You and Myth make sense
Posted By: AnnuderMT on 2009-06-12
In Reply to: I think it is a combination of things. - Trigger Happy
I had forgotten to look at it that way, but on reflecting on it, that does make sense. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter when I was a young wild-child. I, too, have grown a bit more conservative, but I'm somewhere in the middle. It also does make sense about the celebs. Much like back during the red scare when McCarthy had anyone with suspected communist sympathies blacklisted, the pendulum has swung to where anyone with a conservative viewpoint would probably have a hard time finding work.
Thanks for 'splaining, Lucy!
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
Well that does not make sense because
Her daughter is an adult and able to make her own decisions on what she wants for her life. Unless your going to lock her inside the house and accompany her every single place she goes to outside the home its impossible.
Here's some examples. I joined the military without asking my parents. Would you hold my parents responsible for that. My cousin grew up in strict Christian home (church 3 times a week, sang in chorus, taught in their sunday school. And she was 17 years old. She also got pregnant (and this was in a town of less than 10,000 people so her parents knew where she was at all the time. My aunt and uncle should not be held accountable for what their daughter does. A lot of kids are getting pregnant at earlier and earlier ages. There is a point where they have minds of their own and decide what it is they want to do with their lives and a lot of them want to have families. Gov. Palin's daughter evidently did too. She's an adult and do not need to tell or get permission from her parents on that.
As for Gov. Pailin dealing with her issues at home? There are no issues to deal with and she is doing just fine.
U don't make sense.
.
That does make sense...... thank you. sm
but I really want to know WHY the post was moved when it related to a topic that had been discussed here.
You make little sense
for someone claiming to have a triple digit IQ, or at least I think that's what you mean.
You miss my point altogether.
And then have to resort to outhouse jokes to boot. *sigh*
I was trying to figure out what you meant by calling me a potty mouth, and I just couldn't get it....must be my low IQ showing...or maybe it's yours.
Anyway, if you're referring to my comment about your initials, that's a term of endearment in my family, as well as a favorite movie candy from our youth. You probably don't remember them. Nothing else was meant or implied. Apologies, if you took it any other way.
Thank you Thank you! You make so much sense.
nm
Can't make sense of your respone.
No, I haven't got the picture. The picture is incomplete. So you suggest that anyone can look at the ISPs to see if a poster has more than one alias but then you say only the administrator can do it. You don't make sense. Is the administrator giving out ISP information to certain people, or just you, or no one? Please explain
Can't make sense of your post.
Are you saying that the conservatives believe only videos portray the truth? Then wouldn't the videotape of soldiers being interviewed for 60 MInutes also be the truth then?
Military Times is not a military newspaper and does not speak for servicemen? Who does it cater to primarily if not the military? Hairdressers?????? Medical transcriptionists???? Yes, it is privately owned and is a Gannett publication. While their survey may not be the most scientific thing ever done it still has merit. See below:
A poll for the Military Times newspapers, which questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members, gives us a much better sense. In case the myth that military personnel still widely support the president's policy hadn't been debunked enough, these results should do the trick.
Barely one in three service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, according to the new poll for the four papers (Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Times). In another startling finding, only 41% now feel it was the right idea to go to war in Iraq in the first place.
And the number who feel success there is likely has shrunk from 83% in 2004 to about 50% today. A surprising 13% say there should be no U.S. troops in Iraq at all. [...]
Nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today's military is stretched too thin to be effective.
As for the escalation, only 38% of those surveyed believe more troops should be sent to Iraq, while 39% think there should be the same number or less than there are now. (The rest said they didn't know.)
Other plans out there make more sense
I've been researching other candidates and their plans.
On the Dem side - Kucinich has a plan for only one insurance provider to everyone. Sends all the bloodsucking insurance companies and their "preexisting conditions" and "not medically necessary" straight out of business. I kinda like that plan, as I used to do billing and it would sure cut through a ton of red tape for doctors, hospitals, their staff and the patients.
On the Rep side - Huckabee has a plan that does away with employers providing insurance. That's kind of scary, as "pooling" to get better insurance rates has always been the cheaper way to go.
But any plan I've seen doesn't worry me as much as Hillary's!
Anybody else who has heard of a candidate with a good plan, please chime in!
