that was proven to not be the case as well
Posted By: too bad you're living in a hole on 2008-10-24
In Reply to: About as credible as her claiming that she was - not guilty of ethic violations...sm
@@
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
Because MT has proven herself over and over and over
again to be a LIAR. So I've learned to doubt every single thing she says because she is a compulsive liar with no credibility.
I would believe my DOG over anything MT would say.
And as far as Nan having a *civil* long conversation with anyone, ESPECIALLY if MT was involved, I've never seen that happen anywhere on the Conservative board. They don't know what civility is. All they do is attack, bully, gang up and chase away those who don't agree with them.
Just trying to point that out to the liberals who believe that telling the truth is a GOOD thing and that constant lying is BAD.
I think it has been proven..(sm)
that with enough torture anyone will admit to anything. Coming out of Gitmo, I have to take that with a grain of salt.
No he has not proven anything. He still cannot
//
That has yet to be proven...(sm)
We'll have to wait until Israel lets reporters in there to find out the detaills on that. I'm sure by then they will have figured out some other fairy tale for the press.
However, just for the sake of arguement, let's say you are correct and that Hamas was operating from these locations. I still have a problem with that. Think about it this way:
Let's say that you have kids that go to school. One day a group of people show up going postal at the school. Should we just blow up the whole school so we can make sure we get the bad guys? According to your posts, I assume you would think this would be the appropriate response.
These are real people being killed over there that will mourn the loss of their children just as you would yours. The fact that it's not in our backyard doesn't make it any less real for the people living in this nightmare.
Nobody has proven me wrong.
But you've proven just what you are: Just another lying conservative. Maybe someday will come when we finally catch one telling the truth. You have no intention of leaving, and you know it. You live to spread your idiocy.
And as far as what you wrote on the Monitor board about people posting on the Conservative board, if someone did, I wasn't the person who did it.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if it was YOU who did, though, just to start garbage. That's the way you CONS work. Just like when Bush's goons *leaked* the story about Iraq's *WMDs* in time for it to print on a Saturday, and the very next day, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld were all on the Sunday talk shows saying, *Just like the NYT said yesterday...*
You're not fooling anyone.
You all have proven Rush right ...
no meaningful dialogue, just name-calling.
Right on, Sam. And McCain has proven himself to
nm
Point just proven!
Over and over again on this forum.
Question....now that it has been proven...
that the democrats in Congress are responsible for this 700 billion bailout we are going to be on the hook for...and Obama has taken more in donations from them in his 4 years in the senate than most have in 30 years...you are still going to vote for him? That does not matter to you? Does not bring his decision making process seem a little suspect? I am not trying to start a fight....I am just trying to understand how that would not make you question whether he should be President.
You have just proven the point of the OP, being that
white pastors are never perceived as such. You may be too dense to recognize the bigotry and racism in the viewpoints of Falwell, Robertson, Hagee and their ilk, but for the rest of us outside the right-wing WASP Christian Evangelical inner circle, it is positively palpable. For example, what part of Hagee's pronouncements about Katrina victims is void of racism?
When every single Sunday sermon drills the same dogma week after week and year after year, it does not need to be posted on a website or have a fancy name attached to it to make it a philosophy or a theology. It is what it is.
Beyond that, simply stated, none of the hate patrol can present one shred of evidence that Obama holds black liberationist viewpoints except through their impotent guilt by association protestations. His life experience, his political career and his current campaign platform belie even the loudest shouting you canmuster.
You guys have been hawking this Black Liberationist spiel for nearly 2 years now and Obama is leading in the polls by double digits, dear. Nobody seems to be buying what you are selling. What does it take for you to understand that not only is it not working, but it is also transforming your candidate into somebody who has less than zero cerdibility, even on the most legitimate of campaign issues? By the way, most Americans know racism and hatred when they see it...and by the looks of your post, others can't even recognize it when it is coming out of their own mouths.
