Your comments were straightforward and clear.
Posted By: Teddy on 2007-10-23
In Reply to: Pulling things out of context when people can go read the whole thread proves nothing... - Observer
I hope anyone reading this will go back and look at the post I quoted from, as well as all your other posts and form their own impressions.
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
gourdpainter objective,fair, straightforward and
There is absolutely nothing offensive about what she said or how she said it. She is right. I don't know her age, but I suspect she is (like I am) old enough to recall the devastating losses via political assassinations of our past civil leaders.
1. Medgar Evers, NAACP field secretary, June 12, 1963 by KKK member.
2. JFK November 22, 1963.
3. Malcolm X, February 21, 1965.
4. MLK April 4, 1968.
5. RFK June 5, 1968.
6. Fred Hampton, December 1969.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with any of their political views, the fact remains that these Americans gave their lives fighting for the beliefs they held most dear and in their own ways, were all striving to make our country...your country...a better place.
Four out of six were black leaders, one a president, the other a presidential candidate. In hindsight, it is plain to see that there were common threads shared by each and all in terms of their circumstances and their times. That common tie was hate speech and bigotry. We would like to tell ourselves, "that was then and this is now," but for those of us who lived through it, I can tell you it is never really very far behind us.
The scenes I see at these rallies and the words I read on this forum are chilling reminders that we must never forget those days, that time and the losses we suffered. To some of you who think you are being smart or cute or somehow take pride and pleasure in your thoughtless, juvenile, petty one-ups-manship, I tell you now, along with the gourdpainter, you do not realize what it is you are doing. This is not about a candidate, a platform, a party or an election. This is about the preservation of human dignity and human life. She is absolutely right to say that should anything happen to Obama of this nature, his blood will be on your hands and all the denial in the universe will not change that fact.
The best arguments are straightforward and simple. Give that boy a cookie! nm
x
Sorry, CJ...it is not as clear to me as it is to you..
that John McCain wants to continue fighting anywhere. What John McCain understands is that you cannot reason with some people (including terrorists) because they have no interest in getting along. That is not their agenda. They want us dead and our way of life dead. That is not going to change by sitting down and talking to them.
Seriously, I believe that all the things that enable a person to endure such torture over an extended period of time builds character and traits that are essential to leadership. So if you put 5 years in a prison camp up next to 4 years as a senator (2 of those at state level) where you voted present when you voted...then yes. I think 5 years in a prison camp plus serving as a military officer and commanding hundreds of soldiers makes him more qualified than Obama on the face of it...at the very least, AS qualified. And, at the very least, it demonstrates to me that John McCain puts his country first, even before himself. And to me, friend, that speaks volumes.
Obviously I was not clear enough either...
you could always ask where someone stands on a ban on gay marriage without asking how they VOTED on an issue.
I have not seen that many people on this board who were really invested in gay marriage.
If you're not gay and you don't live there...not sure why it matters to you so much? What anyone thinks?
Oh no, you have been quite clear,
and throughout this discussion you have been very cordial (I do apologize for the momentary snapishness in my last post.) Nor in your most recent post did you sink to the level of saying 'I will type slower - or use smaller words - so you can understand.' However, when someone tells me that my argument lacks merit because I do not truly understand the problem or have not thought the implications through, it brings out a bit of bitchiness in me. It is the same reaction I have when I read posts on this board saying that those who listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., are being manipulated and not thinking for ourselves. (I actually consider myself a conservative, strangely enough.)
I think you do see and maybe even understand my point, as I see and feel I get where you are coming from. We see, but will have to agree to disagree.
I do not pretend that legalizing marijuana will make the world a better place, only that it will make our laws more consistent. The legality of alcohol and tobacco while marijuana remains illegal is very inconsistent. And I think the bottle no longer contains that particular genie (if it ever did). The criminalization of such behavior creates small criminals and enriches bigger criminals.
You say 'I wish no one took any mind-altering substances of any kind.' Does this mean you are a teetotaler and not somebody who enjoys a brewski on a summer day after mowing the lawn, maybe a glass of wine with dinner, as I do?
