Yes, I know, but the fact remains my question has still not been answered. SM
Posted By: Brunson on 2005-08-11
In Reply to: This is an entirely different post. - Democrat
How is it that people feel they can make these kind of egregious statements about someone so effortlessly and not support those statements with facts. Pardon me if I am a little insistent that credible proof be provided that Laura Bush was drunk when she was involved in the accident that killed her friend.
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
The fact remains....sm
On the whole, republicans give more than Democrats.
Just ask Joe Biden. Just ask the Clintons. They only gave to their own foundation, which didn't do much of anything, except pay themselves.
Warren Buffet, billionaire liberal democrat, gives next to nothing. He's leaving his billions to Bill Gates foundation....but what did he give away during his lifetime?
The list goes on and on.
Fact remains that
whether you believe the Constitution's language regarding church and state or not, ours is a secular nation. I will not take the time to answer this viewpoint since I do not buy into it, but I have read the same wacko blogs and sites that promote this nonsense.
There are so many of America's true traditions that were eroded (some beyond recognition) during W's reign, and blurring the lines between church and state is high on that list. Do not look for that minority initiative to survive much longer. Most Americans understand the wisdom in the concept. Get all indignant and outraged if you like. Flame away. It won't change the fact that theocracy is a Middle Eastern concept that is not likely to "catch on" stateside anytime soon.
The fact remains as you so artfully ignored...
Clintons laid the groundwork for outsourcing to India and the rest of the hierarchy of your party blocked any attempt to stop said outsourcing. Where does the majority of outsourcing of MT work go? India. Lame, lame comeback, GT. That is so simple even YOU could get it, to use your own words.
When you are proven wrong on one point, counter with another. You can complain all you want about the Repubs...I could care less. Not my party. Like I said...Dems lite. However, the law being what it is, you have to register as SOMETHING to vote, if I in my ignorance
remember correctly. And you won't see me registering as a Democrat in this lifetime...because you, my friend, are indicative of what it has become and again...NO thank you. lol.
But the fact remains, old timer...it is they..
we are fighting now, and she was speaking about soldiers being deployed now. So her answer was correct.
Fact remains...your guy is in just as deep...
and dirty, and McCain at least tried to head it off, while your guy became their #2 recipient. Now THAT is an INCONVIENIENT truth. lol.
The fact remains....Joe is NOT the issue.
Obama's answer to the question is the issue. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to answer it. He could have walked awawy with one of his nonanswers like he has done before, but he chose to answer it. And he gave an honest socialist answer. Because he is a socialist. Try to deflect it to Joe....but the fact remains. Obama gave a socialist answer because he is a socialist. Period, end of sentence.
I suppose you think it is fair that a person asks a question and then state law enforcement does a background check on them?? What if you asked McCain a tough question in a townhall and they didn't like it and had you investigated and publically lacerated??
THAT will hurt Obama as much as his socialist answer.
But the fact remains...she has more executive experience than your #1 guy.
That is indisputable. In fact, more than her running mate and your #2. To say she is inexperienced only shines the same light on Barack Obama. That is not a slam, it is a fact.
But oldtimer...the fact remains...if those 94 democrats...
had voted yes, it would have passed ANYWAY, no matter what the Republicans did. enough Republicans voted for it that the 94 democrats would have made the difference. It would have passed. Not all republicans voted against it.
liberal fuzzy math....the fact remains....
she has a higher approval rating than most of the governors in the lower 48...quite possibly THE highest. Nice try...no cigar.
The fact remains, she gave the correct answer.
and Gibson did not expect her to even know what NATO was. Point, Palin. Obama has been interviewed numerous times by the liberal press. Not a one of them asked him about foreign policy other than the chance to talk about how he was against the war in Iraq. No one asked him about his experience. No one looked him in the eye and said are you ready, and he is running for the #1 spot.
There is the video where he himself said he would not be ready to run in 2008. Biden said during the primaries he wasn't ready. That makes two of them, and I agree 100%.
Fact remains....McCain saw this meltdown coming....
and the Dems would not listen. They did not want to upset the golden apple cart. And we the people are left holding the bag. Do I want one of them in the white house while we are trying to work our way out of this? No way, no how, nobama.
