enclosed the post I was responding to
Posted By: gt on 2005-09-26
In Reply to: The post was addressing someone else's son, not Cindy's, I believe. - sm
Below is the post I was responding to:
*But can a parent sacrifice their child to the military
that was the question...
and No most of the country doesn't agree with the self-proclaimed martyr, Sheehan.*
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
Huh? No. I was responding to the post
above that stated man and woman were created with the purpose of producing offspring. It had nothing to do with homosexuality.
I don't understand where you got the idea I meant anything else.
Maybe you should actually read the post before responding.
Bush is claiming they are working on nuclear weapons.
Iran has always claimed they are working on nuclear energy.
Who's lying? Which country has the track record for lying when it comes to reasons for declaring war on a country that didn't attack it first??
I am responding to the above post with my opinion
and am not interested in over-aggressive fights about such silliness. It is my opinion in answer to the question above.
Wasn't responding to your post.... but the sow's ear
--
Did I stop anyone from responding to your post?
you haven't answered mine.
Link enclosed
Quite interesting - this is what's going on right now - of particular interest is #8.
http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/message-3-my-fellow-americans
Link enclosed
Found this link. Think it was posted before but came across it again. This is what really scares me if O gets in. This is who O's affiliations are with.
http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/video-weather-underground-planned-re-education-camps-genocide/
see the video at the enclosed link -
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/04/fox-black-panther-poll-intimidation-in-pennsylvania/
See the original summary enclosed
The law that passed is updating the Brady Law.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02640:@@@D&summ2=3&
Opps....link enclosed.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220525&title=pet-projects
Reply and a link enclosed
There is so much wrong going on and sometimes it just feels like you want to explode (or implode). Can someone actually give names of some people in politics that actually are working for the good of the people and the country? There maybe a handful, but to me for the most part they are all working for themselves. They automatically vote themselves in pay raises behind closed doors after dark when nobody is watching. Then the politicians that I always believed were working for the good of the country and people of the country I hear they vote for giving themselves a pay raise. But it's just not that issue. It's all the other decisions they are making back there. I just don't know who to trust/believe anymore. There are a lot of politicians who are doing deals, hoarding money in off-shore accounts, living in mansions and not paying anything, not paying taxes, people being pitted against each other solely because of what political party they belong to, organizations doing whatever they want to do (which is why I'm not posting anything bad towards anyone on this board - never know who is reading). But over the past few years I have lost just about all faith in the government doing anything for the good of the country. You look at who's being picked for cabinet members, SoS, etc. People now don't need any experience to get into positions of power and deal with other countries. It's very scary, and we're becoming the laughing stock of the world (you can say it started with GW, but it's continuing on) - other countries don't respect us no matter who is the Grand Pubah. I get emails saying sign this petition and send it on to your congressman or so-n-so to let them know your not supporting this idea or that idea, but you know what...it doesn't matter. They could get every single citizen in this country to sign any petition and they don't care. They are going to do whatever they want to. The teabag thing...maybe it makes the people feel good, makes you feel like you've got a word, but they ignore it. I think they just throw them in the garbage and they continue to do whatever they want and don't care if the people are happy about it or not.
Also, I believe the country is run by much bigger people than what we are seeing. I have nothing against the O, or Present Bush, President Clinton, Carter, Reagan, etc, etc, because they are all just puppets for the people who run the country. They aren't actually the ones making the decisions, they are just the ones delivering the speeches.
As for Ted Kennedy. Did not realize he's still in office. Thought he was recuperating and living out the rest of his life (however much longer it will be) at his home. Didn't realize he is still making decisions. I really have no opinion on the Chapaquidik thing. Not enough knowlege about that, but there are a lot of older politicians you could say the same for (senile). There should be an age limit and term limit someone can remain in politics. Two terms. That's it. Then they have to go to the public sector. No more politics for them. Doesn't surprise me about the pension thing. Pelosi said to an incoming politician once. "If your not a millionaire now you will be one by the time you leave here". Well isn't that just special.
I'm just fed up with all politics/politicians, talk shows that whine about issues but offer no solutions. Sick of hearing Hannity say to his guests about how he's all set financially but such-n-such a decision will affect the "little people". If I hear how well off Hannity, O'Reilly, Olbermann or any of those talk shows hosts are doing I'd like to just spit.