I think kids hear their government, teachers and parents painting marijuana as the 'demon killer weed' which opens the floodgates to all other substance abuse. Smoke a joint, die with a needle in your arm. Then they watch those same adults drink legal alcohol, smoke legal cigarettes, overuse prescription drugs and they see the entire thing as yet another example of extreme phoniness.
Maybe some people will try legalized marijuana who never did when it was illegal. Maybe, deprived of its mystique and the element of rebellion, fewer kids will need to act out in that particular way. If alcohol were illegal for everyone and their parents were committing a criminal act just to obtain it (which you know they would do) would fewer or more teenagers use it? If a kid walking into a 'speakeasy' were no more or less illegal than his parents doing it, what would be the result? Interesting question.
And now I am going to offer you something a woman seldom does - the last word. The final post can be yours. I've said my piece.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekepper is.
So clear this up for me
The man who rapes and kills a young child, but truly believes in Jesus, acknowledges that what he did was wrong and a violation of both God's law and man's law...this man gets into heaven. The Jewish man, who spent his life working hard, raising his family to be wonderful human beings, donated regularly to the American Heart Association, and volunteered his time in an inner city school in a literacy program...he is doomed?
And I refer to myself as a heathen because I believe that it is my character and the life I have lived here that will determine my entrance to heaven, not my belief in Jesus's death and resurrection. Of course, maybe I'm just pragmatic. Just in case the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or even the Native Americans have it right, I'd like to think I've still got a chance at getting past St. Peter or whoever their respective gatekeeper is.
If it is all clear cut that
Pelosi told the truth and the CIA is, in fact, lying....why not just let the investigation go on so the dems could tell the GOP to stick it and prove once and for all who was involved and who is lying, etc. If Pelosi is telling the truth, which I highly doubt, there should be no reason to avoid an investigation.
Oh, I red you loud and clear
and "red" was not a spelling error. Strong arming anyone into producing anything for the government is like pre and post WWII Soviet Union....you got it right when you said red and I'm not referring red state conservatives either.
Many (not all) think you have all the answers, but when it turns to action you are ready to guilt and strong arm SOMEONE ELSE to do the work.
Yep...clear....said talking to me was
like talking to your mother who had a personality disorder. Bashing me and using your mother's illness to do it. Not many ways you can take it. YOU said it. YOU brought it up. This is YOUR can of worms.
I would like to clear up perhaps some confusion.....
About "socialized" medicine. What most of you may not know is that we already have socialized medicine. That is what Medicade and Medicare is (which is financially driven by insurance companies for insurance companies tell the government what they will pay. In essense, the insurance companies are setting the bar). Most countries have some sort of socialized medicine. Canada has what is referred to as single-pay medicine, which is soley funded by the government. Those opposed to single-pay medicine here in the US are the ones stating that it does not work. However, those who have it in Canada and Britain for the most part are not complaining. Of course, you can't please everyone.
For every $50,000 in income that you make about $10,000 of your tax dollars (equal to what is allocated for defense) is going toward healthcare. Add that along with roughly the $10,000 dollars that most companies pay for your insurance, that's quite a chunk of change. But you say, well the company is paying for it, not me. But that is wrong as well, if the companies whom we work for did not have to provide medical insurance for us, there would be higher wages.
So, for someone like me, a healthy 40 something :o), who spends about $1000 dollars a year in preventative health maintenance, why am I paying $20,000, which I might add that for any catastrophic healthcare issue should occur, I would still be desitute from the financial responsibility of picking up where my insurance company falls short? If this is not an argument for healthcare reform.....
Healthcare in the US is the hands of insurance companies, where I don't believe it should be. So for those of you opposed to socialized or single-pay medicine, you are already paying for it, why not make it function better and pull it out of the hands of the fat-cat insurance companies?
Let me be perfectly clear about what I said.
Since the poster above seems to think he/she can put words in my mouth, I will tell you exactly what I said.
I fully expect all posters to be respectful and not put down the President (current or past) or anyone else for that matter. I don't care if they're Liberal, Conservative, or polka dotted.
On the forum, you will be respectful in posting or you won't be allowed to post.
Think you can handle that? If you can't, don't post. It's just that simple.
Let me make something clear.
I am African American. I have never seen Africa. The human race originated on the continent of Africa. Now, what do you consider yourself? You can call yourself whatever you want. We want to be known as African American.
