You can lead a horse to water...
Posted By: Palintology on 2009-01-24
In Reply to: yes---and I am sure that she is still well aware... - Kendra
You can teach teenagers abstinence, but you can't make them practice it! Therefore, teaching birth control makes much more sense. If Bristol Palin had been given access to birth control, she wouldn't be in the predicament she's in.
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
To paraphrase, you can lead a horse to the facts, but you can't make it think. nm
nm
This would lead one to believe....
you are a communist, you have no problem with a man with marxist leanings as President...or you are cruising down the river denial. Which one is it?
What did I ever to say to lead you
to think I believe his lies?
Lead by example and clean up
nm
no telling where this will lead.
x
Yes. Do tell how conservatives would lead us
out of the darkness and into the light.
He does not only lead Christians
.
Qualified to lead the country? How?
nm
CNN lead story this am: How to pray
nm
Why don't you ask the double digit lead
nm
Nothing except a double-digit lead.
xxxxxxx
I was just saying to follow the lead of your hero
he lost but he is moving past it, unlike the RRs on this board
If Bush wanted to lead s/m
I think a nice black tie BBQ would have satisfied protocol. Beer goes real well with BBQ and it doesn't cost $300 a bottle. Maybe Bush is still clinging to "the economy is fundamentally sound." Maybe he'd like to tell that to my single parent neighbor who was laid off from her manufacturing job yesterday after 15 years because they're moving the plant to MEXICO.
Sure you can: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. sm
She came up with this while playing a game in which she was asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence.
I don't have a horse
and I don't have any boots.
If you are not pro-military action in Iraq (which lead to war)...sm
Then we are on the same side of this debate.
you could always marry a horse
x
horse and pony
Hmmm........seems to me she has been decrying her innocence on this issue since it was brought up. What struck me the most during the convention when giving her speech written by Dubya's speechwriter - was the fact that she paraded her poor pregnant daughter in front of the masses - the girl looked terrified - and then they passed that tiny 4-month-old baby around like he had something big and stinky in his diaper (evident by the pained expression on Cindy McCain's face). I think they should be ashamed of themselves for USING her children like circus freaks. And.....Lord have Mercy........people are falling all over themselves for this soap opera.
high horse?
nm
Oh, get off your high horse.... I'm sure you
have had nothing to say when McCain and Palin are being kicked about here. Your true colors are showing!
Horse feathers! sm
"This country was not founded on Christianity or any other religion." What cave have you been living in, JTBB?
The preamble to our constitution written by our nation's founders states that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our CREATOR. While it does not mention God by name, obviously the founders of this nation believed in a higher being who created this world and all that is in it. Washington and Franklin and Jefferson, as well as others, may have been deists rather than Christians of a particular religion such as Baptists or Methodists, but they did believe in a supreme God who created the universe. So please stop it with "we were not founded on Christian beliefs." It really is wearing thin.
A nation that trusts in God, as our currency says we do, enjoys the benefits of the protection of a benevolent and loving God. I don't think that we should trust in God just to be seen in any particular way by other nations but rather so that we may receive blessings of God so that we may be a prosperous and moral nation, something that we are ceasing to be as we are increasingly turning our back on God.
people are starting to pay attention. Obama's lead
nm
Correction. Latest numbers show a 6.5 lead.
how many seats in Congress adn the Senate the democrats gained? The message seems pretty clera to me. How do you keep that hatred from eating you up from the inside out? Obama won because desptie GOP's best efforts, they trust their future more to him than McCain. No amount of negativity can change the feeling of uplift, hope, excitement and enthusiasm for our President-elect. I feel sorry for you that you seem so determined to keep yourself down in the mud pit. Election's over. Your party needs your attention. Your country needs your help. Go figure.
For your informtion: When Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt
into the Holy land (Palestine) in the 13th century BC- this is known as Exodus - this land was already inhabited by a people, the Canaanites = Palestinians.
The Palestianians were in Palestine, The Holy land, before the Israelites arrived in Palestine:
The Canaanites (c. 2000 BC- 1468 BC)
History of Palestine
About 2000 BC, a Semitic people of remarkable industry, enterprise and intelligence occupied Palestine as well as Lebanon. They were called "Canaanites", and Palestine and Lebanon then both became known as "the land of Canaan".
