You just proved my point. - no message
Posted By: I just gotta be me on 2009-02-27
In Reply to: Oh, so you must be... - sm
x
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
You proved your point to yourself.
I was responding to the he original statement about white reaching minority status by 2042. I was not trying to discuss immigration policy. I stated my opinion and put out some objective facts. I'm am not overlooking the word "illegals"…just refusing to engage in myopic nationalism. Facts are facts. Whites will be outnumbered. I think it's a good thing. You don't. I don't find their presence in the country particularly disturbing. I understand the political forces at play in this issue to my own satisfaction. Personally, I think it has been a long time coming and it has arrived for reasons much more complex than the anti-immigration cult dogma found on this forum. I am very much at peace with the idea. You're not. So sue me.
You proved my point
he can't do both. You're too old, Go home.
Thank you! You just proved the point with the
voting present. That is basically what it means in the Il. state when you vote the present.
You proved my point.
xx
You just proved my point.
I love it when people are too cowardly to give themselves a name and, instead, hide under the "nm" moniker.
You're right.
You have absolutely NO MESSAGE.
Pfffffft.
Yup, you proved my point
Guess I should have expected nothing less than a juvenile reply.
Don't know who "Sue Ann" is. But then again I expected nothing more than in incoherent reply and that didn't surprise me either.
Have a good one, I've heard Obama is planning to pass out lots of Kool-aid at the coronation (oh I mean innaugeration). Don't forget to get in line. Oh yes, and it's free (or so he say's, you'll just be taxed for it later).
Umm.... I think you just proved her point.
Actually, you just proved her/his point.
I just stated the facts. You were the one who stooped to personal attacks. Nice going right back at you!
your post proved my point
My post has turned out to be a right winger nothing to attack GT fall back on that post thingy, LOL, so funny. I love it. Anway, isnt hell and burning in hell where xtians say we all go when we commit crimes, break the ten commandments? Well, that is what I wish for this administration and Bush and his family. It is obvious that is where they are headed when standing in judgment for this war. But, hey, I get it, the old right wingy thingy, do as I say, not as I do. The xtians can spout all the time about burning in hell but if a liberal says it, oopphhss..the worst thing in the world. Right winger, Coulter can say liberals ought to be shot and publish plagerized books full of lies, but hey, she is a right winger, its okay, right winger, Robertson, can call for the assassination of a duly elected leader, but hey, he is a right winger, its okay. Right wingers equals a bunch of hypocrites... Anyway, your post to me proves my point of attacking and ranting and raving from the right wing. *BIG HUG to ya*.
You have just proved the point I made below
While I don't agree with your opinion 100 percent at least you can talk to us without making anything we say personal, A.W. and Carla cannot.
I'll agree that some had a visceral hatred of Clinton. I never did personally. I didn't vote for him, did not think he was a good president, but I didn't walk around everyday blaming everything bad in my life on him either. I disliked by his personal example that he lowered the morality level in our country several notches, and yes, I do think that he should have been thrown out of office for #1) having sexual favors performed just outside the oval office by someone other than his wife, and #2) then looking in the face of every American and lying about it (#2 being the damning impeachable offense).
At this point I haven't seen proof that Bush has done anything impeachable. I think Bush has done some good things while in office and has also done some things I don't agree with. However, if I support the president in any way then I'm accused of bowing down and worshipping at his feet by A.W. and Carla, and let's not forget the late-to-this-board gt. Their reactions are way beyond the rational although it is understandable why Carla may have these strong feelings given what she's gone through this year. I think she may be misdirecting some of her anger though.
do you know what YOU PROVED MY POINT MEANS?
IT MEANS that there is NOTHING else to say to you because you have no intelligence left to discuss with, that's the bottom line. you proved OUR point by just wanting to name call instead of having a discussion. This is so stupid we have to do this back and forth and look you ALWAYS have to have the last word... you'll probably prove my point on that one too!!!
Yes. That poster more than proved your point.
You're reaching out to a person whose views you respect and are looking for an intelligent, adult conversation to take place. About 95% on this board are more comfortable playing the playground bully and calling names. Unfortunately, there's just no value to be found in their form of communication.
Now you and I have given them the "gift" of having two more people to attack on this board. Anyone else want to be bullied and treated badly? Just say something even remotely nice to JTBB, and you'll be ready for the he!l they inhabit now. It's really sad that such "Americanism" exists out there. 
Well.....you proved her point with your zinger. Sigh. nm
nm
You just proved my point. Still nothing positive to say about Obama.