Let's make this a little more clear as well...
Both Obama and Biden voted to fund the bridge to nowhere and then voted to defund it. Who flipped first? biggg LOL.
Well, Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, right? Little old Vermont? Fewer folks than Alaska. His approval rating wasn't that high. He also ran for Presidential nomination. Only having been a governor of a state with population smaller than Alaska's. He is now the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Apparently Democrats only have problems with smaller population governors if they are Republican. That is a belly LOL.
Oh please...cheating? Have you done any research on how Obama had one of his early rivals for office kicked off the ticket so he would not have to run against her? Now THAT is cheating I can believe in. Because that was cheating in politics, not his personal life.
What McCain did in his personal life does not excuse Barack Obama for what he did in his public life. I don't care what either of them does in his personal life...what I care about is what they have done in their public life. McCain certainly keeps better company than Obama does...talk about "uglies." And they are not in the past.
I think we can retire the bridge to nowhere since Obama and Biden were for it before they were against it also. THEY voted with COngress to defund it, so she turned the money to other infrastructure projects that she felt Alaska needed more. Sounds like good judgment to me.
Don't understand the Wild West comment. "Maverick" was a term applied to cattle who refused to run with the herd.
Actually, you are rehashing the same old stuff and accusing her of rehashing old stuff. Does that mean you need a thesaurus also? Just asking.
The difference is clear.
No one is saying it's all 'we people' have to worry about. But it does give us a glance in to O's morals. Win at all cost. No matter who he has to betray in the process. Doesn't that concern you at all?
And I fail to see your correlation between Obama exploiting a bracelet he was not asked specifically NOT to, and McCain choosing a woman as his running mate. If Clinton had been O's running mate, what would your argument be then?
And I beg you to do a bit more research on exactly what O is proposing to do to the middle class. Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean you should believe it without checking the facts, especially from a man running for president.
It reminds me of grade school class president elections. There was always that 'popular kid' who didn't know jack but got everybody to vote for him by promising longer lunch periods and movies on friday and free pop in the lunch room. The difference is, we're not twelve anymore.
Forgive me for not being clear enough for you (sm)
I guess the simplified question for you would be -- why bring religion into a post that had nothing to do with religion?
I think it is perfectly clear
how things will go with regards to Obama. As evident by this board, I think it is very obvious that some people may hold back their "judgments" or concerns about Barrack Obama for the simple fact that any criticism aimed at the president thus far is construed as racism. How dare we criticize what he does, his agenda, etc. because he is the first mixed race president.
I also think that he will be judged less harshly because the liberal media will not cover things fairly. They will continue to portray Barrack Obama as the savior/rock star.
When this stimulus package fails to stimulate the economy and when our economy is still suffering at the end of his term, we will see how fairly he will be judged. Until then, he is getting a free pass by the liberal media and people too eager to throw out the race card or people who are too afraid to criticize for fear of being called racist.
Oh, I get it alright and it's becoming more clear by
--
Let me make myself emphatically clear
I'm not gay either closet or open. I really don't care if you believe that I'm not MT. No skin off my back, but calling someone gay just because they reply to someone's posts is really stretching it and only makes you look odd like you have some gay obssession yourself. No one was calling anyone gay until you arrived today.
It's perfectly clear to me what the context was, so if it's above you, then
x
Does anyone else see a clear and present danger?
L
This is one case where the Repubs are in the clear...
this is a Dem mess. Lay it right at the feet of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and the dems who blocked reform on Fannie/Freddie at least 2 times when Alan Greenspan, John Snow, John McCain and the Bush admin telling them this exact thing was going to happen. It is all on video. I would cut them a modicum of slack if they at least admitted it, but oh no...it's all the republicans fault. Geez! How anyone could vote for ANY Democrat this round is beyond me. If I was a Democrat I wouldn't be voting for them either. At least 92 of them are worried about their jobs because the people are so PO'ed about it...they voted against it. And had Pelosi not come out BEFORE the vote tearing the hide of republicans in strips and blaming them for it yet again...she messed in her own nest. A bunch of Republicans weren't going to vote for it anyway, but the ones who would have didn't.
go to real clear politics
they have all the polls.
