A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
More threats from the King (sm)
Posted: Feb 3, 2013
If Congress can't come up with an immigration plan, Obama says he will just march his plan to the Capitol. In other words, he doesn't need Congress. It's already becoming a monarchy.
;
I just have to ask (sm) - Question
[ In Reply To ..]For those who "dislike" this post. Do you dislike it because Obama is abusing his office again? Or do you dislike it because you think he should be allowed to ignore Congress and make his own rules?
I dislike it because of the 'King" and "monarchy" terminology. - hyperbole not necessary to discuss
[ In Reply To ..]The OP and you (same?) are suggesting that he's intending on doing something not within his constitutional rights as President, either via the power of veto and/or lobbying for his own legislation.
edit: Perhaps you object to the way he said "introduce my own immigration bill." That's a matter of semantics; admittedly he can't directly do that, but he can indirectly.
"Therefore, the president cannot directly introduce legislative proposals for consideration in Congress. However, the president can take an indirect role in shaping legislation, especially if the president's political party has a majority in one or both houses of Congress. For example, the president or other officials of the executive branch may draft legislation and then ask senators or representatives to introduce these drafts into Congress." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States )
Same here. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]If the point of the post is to offend those of us who support and voted for the POTUS rather than invite a discussion, a serious discussion, an intelligent discussion, then yes, I will dislike it.
It's more like an "us against them" (on the board) mentality rather than discussion regarding politics, policy, issues, current events with differing, but respectful points of view.
Words like that just put posters on the defensive which hardly gets things off on the wrong foot.
So ******** don't dislike the fact that he believes he is King and can do what he wants - ********* just don't like anyone pointing it
[ In Reply To ..]I've head the reference to The O thinking because he is in the seat of the president he can do anything he wants, doesn't need to get congresses approval and can act as though he is a king and can do whatever he wants.
So ********** are okay with him believing he is king and abusing his powers, ********** just don't like people pointing it out?
Don't know why he has this complex or why he thinks he can do what he wants without approval from congress. Maybe because he told his classmates that his father was an Indonesian King that he actually believes he inherited that position. I don't know why, but the facts remain so.
I won't post all the references but there are many out there (not all conservative either) that are noticing this disturbing behavior.
I can't decide whether to report as abusive, libelous, or hateful? - tit-for-tat
[ In Reply To ..]It's libelous in that I never said or implied the words you're trying to put in my mouth, but it's also abusive and hateful towards me. **************************
Oh, and please do post a non-conservative reference espousing this view. I'd be fascinated to see it.
Well since its none of what you wrote then - there is nothing to report
[ In Reply To ..]It was just a simple question. The way you worded your post that's the impression it gave.
So since it was not abusive, not libelous, and not hateful, how would you report it. That you disagree? That you don't like that I've heard references to him believing he is king from other sources? Just curious on that.
But maybe I should report yours as an invitation to get your "fellow liberals/progressives" to gang up.
It was just simple question. Sorry it hit home.
it was not a simple question - sm
[ In Reply To ..]rather, it was a loaded assertion. Your post was not abusive, libelous, or hateful, but it was *********. And **********. And disingenuous. And **************. There you go.
What do the asterisks mean? Truthful? - I have heard some on the Dem side say it too.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
they mean honey boo boo complained - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
They mean the poster was name calling - Moderator - sm
[ In Reply To ..]If you cannot have a conversation without calling another poster names because you disagree with them then don't post at all.
...or criticizing a post (!) - sm
[ In Reply To ..]interestingly, it rarely has to do with name calling. I think we all know that.
Calling someone ignorant and stupid - is name calling
[ In Reply To ..]nm
of course it is - sm
[ In Reply To ..]characterizing a post as baiting is not.
Don't get other posters to gang up - Moderator - sm
[ In Reply To ..]A poster gave his/her opinion of a post. It was not abusive or hateful. It was simply his/her opinion. Don't ask other people to gang up on posters to report other posters. There is nothing to report. If you disagree with him/her simply say so or just skip the posts.
Moderator
I don't think that's what the poster was doing - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I do believe the poster was being facetious about ganging up. She made good point about posters who report posts. There are certain things you need to let posters work out for themselves, moderator.
"baiting" is an opinion, as well - sm
[ In Reply To ..]but I see this word has been removed from my post. At least I got to keep "disingenuous".