I wish things were different, but here I am the only one who works in this family - husband has not been able to find a job in years, and now there's no hope of a future for him. I wish I could retire and do something else. Never in my life did I ever think I'd have to work and support us until the day I die. Now with the illegals being able to draw off the social security system I doubt very much there will be anything for me when I hit retirement age (15 more years to go) but yet I still have to pay 12% of my income into it.
Anyway...don't mean to ramble on here. Just tired of all the crooked deals going on in the news, then at the same time crime is going up and it seems like it's getting closer and closer to the day when people are going to have the right taken away to protect themselves in their own homes. It really makes me think we're getting closer and closer to some of the movies I've watched (Children of Men, and a good one is Equilibrium). Who knows what the future will bring, but it just doesn't look good and I'm ready to unplug from it all.
I take things as they come. I may not like them, but the world is changing and know we have to adapt or else we'll be prisoners in our own minds. I look back and think of the changes that have occurred in our grandparents lifetimes (telephone, computers, etc), and if they didn't adapt things would not have come as far as they have. I just hope things turn around and we see some growth for the country. Otherwise I look forward to 2012 (end of the Mayan calendar).
Here's a link I thought you might like. I wish we had this guy in our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
This is just unfathomable to me (caution - rant enclosed)
I said once I'd never post on this board again, but this isn't a political issue, it reaches across the board. This just blows me away. 60 days' punishment for stealing this child's innocence and scarring her forever - it's just so far beyond appalling that I can't even think of a word that fits. I have to wonder if this guy would have been off the streets longer if he'd stolen a purse. Heaven forbid if he'd tortured a dog the way he tortured this child - they'd have probably thrown away the key! If he'd only gotten 60 days for it, you can bet PETA would have been all over it, but who is there for this little girl?Anyway, I have fired off a letter to Vermont's governor, for all the good it will probably do, and I am also sending prayers for this poor child.
Please see enclosed, guess CNN will buy bridge for me, you were so enlightening.......SM
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."
President Clinton announces that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 is the largest in U.S. history
Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
"Like our Olympic athletes in Sydney, the American people are breaking all kinds of records these days. This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow AL Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.
In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
"The key to fiscal discipline is maintaining these results year after year. We need to put our priorities in order," Clinton said.
The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.
"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests, but can't seem to find the time to raise the minimum wage, or pass a patients' bill of rights, or drug benefits for our seniors through Medicare, or tax cuts for long-term care, child care, or college education," Clinton said.
"These are the things that need to be done and I certainly hope they will be and still make the right investments and the right amount of tax cuts," Clinton said.
Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Oklahoma, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the GOP wants 90 percent of the surplus used for the debt. In a CNN interview, he said the other 10 percent should be used to "take care of a lot of priorities we have, like prescription drugs, making sure that our education needs are met, making sure some of our national security needs are met, and doing that while at the same time protecting the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus."
That approach would be in lieu of tax cuts, which "we can't do this year because the president vetoed it," Watts said.
Clinton unveiled the new numbers in a statement at the White House before departing for fund-raising events in Dallas and Houston.
"This is part of our fiscal discipline to reduce the debt with the federal surplus," said one White House official who asked not to be identified. Reducing the debt, the official said, has "real effects for real Americans." It means lower interest rates for mortgages, car loans and college loans, and leads to an increase in investment and more jobs."
It is the third year in a row the federal government has taken in more than it spent, and has paid down the debt. The last time the U.S. government had a third consecutive year of national debt reduction was 1949, said the official.
The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt.
Obamaniacs - They're coming for your kool-aid - article enclosed
This says it all (well not all but most)
http://stoosviews.blogivists.com/2008/10/30/obamaniacs-and-the-cult-of-obama-they-are-coming-for-your-kool-aid/
Thanks for responding.
1) Agree with the point about Afghanistan. If our troops weren't burdened with fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, we might be able to have a stronger presence in Afghanistan, as well as protect ourselves at home in case of a disaster (terroristic or natural). Our troops are spread too thin, and the military keeps raising the age limit and lowering physical standards for enlistment as a reseult.
2) I agree with this.
3) Bush has recently admitted that Iraq had no WMDs and also had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you think he is lying?
4) Tony Snow has made some really stupid statements, including blaming 9/11 on Bush 41.
5) Bush was the only leader who held out so the war could continue longer when the rest of the world pleaded for it to end.