There are studies that have proven
that what FDR did during the great depression actually prolonged the duration of the great depression. Do we really need that?
The first thing I would do is fine all companies who hire illegal immigrants and then load em up and ship em back to Mexico. That would save us a buttload of money right there. Did I mention to ship illegal immigrants back? LOL!
SO far he hasn't proven anything
nm
This last election has proven
that the majority of us do not bother to educate ourselves on a candidate or an issue. We just grab at something shiny: Ooh, ooh! That one speaks well and looks good!
In any election, if there are candidates or issues I don't know enough about to vote on (judgeships, etc.) I actually leave that item blank rather than just put just anybody's name in there! Candidates actually fight to have their name placed at the top, because they know that some voters will just select the first one they see. Or they go for name recogition, and vote for the one who'se spent the most on advertising. Horrifying to think this is how some candidates get elected.
In the election before that I was aghast when a friend that I thought was intelligent said of Bush/Kerry. ''We've tried it one way for four years. Time to try give somebody else a chance.'' When asked, she could not name any area in which Kerry was better; he was just ''different.'' Oh, well, if it's somebody else's turn.......
And that's the main problem with our political system. We seldom get a candidate that really inspires us and too often we just end up voting for the one we hate least, or the one whose name is listed first. Or we get bamboozled by flashy packaging with absolutely nothing inside.
So I have no idea how we make people pay attention and vote responsibly in order to change all this.
this is completely different. It is not proven
yet that Iran HAS nuclear weapon, it is an assumption. To just take the protest about the rigged election as justified reason to attack Iran because of their suspected hidden nuclear bomb arsenal,
is just idiotic. Do we apply again teh 'Weapon of Mass Destruction Theory?' Iran did not threaten yet to shoot missiles to Hawaii, wheres North Korea did and is testing its missiles for a while already.
Obama just cannot meddle or interfere into Iran's internal affairs, yet, don't you understand? It is not the US's business if the election was a fraud and the wrong president was elected.
And it is not the business of the US's to encourage people tocontinue with the protests. Even giving the protesters too much verbal support is dangerous as this will embolden them and the army will slaughter them and even THEN the US has no right to interfere, because it is not a direct threat to the US and the world. Only if Iran brings out its missiles, if it has any.
The US just cannot interfere or attack a sovereign country in defense of democracy and because it is the military superpower. Only if the country asks for it or the UN decides.
I wished Mousavi had won.
I am ignoring your bashing of Obama, to me it is again blah, blah, blah.
That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm
I don't know which way it will go, but when you tell the truth your story never changes - his did over and over and over.
They have proven ties to Al Queda. nm
nm
In your dictionary - as limited as it has proven to be
x
Yeah, and McCain has at least proven he would
nm
Right on, Kaydie! -at least McCain has proven he
nm
It's a fake and will be proven in time....sm
Why then when asked where Obama was born his family couldn't agree on which hospital in Hawaii....because when you lie you can't keep facts straight that's why. Obama was born in Kenya.
Already proven but the myth continues. nm
.
The Palestinians have proven time and again
their preference for a one-state solution - a Palestinian state. Israel has made numerous concessions, agreed to everything they want, only to have new demands made before the ink is dry. All our administrations from Carter on have tried to broker a two-state agreement. Israel is justifiably tired of bargaining in good faith, giving up territory, agreeing to demands, only to find the finish line moved once again. Obama did not invent the concept of a two-state solution. He's just in office when Israel is saying ''enough of this crap, no more going through the motions.''
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.
And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.
There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.
I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.
If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.
If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.
Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.
Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.
As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.
I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.
Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)
It has been proven that his birth certificate is authentic. nm
.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.
This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.
The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).
The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
You must be against Michele Obama, then too....she's a proven racist...
and no, I will not tell you what I mean, because if you don't remember, yet again, selective memory, and it was explained away.
But make no mistake. Michele Obama is a racist and a bigot. Married to the Barack Obama.
