Well I actually do believe he was talking directly
Posted By: IMHO on 2009-03-26
In Reply to: Yes,that guy was so right on, and he could be - talking about O! -spend into oblivion -pathetic.nm
about the O when he was addressing their failed PM. Two failures in charge of countries. I think if the PM can come sliming here begging for money, this guy should come over and explain to our congress (cos they don't evidentally get it) what they have done to the economy of the world. But the speach he gave might as well been talking right to the enlightened one.
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 am talking Palin directly
That person who protrayed herself to be so righteous, so godly, Miss Goody-Goody has lots of skeletons in her closet yet to be all shaken out. It was really, really important when all just held onto every little word or piece of clothing that did not belong to her in the first place discussed. I am glad to see her falling off that high horse, yes I am.
Well point to the law that directly gives
our military authority over the U.N.? Where is the AGREEMENT that says we have to approve military action through the U.N.? It was not covered in my college political science class or the numerous classes I took between high school and college. We have consulted the U.N. before taking military action AND consulted and worked with the UN for YEARS on the Iraq situation. Iraq/S Saddam consistently and constantly thumbed his nose to the U.N. authorities and broke inspection agreements. I know that not every one in the U.N. supported the war, but if I'm remembering the correctly there was not enough opposition to put up a direct U.N. declaration to oppose the war.
I think we are reading different versions of history and the laws of the land.
Post directly above this
x
Huh? Two of the posters are directly below
_
Really? A lib posted directly under here
and presented an interesting challenge to sm about the Bloomberg article in "while analyzing those millions." Instead of claiming that liberals "always attack the messenger," talking about how they don't want to be educated, making wisecracks about mindreading and trying to belittle them for ALWAYS being on the attack, why don't you pitch in and help sm answer that little puzzler about the FDIC funds referred to in the article? So far, we see no one stepping forward to answer that challenge. It's not that hard. She gave 2 clues.
It was a reply to the post directly above it...
"In his private career, seems like he did a lot of work for the poor and several civil rights cases. I guess that would make some conservatives a little afraid of him :-)"
It is the taunt I was replying to. Democrats have not in the past had a stellar reputation for championing the civil rights of African Americans and I pointed that out. And they became interested in the poor African American AFTER they finally got the right to vote. Coincidence?
Again, respectfully...replying the the taunt.
To answer your question directly
Would I accept less to save a MTSO, no I would not, but then we're not making near what the auto workers are making, apples and oranges. I feel I pesonally have to take a stand regarding ASR and pay for such. What they're asking us to take is ridiculous. Regardless of global economy, we still live in the good ole US of A and have a certain standard of living to uphold. As long as it is possible I will not do ASR nor will I edit reports being typed abroad. I left MQ last year, refusing to put up with their nonsense. Thankfully I only have a few years til retirement.
I did address it directly. In the post above....
and you proved my point about the attacking. Typical dem.
Took your advice - went directly to the source -
Okay, went to the source. Says the same thing - Obama 49, McCain 47 with likely voters.
Drudge shows the facts. You were okay with them when they favored your candidate.
What I am hearing is if Obama was so much better than McCain he would certainly have a much larger lead (like 20 points or more), but he doesn't, which goes to show that it is a very close race and you need to prepare yourself that either candidate could win.
Thanks for that info. I did go directly to this man's site...
and he talks about his email there also. I don't put much stock in any web-based sites; too much can be fabricated through the guise of anonymity.
Bravo Zauber..well said and directly to the point..
I will never understand how people think that opposing an erroneous(in this case fictional and delusional) government policy is unpatriotic and a detriment to our troops. I don't want to see any more die for reasons that do not nor have ever existed.
If someone ever posts something directly about one of Obama's children...
like that nastiness posted about Sarah Palin's daughter, I would be criticizing that as well. THere is absolutely NO reason for bringing a candidate's children into the political battleground. I have seen nothing posted here about lies about Obama's family other than some posters taking shots at the way the two women dress, and Cindy McCain got it as bad as Michelle Obama. I think that is pretty silly on both sides. I saw someone post what Michelle said about being proud of her country. It went away pretty quickly. I saw a lot of worse things about cindy Mcain winning her battle over prescriptin drug addiction, but the posts were much more hateful, mean, and personal.
Michelle Obama was out stumping for her husband and she said something in public people thought she should explain.
Barack Obama used drugs in his youth and was open about it. No one here condemned that. yet they tore the hide of Cindy McCain in strips because she admitted an addiction to prescription drugs because of an injury. do you find that fair? At ALL fair?
Why can't we at the very LEAST leave minor children out of this???
That should read: McCain directly denied
then continue reading the above post. time for another cup of coffee.
The moderator asked you to stop directly below this post.
You don't know the meaning of the word *respectful.* You want to come here and censor this board and lay down the law about what is *newsworthy* and what isn't, the same way you people want to control every aspect of every American's life. How ya makin' out in that regard? Not too well, eh? 
