back at ya babe.
Posted By: twaddle on 2008-09-12
In Reply to: Again, not clever and makes no sense. - Got anything intelligent to say? nm
nm
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
catch ya later, babe.
nm
thanks again Babe! Good luck voting for McSame/Falin...SM
ROFLMAO
get on back, neocon, get on back
Tell ya what, sweetheart, last I checked this is the LIBERAL BOARD and I havent been banned, as I dont break the rules, so I can stay as long as I want..Seems to me, conservative, you are the one who should mosey on by and get back to drink more Kook-Aid.
Go back then
So, *Really* or whomever you are..I have a thought, why dont you go back to the conservative board and have some fun discussing how you are gonna save America and the world from terrorists or whatever you think we are accomplishing with this war. Bye..bye..**BIG HUG**
Did think you could come back on that
except to call names. If you can't defend yourself just call names...that's how it works, right?
It's funny and predictable how you all react when you're called on the carpet about your hypocrisy.
*Did think you could come back on that*??
You don't consider *unhinged liberal* calling names?!
All you do is come here and pick, pick, pick, fight, fight, fight. You're boring, and you're terribly unfriendly and unpleasant to be around. For that reason, I don't think I'm going to continue to provide an audience for any more of your attention-seeking temper tantrums.
Other than that, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by *Did think you could come back on that.* Is English your second language or is your anger and hatred causing you to become a bit *unhinged* yourself? (Was just a rhetorical question. No need to respond. I won't be reading it.) 
We should just go back to
ignoring them, Democrat.
Their own board is dead because they can't stand to AGREE with each other and just be NICE people. They have too much venom that they need to purge or explode, and they've been doing it here.
Not one of them (assuming there is more than one) has posted anything that deserves a response. Not one.
They're just pitiful, bitter, angry, hateful people, and the more we feed them, the fatter they get.
OMG, they are back
The neocons are back..the administrator tells them not to post here but THEY ARE BACK!! A fungus is among us!
Welcome back...nm
Welcome back! You are definitely not alone ...sm
I think anyone who is still able to think for themselves can see it, it is almost predictable actually. Because of all that is going on lately, the translation for that propaganda is:
You need to vote for Republicans so you will not get killed by terrorists.
Back at ya....
Not flip-flops by one person...but several:
1.
WASHINGTON - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi continues to prove that she is willing to say or do just about anything in attempts to gain traction for Democrats. Now, Pelosi is even warming up her rhetoric for summer using the tried-and-failed, Democrat style of flip-flopping.
According to Roll Call, writing in February to members of the Democrat caucus, Pelosi andthe four elected leaders of theDemocratic Caucus ... urged Members to continue a drumbeat of criticism of theprogram, which went into effect on Jan. 1. 'We ask you to use the upcoming February District Work Period and the following weeks to hold town meetings, visits to senior centers, and other public events to drive this message home,' the leaders wrote. (Roll Call, 2/13/06)
Yesterday in a massive course alteration and in the face of positive polling, Pelosi said that Democrats have been out across the country encouraging seniors to sign up for a prescription drug plan by May 15th. (Pelosi Statement, 5/9/06)
If Nancy Pelosi thinks the Medicare prescription drug program should be criticized in February, why is she saying in May that Democrats are encouraging seniors to sign up for the program, National Republican Congressional Committee Communications Director Carl Forti asked.
Nancy Pelosi is flailing in her attempts to call the prescription drug benefit a program that is 'borne of corruption,' because she knows millions of Americans are in fact saving money, so instead she s taken to her tired routine of playing politics with America s seniors, Forti added, in reference to Pelosi s Sunday appearance on NBC s Meet the Press.
2.
Pelosi and Reid Flip Flop on Implementation of all 9/11 Commission Recommendations
Despite the fact they voted against many of the most important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission over the last few years, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made the implementation of all their recommendations one of their more prominent campaign promises this year...
Well, now that they've won, promises don't mean a thing, and Speaker-elect Pelosi, in response to a reporter's question, now says you can't do them all.
REPORTER: But your promise though was to enact all of the 9/11 recommendations.
PELOSI: What I am saying to you is that they presented several different options and with the goals they have in mind, we have come up with this proposal which removes the barriers between the house appropriators and authorizers, makes the oversight stronger and makes the American people safer, so if they are giving you different alternatives, implicit in that is that you can't do them all. They're already breaking promises... Should we have expected anything else from them?
3.
Hillary Flip Flops on Ethanol
Following in the footsteps of Democrat presidential hopefuls, Hillary Clinton has “Flip Flopped” on an issue that will play a significant part in the 2008 elections. She is now for ethanol fuel, but she voted against it in June of last year. She failed to learn from Senator Kerry that Flip Flops no longer go unnoticed by voters.
She spoke at the National Press Club and announced her energy plan for the nation. In addition to several user tips like checking tire pressure etc., she espoused the development of ethanol for motor fuel. She suggested that we put a billion dollars from the strategic energy fund into research aimed at unlocking the full potential of ethanol. She also wants to expand loan guarantees to help the first one billion gallons of ethanol capacity come online. She proposes that we have ethanol pumps at 50% of gas stations nationwide by 2015 and a hundred percent by 2025.
This is all well and good, but how could she make 180 degree turn from last June when she voted against ensuring that ethanol is treated like all other motor vehicle fuels and that taxpayers and local governments do not have to pay for environmental damage caused by ethanol? The answer is simple, she has flip flopped in order to better her position in Iowa , whose caucus is a crucial start in the primary process in Presidential elections. In the age of instant information, candidates who change their position with the political winds should take note that their voting record is available to anyone with internet access. Read the how the votes fell at U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session.
