meant "through" the mouth of a horse
Posted By: IMHO on 2009-03-13
In Reply to: Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse - IMHO
Typo....oops.
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
Straight from the horse's mouth... sm
Did you not watch the video???? That is EXACTLY what Obama said. So now you are saying that Obama himself is not credible???? 
What I found even MORE ridiculous is what he said before having said "I am the change." 
I'll wait to hear it from the horse's mouth. sm
Though it really makes no difference to me one way or the other. I never considered him a Republican. I think he is a fiscal conservative. He said on another link he is apolitical. Should be interesting.
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
Nice mouth. You kiss your mother with that mouth? sm
No, and please try and comprehend what I am saying, gt broke the truce when she attacked me. Can you comprehend that? I was staying off your board until I saw that gt actually attacked me in a thread that ended up in a truce with another poster. You are really really not a nice person. I will pray for you.
I don't have a horse
and I don't have any boots.
you could always marry a horse
x
horse and pony
Hmmm........seems to me she has been decrying her innocence on this issue since it was brought up. What struck me the most during the convention when giving her speech written by Dubya's speechwriter - was the fact that she paraded her poor pregnant daughter in front of the masses - the girl looked terrified - and then they passed that tiny 4-month-old baby around like he had something big and stinky in his diaper (evident by the pained expression on Cindy McCain's face). I think they should be ashamed of themselves for USING her children like circus freaks. And.....Lord have Mercy........people are falling all over themselves for this soap opera.
high horse?
nm
Oh, get off your high horse.... I'm sure you
have had nothing to say when McCain and Palin are being kicked about here. Your true colors are showing!
Horse feathers! sm
"This country was not founded on Christianity or any other religion." What cave have you been living in, JTBB?
The preamble to our constitution written by our nation's founders states that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our CREATOR. While it does not mention God by name, obviously the founders of this nation believed in a higher being who created this world and all that is in it. Washington and Franklin and Jefferson, as well as others, may have been deists rather than Christians of a particular religion such as Baptists or Methodists, but they did believe in a supreme God who created the universe. So please stop it with "we were not founded on Christian beliefs." It really is wearing thin.
A nation that trusts in God, as our currency says we do, enjoys the benefits of the protection of a benevolent and loving God. I don't think that we should trust in God just to be seen in any particular way by other nations but rather so that we may receive blessings of God so that we may be a prosperous and moral nation, something that we are ceasing to be as we are increasingly turning our back on God.
He's beating a dead horse.
Even Bush finally came clean and said there were none. That's when the *reason* for the war changed from WMDs to freeing the Iraqis (while ignoring bin Laden in Afghanistan).
I find it very, VERY interesting that his sudden *find* came less than 24 hours after PBS aired a very revealing show (*The Dark Side*) about the Iraq war, Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Cheney, with the majority of the people interviewed being CIA agents, who generally had more than 20 years of service with the CIA, and they said some pretty shocking (but not too surprising) things about this whole war. (If you'd like to see this show, you can view it in its entirety on line by going to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/; I'd personally recommend it.)
When it's all said and done, though, regardless of how many facts are presented, Santorum could have declared to the world that there's evidence that Saddam had SLINGSHOTS, and some unfortunate souls on these boards would still say, *See? We told you he had WMDs.* It's really difficult to even be upset, frustrated or angry with them any more. I just mostly feel sorry for them. 
Obama, The Trojan Horse...
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812032845/editorial/obama-the-trojan-horse.html
You are beating a dead horse! (nm)
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Better the high horse than the low road....nm
nm
They just want to see us come down from our imperial high horse.
That's all.
You can lead a horse to water...
You can teach teenagers abstinence, but you can't make them practice it! Therefore, teaching birth control makes much more sense. If Bristol Palin had been given access to birth control, she wouldn't be in the predicament she's in.
Where's my dead horse beating stick???
The US went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons, including concern over Saddam's failure to account for WMDs, which put him in violation of the treaty that ended Gulf War I, and violation of several UN resolutions - I can never remember if it was 14 or 17.