Let's see if we can make a little sense out of this mess....
You said:
The subject is not the name of the proceedings, the intent of the inquiry, whether or not you think he should or should not be impeached or any of the other distractions you have thrown up in this thread.
Answer: I know what Dennis Kucinich says. It is not new. I have heard it. I have heard it from any number of Democrats. All I am saying is if they think they have the evidence to impeach him, why the heck don't they do it?? That is not a distraction, it is a valid question. I don't care what they call it...all I said was, what they are doing now, even the chairman said was not an impeachment hearing. HE said it, I didn't, so why don't you accuse HIM of throwing up distractions and circling around, yada yada. Perhaps because when Democrat throws up distractions and circles around that is fine in your books??
You said: You circled around the subject when you thought you could gain some traction/advantage when trying to refute the accusations against Bush regarding lying about WMDs/yellowcake uranium intelligence, trying to make it appear that total exoneration would be a piece of cake..as if that were the only thing the democrats have on the table.
Answer: Geez, stop putting words in my mouth and assigning agendas to me I don't have. In going and doing some of the research you shouted at me to do, I found excerpts from the impeachment-trolling-factfinding-whatEVER the heck makes you happy to call it committee, I found where one of the lone Republicans on the committee made mention of a document recently declassified by the CIA that supposedly corroroborates (and I said supposedly because I don't know, because I haven't seen it, because it is part of the blacked out stuff) Bush's story about Niger and yellowcake and exposes Joe Wilson's story about the same. I did not say it myself, and I did not make it up. One of the committee members said it. Yes, I would be interested in it. I would be interested in any evidence Kucinich has other than speechifying about it. That is why I would be interested in a real impeachment trial, if that is what they want, so we can hear from ALL witnesses, see ALL the documents, and make our OWN decisions. I want more that Kucinich's word and Vincent Bugliosi's book. I want the CIA declassified document and the whole ball of wax. I want people under oath when they testify. Although, after Bill Clinton, even that is not always helpful since he chose to lie anyway, but still...not everyone is willing to perjure himself/herself. If that means I have my head in the sand, so be it. LOL.
YOU SAID: The subject is the CONTENT of the hearings, otherwise known as the ISSUES. It makes no difference where you get them from. DK is the best when it comes to explaining the positions concisely. The prosecuting parties are all amazingly consistent in their identification of what their contentions are and how they back them up.
ANSWER: Well excuse me, but didn't I read the hearings were closed and blacked out? So how do you know what the content is??? As I said, I have heard what Kucinich says. It is not new with him. I just need more than his word for it.
YOU SAID: What you are refusing to do is examine the other side of the story (that is to say, the specifics as laid out by the democrats)...that side of the story that takes you out of that safe place where you always stay...
ANSWER: Look that that finger in the mirror, points right back at you. You are completely unwilling to entertain any thought that you, and these Democrats, might just be wrong. If I was terrified, as you state, or did not want to hear anything about Bush maybe being guilty, I would not be hawking for his impeachment. What you are doing is make me the enemy, classic attack mode. Turn that mode off and try to hear me this time: I DON'T KNOW if Bush lied. NOBODY does. I don't know if he did or he didn't, but I DO KNOW that I need more than Dennis Kucinich's word or interpretation of whatever evidence he has to believe that Bush lied. You are so consumed with hatred for the man and the so-called right wing that you are ready to move right to "you're guilty." You believe he is guilty and you have not heard any of the defense. You do not WANT to hear any of the defense. How, pray tell, is your attitude any different from the one you accuse me of? If this was a Democrat president instead of a republican president, would you be on here righteously indignant presupposing his guilt based on a Republican-dominated committee and a lawyer's book who was not even close to the events that took place? Of course you wouldn't! You would be here saying it was a railroad hatchet job. Don't bother denying it. It would ring pretty hollow.
YOU SAID: that support your arguments, making nice with those who agree with your ideas, the condescending "let me enlighten you" instructions (i.e., "read up on Marxism, but let me interpret it for you if you don't see it my way" passages) and the inevitable name-calling, innuendoes, half-truths, misprepresentations, statements taken out of context, jumping to far-fetched conclusions when making degrading statements about democrats, and the vitriol that issues forth in your endless Obama bashing.