4.
Hillary Flip-Flops on Immigration
Democrats flip-flop on a regular basis, and in the age of instant information it is becoming increasingly difficult to pull it off. Kerry tripped over his own statements on his way to defeat in 2004, and Hillary Clinton is well on her way to following in his footsteps.
In an attempt to appear hawkish on immigration in 2003 she said that she was adamantly against illegal immigration:
I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.
Clinton said the U.S. might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID. Story
She has now come out is in favor of citizenship for illegal aliens and claimed that Republicans want to impose a “police state”. In typical Democrat fashion, she is adjusting her position according to the direction in which she believes the winds of politics are blowing:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Wednesday some Republicans are trying to create a police state to round up illegal immigrants. Newsmax
This is similar to the strong position she has taken on the Dubai ports deal. She is adamantly against and Arab company running a handful of terminals at our ports, but is also adamantly against racial profiling. Playing both sides of the fence is classic Clintonian politics and a tactic she probably learned from her charismatic husband.
5. Reid Ticket Flip-Flop
The Associated Press reports that Senator Harry Reid has reversed course, and his office acknowledged Wednesday night he misstated the ethics rules governing his acceptance of free boxing tickets and has decided to avoid taking such gifts in the future.
The Nevada senator still believes it was entirely permissible for him to accept ringside seats for three professional boxing matches in 2004 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission but has nonetheless decided to avoid doing so in the future, his office said.
In light of questions that have been raised about the practice, Senator Reid will not accept these kinds of credentials in the future in order to avoid even the faintest appearance of impropriety, spokesman Jim Manley said.
The announcement came after The Associated Press confronted Reid's office early Wednesday with conclusions from several ethics experts that the Senate leader misstated congressional ethics rules in trying to defend his actions.
According to Reid, it was perfectly okay for him to accept the free gifts because they were from his home state.
6. Pelosi - Murtha
Pelosi, in a letter distributed Sunday to newly elected House Democrats, wrote that Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq helped change the electoral campaign for the House this fall. Murtha began calling for a U.S. pullout from Iraq a year ago, and his open opposition to the war made him a focus of intense criticism from Republicans and the White House.
(SNIP)
Pelosi added: Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to continue to lead on these vital issues. For this and for all you have done for Democrats in the past and especially this last year, I am pleased to support your candidacy for Majority Leader for the 110th Congress.
Here is a few interesting points about Murtha on National Security.
Murtha on Homeland Security:
Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 44% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)
So far, doesn't seem Murtha has shown a strong voice on Security for America. Then again, Pelosi doesn't have to tell the truth, does she? After all, she doesn't even think Iraq is a war... she thinks it is a situation!!!!!
Since it has been reported that al-Qaeda has been trying to enter our country via the Mexican border, lets also take a look at Murtha's record on immigration, shall we?
Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
To be VERY clear here, al-Qaeda has already informed us that they have smuggled materials across the Mexican border, this was reported on Nov. 2006.
A NEWSCHANNEL 5 investigation reveals what the feds don't want you to know. Suspected terrorists are hiding inside the U.S. and they got here by sneaking across the Mexican border.
What we've been reporting for more than a year has been confirmed by a government report just released. (Click here to download the report.)
And a brand new interview by Pakistani investigative reporter Hamid Mir is bringing in more information. Mir has interviewed some of America's most dangerous terrorist enemies.
This time the Al Qaeda commander he talked to gave a grim warning that another attack on America is coming very soon.
We can attack America anytime, says Abu Dawood during the interview. He also told the reporter that Muslims must leave America.
Murtha also flip flops about as much as John Kerry does.
Murtha voted for the 10 October 2002 resolution that as a last resort authorized the use of force against Iraq. However, he later began expressing doubts about the war. On 17 March 2004, when Republicans offered a “War in Iraq Anniversary Resolution” that “affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq, when JD Hayworth called for a recorded vote, Murtha then voted against it.
Still, in early 2005 Murtha argued against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. “A premature withdrawal of our troops based on a political timetable could rapidly devolve into a civil war which would leave America’s foreign policy in disarray as countries question not only America’s judgment but also its perseverance”, he stated
On 17 November 2005, he touched off a firestorm when he called for the redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying, The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.
I guess liberal political opinion flip flops according to what political season it is.
During debate on adopting the rule for the resolution, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, a Republican from Ohio, made a statement attributed to Danny Bubp, an Ohio state Representative and Marine Corps reservist, “He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.
7.
|
 |
( 8/10/2004 ) CNN quoted the San Francisco Democrat today in saying she didn't support the nomination: But I will say what I said before is that there shouldn't - a person should not be the director of central intelligence who's acted in a very political way when we're dealing with the safety of the American people. Intelligence has to be the gathering and analysis and dissemination of information, of intelligence, without any political, any politics involved at all. Sorry, Nancy. The Republican National Committee has unearthed this from June 5, in the Chattanooga Times Free Press: If Goss is nominated for the post, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said that she would support him. Pelosi worked closely with Goss during the congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Whoever replaces Tenet needs to be independent of political pressure, Pelosi said. Goss, who worked for the CIA before becoming a congressman in 1988, has shown that ability as chairman of the House Intelligence panel, she added.
8.
