Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: My Matches Filter not working?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
My Matches Filter not working?
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:25:38 AM
My experience has been that if I make a change in the criteria and click the find matches button, it doesn't refresh properly. I have to click the button 3 times before it actually takes.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 405 (view)
 
Viewed Me Now a Paid Feature: Please post comments here
Posted: 3/13/2012 4:47:23 AM
It's still working using the android app.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 399 (view)
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Viewed Me Now a Paid Feature: Please post comments here
Posted: 3/13/2012 3:54:44 AM
This reminds me of what Netflix did... alienating the customer base.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Budget. Not just a rental company
Posted: 4/4/2011 4:38:25 PM

Does anyone else want to see what a shutdown of the federal government would look like?

I've already seen what a federal government shutdown looks like. Some 'non-essential' government employees get a furlough for however long it takes to finally pass a budget and when one in finally passed all the furloughed employee's get back pay for the days they were off... like a free vacation! Who would complain?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
 
If you could do it again: Would you vote for Obama Today?
Posted: 3/27/2011 10:14:04 AM

I didn't know that Obama had "invaded" Libya. I know that the president ordered some strategic bombing of Libyan facilities in order to implement the no-fly zone authorized by the United Nations, but I haven't heard of any American military divisions landing on Libyan territory to invade that country.

You are arguing semantics.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 92 (view)
 
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/24/2011 11:37:00 AM
Also, the republicans also STILL tied up dealing with last year's budget which Obama and the democrats failed to pass. The democrats considered the election more important.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 3/22/2011 6:29:38 PM
I didn’t vote for Obama because I heard him say he would divert troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, the ‘Just War’, and bring Osama bin Laden to justice. IMO, anyone who thinks Osama bin Laden is still alive is either a liar or a crackpot.


Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......you knew he was just gonna bomb Nations (Libya) that have done us no harm?

That’s a very good question! I'm so glad you brought it up. I can’t wait to read the responses from the stalwart supporters who actually did vote for him.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Senator Chuck Schumer Shows Ignorance of Govt
Posted: 2/9/2011 6:16:36 PM
^^ I think you are confused. I've never said I supported Sarah Palin. It's pretty obvious that some people are obsessed with her, though. I just don't happen to be one of them. You are correct in that Senator Schumer should know better.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 139 (view)
 
Sarah Palin On The Issues
Posted: 2/9/2011 4:42:17 PM

The republicans and tea baggers can dodge,bob,duck and weave all they want but their behavior in the elections fueled the actions of Loughner, they should be on trial as accessories.

Our President disagrees with you (at least he said he did... don’t you believe him?). They are no more responsible for Loughner’s actions than the subject of this thread:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts13327560.aspx
However, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

It's pretty disgusting to me when people can support a candidate for public office who tells lies and uses inflammatory tactics to provoke hostile reactions.

And here I assumed you were an Obama supporter. Silly me.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Senator Chuck Schumer Shows Ignorance of Govt
Posted: 2/9/2011 4:03:22 PM

I would say worry less about their constitutional knowledge and more about their business sense...

You mean the Constitution that they all swear to uphold when they take the Oath of Office? How in the world can you uphold something you have little knowledge of? I would venture to say that, for a politician, constitutional knowledge trumps business sense any day because nowhere in the oath do they swear to make good business decisions. Besides, the government is not a business. It’s the government.


Believe me, it is nerve wracking talking on record.

Oh, please... Have you seen the way those people (Schumer especially) grandstand on the floor and committee hearings on C-SPAN and C-SPAN2? Nervous is NOT a word that comes to mind.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 49 (view)
 
Obama, Bush's worst plus his own.
Posted: 11/5/2010 9:45:53 PM

Do you know why the dollar is in such bad shape?

Are you going to blame that on Obama as well?

Even with lots of help, your response didn't answer my question.

Would you consider the below information propaganda?

No, those are statistics. It's when a writer convolutes them into a yarn that Obama saved capitalism is when it becomes propaganda.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Obama, Bush's worst plus his own.
Posted: 11/5/2010 8:04:50 PM

Quick summary
...If you invested $100k on Obama's Inauguration Day, today it would be worth about $177k if invested in NASDAQ.

Does this take into account the devaluation of the dollar that has taken place since Obama's Inauguration Day?

