sounds good in theory
Posted By: deenibeeni on 2008-11-13
In Reply to: Do I hate gays? No. Do I think I'm better - wannie
& it's great you can manage to love your neighbors because you are forced to, but it would be great if you could work on the idea that homosexuality should be talked about in the same context as addiction, adultery, or other harmful or evil behaviors.
Homosexuality...is very much about loving another human being, despite everyone's (I daresay prurient) focus on sex. It's a mistake to equate being exactly what the godhead created you to be with evil, & to say that you can love your neighbor "in spite of" this shows such a profound lack of understanding & tacit attitude of superiority that I don't even know where to start.
If you knew the nature of real love and acceptance, you wouldn't have to force yourself to do anything.
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
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.
Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.
He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.
"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."
Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.
This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.
Gore Slams Global Warming Critics
Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.
Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"
Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."
Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."
In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.
Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.
According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.
In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.
They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.
"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"
The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.
Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”
Sounds good to me
I have lost all credibility with you? Yippee!! Yehhaaww!! Right on!! I cant think of another hateful annoying prehistoric thinking person I would rather lose credibility with than you! **BIG HUG**
Sounds good to me
I have been ignoring Observer for a few days and it feels great. No need to respond to Observer, I post for my fellow Democrats/liberals and read posts from them. If I wanted to be questioned and **educated** in conservative ways, I would frequent the conservative board.
And it sounds good when he says he
...once again, get him to show us how he is going to do this. He will not and cannot.
You dad sounds like a good man...
No parent likes to see thier child in turmoil. His advice for you was loving and kind, aimed, I believe, at bringing you some peace of mind. It is very likely you will find just that if you are able to follow his lead, or at least try to summon up as much positive energy as negative so as to achieve a balance between the two, then try leaning toward the positive. Life is really short to spend it worrying about things you have very little control over.
Sounds good to me. nm
Sounds good to me.
But take away all the corporate give-aways too.
That all sounds really good.
I don't mean to be "glass half empty," but I'm trying to think of the last politician that kept his campaign promises, pub or dem, congress or president. I'll start a list here:
1.
Sounds good gt - way overdue.
And I actually *was* Hell on Wheels - or at least in the division:) Patton's old stomping grounds. I couldn't agree with you more, it's time for a little good old-fashioned comeuppance in the time-honored American style.
It sounds good on the face....
but I don't see American physicians taking a 3x cut in their income. It boggles the mind to think what the initial cost of that billing system they are talking about would be. And the big thing that concerns me is the "broad taxes on earned and unearned income." Like I have said over and over...if they can find the money without taking more than 35% off the top of my wages, I am all for it. However, I am not willing to go to 50-55%. I don't know many who are.
Your second idea sounds good....... sm
but it may be a moot point. The legislation is struggling in the Senate and W himself is lobbying for Senate to pass a bailout. Looks like the automakers may go home empty handed.
I'm not in favor of the bailout, but neither am I in favor of more people losing their jobs if it could be prevented, so I don't know what the best solution is. Over the past couple of days, Sony, Office Depot, and a mining company (name escapes me at the moment) have all laid off thousands of workers. I'm just wondering where it all will end.
sounds like a good idea to me!
I can remember when insurance companies did that before and they were not going out of business. So you think because my child is born with a medical problem, she should not get health insurance?
Let's start with Valerie...sounds like a good person to me...
Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran, where her father, Dr. James Bowman, ran a hospital for poor children as part of a program that sent American doctors and agricultural experts to developing countries to help jump-start their health and farming efforts. At age 5, the family moved to London for one year, then returned to Chicago in 1963. Her father, who is of African American descent is a pathologist and geneticist. He is currently Professor Emeritus in Pathology and Medicine, University of Chicago.[2][3] Her great-grandfather was the first African-American to graduate from M.I.T., her grandfather was Robert Taylor the first black man to head the Chicago Housing Authority, and her father Dr. James Bowman was the first black resident at St. Luke’s Hospital. Though Ms. Jarrett has never worked in Washington, her great-uncle is Democratic powerbroker Vernon Jordan. [4] Her mother, Barbara Bowman, is an early childhood education expert and co-founder of the Erikson Institute for child development.[4][5]
She graduated from Northfield Mount Hermon, a New England boarding school, in 1974. She also received a B.A. in Psychology from Stanford University in 1978, and a JD from the Michigan Law School" href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_Law_School>University of Michigan Law School in 1981.