There you go. At least counter the argument with something positive about Obama. That is if there is anything. Otherwise its all just blowing smoke.
Either you can't read, or you've just proved her point. Nice going.
nm
THANK YOU!!!! - I like your point - see message
If everyone would keep their nose out of everyone else's business we would all be better off.
EXCELLENT POINT!!!!!!!!
Excellent point! Please see message.
I guess is the true definition of the "trickle down" theory.
On a personal note, I had a scheduled visit with my doctor two days ago. In addition to CF and all its associated problems, I now have a bulging disk/facet arthropathy in my back, and it's very painful at times. He INSISTED that I go to Physical Therapy. I refused, telling him that I have so many bills now that I can't imagine incurring ONE MORE BILL because from a stress level, I just can't take any more of the stress that goes along with being ill and uninsured.
So even though I'm still (somewhat) employed (part time), I, myself, am an example of a patient who is denying a medical Transcriptionist the opportunity to transcribe a PT note, so in addition to all the unemployed people, there may be some of us who are still employed but reluctant or unwilling to incur more medical bills.
You missed the point - go figure (see message)
The point was that a President must pass a background check with the FBI - has nothing to do with applying to work for the FBI. He can't pass a basic background check (oh yeah, I feel real safe with him that close to the "launch" button).
So, he can't pass a background check and he is not American born and he's getting a free pass...go ahead make him president. Maybe his cabinet people will be Ahmandinejab, Mohammar Kadafi, Castro, Kim Jong iL, etc. Plus the others he'll form back up with (Ayers & Wright) - after all it will be too late by then.
You just proved how clueless you are
Are your paranoid or have you been drinking again? I love confusing liberals, but then it's not too hard to do.
LOL! I've proved it???!!
For the last EIGHT LONG YEARS, all I've heard is, "It's CLINTON'S fault." Now all I'm hearing, BEFORE THE MAN IS EVEN INAUGURATED, "It's OBAMA'S fault."
If/when Obama does something to deserve "fault," you can bet I'll be one of the first to say it. However, the man hasn't even taken his oath of office, and all the soothsayers on this board have already judged his presidency to be a failure.
All the anti-Obama rhetoric is quickly getting old, again, BEFORE the man has even taken his oath of office.
The people have spoken, and the majority of them voted for Obama. Please...get used to it and at least TRY to inspire some good feelings and hope instead of whining all the time.
This board has become a very toxic place to visit.
you do know, proved by your posts below.
nm
Geez. Well, just proved that the bottom of the barrel...
had not been reached until just now. What a nasty, sick comment.
Radical relationships proved or hear say?
Unless you're talking about preacher Wright? I am beginning to wonder why that is not an issue since John Mccain is so righteous.
Yep, sitting in Rev Wright's church sure proved that
@@
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!
see message
I think the behavior you describe is pretty common for ignorant folks. Just because they voted for him, they feel they have to uphold every stupid decision he makes.
Thank you - please see message
I'm glad you felt comfortable responding to my post. I didn't realize how heated things had gotten but could tell from what remains on the conservative board that it had gotten pretty ugly, and I thought the tax issue was a fairly safe issue to broach to provide a cooling period while discussing an issue that pretty much everyone agrees on - a need for tax reform.
Note, though, that it was one post on one topic and the first I have submitted in some time. Most of the threads on the board begin with an issue/article posted by Nan or AG.
However, regardless of who contributes most to the conservative forum, I must agree with Brunson and thank him/her for recognizing that the conservative forum is the conservative forum. I realize that tempers have flared there and things got out of hand, but the conservative posters have given no worse than they received. It seems to me that, at any time, liberal posters tired of dealing with Nan and AG (and MT, as well) on the conservative board could have done as Nan and AG did - remained on the forum dedicated to their point of view.
Thank you for your welcome to this forum - you have been very congenial, and I have enjoyed the discussion today. Frankly, I cannot see myself fitting into this liberal forum - as I said, my views on most issues tend to be pretty conservative. I don't see much point in hanging around the conservative forum if there isn't anybody there, so it looks like I'll probably just be peeking in now and again to see if/when discussion resumes. If I reply again on this forum, I will certainly try to do so with as much respect and kindness as you have shown me today, even though my opinions will probably differ.
Hey.....see my message!
I live in a rural area, have three dogs and do weight training also!!!
Actually it is said by the experts that if you are inexperienced with a gun you're better off not having one. It's kind of complex, but check out the info if you're interested.