If you really want an answer to this question, a search for the resolution permitting use of force in Iraq should be relatively easy. I'm not sure it's worthwhile, though, since the matter is essentially moot, since we are there now.
My question to you: There is a lot of discussion lately about possibly increasing troop levels in Iraq to try to bring the security situation under control. What are your thoughts on that? Do you support it? Would you support it if you could be persuaded that there was a reasonable possibility of success?
Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I don't have a problem supporting more troops, but I think it's as much a PC problem as a troop number problem in Iraq. In other words, I don't think US forces can do much to bring security to Iraq if they are forced to always act in the most P.C. manner possible so as not to risk offending any single faction or, heaven forbid, creating negative spin in the press.
I certainly think we could be effective there in securing the country, but only if we realize that we might have to leave a heavy footprint in Iraq in order to accomplish that goal. For example, I think we should have taken out al Sadr, even if it meant leveling significant portions of Sadr City, when he first became a major underming influence to the new Iraqi government. Some may think that makes me a flag-waving member of the Death Squad, but I have to wonder how many lives could have been spared in the long run had we stamped al Sadr out then, when we had a good tactical opportunity and could have done so fairly easily.
If we're going to send our troops over there in harm's way to fight for the security of Iraq, the dream of democracy, and the creation of a competing vision for the future of the Middle East, then we must let them fight to win.
Well, I wouldn't but that's what makes horse races. n/m
LOL I think that high horse is going to start bucking
and it's a long way to the ground.
if it were a "Dead Horse" the Supreme Court ...sm
would not be still considering it further, which they are. Perhaps that should be your first dose of reality.
Bridger, you put the cart before the horse. Read my
lips. DO NOT post the entire article. Post only excerpts from it with link to it.
Do you want the owners of this board in a legal battle? All it takes is someone reporting one of your posts for that to happen. I am warning you for your own good. If you don't care about the owners of this board, others of us do.
Get a grip, will ya? And, get legal.
Heroe..like - He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road.
Bushisms
I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production.
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_bushisms.html
Since Homeland security was a horse and pony show.....
there was really little Bush could do. But, he did promise to catch Bin Laden but never did - he invaded Iraq instead. I think Katrina gives a birdseye view on how a catastrophe would be handled by Bush. He screwed that up AFTER 9/11. Like they say - NEVER FORGET.
JBB, I like your thinking, but at the risk of "beating a dead horse," .......
Buy new computers = putting money in the economy = jobs for people to build computers.
Those computers are built in Japan, China, Korea, and almost every place in the world BUT the USA.
Just like last year when we got our "stimulus check." The only economies jump started, if any, were the ones overseas when everybody bought their TV's, computers etc.
To paraphrase, you can lead a horse to the facts, but you can't make it think. nm
nm
What I do not like is what comes out of her mouth; otherwise she is
is quite pretty to look. Frankly, though, I have never liked real aggressive women like that - had too many in my life cause me too much grief and misery. They shoot their mouths off and then rely on their male partners to take care of the dirty work that needs to be done.
I especially have a negative feeling toward people in general who use their religion to gain power and money.
@$$ 2 mouth is not OK
nm
Tell me - do you eat with that mouth? nm
x
And has the mouth to match....sm
I did not put words in your mouth....
if you are pro choice, and if you had to vote on the issue you would vote for it I assume...that means you support abortion. That is the plain and simple fact. There is no law now which states when an abortion has to occur. They can do it any time they get good and ready, beyond three months.
My dear kam, my "religion" does not tell me that a baby has a soul before it is born, my sense of morality and my heart tell me that. And just because you say a baby does not have a soul before it is born, that also does not make it so. If I am going to err, I most certainly would want to err on the side of the child. But that is just me.
Yes, I want state to state decisions to be made. That is what democracy is about. You hawk about choice, choice, choice. Every American should have the right to vote on this question. You want to allow a woman a choice to kill her baby, you don't want to allow me a choice to vote on the matter. Talk about hypocritical. Sheesh.