Yes, O made it clear he is not president
until January 20. Bush and his team are still in office and running the show until then. Which I already new about too.
I think I made it pretty clear.......sm
I have first-hand knowledge of a letter sent to my pastor stating that the church's tax-exempt status would be revoked if he chose to speak of politics in the pulpit. I don't know how much more proof you need. Folks don't seem to need that much proof in believing Obama's BC is real.
The even more burning question is how would "they" find out if he did preach on politics from the pulpit? Not that he would because he is not prone in that direction, but exactly who is checking out churches to make sure they mind their own business??????
Now you've made yourself clear
Context is only necessary for interpreting your bible; the same courtesy is not extended to the Qur'an.
I guess that makes pretty clear the futility of attempting any type of a reasonable debate with you.
That should be a clear cut indication of what Americans
--
Ten commandments make it quite clear
nm
Let's make one thing crystal clear....
Obama was not "forced" to denounce his preacher of 20 years. He threw him under the bus for political expediency with a lame excuse that in all his 20 years there he never "heard a sermon like that." Frankly I don't believe it and my guess is that Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Wright don't believe it either. He holds the same beliefs Wright does, he just knows if he openly espouses them he will not get elected. Going on the record with a preacher who said "God Da_ America" from the pulpit will not get you elected in this country. So much for supporting your mentor.
Back to Jackson's first gaffe..not an unfortunate slip of the tongue. He said "cut his nu_s off" and made the cutting motion with his wrist. Saw it with my own eyes. That comes from a place of deep dislike, my friend. Jesse Jackson does not like Barack Obama. Why he can't just say so to the man's face and move on is beyond me. And when he used the N word regarding Obama I don't think it was meant in a "nice" way, for that very reason. Freedom of speech, sure. But when you get caught, spin, spin, deny, deny.
Excuse me, but if someone in the pulpit screeches "God Da_ America" at me...and that is mild to some of the things he says...I believe indignation is in order and I will not hesitate to say so...to Wright or Obama or anyone else, exercising MY right of free speech and to disagree. Again...no one forced Obama to do anything. I didn't see a gun to his head. His advisors just told him the truth...distance yourself or you won't get elected. He had a choice and he made one...support his mentor, a man he called a close friend, pastor of 20 years...or get elected. He made his choice. Threw the rev under the bus. But don't kid yourself, friend...in his heart of hearts he does believe the doctrine of that church. THAT is the real Barack Obama. Search the internet and read some of the things Michelle Obama has written. She is on the same page. That is who they are. Certainly their right to do or say what they want. But they should be honest about it. And they are not. Whenever they slip and show what they really are, then they have to backpedal because the advisors are screeching and then come the apologies. Sometimes you just can't keep up the pretense and who you really are comes out. Inevitable. That is why they need the spinmeisters. That is why ALL politicians need the spinmeisters.
Let our leaders hear us loud and clear
Reading all the posts it seems like everyone agrees on the same thing. None of us likes either candidate. What I'm reading a lot of is "I'm democrat so I'm voting democrat no matter what" or "I'm republican so I'm voting republican no matter what". The country has developed over the years into believing our vote counts. Whether you want to believe it or not, it doesn't. The country has been run not by who the people want elected but by big government and big corporations. People who have thousands and thousands of dollars to spend (if not millions) donate that money to ensure who they want to be elected is elected. Also, do some research on the "mysterious group" that meets each year yet the public is not allowed to be in those meetings and there are armed guards enforcing that. Those are the people who decide the fate of the country. Just the way it is and I accepted it a long time ago. If Americans truly did have a say in what goes on with our politicians we would see more and more of them fired, but they aren't. They still remain in office. I say let our leaders hear us loud and clear. We are against both candidates. If voting dropped or nobody went to vote I think they'd get the message loud and clear that we are disatisfied.
I'll try to make this clear for those who don't understand
We don't need people pointing out "similarities" in known terrorists names to candidates who are running for President of the United States. This is not something I like seeing as a topic with the "oh this is freaky" added. This is not freaky and certainly not funny. WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR THIS. I would be equally upset if somebody linked John McCain's name with some horrible and vile person. This is what I would expect to come out of the John McCain camp as an ad trying to connect the two while "innocently" stating "oh I'm not saying that they are alike but it's just freaky".
