x
Yes. That poster more than proved your point.
You're reaching out to a person whose views you respect and are looking for an intelligent, adult conversation to take place. About 95% on this board are more comfortable playing the playground bully and calling names. Unfortunately, there's just no value to be found in their form of communication.
Now you and I have given them the "gift" of having two more people to attack on this board. Anyone else want to be bullied and treated badly? Just say something even remotely nice to JTBB, and you'll be ready for the he!l they inhabit now. It's really sad that such "Americanism" exists out there. 
Well.....you proved her point with your zinger. Sigh. nm
nm
You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.
There you go. At least counter the argument with something positive about Obama. That is if there is anything. Otherwise its all just blowing smoke.
Either you can't read, or you've just proved her point. Nice going.
nm
You just proved how clueless you are
Are your paranoid or have you been drinking again? I love confusing liberals, but then it's not too hard to do.
LOL! I've proved it???!!
For the last EIGHT LONG YEARS, all I've heard is, "It's CLINTON'S fault." Now all I'm hearing, BEFORE THE MAN IS EVEN INAUGURATED, "It's OBAMA'S fault."
If/when Obama does something to deserve "fault," you can bet I'll be one of the first to say it. However, the man hasn't even taken his oath of office, and all the soothsayers on this board have already judged his presidency to be a failure.
All the anti-Obama rhetoric is quickly getting old, again, BEFORE the man has even taken his oath of office.
The people have spoken, and the majority of them voted for Obama. Please...get used to it and at least TRY to inspire some good feelings and hope instead of whining all the time.
This board has become a very toxic place to visit.
you do know, proved by your posts below.
nm
Geez. Well, just proved that the bottom of the barrel...
had not been reached until just now. What a nasty, sick comment.
Radical relationships proved or hear say?
Unless you're talking about preacher Wright? I am beginning to wonder why that is not an issue since John Mccain is so righteous.
Yep, sitting in Rev Wright's church sure proved that
@@
I think BB has a point here in that the main point on the board is political discussion, and let'
face it, there is SO MUCH going on right now, changes, problems, disasters, and so much debate on what should/could be done, but so many tims the political discussion disintegrates in a finger-pointing, name-calling exercise, spouting religion all over the place. Yeah, our spiritual beliefs are dearly held and we would all strive to be the best we can be, and do whatever we can whatever the ideology is, but sometimes I wonder, since we have a board EXPRESSLY for Faith isuues, where relgious debates/discussions/forums, etc are welcome, why does THIS board have to be turned into RELIGION BOARD PART II, especially if one ideology wants to dominate or ridicule/condemn those who come on here for lively inteligent discussion, debate of issues in Congress and in our lives, and just want their beliefs held separately? CNN is not EWTN or any other Christian network, and there are constant informative, bright, lively, balanced discussions from all over the political spectrum on the credentialed news stations, as well as C-Span, but they are not constantly hiding behind a cross, rosary, bible, star of David, or whatever....can we not strive to do the same and put religious debate on the Faith board?? Just a thought to ponder, MHO, it might work beter, who knows?
is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class?
x
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming my world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction. They are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say?
I answered your post point-by-point and
all you can come up with is a lame tit-for-tat? Can you provide some sort of substantive response that would argue against the point I am trying to make here? Of course not.
Please show me what part of my post reflects bigotry or ignorance? I have made a few statements based on my own life experience, rather than the hook-line-and-sinker method of forming a world view. Then the impotence of your suicide bomber reference was buried under concrete evidence of informed, researched and factual data that would suggest an oppressed, occupied, half-starved population does not exactly have the upper hand when it comes to defending themselves against Israel's US-bankrolled arsenal of pain, misery, death and destruction they employ in order to "secure" themselves.
The Palestinians are just a tad out-gunned, wouldn't you say? This might just account for the lop-sided fatalities/injuries ratios between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In closing, it is worth noting that even with the advantage of all those terrorist toys and tools our tax dollars have bestowed upon them, security and peace of mind just seem to be further and further beyond their reach. Wonder why that is?