As you have stated ad nauseam, if a woman wants an abortion, she is going to get one, and I don't think having to travel to another state is going to stop her. Might be a little inconvenient, but I am sure those as liberal pro-choicers could set up buses, etc., to haul those women who want to have their babies killed to wherever they are killing babies.
You say you are not pro abortion...that must mean on some level personally you think it is wrong. That comes from your personal sense of morality, and since you are obviously not a "religious" person it does not come from God (although I do not believe that, but that is neither here nor there and not a discussion for this board). There are many people who are pro life who are not, as you say, "religious." They just believe that killing babies is wrong. The National Right to Life Committee is comprised of many non-"religious" people as well as "religious people." Believe it or not, there are people out there who just believe killing babies is wrong.
As to the SCHIP thing...that has nothing to do with the moral right or wrong of abortion. Why are you so concerned about health care of those children, and not concerned about the millions aborted every year? 98% of which have nothing to do with the health of the mother, rape, or incest? Why not limit abortion to rape, incest, or life of mother in danger? Why use it as a form of birth control? Because that is what 98% of abortions are. And if that is okay with you, so be it. I have a right to be against it, just as you have a right to be for it.
And, by the way, I also have a right to my "religion." Guaranteed by the Constitution of these United States of America. Just like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...there is no proviso "unless you are an inconvenient fetus, then all bets are off."
Have a nice day.
Not what i said at all...please do not put words in my mouth...
I have to say that now that Obama has said to pull out all the troops immediately would not be the thing to do, I feel slightly better about him in that respect. However, to say he would sit down with Admadinejad without any constraints...that worries me. And also what worries me is that in a nuclear proliferation talk when talking about getting rid of your weapons and Ahmadinejad..or Medvedev says basically "you first," he might actually do it.
Third...nuclear nonproliferation will only work if all sides agree. Russia will never give up its nukes. Ahmadinejad will never give up his nukes, certainly of his own free will he won't. Israel cannot give up their nukes..to do so would be suicide. If we give ours up...suicide. And I don't think Obama gets that. Sorry, I just don't. Not a slam..my opinion. And I have to vote on what I think and feel based on all I know...not what any party tells me I should do.
Shut your mouth......Or Else
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158107
You can tell as soon as she opens her mouth
I can already see through McCain's tricks. He will play the "too harsh on the little lady" game when it comes to anything to do with Palin. I say he disrespects women because of he didn't care enough to pick a qualified candidate, just selected one he throught may rouse the dems. If he really had respect for women, he would have picked a much, much better woman than Sarah Palin, one who has much more experience and one who "takes care of things at home first."
Obama is articulate; McCain is the same; are you not seeing that?
All he has do to is open his mouth....
and stick his size 13 in it. But I don't see you criticizing him. Franklin Roosevelt on TV after crash in 29...only it was Hoover and no TV at that time. Oh I think that ad is terrible. But it's your ad. We did that? Yes, you did that. Well, then we should take it down. Read my lips, NO CLEAN COAL. Obama is FOR clean coal technology.
Still waiting for your critique of Biden.
Nah, we have to hold our mouth in a
different position in that case. Must have been something else.
Out of Richardson's mouth too (nm)
x
You must also believe every word out of his mouth, too...nm
Words from his mouth were
in the context of coal being the dirtiest kind of energy and how all energy providers will need to obey guidelines regarding clean air and greenhouse gases, including coal providers.
His "words" were as follow:
"This notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. We have to figure out how to use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon, how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can't, we will still be working on alternatives."
He said that if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that he thinks that is the right approach.
However, if the coal industry wants to continue as is without any changes, they can still build a plant, but it will bankrupt them to do so if they cannot or will not meet the standards that comply with clean air and greenhouse gases.
Clean air, what an evil plan!
But go ahead, spin it, flip it, and toss it around until it's upside down and carries the complete opposite meaning of the original true statement.