He's beating a dead horse.
Even Bush finally came clean and said there were none. That's when the *reason* for the war changed from WMDs to freeing the Iraqis (while ignoring bin Laden in Afghanistan).
I find it very, VERY interesting that his sudden *find* came less than 24 hours after PBS aired a very revealing show (*The Dark Side*) about the Iraq war, Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Cheney, with the majority of the people interviewed being CIA agents, who generally had more than 20 years of service with the CIA, and they said some pretty shocking (but not too surprising) things about this whole war. (If you'd like to see this show, you can view it in its entirety on line by going to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/; I'd personally recommend it.)
When it's all said and done, though, regardless of how many facts are presented, Santorum could have declared to the world that there's evidence that Saddam had SLINGSHOTS, and some unfortunate souls on these boards would still say, *See? We told you he had WMDs.* It's really difficult to even be upset, frustrated or angry with them any more. I just mostly feel sorry for them. 
Obama, The Trojan Horse...
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812032845/editorial/obama-the-trojan-horse.html
You are beating a dead horse! (nm)
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Better the high horse than the low road....nm
nm
They just want to see us come down from our imperial high horse.
That's all.
Straight from the horse's mouth... sm
Did you not watch the video???? That is EXACTLY what Obama said. So now you are saying that Obama himself is not credible???? 
What I found even MORE ridiculous is what he said before having said "I am the change." 
No water.
But I will send prayers his way for the salvation of all of us in these trying times.
She's trying to keep herself out of hot water...sm
She KNOWS she is lying, but this sort of behavior is now well accepted by this administration! Sad - so, so sad!
Where's my dead horse beating stick???
The US went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons, including concern over Saddam's failure to account for WMDs, which put him in violation of the treaty that ended Gulf War I, and violation of several UN resolutions - I can never remember if it was 14 or 17.
If you really want an answer to this question, a search for the resolution permitting use of force in Iraq should be relatively easy. I'm not sure it's worthwhile, though, since the matter is essentially moot, since we are there now.
My question to you: There is a lot of discussion lately about possibly increasing troop levels in Iraq to try to bring the security situation under control. What are your thoughts on that? Do you support it? Would you support it if you could be persuaded that there was a reasonable possibility of success?
Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I don't have a problem supporting more troops, but I think it's as much a PC problem as a troop number problem in Iraq. In other words, I don't think US forces can do much to bring security to Iraq if they are forced to always act in the most P.C. manner possible so as not to risk offending any single faction or, heaven forbid, creating negative spin in the press.
I certainly think we could be effective there in securing the country, but only if we realize that we might have to leave a heavy footprint in Iraq in order to accomplish that goal. For example, I think we should have taken out al Sadr, even if it meant leveling significant portions of Sadr City, when he first became a major underming influence to the new Iraqi government. Some may think that makes me a flag-waving member of the Death Squad, but I have to wonder how many lives could have been spared in the long run had we stamped al Sadr out then, when we had a good tactical opportunity and could have done so fairly easily.
If we're going to send our troops over there in harm's way to fight for the security of Iraq, the dream of democracy, and the creation of a competing vision for the future of the Middle East, then we must let them fight to win.
Well, I wouldn't but that's what makes horse races. n/m
LOL I think that high horse is going to start bucking
and it's a long way to the ground.
if it were a "Dead Horse" the Supreme Court ...sm
would not be still considering it further, which they are. Perhaps that should be your first dose of reality.
meant "through" the mouth of a horse
Typo....oops.
Bridger, you put the cart before the horse. Read my
lips. DO NOT post the entire article. Post only excerpts from it with link to it.
Do you want the owners of this board in a legal battle? All it takes is someone reporting one of your posts for that to happen. I am warning you for your own good. If you don't care about the owners of this board, others of us do.
Get a grip, will ya? And, get legal.
Mmhh NO water..
Drink the water, fool, just drink a BIG COLD GLASS OF NO WATER..Please..you would do our country a BIG favor..