Regarding your last sentence, whether I agree or not doesn't matter. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't feel you wasted your breath or your time. Thank you for responding.
I believe she was responding to the
the exclamation point abuser, and not referring to teabaggers in general.
I don't think I was responding to those posts
I was responding to gt's, and no, I was not around when those other posts were made, and that's why I didn't comment on them.
I was responding to the "drunk" comment that gt made which was totally off par and shows what that gt is here for only one reason and that is to incite fighting, because calling someone a drunk without knowing them at all is definitely fighting words.
I don't know how you can render me a phoney, because I have told you nothing of my self. That is again, a baseless judgement. GT was typing nonsenical stuff right after telling someone their posting habits sounded like those of a drunk. If posting habits are evidence of drunkeness then gt needs to look at his or her posting style.
If you'd stop responding, so will the OP.
The more you carry on with posters like this, the more they will continue.
Moderator
No, I was responding to the past above yours, sorry,
did I get it wrong? yikes - I meant that for the 'first of all' post...
Do you think you've been responding to
just 1 person all day - LOL.
Agree and I do not plan on responding to them either
I have better things to do than squander any more of my time responding to the troublemakers posting on this board. When someone here has something worth responding to, I will. There is no point in explaining, defending, or arguing with the people who are only here because they can't find any intelligent discussions on their own board.
You're the one who keeps responding. Just quit your...sm
harassment.
I was speaking to you, no matter how you try to twist the converation, and say I can't follow the thread. Period.
My apologies... I thought you were responding to
I usually don't read her posts, so by the time I checked to see if you were responding to her or me, it was too late. Sorry about the hasty reply, but I what I wrote still stands, just in case anyone DOES mis-quote me.
Anyway, a great big OOOPS!
:-/
Just tired of responding to hatred....nm
x
Responding to you is a waste of my time.
I do not waste my time responding to your political posts, and I will not waste my time arguing semantics with you. I would not associate with you in my personal life, and you are not worth my time and energy on this forum. I am afraid you will have to find someone else to listen to your nonsense.
the problem with responding too fast
...is that you end up leaving out important phrases!
The $72 an hour figure quoted in the article, I should have said, isn't made of *just* the wages and benefits of current employees--it's also including those paid to retired workers, the ones who paid into the retirement fund their whole lives, and are now living off those benefits.
In other words, you take the wages/benefits paid to the current 180,000 or so autoworkers, PLUS those paid to the 400,000 or so retirees and the 120,000 spouses of dead retirees, then divide that by the 180,000 current workers, then say, LOOK HOW MUCH THOSE GUYS GET PAID! It's an incredibly artifically inflated number.
And noooo one in the media ever seems to question it.
You did not follow who I was responding to!!!! YOU READ IT
dip
Also I was responding to the person who wrote that
say the opposite. BT stated it correctly.
Now nuff said.
Dont even bother responding to her posts -
() is most definitely NOT playing with a full deck.
I agree, I was responding to some of the ugly remarks made below nm
x
You just don't have the capacity to understand I'm afraid... see ya, not responding anymore nm
to you
I am responding to all the posters who have made a living on this board denegrating everything that
new President does, even though he has just taken office, give me a break. George had 8 years, and each year was worse than the one before it.....I am not "whining" about Bush, the past is the past and I am trying very hard to focus on change, on a new future, on how we can all help, etc., not waving the Democratic flag, but the AMERICAN flag, I am just referring to history, nonpartison history.
I heard today Palin is responding to Levi's charges
by throwing the dirt back at him. I say that is how every woman her age should behave, right? Tit for tat.
And I think you have to read all of my posts, I am responding to arrogant inflammatory remarks, whic
Substantiation, no real substance, and yet these people are CHOOSING to start devisive threads with divisive remarks on this board, even making statements that historically are 100% inaccurate. Yes, I pray for unity, compassion, wisdom, etc., but the rabid Republicans on this board (and I do not mean all Rep., just a few loud ones), want to harshy judge and condemnn the new administration without giving things a chance, what would you call that? What about the "hit and run" posts by right wingers who continue to stir the pot with incorrect, slanted, and inflammatory remarks here? Fair is fair, I try to back up each statement I make with historical facts, I try to see both points of view (wow, I have actually agreed with Republicans on certain subjects!), but this board is not about me, or you, it is about all of us trying to hash out all the many struggles this nation now has, and with restraint, intelligence, and care look at each problem and try to help fix it. America comes first. Period.