ANSWER: Talk about throwing up a distraction. As to condescending, when that tone is used with me I respond in kind. If you don't like it, don't condescend to me.
As far as that other litany, it would apply to Dennis Kucinich and Vincent Bugliosi as well. If they have documentation and not opinion to back up what they are saying, then why (and please stop dodging this fundamentally important question as you have so artfully what, three times now?): If they have the evidence, all these "prosecutors," why don't they go to trial?? That is a simple question. Answer it, please. As I said, I would WELCOME a trial, where BOTH sides are heard, under oath, all the documents in evidence, and no opinion, just fact. I mean that. And if it was proven that Bush lied, that he cooked intelligence, abused executive privilege or whatever and they convict him he should be thrown out of office (which would be largely symbolic, doncha think, since he has what, about 3-4 months left? Sheesh). I have no problem with that. My question is why don't they do it?? And if they are unwilling to, why are you so incensed at me? It is not MY fault they won't impeach him.
You can sure see the splinter in my eye, but the timber in your own seems to escape you.
As to Obama bashing, I gave opinion on what are known facts. His association with Reverend Wright...his church's association with Louis Farrakhan...his church's black liberation theology...his radical way left pro abortion stance...all facts. There is plenty of McCain bashing going on too. I don't hear any righteous indignation on your part concerning McCain bashing. So it is okay to bash Republicans? I see.
YOU SAID: Obstruction is something the right-wingers have down to an art. You have mastered well.
Answer: Ahem. Seems like the Democrats are the obstructive ones. Last time I looked, Pelosi was a Democrat, and she is obstructing an impeachment. Take your rant to her where it might do some good. I would tell them if you think you have the goods, bring it on. Ms. Pelosi is obstructing that.
You said: At the same time, it is an extremely transparent and ineffective way to address issues that are vital to our country.
Answer: Issues vital to our country? Impeaching a president who only has 3 more months in office is vital to our country? For everyone to just assume dennis Kucinich and these prosecutors are telling the truth and the accused has no opportunity for defense? That sounds more like Russia than America.
You said: Clearly, you are unwilling to attempt to look at, let alone participate in any kind of real debate that excludes the tactics you use in these posts.
Answer: Debate involves both sides being willing to hear both sides. You are not willing to entertain the thought of Bush not being guilty. In fact, absolutely will not entertain it. I, on the other hand, said let's have the impeachment trial and get it all out in the open once and for all, both sides. That sounds like I am very willing to hear both sides. Unlike you.
YOU SAID: That would involve actually knowing what you are talking about...and the only way to get that is to peek inside the hearings and focus on the ISSUES under discussion. Somehow this seems to terrify you. No problem. There are plenty of places beyond this forum where really informed discourse is available.
Answer: Peeking inside hearings where only one side is presented is NOT debate, and it is NOT the way to find the truth. Anyone with a reasoning OPEN mind sees that. Impeachment would be televised. We would hear testimony first hand. We could see documents first hand. None of this behind the door whispering stuff. Get it ALL out in the open. THAT seems to terrify you, not me. Seems to terrify Democrats, otherwise Nancy Pelosi would not be blocking it. That is common sense.
As to knowing what I am talking about...you only know what Dennis Kucinich is talking about and what little leaks out of those closed hearings. One-sided without anything from the other side. That is decided UNdemocratic for someone who calls himself/herself a Democrat. I am just amazed that you cannot see that everything you accuse me of, you are in spades. LOL. Amazing.
You said: Go head. Stick your head in the sand, and keep it there, if that's what makes you happy. That's what a comfort zone is...a world where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know.
Answer: Sheesh. Dial it back a notch will ya. You just described yourself to a tee. "Your comfort zone where you can be right 100% of the time and live under the pretense that you know all there is to know." You have basically been lecturing to me paragraph after paragraph that you know all there is to know, YOU know the truth, and I just refuse to see it. You say honest debate, yet you have no intention of entertaining any such thing. If you did, you would want to hear both sides in an open forum. You don't. You want a select committee comprised of majority partisan Democrats calling witnesses they know are going to support their aim without asking anyone who might refute any of it...come ON. Talk about transparent. Lynch mob mentality, hang him and ask questions later. All this drama over a man who is leaving office in 3 months. All this anger....