If your point is that it was 7 years ago, that's not much of a point is it? sm
Not long ago at all in the scope of things. The point is that the same thing could and probably would happen here. 9-11 happened 7 years ago too....I guess that couldn't happen again, huh?
I get your point, but my main point is -
why should the government be allowed to tell people what they can and can't eat? Everyone says the government is too involved in our business anyway, so if they should stay out of one part of our lives, they should stay out of all parts of our lives!
and your point is??
Your point is?? Bush is the one who waged this immoral illegal wrong war, not all the democrats you have posted quotes on. It is BUSH, the chimp boy, who waged the war and used every kind of excuse possible, flip flopping back and forth over the reasons. Now that we know there are no WMD and we have gotten Saddam, what is the excuse for being there and not setting a time plan to leave?? Of course the reason has always been the murderous foreign policy of the US, to have its bloody hands in every country it possibly can. They are just salivating in DC over the fact that we will have control over the Middle East and OIL. Bush and his group are war criminals, just as bad as Saddam.
the point is
If these brave soldiers did not have to go to Vietnam, a useless, wrong war (it has been PROVEN, DEBATED AND PROVEN AGAIN AND AGAIN, EVEN BY THOSE WHO WERE IN THE MILITARY), their physical and emotional illnesses never would have happened..and there would have been no people turning against them. There were thousands upon thousands of protestors telling Nixon, bring our boys home and a few turning against the soldiers. The war is what scarred and has continued to torture these soldiers..the wrong war of that day just like the wrong war of now, Iraq..And where is the VA to help those of Vietnam? Bush continues to cut the budget for the VA, even though we will have thousands once again home from a useless, immoral, illegal war..I read an article the other day how the soldiers coming home are divorcing quite a bit..another thing these soldiers have to deal with..physical ailments, mental ailments, not adjusting to society, divorce..these were happy job holding family people before Bush got his blood hands on them. Thanks Bush.
You see, that's my whole point...
...the truth of this quote is why it's important. You can't ignore the inherent truth in an observation simply because you don't like the bearer of that message. I believe that if one truly examined history and discarded labels such as socialist, liberal, yes, even conservative (these labels change with time and are not static philosophies) I believe history would show that the the last part of this quote is right on about what it takes to be successful in uniting a country/party against a supposed "foe." Some have said hatred is the biggest uniter of a people that there is.
The point.
While there were quite a few issues in this article that were noteworthy, to me at least, the main point was that the Bush/war supporters are going to have a chance to participate in the war that they love. Since we broke Iraq we have to fix it and we can't afford to and the military can't do it so, in its infinite wisdom, the administration has come up with a "Peace Corps" type scenario where professionals of all vein VOLUNTEER to go to Iraq and work, for free. This is just too good. How many of those on the conservative board do you think will volunteer to go, or their husbands, sons, relatives? And like he said, if you voted for Bush put your money where your magnet is, smack dab in the middle of the Sunni triangle.
We have and have had for a long time alternatives energy resources. You can destroy the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and wherever else you want but in a few years we will be right back here. The oil supply is finite. Get used to it. Time to switch gears and explore the alternatives. But again, I can't wait to see who signs up for volunteer duty...next stop is Vietnam (Oh, I mean Iran, no I mean Iraq...).
Well, to each his own, which is exactly my point.
I can not discount your points here without discounting mine. I can't explain why people sign up, but my guess would be that some need money, jobs and opportunities and are praying if they do go to Iraq they will make it back in one piece. There are obviously a lot of people who believe in the cause of this war, I'm just not one. And like I say, some have fallen hook-line-and-sinker into the justification for this war, or believe it is important to free the Iraqis and somehow this is going to protect America.
I say again, to each his own. May God be with them all!
That is not the point! sm
The point is, expect the unexpected. Don't get all hyper about guns. I should never have mentioned that here, I am sure. I was making a point where has, yet again, been twisted! Good grief!
There is no point to THAT. SM
Everyone knows that paper is and always has been anti-Bush. I'm sorry, but you guys won't take stuff from NewsMax and FrontPageMag, which are both WAY WAY BIGGER than this little rag. Don't expect me to take this seriously.