Water the Bushes...sm
I'm just hearing about the Water the Bushes project that will be done in remembrance of Hurricane Katrina and the response (or lack thereof) from our government.
I hope some of you got to send a bottle of water to the Pres.
You mean O can't walk on water?! Oh no
nm
OMG...I just saw him walk on water!!...nm
//
Pot, water, frog...
Over the last few years, I think I know what it feels like to be a frog that's dropped into a pot of cold water, with the temperature rise of the water being so slow that the next thing he knows, he's DEAD.
I know I'm "there," but this "evolution" has been so subtle that I don't know exactly when it began and probably won't realize when it ends (if it ends).
For starters, this bill was apparently introduced on June 26, 2007, while Bush was still President.
The way it was being hyped, it seemed to be something that was designed to encourage public service in young people in exchange for financial assistance with college tuition, etc. I thought it sounded like a good idea, something that might help to build character in young people and encourage and foster the kind of behavior we saw after 9/11, when Americans helped each other and showed the world what we're made of when it comes to helping each other. To offer a young person financial help for college in exchange for some volunteer hours, I thought, was great. Equally great, I thought, was the notion that this was voluntary and NOT mandatory.
Now, it's apparently for everyone, including seniors, which is still okay, I guess, if this is something that some seniors want to do.
However, one little sentence (shown below) is sending up a BIG RED FLAG into my little pea brain, copied below and bolded:
From: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
OpenCongress Summary:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, including those for seniors and veterans. It also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer service program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate.
In its current form, the legislation does not include a mandate requiring service.
Quite frankly, I have jumped (like a frog) from link to link to link trying to research this, so I'm not sure what its "current form" is today. It apparently was passed by the House and now by the Senate just a few days ago (see http://loungedaddy.us/?p=725).
Yesterday, at first, when I heard of Rick Wagoner, GM's "sacrificial lamb," basically being fired by Obama, I felt very uncomfortable with that. After I thought about it more, though, I do agree that ANY company that accepts financial aid from Americans should be scrutinized, including, if necessary in this manner (even if Wagoner's firing, in my opinion, was merely symbolic and not substantive). What sticks in my crawl is the fact that Wall Street crooks have been treated like kings while auto industry workers are being kicked more and more every day while they're down.
I was never comfortable with any of the bailouts, and that was the one thing that Obama voted for that earned him a spot on the "negative" column of my pros and cons list.
I freely admit that my thought processes have been severely hampered recently (especially after two hospitalizations in less than a month). It's much more difficult for me to concentrate and to word-find at times. I had hoped that Obama would be the "people's" President (as opposed to Bush being the "corporation's" President.
I used to think (and frequently wrote) that the Clintons and the Bushes were merely opposite sides of the same coin. I still believe that; however, I'm starting to think that Obama's face is on that coin now.
To sum it up, on this day and at this time, all I can truly say with certainty is:
RIBBIT!!!!
Pot, water, frog...
Over the last few years, I think I know what it feels like to be a frog that's dropped into a pot of cold water, with the temperature rise of the water being so slow that the next thing he knows, he's DEAD.
I know I'm "there," but this "evolution" has been so subtle that I don't know exactly when it began and probably won't realize when it ends (if it ends).
For starters, this bill was apparently introduced on June 26, 2007, while Bush was still President.
The way it was being hyped, it seemed to be something that was designed to encourage public service in young people in exchange for financial assistance with college tuition, etc. I thought it sounded like a good idea, something that might help to build character in young people and encourage and foster the kind of behavior we saw after 9/11, when Americans helped each other and showed the world what we're made of when it comes to helping each other. To offer a young person financial help for college in exchange for some volunteer hours, I thought, was great. Equally great, I thought, was the notion that this was voluntary and NOT mandatory.
Now, it's apparently for everyone, including seniors, which is still okay, I guess, if this is something that some seniors want to do.
However, one little sentence (shown below) is sending up a BIG RED FLAG into my little pea brain, copied below and bolded:
From: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
OpenCongress Summary:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, including those for seniors and veterans. It also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer service program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate.
In its current form, the legislation does not include a mandate requiring service.