Nice propaganda piece, though. But at this point I don't think many people are buying it. I guess marketing doesn't always win.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 189 (view)
 
Rep. Alan Grayson - Republicans are Enemies of America
Posted: 11/2/2010 7:27:02 PM

What do you think of his statement?

I think it earned him a short political career.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
The one place in America where Americans have almost zero rights is ?
Posted: 10/29/2010 6:04:44 PM

The one place in America where Americans have almost zero rights is ?...

It's in their workplace.


Well, at least my employer pays me when they take my rights away.
The government wants to charge me for doing the same thing.

 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Obama, Bush's worst plus his own.
Posted: 10/24/2010 8:16:54 AM
^^ um... Juan Williams did make the commentary on Fox. And as far as bringing biased reporting into NPR...
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
Posted: 10/6/2010 6:40:54 PM
Posted in msg 37 on 6/17...

It’s pretty clear that the extent of the calamity was being downplayed... at least initially.

And now, three and a half months later...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_sc/us_gulf_oil_spill

The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.


See how transparent the Administration is?

This little bit from the article is so reminiscent of the 'Climategate' thread.

The documents also criticize Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, saying that during a series of morning-show appearances on Aug. 4, she misrepresented the findings of a federal analysis of where the oil went and incorrectly portrayed it as a scientific assessment that was peer-reviewed by inside and outside experts.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Teabagger Tempest: Exciting Senate Races
Posted: 9/28/2010 10:41:34 AM
^^ Are you going to post that same ridiculous class warfare rhetoric in every thread in the politcs forum? It's rather irritating.

Here is an idea... Stop worrying about how much money other people make and use that misplaced energy to improve your own lot in life. I promise you it will be far more conducive to the desired outcome. And you can believe me because I'm not a politician.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 38 (view)
 
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/5/2010 11:41:51 AM

It isn't my fault you fail to understand how to derive the meaning of words from usage and context... "promulgating" in the sentence posted clearly means "to put into action or force"... logic dictates it to be so, as you cannot prosecute individuals for war crimes simply for speaking about the information ("make known" or "proclaim", the other meanings of promulgate, neither of which logically fit the context)...



Understanding this requires something more than just the ability to make "either-or" distinctions... Perhaps the distinction between "words" and "deeds" is creating too much complexity because it is no longer just a "black-white"/"either-or"/"fer us-agin us" issue which can be described by opposite ends of a one-dimensional "line"... The "words-deeds" distinction adds a second dimension to the question which may be too abstract... I will attempt to explain it...

This sounds like you're channeling Bill Clinton on the witness stand.
Btw, sentences end with a single period (.), not three(...).

Speaking of Bill Clinton…

It would still have been a lie but a lie is generally not a crime... An act of international aggression against a sovereign nation based on those lies is a crime... Therein lies the distinction

Bill Clinton launched attacks on Iraq in June 1993 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mpWa7wNr5M), Sept 1996 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCclD33wQU) and December 1998 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc). The US took control of the country's airspace. Iraqis probably even died. That’s certainly more than just talk. By your reasoning and logic, doesn’t all that also constitute an act of aggression against a sovereign nation (i.e. a war crime)? If not then wherein lies the distinction?

What shrub? We’re not discussing gardening, “War crimes is the topic of the thread”.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Does OBAMA have to place a description on how we leave Iraq? Do we have to WIN?
Posted: 9/5/2010 8:56:34 AM

If he thinks you violate federal law, then he's going to challenge you... (i.e. Arizona)

Do you think he'll challenge California if Prop 19 passes?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 27 (view)
 
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:49:04 AM

I haven't passed any judgement on it... I think you may be proceeding from a false assumption... That I give a rat's ass about Al Gore... What he may or may not have believed in 1992, or ever, is irrelevant he didn't invade anybody over it...

Now... Just exactly what does all of this have to do with Gates' admission that the pretext was invalid...?


But you specifically said in msg 13 in answer to the question of who should be procecuted…

And perhaps those individuals responsible for promulgating the false information which was used to justify the action would be good people to start with.

I’ve posted clear video evidence that shows both Al Gore (1992) and Bill Clinton (1998) promulgating the exact same “false” information or “premise” that secretary Gates comments are referring to.

Now you want to claim it’s irrelevant. There seems to be some duplicity in your posts.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 23 (view)
 
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 7:48:54 PM
Punctuation comments and unfounded accusations of dishonesty aside......