It's my point.nm
x
And your point is
 It's all Bush's fault, by the way. It's the evil Republican's fault, but especially Bush. It's ALL his fault. It's America's fault, too! IMPEACH AMERICA. You are my hero.
But, at what point...
do you just toss your arms up in the air and give up on teaching people how to use birth control. It's not rocket science. How many decades of teaching do we need? I think we already have a cornucopia of information available everywhere on how to use birth control. It's not like it's a taboo subject. I have to think that the computer saavy youth of today, who can jump through hoops on the internet, if interested, could find out with the click of a button just exactly how to use any given birth control. We can fund education to the hilt, but stupid careless people will always be stupid careless people. It's sad.
You got a point there...nm
I know all I need to. I see no point in this.
.
But the point is, we believe what we believe.
In this instance, you feel the war is morally illegal and I don't.
Yes....that was my point.
I think what you said is exactly the point.
With everything going on, and it keeps getting worse and worse, the leader of the free world shows himself to be crude, have no table manners ... the forever frat boy. In itself giving an uninvited neck rub and talking with one's mouth full are certainly not newsworthy but in the context of where he was, what he was participating in ( participation questionable) what is happening to our world, our leader, without his spinners and handlers and speech writers was exposed as the uninformed, disinterested, unegaged person that he is and always has been. He was obviously bored throughout the entire conference, displayed his ignorance of geography (again), displayed his total lack of understanding of the Middle East, a process that has been evolving for 100s of years, way before Israel appeared on the scene. The history of the Middle East appears to bore him. Actually, everything but clearing brush at the ranch seems to bore him. And this guy wants free reign to do anything he likes, no checks, no balances, no congressional approval; its like he thinks this is the old board game War, or little green soldiers he can play with. He is such an embarassment.
to further my point
They are even making Pat Buchanan look like a liberal. I have never agreed with Buchanan until recently. This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/VIDEO__Matthews_Buchanan_Slam_Neocons_0720.html
My point WAS sm
Newspapers dropping her column aren't hurting her. I don't care about the other stuff. I don't even like her.
Exactly the point...sm
There are plenty things that sell in America that are no good for America. I happen to believe Ms. Coulter (not just her books but her persona and work, collectively) is one of them.
And your point is?
I dont understand your post. I never said Merv Griffin did not like Bush or his crew, I said he stated the American people overthrew the government Tuesday. He did not elaborate whether he liked Bush or not.
The point is. sm
Why share something like that on this board? For what purpose?
Well some of that was my point.
I don't think he went to school in Africa ever, don't know for sure but I know he was born in Hawaii, his mother was white, his father from Kenya. His father returned to Kenya and he (the father) may have been the Muslim. His mother remarried and moved out of the country with her new husband and I believe that Obama lived with his white grandparents in the midwest somewhere; something like that. At any rate, I was saying that anyone, not Obama specifically, anyone at all who had a really good working knowledge of Islam, Arabic and all 13 of its dialects and the Muslim lifestyle would be an asset at this point, in my opinion, whoever he or she may be.
The point is. sm
Does it really matter how old the picture is? It is in San Francisco at a rally. If it was 1000 years old, it would still be horrible. And I am not pro this war or any war.
What's your point?
It was a group of very rich Democrats who were in power at the time and who were going to lose their livelihoods making these decisions, and there were many northern republicans who voted for it as well. Not all northern republicans believed in this reform. Need I remind that Lincoln made a great deal of bi-partisan enemies because of this liberal belief? I believe it to have been a bi-partisan liberal movement which afforded this change.
If your point
was to say 'liberals' were not necessarily always 'Democrats', then fine. I don't think anyone would argue that the parties have changed over the years.
However, your posts, intentional or not, are coming across very offensive. OBVIOUSLY, every person should be ashamed at that part of our history. Democrats and Republicans alike. One party was not responsible for causing it and one alone was not responsible for rectifying the injustice. You love to argue that Democrats voted for the war in Iraq too - yes they did, together the parties sent us into war. It took both parties to get in and it will take both to get out.
Yes, if you polled African Americans they may not know what happened back then, but they sure know what happens now and I'm sure, in the grand scheme of things, that's what they care about at the moment.
|