Kennedy Flip-Flops on Quizzing High Court Nominees
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
July 28, 2005
(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts will be expected to answer fully any questions about his views on controversial issues that could come before the court in the future, according to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). But, during the 1967 confirmation debate over future Justice Thurgood Marshall, Kennedy argued that Supreme Court nominees should defer any comments on such matters.
In his June 20, floor speech responding to President Bush's nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court, Kennedy argued that senators must not fail in our duty to the American people to responsibly examine Judge Roberts' legal views.
Kennedy listed a number of issues, including workers' rights, health care and environmental regulations, that he considers important.
Each of these issues, and many others, [have] been addressed by the Supreme Court in recent years, Kennedy said. In many of these cases, the Court was narrowly divided, and these issues are likely to be the subject of future Court decisions in the years to come.
The Massachusetts Democrat said he is troubled by Roberts' strict interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause and added that other aspects of Judge Roberts' record also raise important questions about his commitment to individual rights.
Because Judge Roberts has written relatively few opinions in his brief tenure as a judge, his views on a wide variety of vital issues are still unknown, Kennedy charged. What little we know about his views and values lends even greater importance and urgency to his responsibility to provide the Senate and the American people with clear answers.
Kennedy listed examples of conservative positions Roberts had argued on behalf of both private clients and as the principle deputy solicitor general for the administration of President George H. W. Bush.
Judge Roberts represented clients in each of these cases, but we have a duty to ask where he stands on these issues, Kennedy continued. I join my colleagues in the hope that the process will proceed with dignity. But the nominee will be expected to answer fully, so that the American people will know whether Judge Roberts will uphold their rights. See Video
During the 1967 confirmation debate over the nomination of then-Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, however, Kennedy held a different view about the types of questions the nominee should be required to answer. Film footage obtained by Cybercast News Service shows Kennedy's response to the prospect of senators asking Marshall questions about how he might rule in future cases.
We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court, Kennedy said during a 1967 press conference. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent. See Video
Marshall was serving President Lyndon Johnson as solicitor general when he was nominated in the summer of 1967. Prior to that, he had been an attorney for the NAACP, and had successfully argued the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case that racially integrated the nation's public schools. Marshall's nomination was opposed by Southern Democrats who feared his confirmation would further the cause of racial equality in the United States, but he was confirmed by a vote of 69 to 11 on Aug. 30, 1967.
Multiple calls to Sen. Kennedy's office seeking comment for this report were not returned.
9. noted back on the 10th about how Democrats were playing political games with the Iraq war by being before the suggested ’surge’ in troops in Iraq before they were against it. Well guess what? Add another Democrat to the game players: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. Via the Washington Times:
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an “exclusive.” And for good reason.
“In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq,” the story began, Mr. Reyes “said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a ’stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.’ ”
“We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq,” the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, “I would say 20,000 to 30,000.”
Then came President Bush’s expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes’ recommendation and argument word-for-word — albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn’t you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level,” he said.
The chairman’s “double-talk” did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant “hypocrisy” undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
Indeed.
And just in case anyone doubts the validity of the WashTimes story about this, here’s that Dec. 5 Newsweek story on Reyes:
Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
[…]
When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military.”
[…]
Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post. One widely cited reason that Harman, a moderate Democrat who supported the war, didn’t get the nod from Pelosi is that the Speaker-designate wanted somebody who would be more aggressive in standing up to the Bush White House—which Reyes promises to be on other issues like domestic wiretapping and CIA secret prisons.
But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.”
Here’s Reyes’ flip flop, as reported in the El Paso Times on 1/11/07:
President Bush’s announcement Wednesday evening that he would send about 21,500 more soldiers and Marines to Iraq drew a mixed reaction from El Paso residents, and local officials said they weren’t aware he planned to use Fort Bliss Patriot missile units to defend U.S. allies in the region.
Bush had been expected to announce that he would send a “surge” of troops to Baghdad and to Al Anbar Province in an effort to stop sectarian violence and control the al-Quaida insurgency so the country’s fledgling government can establish itself.
“We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimal level,” said U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, referring to the availability of troops. “The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics.”
Reyes, who met with Bush on Tuesday to review the plan, said sending more troops removes any incentive the Iraqi government had to take responsibility for the safety of its own citizens. He added that Bush was continuing his “go-it-alone” approach, rather than trying to find diplomatic solutions.
I wrote this in my intial post on Dem flip flops on the surge, and I believe it’s worth repeating today:
They simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, nor can they be trusted to be in the driver’s seat in a time of war. That these shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, anti-war, cut and run, stuck-in-Vietnam clowns are going to be micromanaging the President’s every move over the next two years on the war on terror is a travesty of epic proportions, and is already proving to be disastrous.
10. Dems Flip Flop on Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ
A little light listening and watching.
11.
The 16 August 2005 Washington Times has an editorial that digs deeper into two prominent Democrats with aspirations for 2008: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New Arkansas). In Border-control Democrats and President Bush the editors summarize many of the sneaky backtracks and politicking that these two have employed on this crucial national security and economic issue. The opening paragraph alone summarizes the piece perfectly:
Democratic hopefuls for 2008 are sensing how vulnerable President Bush is on border control. The latest sign: New Mexico's politically shrewd governor, Bill Richardson, has made a partial about-face on the issue — at least in words — and is throwing money and attention at his state's southern border. If he makes a national comeback from the Energy Department security scandals that all but ruined his reputation in the final years of the Clinton administration, it will owe in part to a seeming shift on border control that mirrors the one that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made in December and then reneged upon.
