Well point to the law that directly gives
Posted By: ??? on 2006-06-12
In Reply to: Then perhaps you could explain to me how I am misreading this. - Kelly
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.
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
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.
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.
Well I actually do believe he was talking directly
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the point was ...
Don't judge someone by his name. Everyone is up in arms because of his middle name and that is just crazy. Judge someone by their acts, not the name they were given by someone else.
ha - I see your point
Guess it's time to turn back on the travel channel and travel off to some far off place in the world. It is hard not to get heated up over politics. Glad this only happens once every four years. P.S. - I love the little icon with the finger waving.
I see your point
Reading your post I felt like I was in an Inspector Clusoe movie or Agatha Christie. :-)
Great post. Gives me something new to think about. Thanks.
|