Maybe the moderator should give up - and let you all have at it!
[ In Reply To ..]Most on this board truly want to have an informed discussion, but it seems some just want to come on here and slam whatever the other side has to say. I mean, do you really think that's going to help change anyone's mind to your way of thinking, even in the slightest bit?
I think the troublemakers should be banned. - Period. (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]No questions asked. We all know who the troublemakers are, even though they occasionally post anonymoosely.
For some reason, others always answer them, tho. - Which makes all who join troublemakers.nm
[ In Reply To ..]x
disagree - sm
[ In Reply To ..]most of us make an effort to respectfully disagree, share alternate viewpoints, or intelligently rebut.
Baiters, however, tend to dislike it when they are held accountable. Just like kids, it's usually the bullies who tattle.
I totally absolutely trust President Obama - sm
[ In Reply To ..]And he can do whatever he needs to do to get control of the ********************
Not a moment too soon.
The more power to him and Michelle.
Started out with a hee-hee, now I'm ROFLMAO!! - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Wow - I've heard that before....very scary - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Can't tell you how much the hair stood up on the back of my neck reading this message. I guess the media has done their job well with the brainwashing.
Calling a group you don't follow evil, well the same could be said about the other side.
"he can do whatever he needs to do"
"Not a moment too soon" "more power to him and Michelle" Er, hum -
1. Michelle is not in charge and needs to sit back and shut up if she is saying anything.
2. No they cannot do anything they want.
3. Evil is a state of one's mind. There are plenty of evil people and guess what...they have infiltrated your party.
4. Not a moment too soon? What, you don't like free speech? People working? Affordable health insurance? The constitution? Human rights? Everyone's vote counting? Equality for all people? A two party system? Checks and balances? A budget?
BTW - this country is not a democrat country. Over half the country are made up of other political parties. This country is not and will not be a communist country. If people don't like that go to the countries that are communist. I'm sure they will welcome those wanting communism with open arms. It's not and never will be here. Get over it.
Yeah, I have heard this kind of thinking before. In 1978.
Proof is in "what side" you are on. - Fair and Balanced, not
[ In Reply To ..]
I can't even follow this discussion - RC
[ In Reply To ..]Because of all the asterixes! Gah!
I read it before it was asterisked out. don't think you would like - your side called what she called
[ In Reply To ..]republicans. Made the hair stand up on my neck.
Was it low information voters? Communists? - Demonrats?
[ In Reply To ..]:P
No, I told you it was an insult to republicans - your side called what she called
[ In Reply To ..]It was spine tingling, hair standing thought process.
Very Jim Jones is all I will say anymore.
that's a lie - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I read the edited posts. What you're saying is just not true.
The lie is in your post. - Not sure I can repeat it, but
[ In Reply To ..]The edit portion was she said something about evil something or other republicans. It was very offensive. Actually the entire post was offensive. Evil is a state of mind. Of course nobody thinks evil exists in their own party, but it does. The hatred for conservatives has gone so way past reasonable that we now think its okay to call posters evil?
I spoke the truth.
link - sm
[ In Reply To ..]sometimes words are just words.
I didn't write that. For the second time today - Get your posters straight
[ In Reply To ..]Stop attributing posts to people who didn't write them. Don't know what it is you are trying to prove.
If you trying to bait me into an argument it stops right here and now.
You could always use a moniker if you want to - claim ownership to only your posts.
[ In Reply To ..].
That makes no sense at all. - What are you saying?
[ In Reply To ..]That because I don't use a moniker I should be blamed for every post written here that I didn't write?
No, I was trying to help you. If you use a moniker, - that won't happen.
[ In Reply To ..]I don't care if you use one or not. I'm just saying it's one way to stop people from confusing your posts.
I wasn't saying that was your post - it was just an example
[ In Reply To ..]of another post using the bad word.
I've heard this too - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The resemblance is strikingly amazing (and bone chilling):
Annie Moore wrote - "-- the one who made this paradise possible—much to the contrary of the lies stated about -- (him) being a power-hungry sadistic, mean person who thought he was God—of all things."
the post to which you are responding is very respectful - sm
[ In Reply To ..]It just sounds so very pushy to be making assertions about what the poster said. I bet you turn right around and report her. ;)
Thank you. I didn't realize it except in retrospect, but I think I got the ball rolling - sm
[ In Reply To ..]for the rest of this thread to be more respectful than is usually found here.