The editors then go on to dispel any doubts of the disingenuousness of their rightward tack on immigration and border control by chronicling their flip-flops. Granted: President Bush has been impotent on border security and weak on immigration — one can only assume because he is playing to his Hispanic voter base. So, I grant Bush no amnesty there. But at least he's consistently frustrating on the issue. Richardson and Clinton, however, have been all over the place, but of course pretend that they haven't. (I guess they just assume the American electorate are too stupid to follow their shenanigans… after all, they have election 2004 as precident that at least 48% of the nation could believe anyone, even an alleged war hero.)
Here are some examples of duplicity from The Washington Times regarding Richardson:
In 1996, as a New Mexico congressman, he voted against increases in border-control expenditures and against a work-verification program to discourage the hiring of illegals. His last few years as New Mexico governor have been more of the same. …As the state Minuteman leader, Clifford Alford, put it to local reporters last week, Mr. Richardson has never done anything to secure the border and he's not doing anything now.
This year Mr. Richardson began changing his tune. In March, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and called for tough law enforcement, more border guards, a crackdown on illegal smuggling, better detection of those that overstay their visas, stolen/lost passports.
Last week, after a tour of border areas, Mr. Richardson declared a state of emergency in four counties abutting Mexico, citing growing border-area violence, property damage, drug smuggling and problems with illegals crossing the border. He then invited Chris Simcox, a Minuteman leader, to discuss border control — something Mr. Bush has not done and probably cannot do, having labeled them vigilantes in March — and called on Mexico to bulldoze Las Chepas, a staging ground for illegals and smugglers.
As regards Hillary, the editors refer to her comment last December that [I do] not think that we have protected our borders or our ports… we can do more and we can do better — I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants… People have to stop employing illegal immigrants, and then observe:
Since then, Mrs. Clinton has turned back toward left-liberal orthodoxy. Last month, she gave a fawning speech to the National Council of La Raza in which she endorsed the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities (DREAM) Act, which would guarantee illegals in-state college-tuition rates and also grant amnesty to tens of thousands of illegals who graduate from U.S. high schools. The border-control hawkishness had vanished.
|
12. Massive Al-Qaeda Iraq flip flop
Today's lesson on How to Beat the Liberals with Facts about Iraq and Al Qaeda focuses on the hypocrisy of the Democrats. The Bush Administration was not the only politicos to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. But to listen to these very same Dems today, you would think otherwise. **Keep in mind that there is quite a difference in claiming ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda versus Iraq in cahoots with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. The ties between the two terrorist organizations is the issue in question.**
How many times have we heard the KOS kissing former presidential candidate, Gen. Wesley Clark, claim no connection to Iraq and Al Qaeda? But what did Wesley say in 2002???
Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
NY Times ^ Jan. 12, 2004 EDWARD WYATT
MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.
The statement by General Clark in October 2002 as he endorsed a New Hampshire candidate for Congress is a sign of how the general's position on Iraq seems to have changed over time, though he insists his position has been consistent.
Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he said in 2002. It doesn't surprise me at all that they would be talking to Al Qaeda, that there would be some Al Qaeda there or that Saddam Hussein might even be, you know, discussing gee, I wonder since I don't have any scuds and since the Americans are coming at me, I wonder if I could take advantage of Al Qaeda? How would I do it? Is it worth the risk? What could they do for me?
SNIP
In an interview, General Clark said his more recent remarks were not inconsistent with what he said in 2002. In those remarks, he said, he was trying to explain that based on his knowledge of how the intelligence community works, low-level contacts almost certainly existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda, But, he said, that does not mean that Iraq had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.
********************
President Bush was not the first President to claim ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The slick one from Arkansas was numero uno...
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements...
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan...
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists...
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
*************************
Clinton White House Saw Saddam-Osama Connection
NewsMax ^ 7/12/04 Jon E. Dougherty
...The U.S. attorney involved in preparing that indictment, Patrick Fitzgerald, told the federal 9/11 commission the intelligence surrounding the indictment came from one Jamal al Fadl, a former high-ranking al-Qaeda leader who, before the Sept. 11 attacks, gave the U.S. its first real look at the terrorist organization.
Fadl said an associate of bin Laden's, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (Abu Hajer al Iraqi) tried to reach a sort of agreement where they wouldn't work against each other -- sort of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- and that there were indications that within Sudan when al Qaeda was there, which al-Qaeda left in the summer of '96, or the spring of '96, there were efforts to work on jointly acquiring weapons.
Within several months, al-Qaeda bombed a pair of U.S. embassies in East Africa. In retaliation, Bill Clinton used an Iraq-al-Qaeda connection, Hayes said, when he ordered the cruise missile attack on the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
On Aug. 24, 1998, a senior intelligence official was made available by the administration and cited strong ties between the plant and Iraq as the basis for the attack.
SNIP
A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaeda) connection: We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.
U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.
You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case.
Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted the administration had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity.
Other products were made at al Shifa, he continued. But we have seen such dual-use plants before -- in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan.
Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush who, in a recent book, laid most of the blame for 9/11 at the feet of the current administration, told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999 interview the U.S. was sure Iraq was behind the VX precursor being manufactured at the al Shifa plant.
The Post reported: Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.
*****************************
Dems connected Iraq, al-Qaida
By Charles D. Ganske 7/5/04
Yet, Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, in his recent testimony before the 9/11 Commission, insisted that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program. For the Iraqis not to have known bin Laden was a major investor in the El Shifa plant seems to be quite a stretch.