You and your other sidekick(personality?) below don't come here to debate.
You come here to incite, and regardless of your promises, you'll never leave. Nobody is bothering you on your board, and you have to release your evil vile hatred somewhere or else you will explode, so you come here.
If you want to see vicious, consult the nearest mirror.
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
Evidently, pubs didn't care that McC directly denied
tried to diffuse all the scare tactics fall-out. What I want to know is why would McC supporters and their campaign turn a blind eye to a frightened senile old woman and keep right on pushing agendas that will produce more such embarrassing moments for their own candidate? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect under a McCain regime? How disconnected is this candidate from his own campaign management and supporters? Is that really the picture you want to paint for him? How much more fuel do you guys intend to use to stoke the fires of ignorance, division and deceit?
McCain seemed really sad last night when he tried to reassure that shaking, frail, senile old woman, but instead of looking presidential, he just looked like a beaten down has-been. Congratuations on an utterly moronic campaign strategy. Enjoy the fall-out.
Yes, the chips exist honey. I was speaking directly to the hysteria evoked
It shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the world and the peoples who inhabit it.
As to those that perpetuate this mythos...well, if you allow anyone to prey on your fears, you give them power over you. People need to investigate all sides of an issue, not just the perspective they agree with or the one spoonfed to them.
Not to mention that the "Jihaad" holy war itself was caused directly from Daddy Bush having to
rush in with Desert Storm in order to secure the oil wells, securing the oil for all his oil baron friends and himself. Bin Laden himself said that when we rushed in, we had "tainted" Muslim soil and felt he had to retaliate. Of course, these are the ravings of a madman, but Bush policies directly inflamed the already hostile Taliban fighters. Also, the Bush and Bin Laden families have a long history in the business world, and the night of September 11th, the government made it pssible for Bin Laden family members in this country to flee and not face retaliation........please look it up in the newgroups, I have seen many amazing documentaries about these facts on Discovery, History Channel, Military Channel, and some of the news channels.
When McBush is talking, he isn't talking to you unless you are wealthy or CEO
who provides campaign funds. Do you know why lobbyists are making the headlines? Because they are bribing the politicians of both parties - lobbyists work for private interests (AIPAC) along with the pharmaceutical company ($280.00 for a bottle of pills? Only in America, folks), oil industry (record profits at your expense) credit card companies and unethical banking procedures (Funny isn't it how Visa wrote the reformed BK bill, making virtually everyone end up in ch 13 (garnishing income, including SS) after raising credit limits and offering transfer balances at 0 percent to everyone with a last name and a roof over their head? Along with mtgs that were bound to turn into bad loans when house prices dropped which they always do after a bubble. God, I could go on and on here but I get tired. The nation is in such trouble. Serious serious trouble. There is a huge loan to an unfriendly country (did you watch the Olympics? did you ever see Bush look more uncomfortable other than during the Stephen Colbert roast during the national press conference. lol.
Well I want you to know what fascism. And I want you to know that those treasury notes are backed up by the taxpayers (you) and real estate including roads and govt buildings and parks. Have you noticed why Save-Mart Center is owned by savemart and not a community business or the community itself? There is somethign happening slowly and surely and it is NOT going to benefit middle class america one iota. You must know that as a poor person, you have no power, no voice. Elections are rigged and the politicans cease to care whether you like them or not - oh wait, that has already happened.
THINK ABOUT THIS!!!! Your 401Ks and investments/assets are what at are stake!
Fascist governments nationalized key industries and made massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of Soviet-style economic planning measures.[12] Property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.[13].[14] Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.[15] Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that they opposed reactionaries, and that they were actually revolutionary political movements that fused with conservative social values.
Talking to them is talking to a brick wall.
nm
I am, not talking about Clinton, I am talking
about the torture of prisoners, crimes against the Geneva conventions.
It seems that you did not read the last sentence in my former post.
Are you saying that crimes from the near past should all be forgotten?
Not really, you'd have to know what they were talking about
which I didn't know about the incident of the soldier accidentally killing other soldiers.
Thanks though.
Wow! what are you talking about???nm
x
What are you talking about?
.
I was talking about myself when I said that.
You might want to re-read my post.
What are you talking about?
I am sure I don't know. I know your game though.
Not what I was talking about
Wasn't referring to WMD, as stated in my post.
Saddam had gotten rid of the WMDs, said his son-in-law, quite a few years earlier. If your theory of invading a country that no longer is a threat, then would you also advise invading Germany since they used to have a Nazi regime?
If you are talking to me...
which question did I not answer?
who are you talking to?
I don't understand the anonymous post... there are plenty I think it could be addressed to, why did you not point out what you mean? PS you are just stirring the pot more right?