You will just excuse her, like everything else Obama
So lets do all tax cuts which have proven to be ineffective?
That trickle down crap doesn't work - or haven't you figured that out yet? Hmm, over 10 trillion dollars spent on Bush's watch and what did he accomplish? It sure as helll didn't trickle down but all the CEOs got nice bonuses. This crisis is Bush's doing - why don't you get that?
As proven by the Republican majority in the Senate. Yeehaw! nm
Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested. I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor. He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures. His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure. that had to be at least 25 years ago. Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes. So when does it end?
Wow, you have just proven my point with such a nasty slam, you knew exactly that I was referring to
thankfully has been translated into the King's English, as I, too, never found the time to learn the old languages, but if you look into any bookstore, you can pick up a copy, best seller, very easy to read and follow with an open heart. Why the nasty slams, do they stem from some very frayed, exposed nerves that come from trying to defend the indefensible? Mr. Bush is a very nice, Christian man in my point of view, I would probably love to meet him, but he made an abdomination out of the office of the presidency, and I am just hoping and praying for a return to respect, decency, hope, altruism, etc for this country. But if the haters have their way, it will never happen, a house divided against itself really will fall, and we can all continue to argue and ridicule. Really sad.
nope, y'all are sore democrat winners. Obamas are proven bigots and
they'll show their true colors again soon, not to worry.
get off my case
Did it irk you that I asked AG to post here? Did it get you so upset that you had to repost a previous post? For pete sake, what is your problem? You are filled with hate, absolute hate and anger. You need to chill. When you disagree with someone, you continue on and on and on and on, never letting up with the other person. GET OFF MY CASE. If my posts enrage you as so obviously they do, DO NOT READ THEM. You are so whacked out that you state I would chain myself to the WH with explosives. When I read that, I just about coughed up the soda I was drinking I could not believe any sane person would post something like that. As much as I know you are an angry person, no doubt with rage in your heart, I would NEVER EVER think that of you or post something so evil like that about you. Now, Im saying good bye to you as its obvious through you posts over time you cannot post to me without attacking me, so skip my posts, delete them and MYOB when it comes to me and my opinions.
I second Kam's why. I also don't believe that that will be the case s/m
If you are looking at the primary turnouts, record numbers are turning out on the Democrat side, and on the Republican side fewer are turning out than did in 2004 and 2000, and if that trend continues it bodes well for whatever Democratic candidate ultimately gets the nomination. Also, should that candidate be Hillary Clinton, what candidate on the Republican side is, for lack of a better word, sweeping the voters off their feet, whether with agenda or personality? McCain? Huckabee? Romney?, which one?
Actually, the only two candidates that I think have the qualities of real zeal and enthusiasm are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul isn't going to get the nomination, Obama may or may not, and if not, if the Democrat turnouts remain high, and in general the country truly wanting a different direction, they are going to elect a Democrat this time, and if it is Clinton she will be elected, even if she has no more zeal or charisma than Huckabee, McCain or Romney.
That's what I think anyway.
Just in case.
You accused me earlier of being a racist and posting racist posts. I challenged you to find one post I did and you can't find one. You tried to use something I said after you accused me. I also read through all my posts and there are no racist remarks. When I referred to Michelle not talking like a black woman I was referring to your typical stereotyping us because we don't always talk or write the way you think all black people do. You stereotype and assumed I was white because why, I didn't talk like my friends? I'll say it again. Michelle Obama is one classy lady.
You know one thing I was taught growing up is if I'm ever wrong to at least have the decency to say I'm wrong and am sorry, but I guess not everyone is like that.
You are just wrong.