*******************************
The final nail in the coffin was signed by many of the Lefties that now claim voting for the war in Iraq was a mistake... You know, people like John Kerry, John Murtha...
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]] Public Law 107-243107th Congress
Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
<>
...Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;...
My my my... how things change when a Republican is President. It was completely believable and promoted by Democrats when Clinton was in office. Yet the only action Clinton took was bombing the pharmaceutical factory at Al Shifa. President Bush's actions have deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His only mistake - he is a Republican.
13.
BEN NELSON:
Immigration Hardliner? Or Lobbyist for Meatpackers?
NEGOP Questions Democrat Ben Nelson’s Immigration Flip-Flop
***
Lincoln, Neb. – The Nebraska GOP called on Democrat Senator Ben Nelson today to come clean on his apparent flip-flop on federal immigration policy. Nelson announced plans to introduce legislation addressing illegal immigration.
In 1999, former Governor and soon to be candidate for United States Senate Ben Nelson acted as a lobbyist for the meatpacking industry in a dispute with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). INS was subpoenaing employee records at meatpacking plants across the state, investigating document discrepancies.
- “Former Gov. Ben Nelson says the crackdown on undocumented workers in Nebraska meatpacking plants is detrimental to Nebraska.” (Nelson critical of Operation Vanguard, Calls it Detrimental; Grand Island Independent; Thursday, June 3, 1999)
- Nelson said he thinks the INS should start a separate program that would allow temporary visas for undocumented workers. (Associated Press, “Nelson says INS operation draining state’s labor pool”; 6/4/99)
- [Nelson] said he has been approached by several meatpacking companies, asking for his help in developing a pilot program that would make temporary visas available to undocumented employees. “We need to find more ways to employ people rather than limit them,” Nelson said. (The Grand Island Independent, 6/3/99).
“The issue in this instance is consistency and leadership. In 1999, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson lobbied for meatpackers – advocating for programs to permit the importation of foreign workers into permanent US jobs. In 2005, the year before his Senate race, Ben Nelson feigns concern about border security,” said Executive Director Jessica Moenning. “Ben Nelson changes what he thinks from one term to the next based on who he’s lobbying for or what a poll says - that is NOT leadership.”
“Nebraska needs a leader who will say what he means and mean what he says, not someone who changes his position if a focus group says so. Ben Nelson owes the voters of Nebraska an explanation for his flip-flop.”
I don't know. Where were you back then??
I was aware because a friend of mine is from Iraq and his mother was a Kurd and was killed. He and his brother had been schooled here and they were working here. His father is still there. I have lost contact with him, the friend. He moved to CA and we just lost touch. I would imagine that his father is probably dead. We worked together in the 80s. I know Mavis Leno (Jay's wife) has been working for Afghanistan women for years. She probably knew and cared a lot and I am sure that the people who did know cared quite a lot a well. I really can't tell you where everyone else was. I would guess most Americans were in the same state of mind about Iraq that they are today in respect to every other poverty-ridden, despot-ravaging, corrupt country, state or region, Asia, Africa, South America...We(some of us) care about Iraq because it has been brought to our attention for the first time, Iraq that is. You will find no dearth of man's inhumanity to man in any corner of this planet you look. Whoever you are, you may or may not know that I am a complete and total pacifist. I can think of no good reason for war...really...but since we've got it, my priority is to end the carnage for both sides ASAP.
Right back at ya..lol nm
nm
your back
I agree. It would be very traumatizing to the child to be hauled around and raised by a succession of nannies. The child's needs come before her political ambition.
right back at ya...
DIdn't see anything there about God Dam* America for starters. More to follow.
No, sam's right. I can't back it up but I
remember that being on the news almost every night for weeks when Clinton revealed his budget.
WELCOME BACK SAM!!!!! nm
nm.
Yes I did, quite a while back. nm
.
It is always back to that with you and I never
once mentioned anything about her being experienced or not. Yes, she has as much experience as an executive as the rest of them. The point is, it is wasteful.
What truly bothers me is that no matter what anyone says about her, be it justified or not you are always in her defense. Can you admit that she has done wrong? I'm for the other side and can see the not so great about them.
Has Sam still not come back?
I know some of you don't like her, but I sure hope everything is okay!
I think he/she was back
a few days ago when the posting went wild. Looked to me like him/herself was posting and answering his/her own posts. JMO.
Welcome back Sam!
How is the hand? Hope you are doing well!
We could go back and forth on this all day. s/m
I find McCain/Palin between them not to have enough COMMON SENSE to fill a thimble. So let's just agree to disagree.
Right back at ya....
Why aren't YOU listening? If I hear any more about Joe the non-plumber, I'm going to puke. That was a Republican plant if ever I saw one. "Joe" got the answer he was programmed to get and they took it and ran with it. If you are listening, Obama is NOT proposing to tax people who's GROSS income is $250,000!!!
I do agree with you. I have long been in favor of a flat rate tax. No deductions, no exceptions. If you make a dollar you owe a dime or whatever. That will NEVER fly because the politicians are ALL about protecting the wealthy. AND that includes McCain AND Obama.
Welcome back, sam.....sm
Your presence on this board has been acutely missed over the last couple of days.
I guess some of us have an actual life, huh? ;o)
Just got back myself...sm
We have a small polling place as well and a VERY small town/precinct. Still, I stood in line for probably 30 minutes or more.
Our county decided this year, in view of the push for early voting, that they would try decentralized (for lack of a better word) early voting. In other words, early voting had always taken place only at the county courthouse, but this year they set up satellite voting polls in various locations for 1 day of early voting in addition to the regular early voting at the courthouse. In our precinct, we had 169 early voters.