Now show me where it says Al Gore made a false claim

So you are saying that Al Gore's 1992 claims of the Iraq WMD threat were true then?


Who incited a riot...? And even if someone did, when did "incitement" become a war crime...?

Show me where I said incitement was a war crime.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 6:05:23 PM

A red herring of cetacean proportions... "This guy" didn't start an illegal war over his claims, the others did...
There is a HUGE difference in law between making false claims and acting on false claims..

Are you inferring that Al Gore would make false claims??....
And isn’t inciting a riot still a crime even if one doesn’t act?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/2/2010 10:31:51 AM
@flyguy... you would be right. There is certainly nothing wrong with your reading comprehension.

@mungo... It’s funny you keep mentioning channeling because the quote attributed to secretary Gates’ doesn’t presuppose the clairvoyance of the ‘we’, whereas your interpretation of it does.


And perhaps those individuals responsible for promulgating the false information which was used to justify the action would be good people to start with...

Maybe start with this guy. He was spouting this “false information” as far back as 1992.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc1h1wg7LeQ
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
US admits War Guilt
Posted: 9/1/2010 6:41:32 PM

The US gov't did not have a valid basis for it's war of aggression against Iraq... A fact that is clearly admitted by the gov't of the US...

But that’s not what secretary Gates said. The article quotes Gates with saying “that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid,".

Gates did not say the US gov’t had no valid basis to invade Iraq. That would be Al Jazeera (and your) spin. He also uses the word “clouded” which, in this context, means the opposite of “clearly”. Al Jazeera is probably not your best source for “official US government admissions”.

I believe, from the way it was stated…

At least you admit you’re reading with a bias. Of course, Al Jazeera has none.

… (is this) how we really view the value of the American soldier...?

You are forgetting about the British, Spanish, Polish, Australian, Portuguese, and Danish soldiers, aren’t you?

in the name of an admitted fabrication

I know where this is going…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs
Highlights are at 2:10 and 3:42, but the whole speech is enlightening.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Your thoughts on Elena Kagan?
Posted: 8/7/2010 2:36:01 PM

Your thoughts on Elena Kagan?

She seemed to have a sense of humor.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 130 (view)
 
Climategate
Posted: 7/8/2010 10:37:04 AM
I wonder how “former UK civil servant Muir Russell”’s tenure as a former vice-chancellor
qualifies him as a detective of dishonesty and corruption?
Vindicates? Exonerates? Don’t make me laugh. This is just another ‘circle the wagons’
report.

"The release of the e-mails was a turning point, a game-changer," Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told The Guardian newspaper before the Russell report was released. "Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance."

Imagine that!

Not much to see here, folks.

True, true..
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 29 (view)
 
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Posted: 7/2/2010 11:07:59 PM

... should have to "prove" they are "capable of some level of responsible operation" of their freedom of speech rights.

And without the use of a teleprompter.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Posted: 7/2/2010 10:45:51 PM

OK, so is there such a thing for you as reasonable gun regulation?

Yes, reasonable regulation is when you get the gas cylinder adjusted just right so that
a shell ejects reliably without inducing excessive recoil in the action.


How about stricter penalties for using a gun when committing a crime? Should
there be a difference between robbery and armed robbery?

In Florida, we have that… 3 strikes you’re out law. There is nothing wrong with that
at all. In fact I think they gave them 2 too many strikes.


why not ask legal gun owners to register their guns

Because Hitler did it and it left a bad taste in people’s mouths. Actually in Florida and
I assume most states, guns ARE de facto registered when they are purchased from a
licensed dealer by the record of the sale which the dealers’ license requires them to
keep.