[edit] Career
[edit] Chicago politics
Jarrett got her start in Chicago politics in 1987 working for mayor Harold Washington[6] as Deputy Corporation Counsel for Finance and Development.[7]
Jarrett continued to work in the mayor's office in the 1990s. She was Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, during which time (1991) she hired Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama, away from a private law firm. Jarrett served as Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development from 1992 through 1995; and was Chair of the Chicago Transit Board from 1995 to 2005.[7]
[edit] Business career
She is currently the CEO of The Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company, which she joined in 1995. She was a Member of the Board of Chicago Stock Exchange (2000-2007, as Chairman, 2004-2007).
She is also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago Medical Center,[7] Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago and a Trustee of Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.[8][9] Ms. Jarrett serves on the board of directors of USG corporation, a Chicago based building materials corporation.
Well, I have a theory. sm
And I said a name above, because the L poster is the only one who seems obsessed with who you and I *really* are. Anyhoo, I didn't really even understand the *Original* Observer post, I'm afraid. Suffice it to say, the left has an entirely different reality about what comprises bashing than I do!
what you are saying here, is only theory,
but in reality, in real life, it is quite different, what is also evident on this very forum!
Tit-for-tat fights, posters trying to insinuate negative characteristics on others, and this without any proof at all.
Be honest, everybody tries to hide one's flaws, and please, do not tell me that a low IQ is something to be proud of. Everybody mentioned and accentuates what is positve and hides what's negative, if challenged.
Not 'flashing' it, just 'mentioning' it if it comes up in a conversation.
I never 'boasted' it, that's what this 'low-life' poster, smsg, who post every comment under a different user name, accused me of.
Don't be such a hypocrite!
Conspiracy Theory..........
Author: Taylor Caldwell
In The Captains and the Kings (1976) Caldwell takes on the global power brokers. In this book we find, running through the story line, a description of the way the international financiers and industrialists (all private consortiums owned by an elite of the world's richest families and persons) hijack governments around the globe; instigating wars and gaining control over the warring countries through manipulation of the enormous debts incurred during a war. Mentioned too is the Council on Foreign Relations; and while a disclaimer states that all persons portrayed in the book are fictional, it is clear that the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as another major organization of the globalists are both very real organizations. Also described is the idea that political systems everywhere, and certainly in the US, are almost totally dominated by the ruling elite; and that no one even gets into the running for a major political office unless the elite believes the person is under their control. It is explained that this can be direct control; e.g., the candidate takes a solemn oath to be true to that organization above all others; or indirect control: the candidate is known to have done something illegal or scandalous. The threat of public exposure can then be used to bend the person to the will of the elite. Politicians can also be compromised through a "set-up". When necessary the elite will play that hand (conform or be ruined by the controlled media). It is further explained that there have been a few who were not under the control of the elite (back in the 40s and 50s) and who had some success on their own. These individuals were not corruptible and in such cases very dirty tricks were employed against them. There is a figure in the book obviously symbolising JFK, who went along with the elitists (his father's cronies), but who once in power went his own way - resulting in his assassination.
yes, very interesting theory....sm
I've heard tell that at least in the old school democratic party, supposedly Bill Clinton had power brokered deals, in the dark back rooms, over brandy and cigars....that Hillary was supposed to be the dem nominee this year......But Obama changed all that, and the powers that be, felt that he would be the better choice, and thus, from what I hear, Bill kind of threw a tantrum...or several, some even out in public.
Anyway, I have no idea where my husband gets some of his political information, but he goes to all sorts of places on the web, and this was the hubbub earlier in the year, and one of the big to-do's this election cycle.
Personally, I find it distasteful if this practice does/did/still occurs, for either party. Shouldn't be, and it pisses me off to no end if it is so. So much for the will of the people, if these things are decided by the big wigs in power.....of either party....
...steps down off soapbox now....
If that's your theory, then the pubs
should have been all for it, but they weren't, were they?
Your theory is twisted
Maybe that's what they teach in the socialized education system nowadays (I heard plenty from my cousin who would tell me what her professors in the university were spewing). But what you stated is not the theory (that after 2 terms of one party the other party is supposed to be elected). What kind of screwed up site did you get that from (probably MSNBC or some other hate-filled station). If that was the case then there would not be a race and the opposite party would just be placed in - which is exactly what the democrats are trying to do.
I do agree that there is both far right and far left wingnuts. That is why the country needs someone who is a moderate. Unfortuntely the country will never elect someone from the Independent, Constitution or other party that is down the middle, but at least John McCain is more down the middle. Obama is the farthest left that you can get. It just astounds me how many Americans would rather have the country move to socialism and live under a dictator rather than have a free country.