Well, enough of the small-town voting news...LOL. I hope that everyone (not just on this board) is able to get out to the polls today and cast their ballot for the persons of their choice. The next few days will definitely be interesting ones.
Will you be going back over
x
Hey BB..... Welcome back! sm
Hope you had a nice long holiday with much reading time! ;o)
You need to look back a little further!
.
yet you are back?
nm
Welcome back, Mrs. M.!!
It's wonderful to hear from someone who rejoiced in this day as much as I did!!. I found it all very moving and uplifting. As the late Tim Russert would say, "Oh, what a country!". I had a fresh renewal of patriotism today! 
But even further back
some of this is run off from Clinton yet some of you refuse to admit that.....let's just blame it all on Bush.
I'm back -
Although I did take the night off last night after reading the post. It confirmed my suspicions that I had over the last few days and why I didn't come here for a long time. I don't care about how many years of schooling or what news station people listen to. To make such a foolish post about how the stock market went up, life is grand, and the pubs are all silenced now because the stock market was up. Surely you must have realized what kind of responses you would get. At the same time you can say the same when the stock market goes down (not many crats say anything then). Top economists are saying you cannot base how the overall economy is doing because in one day the dow closes up or down. You have to give it a few months and then see how the trend goes. Closing up is course a good sign and makes us feel good, however, as many times as it closes up there are double the times it closes down and stays down for days - and where are your posts then? What was really great was that it closed up almost 500 points, but again, nothing to get too comfortable about. More times than not it will go back down. Not a fortune teller here, just been watching how it goes up and down and up and down since November. People still do not have a comfortable feeling about the direction the country or economy is going. We are not hearing of any job creation. In fact in my part of the country 3 companies are getting ready to lay off over 1700 employees at each company. This is not signs of economic growth.
I'm going to be 50 this next month, so I too have lived through many administrations and life experiences and I also served in the military. I don't know what part of Americans you think have benefited by dem administrations, not any that I've known of. Clinton? (none that I know of, people lost their jobs to NAFTA, lost their homes, and went on food stamps and lots collected unemployment. The middle to low income peoples taxes went from 23% to 39% and higher, while the top rich (you know, those 1% the crats always say are only on the pub side - well guess what - they are the same 1% that always benefit when the crats are in power). Regular people never got out of debt, not to mentioned new debt they incurred with the IRS). Carter? (definitely none I know of). Johnson? Anyone before then I do not count. Times were different back then. We actually had some good democrat presidents before then, and we've also had good republican presents. I was very proud to serve under President Reagan. Cant say the same for the people serving under the O. You certainly cannot judge all republicans because the GW. And people have prospered very well under republican presidents (and not just rich - the common people like me, my family and my friends). I was in debt up to my eyeballs with Clinton. Because he taxed Americans so high we had nothing. Family lost jobs, I went into debt and was never able to recover from from until GW. Just because GW was not a favorite of everyone, at least I felt I had some self worth once my tax rate went down I was able to finally live on what I made. Before that I had no life and no self worth, and I know a lot of people entertained the idea of suicide (that's how bad Clinton put people in financially), never mind rendition, the start of the Patriot Act, the first world trade center, Oklahoma City, USS Cole, Marine baracks, Cosovo, Somalia, the thousands of men he killed in a war we had no business being in, and all the other criminal activities that went on (who cares about his sexual escapades (btw - not many know who BC's pimp was. And he's back in power), but what Billy did to us and our country as president is what I was concerned about.
Sweat this out? That's exactly what we are doing. We're prepared for a long four years of sweating this out. However as each day ends we realize there really is no "hope" for our future or our grandchildren's future. We are starting to see the same road that many Germans did around WWII when they elected a leader who they thought cared about them, who talked about "hope" and "change" - oh they got change alright, just the kind they never dreamed would happen to their country.
We all want the stock market to inch up slowly day by day. Until it does many of us don't comment on something that as fast as it goes up it comes down. To have a stock market that dives down for a week or so in a row and you don't say anything, but the one day it goes up you then claim where are we? Well we are still here and we are not commenting because they have a good day and proclaim our president has walked on water. And it certainly doesn't help that he keeps running around to the local comedy shows and TV shows laughing about what our country is going through. He actually thinks its funny people are losing homes, jobs, and going hungry??? Someone (even his wife) should tell him - this is no laughing matter and if your going to go in front of the public do not laugh about the hardships we are faced with. I doubt the people who just lost their jobs and saw him think it's funny.
I'd first listen to the economist before making false claims of how great the economy is now because the dow closed up for the one day.
But, he came back, he was only gone
down the tube, shamed us, bowed to the Arab King and then came back. Came back and started spending more money we don't have.
Sorry right back at you
I've been thinking most of the day about whether I want to bother addressing several of your points...or not...and decided to go ahead, knowing that we will never convince one another, but what the heck. And are here are a few more points - no extra charge.
1. You assume that I lack the particular knowledge base or experience that would give me a 'conception' of the consequences of marijuana use and/or drug addiction (as though these are one and the same). That is condescending and I can assure you that you are wrong.
2. To conclude that the logical consequence of legalizing marijuana would be the legalization of all drugs is a fallacy.
3. To assert that use of marijuana more than likely ends with a needle in one's arm is a very broad a generalization. I cannot buy into that theory because I know too many otherwise law-abiding, productive adults (holdovers from the 60's) who for many years have enjoyed an occasional doobie without ending up in a crack den.