Despite the fact that this has been answered over and over,
x
Fact remains, she has made executive decisions for a year and a half...
as governor, and before that as a mayor. He has made none. Zero, zilch, nada. The only time she will "legislate" is if she has to vote to break a tie Not hardly the same thing as running a state...or a country.
The fact that an article was written does not make it fact. I hope you know that. nm
.
It remains to be seen if
they will no longer be here. I personally don't believe they will leave.
However, since their alleged departure, the Conservative board is a much more serene, friendly place to visit. There is actually intelligent discussion happening there now, and people's views are being respected and not attacked any more by those three. Hopefully it will encourage more intelligent debate. I even felt free to post there today, because in their alleged absence, I don't feel I will wind up in the middle of a war zone.
You refer to someone wishing a poster to "burn in hell." That's a horrible thing to say to anyone, but I think a bigger question is, how much goading and attacking does it take to get someone to that point?
The Conservative board has almost 1,900 posts on it. Most of these aren't intelligent debate. They're attacks by these three, wherein they attack a single poster 3 to 1, then come back to "high-five" each other after stomping the poster so far into the ground, they just give up. More like a street gang mentality than loving, tolerant Christians.
Though there are also attacks on this board, many of them are provoked by one or more of this "gang." If you take a close look at the Conservative and Liberal boards, the more intelligent, tolerant debate, hands down, is found on this board.
I agree with you that we should move on. I also feel that we shouldn't feel too secure in the peace and serenity that is currently being felt, because I personally believe it will be short lived. I believe in my heart they will be back, because they obviously are "pets" of the owner of this board, and I truly doubt that there's another forum out there that would tolerate them. They seem to harbor too much hatred and rage and anger to be content to stay away from here for too long. Just my personal opinion. I have respected yours. All I ask is that you please respect mine, as well, and then maybe we CAN move on to engage in intelligent, thoughtful, open debate, which presumably is the reason for these boards to begin with. 
I think that remains to be seen.
he's off to a pretty good start with this particular issue and I am so looking forward to having the shame of the shrub's years replaced by the pride I can take in a president who takes that document seriously.
This still remains the unanswered
was evaded through the entire campaign and never answered. There is no tax cut for 95% of Americans as 52% of them were led to believe (and naively did so), just a welfare check issued out those who do not pay income taxes to begin with!
This still remains the unanswered
was evaded through the entire campaign and never answered. There is no tax cut for 95% of Americans as 52% to 53% of them (which is a far cry from a landslide win as some would have us believe) were led to believe (and naively did so), just a welfare check issued out those who do not pay income taxes to begin with!
This still remains the unanswered
was evaded through the entire campaign and never answered. There is no tax cut for 95% of Americans as 52% to 53% of them (which is a far cry from a landslide win as some would have us believe) were led to believe (and naively did so), just a welfare check issued out those who do not pay income taxes to begin with!
But the bigger question remains:
X
"second thing" remains a mystery
I understand they were the arresting officer's words. I am just curious as to what the second thing is. Did he lose his train of thought?
While a fetus remains a part of MY body, is sure
And it will never be yours, or anyone else's.
The point remains...she might as well be running for president...McCain is...sm
a heartbeat away from the inevitable not just because he is old enough to be Palin's granddaddy but because of his medical history so with all that said...Palin is practically running for #1 and that's just the honest to God SCARY truth of the matter.
I answered you below -
I've got more important things to do than to continue this argument you want to have. You are wrong!
Thanks to you who have answered...
I may be a dem to the core, but I do appreciate your input.
I answered this below......sm
When you can come up with something different, let me know.
You never answered my question.
I asked how many troops our ally Israel sent to Iraq. I would truly like to know. It might help to change my mind regarding their commitment to being our ally.