Of course he would do it in that case, anyone would (sm)
They shouldn't have to do elective abortions that are not for the health of the mother unless it is something they believe in. They should not be forced to do it. It is unethical to ask someone to do something they think is wrong. It would be unethical to ask a non-Christian to pray with a patient if they felt it was against their religion, even if the patient asked for it. In these cases, they should have someone else do it, who does not feel it is against their beliefs.
yes, but the pie man in this case...
was forced to sell pies on credit to people who could never pay for them by whom?.....NOT Bush.
In this case
x
In this case.........
it is convenient to maintain the belief that life begins with conception and ends at birth...........
Oh, right. If that is the case, he should have been
nm
Hardly the case.
Bush escaped that microsope you mentioned in the mainstream media until the kick-off of the 2008 election primaries. There was next to NO scrutiny of his ineptitude prior to that. Talk about getting a free pass. Besides that, there is little to no substance in this witch hunt so far and it is certainly nothing to fear, especially with those lopsided numbers in the House and Senate that have essentialy put the pubs into exile. I'm just starting to kick back and get comfortable and am going to enjoy watching every single last second of it all.
If this were the case...(sm)
then your statment would be relevant. However, that is not the case. The pay of the white male is the pay that everyone else strives for. And why wouldn't a white male be able to sue if treated unfairly? I'm pretty sure there isn't a law that prevents that. Everyone else has had to go through that process for years and years.
Well, in that case....(sm)
the only thing that I can suggest is to buff up. This might help:
http://stronglifts.com/how-to-build-muscle-mass-guide/
In that case....(sm)
I think I've been "pubbed." LOL.
If that were the case...(sm)
then wouldn't the same be true for alcohol? Most people who drink don't make their own alcohol. As far as addiction goes, we'll just have to disagree on that one. There are studies on both sides, and they are a dime a dozen. However, I have tried it, and as Obama said -- yes I inhaled because that was the point. Did I form an addiction? No. As for new people trying it, well, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone between the ages of 12 and 65 who could honestly say they haven't already tried it.
My daughter is now 24 -- about the age when they start telling you about things they did as teenagers....LOL. I don't know if you have kids or what age they might be, but when they get to that age and if they can openly communicate with you, you might be surprised at what you will find out. No, I'm not saying that your kids would automatically fall into that category, but most do.
If that is the case, why does someone like FOX
nm
That is not the case
Social Security came into being and started paying out at the same time...there was no contributing to it for years before you got to receive payments. Each person's SS payments are funded by the other workers paying into the system. In addition, payments are determined by what you've earned historically and not by what you've paid in.
In this case.....(sm)
since we are talking about history, I would go with historical facts as opposed to theological references.
Case in point.
I never said what my political affiliation is, gt. Mostly, I have talked about one subject, Bill Bennett, and not from a political viewpoint either. You automatically assume that because I do not agree with you, I am a neocon. But to hear you tell it, you don't make generalizations. But you see, you do, and this is made perfectly clear by this post. Also, the misuse and overuse of the term neocon says a lot about you. Do you realize how strongly you negate intelligent debate when you feel the need to label the person to whom you are speaking?
In that case, you sure must not read much!!!
Plus you seem kind of proud to be so darn ignorant.
Writer, in case you do see this
This is not the first time A.W. has had a hissy fit and said she's leaving....with that said the poster she talked about who was banned (something I didn't know until this thread) was the queen mother of hatred and never posted anything that was not extremely inflammatory. She accused others of drinking while freely admitting she struggled with an alcohol problem. She verbalized death wishes upon the president...so on and so on. She attacked conservatives with her fangs bared. It's really pretty sad that they cannot talk to people without taking broad issues so personally. There are a few, (and I do mean a few here) while we definitely differ with them on a lot of issues are approachable and will have a decent conversation with you. However, the amicable people are usually run off the board by the bitter ones who equate Bush and conservatives with Satan. It's really sad they are stuck in such an immature state and/or overwrought with bitterness.
In this case, I would say it was more Malloy...sm
If it was truly financial, they just made their situation worse firing Malloy. He was very popular and many are cancelling their premium subscriptions to AAR.
|