Sure maybe people do see that (I didn't), but we certainly do not need anyone to be bringing this up. This kind of statement falls right along the lines of the statement that Hillary made when she said that she was staying in the race because "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, right?" Well I guess you could call that freaky too.
To me pointing out something like this whether it's towards Obama or McCain is loathsome and I take great offense to this kind of comment or comparison. It sounds like others did too, so glad to know I'm not the only one.
Obama issues clear laid out at DNC.
Especially silent on that family values, sex education, abstinence taboo brick wall they are trying to throw up.
The vindictive, mean part came thru loud & clear when she
That smugness reflects the repub's view of themselves, that they are better than everyone else. Gets kinda old, after just an hour or two. After 8 years it's downright repugnant. No wonder the rest of the world hates us.
That is the most clear-cut stating of the facts that I have ever heard. sm
Unfortunately, this could go out on national TV and the Dems and others bowing at the "Altar of Obama" will just keep on blaming Bush and the Republicans.
I for one am going to send it to as many people as I can. It may not make a difference, but it sure can't hurt.
I am not clear, why do you hate/fear muslims?
history shows us many atrocities have been done in the name of people's 'religions' so what makes muslims the target...I see just as much intolerance and hatred right here, in church. ?
Sign is clear, concise, and not offensive.
This sign represents the feelings of many US citizens. As such, it belongs alongside all of the other religious displays at this time of year. Personally, I love it!
Obama made it very clear to Joe the Plumber....
Were you listening? He explained it very clearly. He was going to tax Joe at a higher rate and give that money to people "below Joe" so "they would have a chance too." That is NOT American, that is socialism. Out of Obama's own mouth. The man is a socialist, and because you refuse to see it or see it and don't care, it does not make it less true.
To use your words...run and hide if you like.
And Michelle Obama has made it clear
that her children come first. From what I've personally seen, I can't imagine those parents allowing ANYTHING or ANYONE to harm their children and that all they want for their children are bright, healthy, prosperous futures -- just like all American parents do.
Yet, some people on this board even want to suggest that getting these girls a PUPPY is something evil with questionable motive. It's just unbelievable! 
It is definitely jealousy coming thru LOUD AND CLEAR
--
comments (sm)
PK, I agree with some things you say, certainly not all, but you talk about the righer Bush goes the lefter you go. My question is this, do you think it's healthy to let ONE PERSON change your whole ideology? I think that's way too much influence for one person to have on your life. I don't think it's healthy. You are most likely a wonderful person, but like many on the left you have let the fear of Bush really cloud your view. I don't think he's the greatest president we have ever had, but he's certainly on the scoundrel that you and others here make him out to be. I think the problem with leftward thinking as a whole is that it basically says I, as an upper middle-class taxpayer, have to take care of everyone's woes even if their woes are self-inflicted, criminally obtained, or the result of being just plain lazy. Really, in the end when I stand before God I'm only going to have to answer for myself. I do give to others, so I'm not a selfish hog, but I don't think its right for the government to tell me I have to take care of someone else who is capable taking care of themselves. I'm for helping the truly downtrodden, incapacitated, and mentally disabled, but social programs as a whole are sham and downright theft. I don't want that for Iraq or America. I think it's far time that Americans start taking responsibility for themselves and get over the victim mentality and expecting the nanny state to do everything for us.
Anyway, your post was enlightening, and really the first non-angry post I've ever read from you.
Comments
Didn't realize it was a nasty attack, thought I was addressing a point you made about videos being truth and the written word not the truth. Thinking back on the history of propanda films in this country as well as others I disagreed and was trying to use logic.....and some humor.
As far as cut and paste, unless the board administrator says we can no longer do this I will probably continue to do it on the LIBERAL board, especially if it provides documentation for a point I am trying to make. Researchers and newspapers do it often. That said, here's another cut and paste quote, but don't know who said it:
The US has become the new Webster's definition of irony: Even though most Americans, most American lawmakers, and most American military commanders had long protested the usefulness of their presence in Iraq, ironically they still considered their own government a democracy.
This reminds me of Cheney commenting that basically he didn't care what the American people thought of the war or what they wanted. I thought we were supposed to be his boss.....