Exactly what I am talking about. Think for yourself.
xx
Talking about yourself again, huh?
nm
what are you talking about?
straight out of left field... you random people!
Yes the baby has Down's syndrome...
He is so adorable did you see him when she held him on stage?
Babies are so amazing!
Okay, what are you talking about?
I just mean in terms of the baby being passed around. That's what people do with babies. They share the love.
Doncha have any babies in your family?
What are you talking about??
And you still have nothing positive to say about Obama.
All I'm asking for is something positive and you can't even do that.
You know exactly what I'm talking about; no need
You'll just produce your own figures (be they real or imagined) to 'back up' your own claims. But if you truly think the number of priests who have turned out to be sexual predators isn't a little fishy, then maybe that blindness is part of the problem.
No, I don't think he is talking about ...
the same sex ed for high school as he is kindergartners. However, it did describe talking about "sexual intercourse" and how HIV-AIDS is spread. I don't know how that is appropriate in any case for a kindergartner. The bill was specifically intended to open it up to the lower grades...it was already being taught in the upper grades. Why would you open that up to elementary school kids, let alone kindergartners? That was my point. If you want to establish a program for elementary school children about right and wrong touches, I am all for that. But introducing sexual intercourse and how HIV-AIDS is spread makes no sense to me for elementary school children. If they did not intend to teach it to elementary school children and kindergartners, why pass a bill to open it up to them?
Apparently many in the state senate agreed, because the bill did not pass.
That was my point. He in essence did vote for sex education for kindergartners and it was not just right and wrong touching. Thankfully, at least in my estimation...it did not pass. You saw the video...if he meant limited to "right and wrong touching" he would/should have said so.
I was talking about
appointing new justices to the supreme court. I would love to have lots of liberal justices seated on the bench. Has nothing to do with put babies in a closet, but hey, whatever.
Now that's what I'm talking about!
x
This is exactly what I am talking about. nm
nm
Who do you think you are talking to?
from the experts to figure out tax structure, credits, cuts, deductions, incentives, etc, and certainly know myself, my beliefs, my principles and my values by now. I also know my party, their platform, my candidate and my choice.
Well am I talking to myself LOL
I meant this to go under the post of sm-m!
So, what will you be talking about
just curious
What are you talking about?!
Biden answered each and every question very completely and very eloquently. They were more like accusations than questions, and the whole thing resembled an ambush more than an interview. Please WATCH THE VIDEO OF THIS INTERVIEW (link below) and tell me just which question Biden DIDN'T answer.
I wouldn't waste my time being interviewed by this woman, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X346U109Chs
What are you talking about
"Fox news is barely legal"
He's right, we ARE talking only to each other now UH OH, what now?
Seriously, what do we do now?
What R U talking about? sm
Joe Biden has been out doing rallies every day! Did you not know about Joe the Plumber standing up John McCain at his rally today? Oh, yeah, guess you were too busy looking up bogus trash about Obama online.
First of all, you don't know who you are talking to.
Second, the kind of ignorance displayed in your other post cannot strike any chord anywhere, except maybe a gag reflex. Obama has exactly the same "it" factor that JFK had. Furthermore, he challenges us to dig deep down inside to become our better selves. His faith in the American people to rise above division to unite is strong and unwavering.
His record of civil rights and community organizing belies your impotent claims regarding socialism...something I refuse to debate with someone who obviously has no clue as to the meaning of the word. It is your job to educate yourself, not mine.
I have lived long enough to understand exactly what I will be getting when Obama takes the oath and I am counting the days until we turn the corner on W's slash and burn and strike out on our journey to a better America. I am not threatened by the idea of equal opportunity for ALL Americans and I expect my leaders to fight to achieve that...that includes the poor.
I'm afraid I am not the one with disappointment in store, my dear. The pubs will not be able to steal another election, despite their best efforts. Third time is not the charm...not this time. They tried the same shennanigans in 1960...cried vote fraud, demanded recounts, which they got. The result? The original Nixon state of Hawaii moved over to the Kennedy side and he won 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. No need to defend an HONEST election. Why are the pubs always so paranoid to think that everythng MUST be rigged when they are clearly the losers? Sore losers, at that.
You are wallowing in negative energy whether you realize it or not. There is nothing "positive" about the pathetic witch hunt the pubs have been conducting now for months, all to no avail, currently in one last desperate attempt to save a candidate who cannot even put a decent campaign together. Try not to feel too badly. The party didn't really have a whole lot to work with from the get go.
She knows what she is talking about
and she knows how to deliver it. It is all in the delivery, not so much in the words. This is called charisma.
Smooth and velvety, like Obama.
What are you talking about?
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/index.cfm
You must be talking about....(sm)
The Financial Services Modernization Act (which really started it all).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354
Funny, I don't see a whole lot of "nays" beside the R's in the list.
about whom are you talking?..nm
nm
|