I used to have military mace (actually from when I lived in a big city) - not sure if it's available to the public - probably easier to use than a gun and just as effective. Otherwise, not sure who we're supposed to be afraid of here.....I generally am not afraid of intruders and I don't have any weapons in my house other than my dogs and my mouth!!!
See Message.
Maybe if you were more tolerant and didn't pose such a rude message, someone would be interested in debating with you. I think it's just human nature to not want to associate with people who approach others in such a nasty confrontational way. If you were nicer to others, others would be nicer to you.
See message.
I can't wait to see what Fitzgerald's investigation unfolds.
Libby and Rove both were sources for the leak of Plame's occupation.
This was after Joe Wilson made public that Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein was purchasing uranium to make nukes was FALSE. The administration KNEW it was false, yet Bush used this fake threat of nukes in his State of the Union address to scare the heebie-jeebies out of the American public so they would support this bogus war.
That's how Bushies handle people who cross them. Don't DARE tell the truth or expose the administration for what it truly is. If you do, they'll not only put the life of a CIA agent in danger, but every single person she worked with around the globe pertaining to WMD. Why isn't this treason? It's the Bush way of doing things, and Karl Rove is an expert and accomplished thug.
I hope this goes beyond Rove and Libby and goes straight to Bush and Cheney. This is definitely an illegal war, brought on totally false premises, and Bush and Cheney should be personally held accountable for all the deaths (American and Iraqi) that have resulted from their lies.
It's truly sad when the only man on earth who can make Saddam look not so bad is GEORGE W. BUSH. I'm very ashamed of my government. 
See message.
I'm writing to my Congressman and Senator and see if this is true, express my objection and see if they can BOUNCE the *blank check* they gave him regarding Iraq and require Congressional approval for air strikes.
The article you posted included the following:
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that “God put me here” to deal with the war on terror. The President’s belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that “he’s the man,” the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.
Someone needs to tell Bush that God thinks Bush is too engulfed in his own ego to fully understand God's REAL message to him, and that's why God gave us POLLS.
See message.
I don't believe religious symbols of ANY kind belong in schools (unless they're religious schools) or government buildings. If Walmart or Target wish to be inclusive to all religious beliefs, more power to them. Private businesses should be free to do as they wish. If they want to limit it to the religious Christmas and exclude the secular *Christmas,* some people might not want to shop in that kind of *exclusive* shop. You can bet their profit margin is the bottom line for them.
For every religion out there, there are buildings: churches, mosques, temples, etc. where like-minded people gather to worship. Trying to control the very WORDS people say isn't going to work unless and until you guys figure out a way to implant a chip in every American that will force them to speak, think, believe and worship just like you do. Maybe some of us think you'd do that if you had the ability, and maybe THAT'S the underlying thing that people are fighting.
OMG!!! (see message)
That mental image HURTS.
I am so SICK of this man's lies. Bush needs to get them straight. When he said the following in 2004, he was clearly lying and KNEW IT, as we now all know. I just wonder if there's ever been just ONE TIME in the last 5 years when he's actually told the truth. Have you seen this?
Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order, he said on April 20, 2004 in Buffalo, New York.
Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so, he added.
On April 19, 2004, Bush said the Patriot Act enabled law-enforcement officials to use roving wiretaps, which are not fixed to a particular telephone, against terrorism, as they had been against organized crime.
You see, what that meant is if you got a wiretap by court order -- and by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example, he said in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Please see message.
I totally agree this absolutely reaches across the board. This monster repeatedly raped this child for 3 years, but the damage he's done to her is going to affect her entire life. How about putting him in jail FOREVER so he can't hurt anyone else??? I also wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty for animals such as this.
I've recently seen this judge on TV, actually defending his actions, as if there is a defense for them. Thank God for Bill O'Reilly (I don't usually care for him) and Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams (and others, I'm sure) who are publicizing this. Hopefully, this judge will be removed soon so maybe more children won't suffer. This judge, in my opinion, is just as guilty as the molester himself.
I sat here, trying to put myself in the parents' shoes, and I wonder how many parents will begin to feel that taking the law into their own hands and killing these rabid animals is the only way to keep their children safe in lieu of a judge that cares more about the criminals than their victims. If and when that happens, I'm not sure I could blame them.
I've written to Vermont's governor, as well. I'm glad so many people are writing and publicizing this issue. It's the only way things will change.
See message.