Once again, I refer you to the link I posted previously, where the United Mine Workers of America endorse Obama's plan and reveal how McCain twisted it.
If the United Mine Workers of America are okay with his plan, then so am I. 
Potty mouth? LOL.....
bit mouth frog?
.
Right from the mouth of an Obot.
Helloooo...try John McCain (sorry, if you don't even know his name I think you need to do a bit of reading up on him). The candidates where McCain and Palin, Obama and Biden. Show a little respect for all of them. You know the same respect you demand for OLiar, oops I mean Obama. What associations? Please site some sources. Delusion is for the Obots who spin in circles drinking the Kool-Aid not even knowing what issues he supports or is against.
Talking out of both sides of his mouth
No, this is the latest info he wants put out. This comes after he stood on his little podium at the debates and said point blank, he would increase taxes to help pay for more social programs. Now, I don't know how you get around that, but it came out of his own mouth and his true motives are already out there. I have watched that man sway with whatever way the political breeze is blowing, whichever he thinks sounds best for him at the time. Anyone that wishy washy cannot run a country. He is being run....that is the problem!!
Was referring to words out of her own mouth
nm
You call that a potty mouth
Joy is the one I can't stomach.
I got the socialism thing right from the O's mouth....
and it is not even remotely like what Palin did in Alaska. lol.
Obama said...from his own mouth...to Joe the Plumber....
when Joe said, "Why do you want to tax me more?" to which Obama replied: "It's not that I want to tax you more. I think the guys below Joe deserve a shot too." I agree with that..just not the way Obama wants. They deserve the SAME shot JOE had. Work several years to GET to the point where you can buy a business...like JOE has. Don't TAX the JOES of the world MORE so you can cut people who have not worked that hard a check for which they did NOTHING. That is not fair, gourdpainter. No way is that FAIR.
Why not have a straight across the board percentage tax, no deductions, no NOTHING. Yes, the rich would pay more than the poor because they make more, but it would be FAIR. It would not be taxing any class of people at a HIGHER rate and divying it out to the ones below them who did NOTHING to earn it.
Obama is a socialist. He says so in his plans, he said so to Joe the Plumber. Why aren't you listening?
:-)
From his own mouth on 60 Minutes a few months ago...
he will impose eminent domain in the states that he wants to erect this stuff, though, so some people won't be happy when their land is taken away. Always seems to be a drawback, doesn't there???
Au contraire big mouth........but I do participate!
According to your method of thinking,one should vote for the guy they "think" may be getting the most votes instead of voting their conscious for the candidate that will actually uphold the constitution of this country. Yep, you're a smart one alright, just not in the way you might think!
I volunteer for candidates and spend a lot of time campaigning, which I'm quite certain you've never done any..... I see plenty like you all around here; they have HUGE mouths, sig on their stoops yapping and yapping and absolutely do nothing else but run their mouths.
I have absolutely NO responsibility for the outcome and so glad I can honestly say I didn't put that crook into office!! You darn right I can stand from the rooftops and say it.
Like I said, I don't like his crap and I do constantly fax, write, and call my senators and leaders and let them know my thoughts.
Why do you think I take the time to correspond with nutjobs like you? I'm trying to get the truth out..... you're just kissing backside; there's a big difference!!
"Superpresident"? Mighty Mouth is more like it. What's next
x
Well, shut my mouth, something that we agree on!!! sm
The one thing I do believe is that our society is very puritanical when it comes to sex. I personally don't care who lays pipe where as long as it does not interfere with the job at hand. I could care less about his infidelity -- but I do take issue with someone who passes themselves off as some God-fearing family man who protests loudly about others cheating and who just chose to not even spend Father's Day with his 4 children. And God knows, if he used taxpayer money to do it, he should be strung up. The French (and most other "mature" nations) find our atitudes towards infidelity as something backwards, prudish and laughable -- not that I care what they think, but I do think they have a valid point. What goes on behind closed doors is nobody's darn business!
PLEASE. I did not say *a lot*. Stop putting words in my mouth! nm
|