4. You could just as easily say that every stumblebum in the gutter, drinking Aqua Velva or Sterno strained through a loaf of bread, started out with beer, but one simply does not inevitably lead to the other. Does beer 'lead to' wine, which leads to bourbon?
5. Is marijuana addictive? Possibly, for certain people. Is alcohol addictive? Certainly, for some people. Others can use either substance in moderation without ill effect.
6. Prohibition did not work in the 1920s, does not work now, nor will it ever work when a segment of society wishes to consume a substance or engage in a behavior. However, it does create a black market and a culture of violence.
7. Just as with alcohol and tobacco, marijuana should be regulated to keep it away from children. And by the way, how's that working out? Seriously, anybody know a high school kid that can't come up with some ecstasy, some brew, or some ganja?
8. The war on drugs is a bust, just as are the war on prostitution, the war on pornography, the war on poverty, the war on illiteracy, ad infinitum. We are constantly declaring 'war' on social issues in this country, allocating scarce enforcement personnel, spending huge amounts of money, to no avail. Are we actually holding our ground in any of these wars?
9. I do care what someone has been ingesting in the following circumstances: When they are pregnant, when they are caring for children, when they are driving some motorized conveyance, when they are removing my brain tumor, when they are defending me in court, when they are operating a nuclear power plant, etc. All of these activities have the potential to harm someone other than themselves. I do not want someone performing any of these activities after a joint - or after a three-martini power lunch. Other than that...
10. Adults should have the right to do things potentially harmful only to themselves. They are allowed to skydive, rock climb, bungee jump, scuba dive, pump up on caffeine, smoke tobacco, eat trans-fats, drink alcohol, or any of a whole bunch of potentially harmful activities.
11. One could get roaring drunk, do a line of coke or some heroin today and test clean day after tomorrow. One could have smoked a joint a month ago and not yet test clean. Not remotely under the influence, just storing THC metabolites in the fat cells.
12. Do illegal drugs support terrorism? That's what they say, but only because drugs illegal. If marijuana were a legal domestic crop, wouldn't that deprive terrorists of one stream of funding?
13. Here's a question no one has ever answered for me, and apparently Tech Support wonders about it also: Conservatives are against the 'nanny state' and government intrusion into personal choice 'for our own good.' Alcohol and tobacco are A-okay; eat whatever you want, drive whatever car you want, use your property as you wish. There are only a few exceptions - abortion, prostitution, pornography, marijuana and hard drugs, which they wish to ban. Liberals are for the 'nanny state' and for government control of a lot of stuff - and yet are also for legalization of marijuana, drugs, porn, etc. Anybody know how this ideological turnabout started?
Sorry right back at you
I've been considering most of the day whether I want to bother addressing several of your points...or not...and decided to go ahead, knowing that we will never convince one another. But what the heck, and are here are a few more points - no extra charge.
1. You assume that I lack the particular knowledge base or experience that would give me a 'conception' of the consequences of marijuana use and/or drug addiction (as though these are one and the same). That is condescending and I can assure you that you are wrong.
2. To conclude that the logical consequence of legalizing marijuana would be the legalization of all drugs is a fallacy.
3. To assert that use of marijuana more than likely ends with a needle in one's arm is a very broad a generalization. I cannot buy into that theory because I know too many otherwise law-abiding, productive adults (holdovers from the 60's) who for many years have enjoyed an occasional doobie without ending up in a crack den.
4. You could just as easily say that every stumblebum in the gutter, drinking Aqua Velva or Sterno strained through a loaf of bread, started out with beer, but one simply does not inevitably lead to the other. Does beer 'lead to' wine, which leads to bourbon?
5. Is marijuana addictive? Possibly, for certain people. Is alcohol addictive? Certainly, for some people. Others can use either substance in moderation without ill effect.
6. Prohibition (originally a 'progressive' notion) did not work in the 1920s, does not work now, nor will it ever work when a segment of society wishes to consume a substance or engage in a behavior. However, it does create a black market and a culture of violence.
7. Just as with alcohol and tobacco, marijuana should be regulated to keep it away from children. And by the way, how's that working out? Seriously, anybody know a high school kid that can't come up with some ecstasy, some brew, or some grass?
8. The war on drugs is a bust, same as the war on prostitution, the war on pornography, the war on poverty, the war on illiteracy, ad infinitum. We are constantly declaring 'war' on social issues in this country, allocating scarce enforcement personnel, spending huge amounts of money, to no avail. Are we even holding our ground in any of these wars?
9. I do care what someone has been ingesting in the following circumstances: When they are pregnant, when they are caring for children, when they are driving some motorized conveyance, when they are removing my brain tumor, when they are defending me in court, when they are operating a nuclear power plant, etc. All of these activities have the potential to harm someone other than themselves. I do not want someone performing any of these activities after smoking a joint - or after a three-martini power lunch. Other than that...
10. Adults should have the right to do things potentially harmful only to themselves. They are allowed to skydive, rock climb, bungee jump, scuba dive, use caffeine, smoke tobacco, eat trans-fats, drink alcohol, or any of a whole bunch of potentially harmful activities.
11. One could get roaring drunk, do a line of coke or some heroin today and test clean day after tomorrow. One could have smoked a joint a month ago and not yet test clean. Not remotely under the influence, just storing THC metabolites in the fat cells.