Number one, despite what is so *obvious* to you, I do not hate my country. In fact, I miss it very much. And I don't hate Bush because I don't *hate* anyone. When he took over the Presidency, I began my impressions of him on an even keel. Slowly, bit by bit, he has corroded any good impressions I ever may have had of him with his constant lying, dirty tricks, contempt for the Constitution, total and complete refusal to admit that he is NOT PERFECT, blatant disregard for the security of our borders, presiding over an econmy where people can barely afford gas but oil company executives get richer and richer, etc., etc. I truly and sincerely believe he poses a HUGE threat to the security of every American citizen.
Regardless of what the Iranian President (his name is Ahmadinejad, by the way) claims to have, they don't have the capacity to nuke anyone, but the USA does, and Bush has a ZERO record when it comes to diplomacy. Again, both Bush and Ahmadinejad are whack jobs, and neither can be reasoned with. I believe this is a very dangerous combination of two out-of-control egos, and the end of humanity could very well be imminent. I'm not going to apologize for caring if my grandchildren might not have the opportunity to reach voting age in this country because of a president who doesn't care about his legacy because, when asked, he said Who cares? We'll all be dead, anyway. That statement, combined with his love of war, I find to be quite chilling.
As far as being *lost in my world,* I can see very clearly a President who is losing more and more credibility, not on a daily basis any more but on an HOURLY basis. I have ZERO faith or trust in this man. Again, contrary to your implied intimate knowledge of me, my brain, my heart and my soul, these aren't because of any preconceived notions I might have about Bush. These are because the actions of Bush himself. As polls are evidencing more and more each day, I'm not alone in my skepticism of him.
Regarding where I got the quotes, if you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you Google them. You've already indicated an inclination to not believe them, so I'm not going to waste my time by going back to the multiple sources I found, simply to provide you with a link that you've already decided not to believe. If your interest is sincere, you'll look it up. 
Regarding your response to my *shopping spree* statement, I'm sorry, but it didn't come across as a joke to me. It sounded like a negative character judgment regarding someone who doesn't agree with you, which is a common Neocon MO from Bush and his cronies all the way down to the lowest peon on the totem pole who is convinced Bush is on his or her side. 
Likewise, you can't possibly know the extent of my intelligence since you don't know me, have never met me and aren't qualified to offer such an opinion. Inherent in your assessment that I'm *not that stupid* is the notion that you feel I do possess a certain degree of stupidity, which leads me to your comment that I feel I have to *label everyone who disagrees* with me as *uninformed and unthinking.* I respectfully point out that these *labels* are YOUR words, not mine, and I would challenge you to point to those words in my above post to you.
Have a very pleasant day. 
Please see message.
I try to get my information from a variety of sources. These days, it's hard to find a completely neutral source.
The main thing I'm interested in is finding the truth, and it seems that the party with the most to hide is the least likely to provide it.
When Clinton was President, I listened to a lot of right-leaning news sources for the very same reason. I thought the lack of respect Clinton showed in the Oval Office was terrible, and I was actually in favor of impeaching him for that. I didn't buy into and agree with the notion that what he did in his private life was his business. In my opinion, the Oval Office doesn't belong to the President; it belongs to every American tax-paying citizen.
I voted for Ronald Reagan, and to this day, I still think of him as a wonderful President. Historians may disagree with me on that point, and they may be right, because I'm obviously no expert in that field. I even voted for George Herbert Walker Bush, so I'm not some hardline lefty who hates the United States, is godless and has no moral values.
(I just wanted to share a thumbprint of who I really am because some people want to crucify me on this board simply because they see my name and couldn't care less what I have to say. You, on the other hand, have been posting here in a very respectful, intelligent manner, and I'm very appreciative of that and hope you continue to do so. I'm beginning to look forward to reading your posts after the last day or so.)
I believe that many people were looking for a big change in the White House when they voted for George W. Bush. I believe they wanted some sense of decency and honor restored to it. I was one of those people.
When I look back at the thing Clinton did that I thought was so terrible, and I look at what Bush has done, I guess the only thing I can say to sum it up is what Jay Leno said in his monologue the other night: At least Clinton only screwed one American at a time (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).
What amazes me the most about (what seems like) blind loyalty to Bush is that I wonder what they thought they were voting for, compared to what they got. I thought Republicans (conservatives) were supposed to beiin favor of less spending, smaller federal government and fiscal responsibility. After really disliking President Clinton, I actually feel that when it came to things important to the everyday lives of Americans, Clinton was a far better President.