Again, in FL, gun locks are required in households in which children may have access
to firearms. There have been prosecutions under that law where children have gained
access to carelessly stored guns. It’s not a bad law for the most part and hopefully
makes parents think twice about responsible gun ownership. Training should be highly
encouraged, promoted and even offered for free. Publicly owned shooting ranges for
practice with free ammo... now there is something I could support. If they want to well
regulate something, let them offer that. Proof of training IS required to obtain
a concealed carry permit. Of course a criminal isn’t going to care about the training
or the permit to carry concealed.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Posted: 7/2/2010 8:44:51 PM
Reasonable? Does one need to register their mouth in order to speak freely?
Does one need to get a state permit in order to receive due process? What part
of 'fundamental right' does the Chicago City Counsel not understand?
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Posted: 7/2/2010 7:54:32 PM

Harvard Injury Control Research Center Guns and Death

Proof that if you only study one side of an issue you will reach one-sided conclusions.
Missing are any studies of innocent lives saved by the availability of a firearm.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Supreme Court rules that all Americans have fundamental right to bear arms
Posted: 7/1/2010 11:13:55 AM
^^^
^^^ That news story by Fred Luca at the News-Times is so full of holes and is typical of one written from an anti-gun viewpoint that it would also make me question the accuracy of the stats.

Semi-auto AK-47s (which, if semi-auto, won’t be called AK-47s) and UZIs were not banned by the 1989 Federal law, only the further importation of them into the United States from foreign countries. Guns imported before the 1989 ban are still legal to buy, own and sell. You do not have to be a collector to buy one. They are sold just like any other semi-automatic rifle. The importation and domestic manufacture for private sale of full-auto firearms was banned by 1986 Federal law. Full auto weapons manufactured or imported before 1986 are still available for transfer to citizens. There is no Federal license to own a machine gun, only the application for transfer and payment of a transfer tax. The Federal gun license is the Class 3 FFL, which is required only to be a dealer in firearms.

http://www.autoweapons.com/pagelinks/buyandsell.html

Who are these ‘officials’ he attributes his story too? It doesn’t say.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 200 (view)
 
Obama's latest approval ratings.
Posted: 6/26/2010 7:33:46 AM
^^

not two years yet

Her opinion was that in less than 2 years his approval ratings have plummeted
(at least for those who care). And they keep dropping... and dropping... and dropping...
I myself have never been polled on the question, but If I were, it still wouldn't help his
numbers any.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Rush goes after the GOP ? Interesting.....
Posted: 6/23/2010 10:20:15 AM

I would say he is correct.

99.5% of the time.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Rush goes after the GOP ? Interesting.....
Posted: 6/21/2010 7:59:36 PM
I could never figure out why what Rush Limbaugh says makes ‘news’. At any rate, it
wouldn’t be the first time he’s bashed the GOP. He does it quite regularly. I think
‘linguini spine’ is the term he uses.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Cleanup czar?
Posted: 6/21/2010 6:05:28 PM

... because he previously worked for Bush.

Well, then I would think that alone would cause Obama to avoid him like the plaque.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Cleanup czar?
Posted: 6/20/2010 6:33:30 AM
No one else will ever get experience or build a track record if they just keep going back
to this guy. If something were to happen to his law firm, would the government then have
to bail them out because they are "too experienced to fail"? Something just doesn't smell
right.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Cleanup czar?
Posted: 6/19/2010 6:26:12 AM
I guess my question is: if Obama said the fund would be set up and administered by an
independent third party, why then Kenneth Feinberg’s firm? It appears to me from his
history that he is a Washington insider. Are there no other competent law firms in
this country up to the task? Why does the government always steer high profile work in
Feinberg’s direction? Seems odd to say the least.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
Posted: 6/18/2010 3:48:49 AM
Granted. Katrina was a natural disaster.

The hurricane was a natural occurrence. The failure of the levees was the man-made
disaster. The repair of the levees and rebuilding in the flooded zone will likely result
in a repeat of that disaster. In that case they didn't learn from their mistakes.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Did BP get a Chicago-style shakedown AND do we owe BP an apology OR ...
Posted: 6/17/2010 6:07:59 PM

Shouldn't BP have come forth immediately after the well blew up and began to
leak oil in the Gulf of Mexico and made an open-end offer to make it right no matter
how much it costs?

Actually, they did. Maybe not immediately after the well blew but within a couple days,
after the leak became apparent. It was Transocean that made a court filing involving
the law with the 75 million cap. I’ve never heard BP say anything but that they would
pay all legitimate claims.

Regardless ... we did not shake down BP and we do not owe them an apology.

You’re right... ‘we’ didn’t. Whether the Obama Administration did is up for debate since
‘we’ weren’t in the room and are not privy to the minutes. And I’m not going to apologize
to anyone for something Obama may have done since I didn’t vote for him.