Answered in all honesty...
the entire thread was about the Plame case and whether or not she was covert. I posted the court document where the media outlets (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc) filed to try to stop the judge from compelling the reporters to give their sources (their aim was to protect whistle-blowers, which is definitely not a bad thing). In that brief it was stated: "We do not believe a crime was committed as she was not covert at the time of the incident." CBS acknowledged that they believed that Plame was not covert...supported by the fact that she was openly working at a desk job in the CIA offices and had been for some time. I thought it was hypocritical of CBS to now bring Plame on and in effect say they believe that she was covert. Then some, not all, of the usual posters piled on questioning the integrity of the court and how decisions can be influenced...when it really had nothing to do with the court, but with the filed brief. CBS et AL actually lost the case. If they had won it, there would have been no Libby prosecution. That is what makes what the liberals posted that much harder to understand. It just seemed like just because a conservative posted it, it could not possibly have any merit, and then when they had to admit it did have merit, suddenly the court had no integrity.
Honest answer.
First of all, I don't see that she answered the question. nm
.
Asked and answered...
...ad nauseam! 
He has answered the questions
by what authority do you determine he has not answered the questions truthfully?
You just answered your own question
about "what critism" when you said Missouri MT said something and then said she didn't say it.
You answered your own question.
My assessment was in line with "most of the world," who laid responsibility for the massacre squarely at the feet of the Israelis, where it belonged, especially since the Shaba and Shatilla refugee camps were under the control of the IDF, not the Lebanese Phalangists, whom the IDF gave access to the refugees in the camps. Do not try to rewrite history that I unfortunately was around to experience directly, at least in its aftermath some 16 days later.
I have not forgotten about the assassination of Bachir Gemayel (Phalangist leader and president-elect, who never took office, BTW) just 2 days before the massacre and the history of hatred between the Phalangists and the Palestinians. If I was aware of it as a young, naïve, ill-informed American, it is only logical that the Israelis were aware of it too and had drawn the conclusion that giving access to the Phalangists was the perfect opportunity for them to commit massacre by proxy, which adds the specter of cowardice to the already atrocious and horrendous act and its outcome.
Trying to belittle me will not effectively disguise your not-so-artful attempt to dodge direct discussion of ISREAL'S invasion of Lebanon, the death of 3000 women, children and elders in the camps and another 30,000 Lebanese they killed during that campaign. So, no, it is pretty easy to distinguish between Israelis, the killers and the Lebanese, the dead guys.
I am not in the habit of giving direct answers to dirt, filth and blatant lies such as yours. Your preposterous notion that Arabs didn't give a flip about the massacre of 3000 Arabs is beyond absurd and speaks for itself, but comes as no surprise from a Zionist who would actually try to gain credibility by discounting 2550 corpses of women, children and elders by disputing fatality figures. The only odd thing here is that your delusions would allow you to believe that anyone in their right mind would accept this callous dismissal as the basis of a credible statement. Evidence of the ice water that flows through you veins can be easily surmised from your bigoted and hateful statement blaming the "Pakistanis" (I am guessing you really meant Palestinians) for somehow inviting the slaughter of the Shaba and Shatila refugees. Yeah, right.
Read my lips. The IDF WAS IN CONTROL of those camps. It was their responsibility to keep them secure. It also would not be the first time they failed to live up to Geneva Convention war conduct imperatives and instead, commit horrendous war crimes. They were the invaders, after all, and Lebanon, the invaded. This seems to be a pervasive affliction of yours, not being able to distinguish between the occupiers and occupied, the invaders and the invaded, the killers and the dead.
My 3000 dead figure is extracted from Sabra and Shatila: Inquiry into a Massacre, penned by ISRAELI journalist Amnon Kapeliouk in June 1984...2000 bodies disposed of by official and Red Crescent sources and another 1000-1500 he documented by investigative reporting and interviews with Phalangist officials. BTW, the findings of an Israeli govt study that Israel was only guilty of not foreseeing the future is like accepting the fox's report about the disappearance of the chickens from the coup. You are more stupid still to say that 3000 "sounds better" than 450, unless you are presuming that I take the same pleasure you obviously take in stacks and piles of Palestinian bodies in mass graves. NOT.
Sorry. I am not able to decipher your last parting shot. What are you referring to when you ask about the [square symbol] attacks on Palestinian refugee camps? Please clarify and I would be happy to comment.