I feel no sense of trust for President Bush. I don't feel he is on the side of the average American. I truly believe he wants to get rid of the middle class altogether, so the only ones left are the rich (who he referred to as his *base*) and the poor.
Whether he made the pejorative comment about the Constitution or not, he ACTS like he has no respect for it (as was also mentioned in the article). There is truly no need any more for Congress, regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democratic Congress because it doesn't matter what laws they write, if Bush doesn't like it, he will simply issue a *signing statement* expressing that he will do what he wants, anyway.
We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, and he seems to totally disregard it. To me, it's ironic that he seeks to search and destroy all dictatorships -- except the one that is of his own creation here in the United States.
There's a growing history of how he treats those who either tell the truth or simply don't agree with his policies. He *Swiftboats* them.
There are many stories out there about the Diebold machines being rigged so that a certain political party wins. I have a friend who voted on a Diebold machine that produced a paper receipt. Sure enough, it reflected that she voted for the other party, when, in fact, she did NOT.
I'm completely against his views on immigration. I believe we should have immediately tightened and secured ALL our borders after 9/11 and, at least for the time being, not allow ANYONE in. Instead, we used that money to go to war with Iraq, not because Saddam Hussein was a threat but because Bush needed a war to insure a *successful Presidency.* Did you know that the President's itinery was found by an ex-con in a trash can last week? Why was that allowed to happen?
Did you know that part of his Iraq war spending includes a comphrehensive healthcare plan for every Iraqi? Look at the healthcare system in the United States. Shouldn't the healthcare for Americans take precedence over the healthcare of Iraqis?
Do I want our troops to come home? You bet I do. I believe the best way we can support them is to get them out of there.
Having said that, I also believe we simply cannot *cut and run.* We simply cannot go into a country and completely destroy and then leave without fixing what we broke. I believe we morally owe it to the people of Iraq to leave their country in a better place than when we found it. I wish democracy would have worked in Iraq INSTANTLY. Then maybe Bush would have hopefully begun to worry about fixing the massive problems in his own country. Having said that, I have serious doubts that a long-lasting democracy will survive in that region. I believe that many of them view us as being evil and having no morals. (I can't really disagree with this view, considering some of the things that go on in this country.) I think Joe Biden had an excellent idea of dividing Iraq into three provinces (which is supported in the Iraqi Constitution).
Instead, I believe this war was a whim, based on his own personal goals, without regard for one single soldier he sent to die. To me, that is unforgiveable.
Should he be allowed to spy on innocent Americans during wartime? I guess that depends on the definition of *innocent.* I sure don't know any terrorists. Heck, I don't even know my own neighbors. But I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement with his policies, and I've read how innocent Americans whose only *sin* is disagreeing with this President, so I have no reason to believe that I won't find myself being *investigated* by some agency eventually, maybe even the IRS in the form of an audit or some other intimidating tactic that this President is so fond of using.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, I personally can't stand Hillary Clinton and would never vote for her (even if I DID live in a country where my vote actually counted). I'm as disgusted with the Democrats as I am with the President.
I'm not some Godless heathen without morals simply because I don't agree with Bush. I very much believe in God. In fact, I believe God has been sending Bush a series of *signs* that he has chosen to ignore. What I don't believe is pushing my religion down everyone else's throats. What I believe in most of all is tolerance and respect for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. When one religion acts as if it is superior to all others, that concerns me and automatically forces me further to the left. Freedom of religion in this country is a wonderful thing, and nobody's religion is better than someone else's (including those who simply don't believe at all). Yet, the fallacy that all Democrats (or anyone else who doesn't believe in Bush) are godless heathens is alive and well. Ann Coulter, who can't seem to remember her address and is under investigation for voter fraud (see http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002807.htm, complete with the complaining document) plans on releasing a book outlining evil devils (such as myself and other millions of Americans she's never met) on none other than 6/6/06. I believe that one particular religion has no place in government. Do I have a problem with *In God We Trust* on our money? Of course not. When the word *God* is used in a generic term, it's INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. But whether or not I can read it as I purchase a newspaper is irrelevant to what I feel in my soul and my heart. I can assure you my morals are very high, and it truly hurts (thus turning to anger) when certain conservatives accuse people like me of being evil and Godless. They say that most anger is the result of fear. The times I'm most angry is truly when I'm the most frightened. It's really hard to carry on a dialogue with someone who has labeled you so negatively, a sense of self-defense kicks in, and often arguments and more name-calling ensues, none of which is productive and all of which is hurtful and fruitless.