Also, people forget that America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. Nowhere in the contitution or Declaration of Indpendence is the word "democracy" even mentioned. Our founding fathers were extremely knowledgeable about the issues of democracy and feared it. They understood that the only entity that could take away people's freedom is their own government (which we will see if Obama is elected).
There are people who are bent on destroying our sovereignty by creating the North American Union (which means Canada, US & Mexico will become a single country). The NAFTA agreement was just the beginning of this. Obama admits to support of this. Obama's policies are that of Stalin's. Stalin's economic philosophy was socialism, which involved taking property from the rich in order to redistribute it to the poor. Sounds exactly like what he was telling the plumber guy and others. I think last night John McCain made a very clear connection that Obama's polices and core beliefs are the same as Joseph Stalin's.
We cannot go down that road. We need to continue on as a free country. To think that now that because you have two terms of one party it's the other parties turn is wrong. Especially if the other party is and believes in socialism.
We need to have a republican (or another party other than a democrat) elected as president as the senate and house already are democrat. This is what they call "balance of power". Americans prefer that the checks-and-balances evisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. Put in a democrat president mixed with a democratic congress and a democratic senate and you have tyranny. They will pass every pork filled bill possible, tax you more and the country will go down the same dark road we hit with Carter and Clinton.
Yes, the country is in a state of turmoil one we haven't seen for not sure how long. I wouldn't go back to the depression, as we all know Obama is trying to scare people into believing if he is not elected we're going to hit a depression - another blatant lie of his. That is why we need a moderate in the office. We need someone to keep the democratic senate and house in order, that is why we need McCain.
People should not vote for the other party with your theory that if they vote for McCain we are all wealthy. A lot of us are voting for McCain because we don't want to be taxed over 45% of our paychecks like we were under the last democrat president Mr. "Liar, depends on what the meaning of is is" Clinton. It is a fact that under Bush most American have received tax refunds (not the richest of rich - people like me and others who make around $25K or so). Something I never saw once under any of the 8 years the last democrat president was in. McCain and Palin have more knowlege of how to run the country. How to create jobs, how to not tax the small business people, how to generate income for America, how to win the war and not rush everyone back because you think more people will vote for you if you keep pushing that, when in truth you will turn around and after elected send them all back.
I say if you want to be free. If you want to be able to start your own business or have any money left from your paychecks to build a future for yourselves. If you care that the country is now a safer place since 9/11. If you care that our next president doesn't hang around with people like Wright, Ayers, Farrakan, and has friends in the countries that want to see us wiped off the planet and will do so under an Obama presidency, then vote your conscience and vote John McCain.
After last nights debate no matter who you think won or lost, I'll be voting for a man who has the knowlege and experience to lead the country to better times and will continue to remain free. Otherwise you should learn how people in Cuba and North Korea and other communist/socialist countries feel. Why do you think they're all trying to come to our country. And the ones who immigrated to here to get away from there. I'm sure they will not be voting for someone who will make this country into what they risked their lives to get away from.
conspiracy theory
Economic crisis well controlled so far, maybe to give the republicans a chance at winning and to keep Bush from being blamed. Will they let the flood gates loose in January? Let us go into full blown economic depression? So far, they have only rescued themselves, not ordinary people. Maybe there won't be anything left to help ordinary people?
THEORY of evolution
Just that, a theory. It has never been proven. Just a cop out so you don't have to believe that someone BIGGER and BETTER created you.
nice theory...
but many companies have closed when unions forced strikes. they simply closed. everyone lost their jobs. Then they re-opened, new name, new company, often in a new location (many out of the US where they didn't have to cowtow to the unions) and those past employes were left with nothing 'cuz when they closed their took all the pension benefits with them, too. I am not talking about firing a union worker. That is a whole different subject. Ask someone who works for a company with a union how it is to be a good worker when all the lazy people around you are not and the company can do nothing about it because they union does not hold the employee to any standard, only the company.
Perhaps companies that don't want union simply don't want the union crap shoved down their throats. Yes, I think unions HAD a place and did a lot of good, but I think it's a thing of the past. Unions now are greedy and care more about the union itself than the worker. don't kid yourself into thinking that's not true. Check into union corruption and greed not to mention union violence.
Interesting theory.
Are you willing to apply it to Democrats, too? (You'll want to be very careful how you answer.)
...and what about Democrats who can't manage their finances or pay their taxes?
And I presume you won't be voting for Obama again if he can't even manage to keep Bo from taking a dump in the White House living quarters?