I will try to say this again, and maybe you can dial back your disdain and condescencion just long enough to hear it...I have stated emphatically and will state it again: I DON'T know all there is to know. I have heard stuff from both sides, both sides equally convinced of innocent and guilt, but neither able to prove it definitively. Which is why I said...impeach the man. If you feel like they have the goods, then you should be lobbying the Democratic leadership not to block impeachment, little obstructionists that they are. Let's get it ALL out in the open. Both sides. ALL of it. And if they are not willing to do it...then in my opinion, they should fold their tent and HUSH. And that is the difference between you and me...if this was a Democratic President I would be saying the same thing to a Republican committee...if you aren't going to do anything other than a political exercise, fold up your tents and HUSH.
Yes, I agree with that, this make sense...nm
nm
does this make sense? Surely,
the CIA knows the truth or Scotland Yard?
Your rants make absolutely no sense
none at all....
No, honestly it does not make grammatical sense
no it doesn't
Huh?? This post doesn't even make sense
.
yeah, but could care less really doesn't make sense if you think about it -nm
x
Perhaps if you would try to make sense people could answer your questions. nm
x
Don't bother...... you'll never be able to make sense of ignorance
--
Do ya think lithium would help here? (only kidding, doesn't make sense, but this is Capitol Hill
nm
So much for that myth...sm
I can only speak for my interpretation, but I'm for gay equality, i.e. in housing, employment, etc.
I don't love the gay way of life, but to each his own.
Did anybody every tell you that urban myth
su
The Myth of Foreign Fighters
Report by US think tank says only '4 to 10' percent of insurgents are foreigners.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq feed the myth that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the incurgency flames, they only comprise only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents.
The CSIS study also disputes media reports that Saudis comprise the largest group of foreign fighters. CSIS says Algerians are the largest group (20 percent), followed by Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent), Egyptians (13 percent), Saudis (12 percent) and those from other states (5 percent). CSIS gathered the information for its study from intelligence services in the Gulf region.
The CSIS report says: The vast majority of Saudi militants who have entered Iraq were not terrorist sympathisers before the war; and were radicalized almost exclusively by the coalition invasion.
The average age of the Saudis was 17-25 and they were generally middle-class with jobs, though they usually had connections with the most prominent conservative tribes. Most of the Saudi militants were motivated by revulsion at the idea of an Arab land being occupied by a non-Arab country. These feelings are intensified by the images of the occupation they see on television and the internet ... the catalyst most often cited [in interrogations] is Abu Ghraib, though images from Guantánamo Bay also feed into the pathology.
The report also gives credit to the Saudi government for spending nearly $1.2 billion over the past two years, and deploying 35,000 troops, in an effort to secure its border with Iraq. The major problem remains the border with Syria, which lacks the resources of the Saudis to create a similar barrier on its border.
The Associated Press reports that CSIS believes most of the insurgents are not Saddam Hussein loyalists but members of Sunni Arab Iraqi tribes. They do not want to see Mr. Hussein return to power, but they are wary of a Shiite-led government.
TheLos Angeles Times reports that a greater concern is that 'skills' foreign fighters are learning in Iraq are being exported to their home countries. This is a particular concern for Europe, since early this year US intelligence reported that Abu Musab Zarqawi, whose network is believed to extend far beyond Iraq, had dispatched teams of battle-hardened operatives to European capitals.
Iraq has become a superheated, real-world academy for lessons about weapons, urban combat and terrorist trade craft, said Thomas Sanderson of [CSIS].
Extremists in Iraq are exposed to international networks from around the world, said Sanderson, who has been briefed by German security agencies. They are returning with bomb-making skills, perhaps stolen explosives, vastly increased knowledge. If they are succeeding in a hostile environment, avoiding ... US Special Forces, then to go back to Europe, my God, it's kid's play.
Meanwhile, The Boston Globe reports that President Bush, in a speech Thursday that was clearly designed to dampen the potential impact of the antiwar rally this weekend in Washington, said his top military commanders in Iraq have told him that they are making progress against the insurgents and in establishing a politically viable state.
Newly trained Iraqi forces are taking the lead in many security operations, the president said, including a recent offensive in the insurgent stronghold of Tal Afar along the Syrian border – a key transit point for foreign fighters and supplies.
