Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The first is the book by Iraqi general Georges Sada and the second is the Saddam tapes currently being translated.Doctrine1st said:Please, enlighten me with these two sources because I want to hold dear the idea that we sent soldiers to die for a valid rational. You can PM me if you wish.
Peacebestill said:2% lie taints
loriersea said:And who she was as a person was intimately tied to her political work.
If, at my funeral, nothing the slightest bit political was said, then I'd think that the people there didn't know me very well.
christianmarine said:Run off at the mouth with their own statements?
christianmarine said:So it's justifiable for them to take potshots at the President? Run off at the mouth with their own statements? I love how you guys live to lubricate the issues.
Do you honestly believe that these guys, Carter and the Rev, at least, were simply reiterating her views? They sure sounded like the views of the speaker, not of the dead. I'll give you Clinton, I missed most of his, but it sounded rather tame compared to the self-aggrandizement I had expected from him.loriersea said:So the speech of people at funeral's should be regulated lest anyone get offended?
When Pat Robertson dies, I fully expect there to be much talk about his conservative politics. I wouldn't expect his funeral to be kept politically-neutral lest anyone get offended. His views in life offend people; so did Coretta Scott King's views. A funeral is not a time to keep silent about the things that mattered most to someone during their life.
and Nixon??? He had all of Civil Rights and anti war organizations tapped...A person's shrink wasn't even safe....LOLballfan said:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
"n October 10, 1963, U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy committed what is widely viewed as one of the most ignominious acts in modern American history: he authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to begin wiretapping the telephones of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr."
DieHappy said:D They sure sounded like the views of the speaker, not of the dead.
loriersea said:So the speech of people at funeral's should be regulated lest anyone get offended?
When Pat Robertson dies, I fully expect there to be much talk about his conservative politics. I wouldn't expect his funeral to be kept politically-neutral lest anyone get offended. His views in life offend people; so did Coretta Scott King's views. A funeral is not a time to keep silent about the things that mattered most to someone during their life.
loriersea said:So the speech of people at funeral's should be regulated lest anyone get offended?
When Pat Robertson dies, I fully expect there to be much talk about his conservative politics. I wouldn't expect his funeral to be kept politically-neutral lest anyone get offended. His views in life offend people; so did Coretta Scott King's views. A funeral is not a time to keep silent about the things that mattered most to someone during their life.
Really? I've seen it reversed usually. Any point critical of Bush from anybody seems to be attacked, while the wildest things get defended - creationism, his energy policy, his corporate giveaways - simply because, well, he's doing them.christianmarine said:That's right, I forget. Anybody who say's something negative about the current administration gets a green light and a free pass. Say something positive, and their not fit to hold office. (Joe Lieberman ring a bell Democrats?)
Alarum said:Really? I've seen it reversed usually. Any point critical of Bush from anybody seems to be attacked, while the wildest things get defended - creationism, his energy policy, his corporate giveaways - simply because, well, he's doing them.
Alarum said:Really? I've seen it reversed usually. Any point critical of Bush from anybody seems to be attacked, while the wildest things get defended - creationism, his energy policy, his corporate giveaways - simply because, well, he's doing them.
56 flights and ground convoys of trucks, should be pretty darn easy to support.MachZer0 said:The first is the book by Iraqi general Georges Sada and the second is the Saddam tapes currently being translated.
Well honestly the Democrats aren't trying very hard to kick him out of office, because the Democrats haven't been trying very hard to do anything for the past 6 years. I mean if you can't even mount a sucessful campaign against Bush, you know you've failed in some fundimental, sick, stupid way.christianmarine said:Yep. How about when Lieberman said there were good things happening in Iraq. What's happening now? The Democrats are trying to kick him out of office. Yeah, that's team unity there. Looks like if a Democrat or Republican try to agree with the other side, the are automatically ostrocized. Great teamwork Dems and Repubs
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?