I answered your question.
I provide examples of the current administration's bragging of how effective their policy has been in keeping us safe all turned out to be untrue because the threats were not credible.
I believe you just answered your own question
It's administered just like Medicare and Medicaid.
Lots of fraud within those two organizations, both from users and providers. We all know that from being MTs.
You asked, I answered.
I don't think fairy tales make for good foreign policy. Pre-emptive war under false pretenses that kill over 100,000 people waged in the WRONG COUNTRY to avenge daddy's honor and advance mythical global hegemony. No, Lu, the shrub has not made us safer, though you are free to give credit where you see fit. I would never try to talk down a blind Bushie but I can state with unwavering certainty that there are better, smarter, more honest and less deadly approaches to foreign policy, which you are about to witness first-hand on the dawn of this new era.
No just the poster you answered.
I'm beginning to feel the same way. He's pouring good money after bad. He should get wise and stop it RIGHT NOW.
After giving AIG more money yesterday, I feel all O knows is how to spend and that seems to be his cure-all for what ails the country. You would think he would get the hint by now with the market tanking and everyone losing their pensions and 401Ks.
Yes, you are a bit confused. I answered
your posts - this is a free forum, isn't it? - and you referred to me as JTBB.
Do not try to justify your insensitivity with 'I was just joking', this is lame. Because you were NOT joking. You find all the torture and cruelty done to prisoners amusing and entertaining, as you decorate your comments with .. 'LOL, ROFL, Geez etc....'
You asked a question, I answered it. I'm not sure what you want. nm
OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
He already has answered tough questions and without a
teleprompter. Now it is about time they let Palin answer a few.
Re: "associations" -- you never answered a prior
Jes' curious............
I agree, was very good. -and she answered with
nm
Maybe no one answered the two previous posts...sm
becuase they're tired of getting jumped on by your side, you know, the anti-fanatic fanatics...lol....but true.
I've refrained from commenting on this issue, even though I feel as if Obama is hiding something. Wonder what it could be?
I answered you above - you are making things up
You accused me earlier of being a racist and posting racist posts. I challenged you and you can't find one. You tried to use something I said after you accused me. I also read through all my posts and there are none. When I referred to Michelle not talking like a black woman I was referring to your typical stereotyping us because we don't always talk or write the way you think all black people do. I'll say it again. Michelle Obama is one classy lady.
You know one thing I was taught growing up is if I'm ever wrong to at least have the decency to say I'm wrong and am sorry, but I guess not everyone is like that.
I saw the snopes link first and have answered
x
If someone had posted the post I answered, yes...
It would be racist if a white person voted for someone just because he was white. It would be racist for a black person to vote for a black person just because he was black. It would be racist for a white person not to vote for a black person just because he was black. It would be racist for a black person to not vote for a white person just because he was white.
Does that clear it up for you?
I answered above and your badgering doesn't rattle me,
x
I feel these questions could have been best answered by Kfir. sm
Frankly, I am not sure how much more evidence you need after the article I posted on the Conservative board regarding Mike Wallace's interview with Iran's president. You made allegations that Christians are only now interested in Israel because we see *the end* coming. That just isn't so. But you state it as fact, not as a personal opinion. Maybe that is where the disconnect lies, that what you perceive has become fact to you. As far as personal attacks, I haven't attacked you. You have to admit, though, that your question to Kfir about why the Israeli army did not fight in Iraq was kind of startling in light of what happened in the Gulf war and in light of the hatred between Israeli and Arab. I would love to debate you, but I don't think we would be debating so much as defending our own belief system. Again, I say this respectfully and this is based on reading your posts here. Your aggression towards Kfir and his defense of his country is puzzling to me. Yet you felt the one attacked. There is just too much emotion here. This milieu is just not conducive to logical debate. People say things they would not ordinarily say in person. I thought the remark you make to Kfir about him not being representative of most Israeli was offensive. I do, believe this conversation has become way too personal, on all levels.
Hope this post answered your question.
no message
If McCain/Palin win, Heaven has answered my
nm
|