This post should not be construed as supporting BP in any way. I’m just stating facts.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
Posted: 6/17/2010 5:00:38 PM
^^ Sorry, but I didn't laugh even once.

M_G, I wouldn’t put much stock in the accuracy of the information in that time
-line report you were quoting in msg 35 @
http://oilspilldisasters.com/timeline-gulf-oil-spill-government-response-927982a
For instance, the items that you left out when quoting the activities of
Thursday, April 22:

_Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) with camera goes under water, confirms
no visible oil flow from the well.

_Chemical dispersants, intended to break up the oil slick, are readied.

First, I find it highly improbable that the oil we see gushing out of that well wasn’t
doing so from the moment the Deepwater Horizon hit the seabed. The ROV
“confirming” no visible oil flow is just not credible. Adding to that incredibility is the
need to ready dispersants if no oil is flowing.

And then in the activities for Wednesday April 28 you left out:

_At the White House, the bad news is discussed at a hastily called meeting in
the Situation Room. Obama is called and briefed on Air Force One, though the subject
doesn't come up during a discussion the president has with his traveling press pool a
short time later.


On top of that, if you scroll down to the bottom and see the sourcing of the article,
it lists: the White House (ahem), the Department of the Interior, (which houses the
MMS who we already know was asleep at the wheel), NOAA (who was the source of
the original, wholly inaccurate, 5000 barrels a day leak estimate that BP subsequently
latched onto) and some unnamed AP reporters who are likely just dutifully
regurgitating whatever the administration tells them.

It’s pretty clear that the extent of the calamity was being downplayed... at least initially.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Congressman Assaults Student
Posted: 6/15/2010 6:28:53 PM
Who are you? Who, who, who, who?

I saw the video and I think the congressman had a three-martini lunch.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
mandatory overtime
Posted: 6/11/2010 5:28:43 PM
I can't believe I'm reading this. What's the unemployment rate in Missouri?
You could always work to sloppy tolerances. I would imagine they would cut your hours.

That said - while OT is NEVER mandatory

True, you can always quit.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than Katrina
Posted: 6/7/2010 8:28:14 PM
Let’s face it. Any presidential response to events as catastrophic as Katrina and the Gulf
oil spill are going to seem woefully inadequate. As one who doesn’t obsess with comparing
such things, I can say that just from observation, the one thing the two events has brought
out is the blatant, unabashed hypocrisy of some people.


All the same, there's far less partisan division in concern about the spill's effects:
It's seen as a major environmental disaster by seven in 10 Republicans and three-quarters
of Democrats and independents alike.

I can’t believe there is any division at all. It should be 100% apparent to anyone that the
Gulf oil spill is a major environmental catastrophe. To not think so is either being
disingenuous or wallowing in blissful ignorance (and I’m hardly the environmental
activist). The fact that at least a quarter of the people don’t think so is disturbing.

(This post has been specially formatted to fit your screen)

 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 167 (view)
 
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/25/2010 2:50:12 PM
Astonishingly, I find myself in complete agreement with mungojoe in msg 2.

This isn't an immature response in order to offend others.

I looked at the facebook page and the photo’s therein and it sure fooled me.
Some ‘free speech’ activists obviously have too much time on their hands.

One should not throw a grenade into a full church to kill one enemy soldier.

Well put.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 33 (view)
 
acts of violence vs. civil disobedience
Posted: 5/8/2010 9:47:56 AM
On Thomas Jefferson…

Rebellion to restrain government and retain individual rights
After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." Concerning Shays' Rebellion after he had heard of the bloodshed, on November 13, 1787 Jefferson wrote to William S. Smith, John Adams' son-in-law, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." In another letter to William S. Smith during 1787, Jefferson wrote: And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 27 (view)
 
Yes Sir Mr Presdent you have my continued support
Posted: 4/30/2010 6:37:36 PM
Don't sweat it MrLove. No harm, no foul. As the President would say. 'let's have a beer on it'.


As for the point I was trying to make in the first part of my post, it had to do with looking at this man's character over his lifetime, from people who knew him. Actions speak far louder than words, to judge that.

Which makes it hard to reconcile his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright whom he initially said he could never disavow only to disavow him later. I could go on, but you get the picture.

And who could help but notice his narcissistic tendencies in his speeches and condescension of those who don’t happen to agree with him (theatrics aside).