Iraqi forces are showing the vital difference they can make, Bush said. 'They are now in control of more parts of Iraq than at any time in the past two years. Significant areas of Baghdad and Mosul, once violent and volatile, are now more stable because Iraqi forces are helping to keep the peace.
The president's speech, however, was overshadowed by comments made Thursday by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Prince Saud al-Faisal said the US ignored warnings the Saudi government gave it about occupying Iraq. Prince al-Faisal also said he fears US policies in Iraq will lead to the country breaking up into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite parts. He also said that Saudi Arabia is not ready to send an ambassador to Baghdad, because he would become a target for the insurgents. I doubt he would last a day, al-Faisal said.
Finally, The Guardian reports that ambitions for Iraq are being drastically scaled down in private by British and US officials. The main goal has now become avoiding the image of failure. The paper quotes sources in the British Foreign department as saying that hopes to turn Iraq into a model of democracy for the Middle East had been put aside. We will settle for leaving behind an Iraqi democracy that is creaking along, the source said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html
Yes. That the media liberal is a myth.sm
We have a state media and they speak for the corporations who pay them who are ______ (fill in the blank).
The so-called faces of the liberal media:
The Beltway Boys: Your daily dose of liberalism out of Washington, DC.
Sean Hannity: A progressive Christian who likes to speak his mind.
Chris Matthews: A Clinton apologist.
Robert Novak: Champion of the poor and spokesman for social justice.
Tony Snow: Cutting through the GOP spin.
Paul Zahn: On the edge of progressive journalism.
John Stossel: Holding corporations accountable for greed and exploitation and pollution.
Bill O'Reilly: Notorious left-wing muckracker.
Brit Hume: Always fair and balanced.
Rush Limbaugh: The Master of Extreme Left Talk Radio.
Pat Buchanan: Pro choice, gay rights activist, part-time CNN pundit.
MSNBCs Alan Keyes: They do not come anymore liberal than Alan Keyes.
Larry King: Progressive intellectual feared by conservatives for tough follow-up questions.
Tim Russert: Never one to let Republicans get away with softball questions.
Coulter/Malkin: Not worth commenting on, they belong in a cage together.
Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth
By Jennifer Schultz
UPI
Thursday 10 November 2005
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
 |
 |
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
(Photo: spacewar.com) |
|
|
The United States created the myth around Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and reality followed, terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni said.
Al-Zarqawi was born Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh in October 1966 in the crime and poverty-ridden Jordanian city of Zarqa. But his myth was born Feb. 5, 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations the case for war with Iraq.
Napoleoni, the author of Insurgent Iraq, told reporters last week that Powell's argument falsely exploited Zarqawi to prove a link between then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. She said that through fabrications of Zarqawi's status, influence and connections the myth became the reality - a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He became what we wanted him to be. We put him there, not the jihadists, Napoleoni said.
Iraq's most notorious insurgent, Napoleoni argues, accomplished what bin Laden could not: spread the message of jihad into Iraq.
In an article of Napoleoni's in the current November/December issue of Foreign Policy, she said, In a sense, it is the very things that make Zarqawi seem most ordinary - his humble upbringing, misspent youth and early failures - that make him most frightening. Because, although he may have some gifts as a leader of men, it is also likely that there are many more 'al-Zarqawis' capable of filling his place.
The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement.
Al-Zarqawi became the icon of a new generation of anti-imperialist jihadists, she said.
The grand claim that al-Zarqawi provided the vital link between Saddam and al-Qaida lost its significance after it became known that al-Zarqawi and bin Laden did not forge a partnership until after the war's start. The two are believed to have met sometime in 2000, but al-Zarqawi - similar to a group of dissenting al-Qaida members -rebuffed bin Laden's anti-American brand of jihad.
He did not have a global vision like Osama, said Napoleoni, who interviewed primary and secondary sources close to al-Zarqawi and his network.
A former member of al-Zarqawi's camp in Herat told her, I never heard him praise anyone apart from the Prophet [Muhammad]; this was Abu Musab's character. He never followed anyone.