There's a word for people who think like you, but I can't use it without violating forum policy. Democrats a "shoo-in" next election? Doesn't look like Dodd's doing too well - and we'll throw the rest of them out if we can, too. See link - and then go right on whistling past the graveyard because we're going to send a lot of people from both parties home if we can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/report-dodd-receives-early-donations-just-state-residents/
So true. But it makes it a theory.
And a theory surrounded by corroborating actions in its babyhood can and will eventually grow up to be a fact.
And there is a growing list of corroborating actions, all of which, as I originally said, frighten me.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Have a nice day.
I call it a conspiracy theory because it is...
You mention scientists, demolition experts, police, eye witnesses...but someone had to be responsible for whatever you think might have happened, and therein lies the conspiracy theory. So who do the scienists, demolition experts, police, and eyewitnesses think is behind whatever they think they know or saw? And do you have any documentation for any of this? Especially since people actually SAW the planes fly into the buildings...unless you are saying the planes were flown into the buildings to cover up the "demolition" Or the "demolition" just happened to be planned at the same time the planes flew into the buildings? And if there were no planes and the eye witneses to that (including most of the world on television) were all victims of mass hallucination...what happened to the people on those non-existent planes? They never existed either?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. No offense intended...just calling it like it is.
Yay! Another conspiracy theory for your scrapbook.
You can fess up now. You're Michael Moore.
Right?
Your theory doesn't really surprise
me. I just think it sucks that illegals get so much money from us for education, health care, etc. Now they want to give illegals the right to vote? What is the point of being an American citizen nowadays. You get more rights and benefits being illegal. It just irks me!!!
Nice in theory. Doesn't work well
nm
I think perhaps you are a closet republican because that is quite the conspiracy theory.
x
ah...I see your post below...interresting conspiracy theory....sm
I don't agree. Bush and Cheney will be well out of it in 2009. The changes that come will be all Obamas and dem congress.
Not arguing, though... I won't waste anymore of your time.
you live in a chronic state of conspiracy theory
how sad for you 
What facts have you researched to dismiss this as conspiracy theory?nm
z
Unless it's a crazy conspiracy-theory driven right winger
nm
Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link
I am not into solving prevarication puzzles. Further comment might be forthcoming if you spit out precisely what you are trying to say here.
Oh, goody-goody! The "trickle-down theory"
NM
Oh gee...that sounds like too much
thinking to have to do...... To think for yourself and not follow like lost sheep.... gee whiz.
sounds like we now have
scientific proof of putting lipstick on a pig!! Great experiement.
It sounds like
you are not endorsing Barack Obama.
It just sounds like to me that she
lives in the neighborhood that she prefers, so that she can be her might self-righteous self.
Sounds like us and more soon when (NM)
x
sounds like
sedition to me.
Sounds like someone needs to look
a little deeper into history. FDR actually prolonged the duration of the great depression with his government programs. Get a clue! Stimulus package is a BAD idea and will not work!!!!!
It sounds as though you do not want our
Congresspeople not to listen to the people's voices, I cannot believe that! I am a Democrat. I thought that is why we held elections. Look at the national polls, the numbers are dropping every day, but the last I heard it was like 37% of Americans in favor of passing this stimulus bill. And you are proud these calls are being ignored? This is a perfect example of downright IGNORANCE!
Sounds like someone
needs to go put their nose in the corner or sit in the time out chair. Wow.
Sounds sensible enough, but I wonder...
...would you have the same discussion with them about sniffing glue? Snorting coke? Smoking "Smarties" (the newest thing)? Drinking Drano?
If you're going to disappoint me, break the law and do something harmful to your body, I'd rather you do it at home.
Sorry - I can't get a handle on that one. It's a "helpless parent" position that amounts to parental malfeasance, IMHO. I'm sorry to put it in such stark terms and I realize that I'm going to be in the minority on this one.
Sounds like they are trying........... sm
to do damage control in order to keep their Fortune "Most Admired" status.
It sounds to me as if you need to go to
your personal prayer closet and find your peace. You cannot say how you would react if one of your children came and told you he/she was homosexual.
Just to stay on topic, I am of a firm conviction and do agree with you that this is not a subject to be taught in public schools.
Now you are the one who sounds drunk
x
Lol, welcome back. Sounds like you had fun.nm
x
Sounds like they are on the ball...sm
This is something that conservatives preach about, citizens have the ability to change the country not government, so you would think Ann would embrace this movement. There is no doubt in my mind that if these widows raised these issues while a Democrat was sitting as president Coulter would be praising them.
The idea here is to get OUR house in order before we go clean out someone elses.
Sounds like you have compassion for everyone!
xx
|