Quite frankly, I have jumped (like a frog) from link to link to link trying to research this, so I'm not sure what its "current form" is today. It apparently was passed by the House and now by the Senate just a few days ago (see http://loungedaddy.us/?p=725).
Yesterday, at first, when I heard of Rick Wagoner, GM's "sacrificial lamb," basically being fired by Obama, I felt very uncomfortable with that. After I thought about it more, though, I do agree that ANY company that accepts financial aid from Americans should be scrutinized, including, if necessary in this manner (even if Wagoner's firing, in my opinion, was merely symbolic and not substantive). What sticks in my crawl is the fact that Wall Street crooks have been treated like kings while auto industry workers are being kicked more and more every day while they're down.
I was never comfortable with any of the bailouts, and that was the one thing that Obama voted for that earned him a spot on the "negative" column of my pros and cons list.
I freely admit that my thought processes have been severely hampered recently (especially after two hospitalizations in less than a month). It's much more difficult for me to concentrate and to word-find at times. I had hoped that Obama would be the "people's" President (as opposed to Bush being the "corporation's" President.
I used to think (and frequently wrote) that the Clintons and the Bushes were merely opposite sides of the same coin. I still believe that; however, I'm starting to think that Obama's face has replaced Hillary's face on that coin now.
To sum it up, on this day and at this time, all I can truly say with certainty is:
RIBBIT!!!!
Pot, water, frog...
Over the last few years, I think I know what it feels like to be a frog that's dropped into a pot of cold water, with the temperature rise of the water being so slow that the next thing he knows, he's DEAD.
I know I'm "there," but this "evolution" has been so subtle that I don't know exactly when it began and probably won't realize when it ends (if it ends).
For starters, this bill was apparently introduced on June 26, 2007, while Bush was still President.
The way it was being hyped, it seemed to be something that was designed to encourage public service in young people in exchange for financial assistance with college tuition, etc. I thought it sounded like a good idea, something that might help to build character in young people and encourage and foster the kind of behavior we saw after 9/11, when Americans helped each other and showed the world what we're made of when it comes to helping each other. To offer a young person financial help for college in exchange for some volunteer hours, I thought, was great. Equally great, I thought, was the notion that this was voluntary and NOT mandatory.
Now, it's apparently for everyone, including seniors, which is still okay, I guess, if this is something that some seniors want to do.
However, one little sentence (shown below) is sending up a BIG RED FLAG into my little pea brain, copied below and bolded:
From: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
OpenCongress Summary:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, including those for seniors and veterans. It also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer service program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate.
In its current form, the legislation does not include a mandate requiring service.
Quite frankly, I have jumped (like a frog) from link to link to link trying to research this, so I'm not sure what its "current form" is today. It apparently was passed by the House and now by the Senate just a few days ago (see http://loungedaddy.us/?p=725).
Yesterday, at first, when I heard of Rick Wagoner, GM's "sacrificial lamb," basically being fired by Obama, I felt very uncomfortable with that. After I thought about it more, though, I do agree that ANY company that accepts financial aid from Americans should be scrutinized, including, if necessary in this manner (even if Wagoner's firing, in my opinion, was merely symbolic and not substantive). What sticks in my crawl is the fact that Wall Street crooks have been treated like kings while auto industry workers are being kicked more and more every day while they're down.
I was never comfortable with any of the bailouts, and that was the one thing that Obama voted for that earned him a spot on the "negative" column of my pros and cons list.
I freely admit that my thought processes have been severely hampered recently (especially after two hospitalizations in less than a month). It's much more difficult for me to concentrate and to word-find at times. I had hoped that Obama would be the "people's" President (as opposed to Bush being the "corporation's" President.
I used to think (and frequently wrote) that the Clintons and the Bushes were merely opposite sides of the same coin. I still believe that; however, I'm starting to think that Obama's face has replaced Hillary's face on that coin now.
If I'm misinformed or otherwise wrong in anything I've written in this post regarding the links I included or statements, please tell me. Seriously. I don't want to argue or fight or name-call. I just want to discuss because I'm beginning to feel almost as vulnerable and distrustful of Obama's presidency as I eventually became under Bush's.