P.S. Please scroll down after reading above post. Washington Post article included.
Reprinted in Boston Globe. Sorry!
I wrote: I second JTBB's post, 'watcher's post is misinformed crap...sm
pYou have also to read what's posted 'inside' the message.
Oops, meant to post this under the loose trolls post...
I'm going to keep ignoring these troll posts. It's kind of fun, actually, just pretend you don't see them.
Post the direct link. I don't see the post you're referring to.
t
The post I quoted was the entire post. It was not taken out of context. sm
I imagine there are as many emotions and thoughts going on with our troops as possible and each does not feel the same as the other, which is obvious by the posts here.
Sorry gourdpainter, my other post should have been under the wacky Pakistan post (nm)
xx
Why did you post this? Republicans have been asked NOT to post here..Bye Bye.
Why did you post this? Happy Thanksgiving is enough but to be so happy we have a republican president? Why did you post that? I would like to remind you, you are on the liberal board. Are you trying to start trouble? If so, let me know and I will report you immediately. No, Im not happy we have a republican president, a warmonger chickenhawk president. Does that answer your question? Now, go back to the republican board. We dont want you here and actually the moderator and administrator have asked republicans not to post here..Bye..bye..
Forgot to post a link in 1st post. Sorry.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Please refer me to any post where I referred to either the post...
or the poster as ignorant. And I certainly never sunk to the levels you did at the top of the post, against a man who is ill in a wheelchair. Pot calling the kettle black...?
I re-read your post, and I stand by my post.
You are twisting his words by saying that he wants to make friends with terrorists. That is not what he said.
Ya gotta understand the rules. We have to post on this board only. They can post on any board they
The above post explains a lot about everything else you post!
Your revelation about being married to a career Army guy explains why your views are skewed so drastically to the far right! I thought it had to do with small-town Pennsylvania, but now I truly understand where you are coming from. Thank you for explaining that us. We will read your posts in a completely different light now that we know the truth.
If you want to post something on the subject, post
objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.
I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books. To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:
"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.
While we are proud of the journalistic contribution that this Web site has made over the past decade – and while we are deeply grateful to our readers whose contributions have kept us afloat – we also must admit that we have not made the case well enough that this mission is a vital one.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "
I second your post and 'watcher's post
is misinformed crap.
My post was a direct answer to the direct post...
of Democrat. It was not a blank open-ended statement. And dial it back a notch...it is certainly your right to protest anything any time you want to. Just like it is my right to protest you protesting while men and women are still in harm's way, because you are in effect aiding the enemy. Apparently the Viet Nam experience taught you nothing. Americans protesting in the streets heartened the enemy and when they were about to surrender decided not to, based a lot upon what was happening in the American streets. I believe that the protesting in that war prolonged the war and cost more American lives. Hanoi Jane should have been tried for treason. That being said...lessons were not learned and the protestors are doing the exact same thing now. Exercising the very right bought for them by shedding of American military blood. And I still say common courtesy should keep people out of the streets and off the TV until the military are home safe. But it just proves the same thing to me over and over...the selfISHhness of the protestors vs. the selfLESSness of the military. They continue to put it all on the line for your right to protest anything you want to protest...it is up to YOU to decide where and when that is appropriate, and it is up to you to take the heat for same. It is up to me and others like me (in my opinion) to apply that heat. Go ahead and do whatever your conscience or lack thereof moves you to do. But do not expect those of a different mind not to protest the protest.
Thanks for the post. I think I will look up that
article.
And thanks for pointing out all the other "results" of his administration that, as you say, benefit nobody but the rich and/or the corporations or, as he himself once publicly bragged, "his base."
I know for a fact that when he ran for President in 2000, I told every single person I knew that if he becomes President, we're going to go to war with Iraq. (Nobody's gonna treat his daddy like Saddam did and get away with it.)
I didn't have a crystal ball. I had common sense and a good memory from the Gulf War when his father was President and how he didn't "finish the job." Seems a lot of other Americans forgot about that.
I really enjoyed reading your post and all the facts you raised that I failed to raise in mine. Thanks for the mention of the LA Times article. I'm going to try to look that up on the web. 
I know they don't. I said that in my post. NM
//
|