Al-Zarqawi's scope before the Iraq war, she continued, did not extend past corrupt Arab regimes, particularly Jordan's. Between 2000 and early 2002, he operated the training camp in Herat with Taliban funds; the fighters bound for Jordan. After the fall of the Taliban, he fled to Iraqi Kurdistan and set up shop.
In 2001, Kurdish officials enlightened the United States about the uninvited Jordanian, said Napoleoni. Jordanian officials, who had still unsolved terrorist attacks, were eager to implicate al-Zarqawi, she claimed. The little-known militant instantly had fingerprints on most major terrorist attacks after Sept. 11, 2001. He was depicted in Powell's speech as a key player in the al-Qaida network.
By perpetuating a terrifying myth of al-Zarqawi, the author said, The United States, Kurds, and Jordanians all won ... but jihad gained momentum, after in-group dissension and U.S. coalition operations had left the core of al-Qaida crippled.
In her article, Napoleoni says, [Zarqawi] had finally managed to grasp bin Laden's definition of the faraway enemy, the United States. Adding that, Its presence in Iraq as an occupying power made it clear to him that the United States was as important a target as any of the Arab regimes he had grown to hate.
... The myth constructed around him is at the root of his transformation into a political leader. With bin Laden trapped somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, al-Zarqawi fast became the new symbolic leader in the fight against America and a manager for whoever was looking to be part of that struggle, she wrote.
The author points to letters between al-Zarqawi and bin Laden that have surfaced over the past two years, indicating the evolution in their relationship, most notably a shift in al-Zarqawi which led to his seeking additional legitimacy among Sunnis that bin Laden could help bestow.
In late December 2004 - shortly after the fall of Fallujah - the pan-Arab network Al-Jazeera aired a video of what was bin Laden's first public embrace of Zarqawi and his fight in Iraq.
... We in al-Qaida welcome your union with us ... and so that it be known, the brother mujahid Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the emir of the al Qaida organization [in Iraq], bin Laden declared.
Napoleoni believes that al-Zarqawi, however, is still largely driven by the romantic vision of a restored Caliphate, and that his motives still are less political than some other factions participating in the Iraq resistance.
She questions whether he has actually devised a plan for what he will do, if and when, he wins.
The myth of the Clinton surplus - been disproved -sm
A lot of democrats keep pushing this bogus claim that there was a surplus when in fact there never was. This has been discussed on this board, so by this message I'm assuming you never saw the message or went the the US Treasury website to check it out. Below is a link to it and explains what really happened.
The US National Debt proves there was never a surplus, and the article explains why people claim otherwise for political reasons. - good read. Even my most conservatives friends bought into this surplus craze, and said they were glad their eyes were opened.
I'll credit another poster for origianlly posting this (it's been so long I forget who now).
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
The myth of the Clinton surplus...I'm a libertarian but I am sick of hearing this..SM
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
NOBODY can make Saddam look good. But Bush seems to be the ONLY one who can make him look less
If you can't make abortion illegal, just make it impossible (sm)
That's right, Bush is still alive and well. Check this out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676
Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?
Just because you make a statement does not make it true...
.
Those who make you believe absurdities can make
O&B have more sense than that,
nm
But in the same sense
you are saying we should remove the law to not murder someone because every can make choices right or wrong?
I don't believe we should give free reign to abortion. The law he wants to sign can even make it where doctors cannot say no to doing an abortion because of the conscience clause. Therefore physicians who are against abortion because of their beliefs will be forced to perform abortions or lose their job. The FOCA is to broadly written.
I'm not fooling myself. They may not be moral, but they aren't voting for legislation that my faith says is against what God wants. Yes, God gave us free will, but he also gave us laws. I believe murder is murder. The Bible tells me that we are given life from the moment of conception, and therefore an abortion takes away that life, meaning it is murder.
I hope you didn't think I was questioning your beliefs btw, I wasn't. I was just stating how I look at the situation. My father-in-law is a Baptist preacher also. I used to be scared of the Baptist doctrine, but now I really appreciate it, because they preach straight from the Bible. My father-in-law won't even paraphrase! LOL
I see no sense in this.
Obama wants to take away our guns. If there are no guns, we won't shoot each other right? WRONG. Just because you take guns away from good people doesn't mean the bad people won't still get them. The honest folks who would abide by the rules would be at the mercy of the crooks who would obtain weapons illegally.