What I tried to imply was that the man's motives have been valid, instead of being some treacherous plot against the nation.

I have no doubt in my mind that he believes he is doing the right thing. He is just wrong in so many ways.

And I believe Obama would only be as third as bad if he didn’t have Pelosi and Reid pulling his strings. Those two are total nut cases and there is plenty of video evidence to back that up.

btw, does anyone have a link to a high resolution scan of that 'copy'.
I am not a 'birther', I'm just curious. But hey, I read that Roswell crap too.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Yes Sir Mr Presdent you have my continued support
Posted: 4/29/2010 6:44:21 PM

no.i'm not a "birther"............but i do have to wonder whe hes done so much and spent the money he did to hide everything is theres not anything to doubt

My thoughts exactly. There doesn't seem to be a LOGICAL reason behind it. Nothing would surprise me. You know they just stripped an Olympic Bronze metal from China a decade after the fact for fielding a 14 yo. You would think they would have checked her birth certificate.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Yes Sir Mr Presdent you have my continued support
Posted: 4/28/2010 3:57:13 PM

The Obama records you list are all available on the Internet....

So is all the evidence that a flying saucer crashed in Roswell, NM in 1945.
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Yes Sir Mr Presdent you have my continued support
Posted: 4/27/2010 5:14:18 PM

Hello? This was just last month: (i.e. Sen Tom Coburn)

From The Hill article linked:

Coburn said he would not agree to extensions unless their cost was offset and would not add to the federal deficit.

Sounds like he was just trying to abide by the paygo rules Obama signed into law in February.

“The new law also puts in place new budget rules to curb growing annual deficits. Known as "paygo" - for "pay as you go" - the rules require future spending increases or tax cuts to be paid for with tax increases or other spending cuts.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9821095
You may not have heard about it since Obama signed that bill privately.

Obama himself just today called for a bipartisan effort on the soaring deficit. (cough, cough).
From the opening day testimony of Obama’s deficit commission:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/ap_on_bi_ge/us_deficit_commission


"There are few issues on which there is more vigorous bipartisan agreement than fiscal responsibility," Obama said, flanked by Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., the two men he asked to lead efforts to reach a consensus plan for the deficit. "But in practice, this responsibility for the future is often overwhelmed by the politics of the moment."


Senator Coburn found that out (btw, that bill did pass and unemployment benefits were extended).


Obama explicitly told reporters in the White House's Rose Garden that neither he nor commission members would say what deficit-closing options remain viable.

"Spending cuts will have to affect programs we all care about and benefit from and revenue increases will have to come from a wide swath of Americans," Urban Institute President Robert Reischauer said. "In other words, raising taxes on the rich or corporations, closing tax loopholes, eliminating wasteful or low-priority programs and prohibiting earmarks simply won't be enough."

Bernanke made his most urgent call yet to get the government's fiscal house in order. Failing to curb deficits - $1.4 trillion last year - would push interest rates higher, not only for Americans buying cars, homes and other things but also for the government to service its debt payments, he said.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag told the commission: "Substantial deficits projected far into the future could cause the market to rapidly lose confidence in the government's creditworthiness, producing a spike in interest rates and fundamentally disrupting economic activity more broadly."

But the options for curbing the deficit — cutting spending on popular entitlement programs and broad-based tax increases — are so politically toxic that the only way Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress are willing to take them on during this midterm election year is through the commission.

Yes Sir Mr President. I like a brave commander -in-chief.
---------------

What you are saying is that the Dems and the Obama admin SHOULD use their majority to simply ram through whatever they want.

Isn’t that exactly what they have been trying??
 hard starboard
Joined: 6/21/2008
Msg: 75 (view)
 
An Absence of Class / teabaggers and republicans
Posted: 4/25/2010 6:03:46 PM
I’m not calling for anti-war protests. I’m just making an observation, which you concurred with. And what favorable coverage? I thought the Teapartiers were being portrayed as racist bigots? I don’t have cable or satellite and Murdoch and Co have banned the streaming of Fox News on the internet, so I don’t get to see it. I’m only going by what I read on MSN, CNN and Plenty of Fish.

Cindy Sheehan was likely a nice lady whose overwhelming grief for the loss of her son was exploited by others to further their agenda of the demonization of the Bush Administration. Was that nice enough?
 
Show ALL Forums