I know discussions get heated on this board sometimes, but I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm much, much too tired for that. 
To sum it up, on this day and at this time, all I can truly say with certainty is:
RIBBIT!!!!
Pot, water, frog...
Over the last few years, I think I know what it feels like to be a frog that's dropped into a pot of cold water, with the temperature rise of the water being so slow that the next thing he knows, he's DEAD.
I know I'm "there," but this "evolution" has been so subtle that I don't know exactly when it began and probably won't realize when it ends (if it ends).
For starters, this bill was apparently introduced on June 26, 2007, while Bush was still President.
The way it was being hyped, it seemed to be something that was designed to encourage public service in young people in exchange for financial assistance with college tuition, etc. I thought it sounded like a good idea, something that might help to build character in young people and encourage and foster the kind of behavior we saw after 9/11, when Americans helped each other and showed the world what we're made of when it comes to helping each other. To offer a young person financial help for college in exchange for some volunteer hours, I thought, was great. Equally great, I thought, was the notion that this was voluntary and NOT mandatory.
Now, it's apparently for everyone, including seniors, which is still okay, I guess, if this is something that some seniors want to do.
However, one little sentence (shown below) is sending up a BIG RED FLAG into my little pea brain, copied below and bolded:
From: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/show
OpenCongress Summary:
The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act would dramatically increase funding for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, including those for seniors and veterans. It also establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer service program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate.
In its current form, the legislation does not include a mandate requiring service.
Quite frankly, I have jumped (like a frog) from link to link to link trying to research this, so I'm not sure what its "current form" is today. It apparently was passed by the House and now by the Senate just a few days ago (see http://loungedaddy.us/?p=725).
Yesterday, at first, when I heard of Rick Wagoner, GM's "sacrificial lamb," basically being fired by Obama, I felt very uncomfortable with that. After I thought about it more, though, I do agree that ANY company that accepts financial aid from Americans should be scrutinized, including, if necessary in this manner (even if Wagoner's firing, in my opinion, was merely symbolic and not substantive). What sticks in my crawl is the fact that Wall Street crooks have been treated like kings while auto industry workers are being kicked more and more every day while they're down.
I was never comfortable with any of the bailouts, and that was the one thing that Obama voted for that earned him a spot on the "negative" column of my pros and cons list.
I freely admit that my thought processes have been severely hampered recently (especially after two hospitalizations in less than a month). It's much more difficult for me to concentrate and to word-find at times. I had hoped that Obama would be the "people's" President (as opposed to Bush being the "corporation's" President.
I used to think (and frequently wrote) that the Clintons and the Bushes were merely opposite sides of the same coin. I still believe that; however, I'm starting to think that Obama's face has replaced Hillary's face on that coin now.
If I'm misinformed or otherwise wrong in anything I've written in this post regarding the links I included or statements, please tell me. Seriously. I don't want to argue or fight or name-call. I just want to discuss because I'm beginning to feel almost as vulnerable and distrustful of Obama's presidency as I eventually became under Bush's. I know discussions get heated on this board sometimes, but I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm much, much too tired for that.
To sum it up, on this day and at this time, all I can truly say with certainty is:
RIBBIT!!!!
I'll wait to hear it from the horse's mouth. sm
Though it really makes no difference to me one way or the other. I never considered him a Republican. I think he is a fiscal conservative. He said on another link he is apolitical. Should be interesting.
Heroe..like - He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road.
Bushisms
I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production.
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_bushisms.html
Since Homeland security was a horse and pony show.....
there was really little Bush could do. But, he did promise to catch Bin Laden but never did - he invaded Iraq instead. I think Katrina gives a birdseye view on how a catastrophe would be handled by Bush. He screwed that up AFTER 9/11. Like they say - NEVER FORGET.
JBB, I like your thinking, but at the risk of "beating a dead horse," .......
Buy new computers = putting money in the economy = jobs for people to build computers.
Those computers are built in Japan, China, Korea, and almost every place in the world BUT the USA.
Just like last year when we got our "stimulus check." The only economies jump started, if any, were the ones overseas when everybody bought their TV's, computers etc.
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
|