Ignorant people who do stupid things with guns gives the rest of us gun totting hillbillies a bad name and it isn't fair. No reason to take our guns away. We just want to protect ourselves and our family. If someone breaks into my house with the intent of harming myself or my family....I feel I should have a right to protect them. Why are criminals being protected instead? They are the ones doing wrong. Sometimes this country has things so backwards it isn't funny.
You are not by yourself in your sense of
renewal and having cause to rejoice. I had that sense immediately after the results came in and expecially the next morning. I live in a major US city where the change has actually been visible and palpable. The people here have been holding their heads up and making eye contact, greeting each another on the street, talking to one another and smiling a lot more. It's been great to see and to be a part of it.
Do not let the naysayers take that from you. Welcome to the politics board where you can take advantage of another great opportunity...to exercise, strengthen and hold your faith tight, and to develop a thick hide such that the gloom and doom expressed here will go in one ear and out the other and roll off you like water off a duck's back.
That's probably because this is what makes sense to you.
Perhaps you could be a translator for us?
REPORTER: Is the tide turning in Iraq?
DUBYA: I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
-- White House, Jun. 14, 2006
If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it gives -- I think it will -- I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing. In other words, it's very difficult -- you can have the most powerful army of the world -- ask the Israelis what it's like to try to stop suiciders. ...That's the -- but that's one of the main -- that's the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider. ...Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow.
-- White House, May 23, 2006
I've reminded the Prime Minister -- the American people, Mr. Prime Minister, over the past months that it was not always a given that the United States and America would have a close relationship.
-- With Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan, White House, Jun. 29, 2006
Ok, that makes sense then
I was thinking when I read the headline that that sounds like something sports players would do to each other (like patting each other on the "behind"). The headline made it sound like he did it in a room full of reporters in the senate. HA HA HA
I want a President who has sense enough...
while "multitasking" to put the most important issue on the front burner. The failing economy to me is the front burner...not the run for the Presidency. Obama proved to me again why I am not voting for him.
Sorry...this makes no sense....
I think you mean Taliban, and bin Laden is not their boss. He is AL Qaeda's boss.
That being said...they were only doing what they were told to do? We are talking Congress here. They had the evidence that this could happen, and blocked legislation that would have prevented it. Who do you think "told" them to block it?
we will need our sense of humor
and some solar panels for this next chapter.
makes sense to me
x
makes no sense to me either
x
No, that just has to do with some common sense
@
YA! Someby with some sense!
I'm sorry if I'm starting to be nasty here, but I'm getting sick of all the asisine (sp) excuses for some people voting for either candidate.
RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH, and not the tabloids or any newspaper who backed one or the other candidate. Newspapers are getting notorious for their one-sided views in the past few years. Go to the government site to sift through the legislation. Most won't because it's too hard to do, but if you have a brain, you can figure out who is the best candidate by the voting records, background, etc.
I rest my case.
Makes a lot of sense
Why don't we all do that??????
Get a sense of humor. n/m
x
Sure it made sense Mrs. M..........
it just brings to light how ignorant a lot of his voters were and still are and the others just voted out of sheer fear of the economy and their jobs. Want to hear some of it for yourself?
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
I think they sense his weakness....sm
Even though Obama has talked the talk about hunting down bin Laden and stamping out al-Queda, time will tell, and we will see what he will do.
He also want to cut funding to the military. He also wants to shut down Guantanomo Bay.
It sounds to me like Obama has two messages going out...mixed signals look like weakness to me, and obviously to al-Queda.
These people hate Americans, and it probably makes no difference on who is in the white house....we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
GET A SENSE OF HUMOR!!!!! nm
No, but I do have common sense.
nm
You still are not making sense
I read all of the posts from the beginning. The Franklin Mint makes all these presidential coins. Yes I know it's not Obama's fault they colored his picutre in. Like another poster said (that is Franklin Mint's fault) They didn't with the other presidents but they did with Obama and it looks Tachy and cheap! They should have left his face in gold.
I know exactly why you said what you did. You are trying to turn what someone wrote about the colored coins into a racial thing and its not. If I was you I would drop the subject entirely. She was talking about the colored coins the Franklin Mint put out. Washington and the other presidents faces are not colored in on the coins.
|