I'm sorry this is so long, but as I said, I enjoy reading your posts. Although I don't know you or your political beliefs, you seem to be conservative. You also seem to be intelligent and respectful and don't resort to personal attacks on posters, which is very refreshing on these boards. I was just trying to give you some insight into who I am and the reason I don't like Bush. In fact, I'm very frightened of him.
As I've said before, if I felt my President was honest, trustworthy, ethical and truly had the interests of ALL Americans foremost in his mind, I would have no problem at all with his obtaining lists of my telephone calls because I truly have nothing to hide, and if it saved one life, to me, it would be worth it. I just don't trust him to do the right thing, and that isn't based on anything I've heard or read from any left-leaning media. It's based solely on his own actions in the last six years.
I'm no far left-leaning whacko. In fact, I'm truly a middle-of-the road kind of thinker. I think there are a lot of us out there. Speaking personally, it's just that the *righter* he goes, the *lefter* I automatically wind up, not because I voluntarily choose to, but because in order to maintain my original thoughts, that's where he pushes me.
I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I fully expect you not to agree with me, and I hope you respond because I am very interested in hearing your views. Again, I thank you for being respectful and not resorting to name calling. You have opened the door to serious, honest and intelligent debate, and for that, I thank you.
I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
Please see message.
I hope you had an opportunity to read the article I posted before it was censored. It certainly explains the few bad apples in an otherwise wonderful military and also answers the question you raised regarding the recruiting tactics.
Please see message.
It was just a very angry hateful person who wished bad things on America. Just a one-line post on the subject line with a red angry face in the text portion of the post. (I don't want to repeat it because it might cause this thread to be deleted again.)
See Message...
I have decided to lock this thread. I do not believe the OP had bad intentions, but I do not like the direction in which this thread is going.
Moderator 
See message....
Please watch your comments. This is the second post of yours I have edited based on inappropriate remarks. Let this serve as a warning to you.
Moderator
See message...
Your comments about race were inappropriate. They were bound to offend, and it is best to leave those kind of remarks off this site.
Moderator
Please see message.
You've just summed up exactly my impression of Hillary Clinton, and my impression wasn't formed by anybody who is anti-Clinton. It was formed by Hillary's own self-portrait that she eagerly showed to the world.
Thanks - see message
Thanks - its such a breath of fresh air to hear more people feel the same way I do. I'm am sick to death of her people trying to push her in the VP slot (which just is not going to happen) but seems thats all that's on the news just can't wait for it to end. If it does happen well they can be assured that McCain will definitely win. The Clintons should not be allowed anywhere near the white house. Don't people remember what they did the last time they were in there? I listen to the people who support her and think...why? there is not one good quality about that woman. People are saying she's a good role model for their children??? People think that someone who is a liar, cheater, thief, bribes people, gives people false hope, walks all over people not caring who she steps on just as long as she is on top, is a sore loser, not humble, has a foul mouth to match her attitude, is just downright nasty to people when she doesn't get her way, etc, etc, well I then question their character. Never mind all the people whose lives and careers have been destroyed because they went against the Clintons. And another thing they talk about the Clinton Dynasty or Clinton Legacy? I always thought a Dynasty was if you have a long line of people in the family who have been in politics (like the Kennedys). It is only the two of them. Nobody in their family is in politics or is decent. These two came out of nowhere and they've only done harm to the democrat party. They are tearing the party apart for their own personal gain and they don't care.
See message...
The portion that I edited were not statements made by Hillary Clinton. Those statements were made by you. They were aggressive and strange, to say the least, and those kind of comments have no place on this site.
Moderator
Please see message.
Well, it worked just as well for me during this occasion. I think different people react differently, depending on the dosage, their tolerance, and how tired they might be. It might work differently for you than it does for me. Heck, it might (and does) work differently for ME, depending on the above. I have an illness which may (and usually does) awaken me in the middle of the night. If it's not too bad, I can take a pain pill and actually even be able to work a little. (If it's hospital-worthy, then I slap on a Fentanyl patch, and once that enters my system, I'm usually out like a light for a couple days. If that doesn't work, then it's back to the hospital again, which I try to avoid.) However, when this stuff happens, I wind up in a backwards sleep cycle and wind up being awake all night. This is what happened to me Friday/Saturday, and if you'll note, I began the post by stating I had been up most of the night.
Secondly, it was not a two-hour nap. Please read the post again and note the difference between 10:26 a.m. and 7:14 P.M.
Thank you OP - appreciate your message.
Thanks.
|