12. Do illegal drugs support terrorism? That's what they say... but mainly because drugs illegal. If marijuana were a legal domestic crop, wouldn't that deprive terrorists of a major stream of funding?
13. Here's a question no one has ever answered for me, and apparently Tech Support wonders about it also: Conservatives are against the 'nanny state' and government intrusion into personal choice 'for our own good.' Alcohol and tobacco are A-okay; eat whatever you want, drive whatever car you want, use your property as you wish. There are only a few exceptions - abortion, prostitution, pornography, marijuana and hard drugs, which they wish to ban. Liberals are for the 'nanny state' and for government control of a lot of stuff - and yet are also for legalization of marijuana, drugs, porn, etc. Anybody know how this ideological turnabout started?
think back...
check your history books. I think our military did pretty well in WWI and WWII, to name a couple you should know something about, and that was a drafted military. They went because they loved this country and wanted to defend our freedoms. If you value the freedoms you now enjoy, thank the brave men and women of the US Military who made great sacrifices to ensure those freedoms that you now take for granted.
Welcome back, GP! sm
So glad you decided to come back. Your opinions here have been missed, at least by yours truly.
My personal opinion on illegals is that we should send them all back to Mexico with a politician under each arm. That should fix the situation pronto! LOL
Anywho....welcome back!
I was invited back. sm
How can anyone on a message board be "impossible" to ignore. Of course, I realize that your post was a veiled "she's a liar" post, which is what seem to be the slogan of the libs these days.
WHO invited you back? LOL nm
,,
Glad to be back. sm
No I am not walking on eggshells because of the other board. I re-read my post. I am the daughter of a Command Sergeant Major, from the real old Army, and we did not discuss rank at all; it was not proper at that time. When we were overseas, we were all Americans and equal; rank, race, religion did not matter, we were all the same - AMERICANS. When I said earlier my dad was "spat upon". He wasn't but many VN soldiers were; and I was speaking for them. No one in their right mind would have spat on my dad. He was infantry, a sharp-shooter, a marksman. That was his MOS - military occupational specialty. The second time he went to VN he got two kinds of malaria at once, and he was shot so full of quinine, he had tremors, I probably did not spell it right, probably tremers, he could never hold a gun again. We were stationed in Germany between 1960-1963, and I still don't know the deal. All I know is there would be a lot of activity all of a sudden in the middle of the night; mom would be up helping him pack, and he would be gone - maybe for a day, maybe for three months, maybe for a year, and he never talked about it. I did ask him one time when I was a child if he had ever killed anyone. He teared up and said he had killed many men, but the hardest was that he had to kill a kid who had a grenade in his hand and was trying to kill him. Anyhow, we got back to the states in late 63, early 64, just in time for the JFK assination; that is when all innocence stopped for me, and I became a bitter person - working on it though. Thanks gals, just got mom to bed, needed to vent.
Bush is back in the WH. Try and keep up. sm
He was giving aid and addressing the issue in news conferences BEFORE THE HURRICAINE EVEN HIT. Man, you guys are something. It's one thing to hate everything about him but it's a whole new ballgame when you are not only uninformed but just lie all the time.
Well, are they back up since the Clinton adm.
You used the word now, so I assume they are still at these levels and maybe even lower.
The point was that while everybody is again noticing poverty and thinking that Bush had done a dismal job in fighting poverty. The numbers just don't back that up. While there are some people living in poverty because of life circumstances beyond their control MOST are there because of bad life choices. You can throw all the money you want at it, but until morality is advocated and pushed for in this country then you will always have poverty. Jesus even said you will always have the poor among you. Now, is that a reason not to try and do something about poverty? No, but just throwing more and more money their way through higher taxation of the work force will not fix it either. It will only make more people classified as poor.
get on back conservative
So, conservative in liberal clothing poster, what is this post supposed to mean? You believe in a god..good for you, I believe in my god too and more power to the ones who dont believe in a god..To each their own..See, that is how liberals believe, to each their own, and by your post you show everyone you are truly not a liberal, you are a false poster, a conservative posting as a liberal..Bye, bye, sweetie..get on back to the conservative board.
So nice to see you back!
I hope you had a great getaway. Unfortunately, as you can see, nothing has changed here. You continue to be attacked/stalked, even when you're not here!
I personally missed you and wish I DID know you in real life. I'd be very proud to call you friend. Anyway, I'm very glad to see you back and look forward to reading your posts because you always add something of value, unlike some people who only come here to be rude and start trouble. I'd say they were raised by wolves, but wolves have better manners and values.
Lol, welcome back. Sounds like you had fun.nm
x
You might want to go even further back, or in fact. SM
I didn't say I was not a conservative. I didn't say what I was as a matter of fact. It was the FACT that the poster ASSUMED I was something that frosted me. This has nothing to do with the posts we are talking about, but you sure spent a lot of time looking for that didn't you? How about finding the original posts that actually ARE being talked about? It might take awhile, but they are there. I know you either have a lot of time, or have printed off every post and have them neatly arranged in a three ring binder.
Oh No..The Fungi Are Back!
Oh no..oh no..the fungus is back..run, run for your lives, liberals..they are posting under different handles..could not stay away..had to infest this board once again..they keep posting and posting and posting, kind of like the energizer rabbit..over and over and over and never stop..angry, hateful fungi..RUN!
Go back to the neoCons
Get off the liberal board **Gabriel**.
Welcome back, Carla.
and your famiy are doing. Again, my deepest sympathies. Take care of yourself.
Go back 5 years...
Change Bush to Clinton...see a similarity.
|