Thank you for your comments....... sm
You proved my point right here.
"As far as the "man on the street" interviews, it's obvious there are a lot of people in the United States who are ill informed and/or just ignorant, to the point it would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Otherwise, they would have known Obama's views on choice and Iraq..."
These are the very people who put Obama in office. These are the people who saw a charismatic young leader, just as the uninformed or misled people in other countries who do not know our issues and/or who have only been allowed to see what their governments want them to see on television.
I don't think France feels too "friendly" towards America/Bush right now, and it hasn't been too long ago that Mexico was rising up stating that Texas was still theirs and they planned on taking it back.
I do enjoy a good debate and hope that you or anyone else takes what I say here personally. I think we all have America's best interests at heart based on our own opinions but just come at it from different backgrounds/situations. Have a blessed day!
Most of these comments.......
are just about 5 years old or older.......Saddam lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I'm sure he wanted his neighbors to think he had truckloads of weapons. BUT, when the CIA could find no evidence of WMDs - their information was quashed and our govt outed a CIA agent in retribution (Valerie Plame) which is treason. It took years for the real truth of the matter to come to light........maybe that's why Clinton didn't rush on in there and hang Saddam......Iraq had nothing to do with 911 - now look at the cluster in Afghanistan that got left to simmer in the meantime.............sheesh......I blame Bush - it wasn't about WMDs (or they wouldn't have hidden the fact there were none) - it was about OIL.
Here are some comments about this
Some comments I read are:
"It can’t be understated what an insult this is to the American People, Sovereign (whether any individual Citizen understands this, flees from the responsibility for this or would change this) over their nation and its government. It is a betrayal, and may, indeed, be treasonous.
It is appropriate that Obama has, in bowing to a foreign potentate in this picture, shown his @ss to the American People; an act that would have been a capital offense had his position been reversed. It would have been inappropriate for him to genuflect before the British monarch, no matter how many neo-Tories there may be among us.
This particular potentate has, among his titles, acknowledgment of his status as keeper of the Holy Places of Islam, and thus singling out Abdullah of the Saudis for such a sign of respect should disturb, deeply, any American left who understands the United States and its history.
It strains credibility to believe someone representing State didn’t tell Obama what constituted a proper stance. He much have overruled that advice, and singled out this particular potentate for this gesture."
Another poster wrote -
I’ve read elsewhere that some people attempt to rationalize this bow-to-the-Saudi-King by Barack Obama as Obama somehow participating in “another country’s protocol” — which is rubbish given the Office that Barack Obama holds (the President of the United States of America bows to no other country, no ruler, to no one — this represents our nation, the U.S.A., as a sovereign nation subservient to no one else, no ruler, no other nation, our nation as a republic unto itself).
These were quotes taken from the second link down on this website.
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/aggregator.php?sid=1121
To be clear, IP addresses can only be seen by the Administrator and I do not give IP information to
To be clear, IP addresses can only be seen by the Administrator and I do not give IP information to anyone.
As well, when you enter your email address, it is not revealed to anyone who sends to you. The only way the sender would be able to find out is if YOU reply to them.
Again, ISP/IP information is not available to the public on this site and only I have access to that information.
If you have specific questions, feel free to email me.
Administrator
ForuMatrix
The purpose was made crystal clear in the post.
It was very clear. Don't know how to make it any clearer.
The only clear posts are the Bush bashes. Go figure. nm
nm
Care to elaborate? What games? Seems pretty clear
x
You sound a lot more clear and level headed than most on this board...
even in your drug-induced state! Feel better soon!
mccaffrey comments
Then we have General (or whatever his designation) Barry McCaffrey stating we should send our sons and daughters to war cause the country needs them..On Countdown with Olbermann, he stated the govt must ask the people to send their sons and daughters..I have an answer for him..NO, not my son, not my daughter..I could see if this was a legitimate war (are any wars really truly legitimate..cant we resolve our crises without murder and mayhem..geez) but the Iraq war?? Heck no..never..Bush, you and your idiotic murderous administration got us into this, send your daughters to Iraq.
More inappropriate comments.sm
Your neocon party rhetoric is disturbing.
|