Moderator: Just getting back to the board. So some posters took umbrage - at my generic "they're"...
[ In Reply To ..]and you deleted my post, yet this poster directly pointedly uses the personal "you" 4 times, implying that I'm some kind of hypocrite or liar with my post, and yet it still stands. Perhaps I didn't submit my report correctly. Now going with OTHER, "insulting," as I should have done in the first place.
Cannot find the post you are talking about - Moderator
[ In Reply To ..]I do not delete posts because someone says they, them, he, she, him or her. If a post was deleted its because it was insulting or name calling.
Posters are free to give their opinions on subjects or what other posters write. That is what the board is here for. To share ideas, opinions, anything you want regarding politics. However, that does not include name calling. When a poster says "your are a moron or you are ignorant or posters here are ignorant and stupid you are insulting other posters. If you believe whatever it is you believe It's better to keep the insults to yourself.
Giving your opinion is another thing. If you say something like what you wrote sounds like this or that you are giving your opinion. It also gives the person to a chance to reply with an explanation if they feel the way they do on why the agree or disagree with the subject matter.
Posters here need to get the emotions in control. The absolute hatred and insults towards people who don't belong to your party is going rampant here. Stick to the subject matter at hand. Don't call people here stupid, ignorant, uneducated, morons, etc. If you think it keep it to yourself. Develop a thick skin and move on.
I can - (bystander)
[ In Reply To ..]seriously?
Thank you. - the insulted party
[ In Reply To ..]It was a simple matter of following it back from the link above when inside the "Moderator:" post.
edit: I think I realize now that the moderator is saying they can't find my deleted post? (I still have the e-mails if you want me to send you copies back, Moderator, if you're the one who deleted it.)
That's not the post that was in question - message also for thank you and if it wasnt you - Moderator - sm
[ In Reply To ..]There are two other posters who posted, so instead of replying individually my message is regarding this topic. The link you posted is not the post we are talking about. I said I could not find your post you are referring to (that had the worlds they or they're or whatever it was). I will again state I do not delete a post just because someone uses the words they or they're, but if you are referencing other posters and it is clearly an insult to them and they report you that I when I will remove a post. I don't know why you posted the link you did.
Please do send me the post that was deleted and I will be more than happy to look at it. The reason I cannot find it is because I've got a lot of emails with insults towards other posters, so I do not want to get any of them mixed up.
I am trying to get the insults to stop. I'm trying to get posters to stop calling others evil, stupid, ignorant, racists, etc.
The post you posted a link to was a posters opinion and nothing more. I just read it again to make sure. He/she asked a question based on what he/she read in a post. He/she didn't assume or make a statement or wrote an insult, she asked a question. If you don't like the questions then I just would not answer back.
I disagree. I'm the one it was referring to, and I do feel it was - a veiled insult.
[ In Reply To ..]As, it seems, do other posters who've agreed with me on this.
I once again state that I feel you are showing favoritism and not being consistent. You deleted an original post of mine that only had "they're," yet won't delete one that very directly points a finger at me implying I'm a hypocrite. I "feel" that post insults me as much as those posters supposedly felt that my "pundits" post insulted them. I don't think you're being fair or, once again, consistent.
Please refer here for info about and link to the repost of original post. (I've also returned the e-mail to you/moderators.) It would be helpful to read tvc15's post above my repost post to understand the context:
It wasn't removed because of your use of "they" - Moderator - sm
[ In Reply To ..]First, my misunderstanding. When you replied with "they" I thought you were referring to people on this board.
However, it was not removed because of the word "they're", it was removed because you called them "ignorant".
My mistake, on who you were referring to, please repost and it will not be removed.
I will fix the message you feel offended about.
Let me re-state also. There is no favoritism in moderating. An insult is an insult.
Moderator
Hi, Moderator - Is this post crossing a line?
[ In Reply To ..]It just doesn't seem very civil to me. I don't care if it stays or not, I just want to know where the line is. But you know, if you wanted to remove it, I wouldn't exactly be devastated. ;)
Thank you, post (s) have been fixed - Moderator - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Missed that one. Thanks.
Moderator
I am the author of that post. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]First, don't mind at all you starred out my word. The reason for the post was because people here object to people referring to him as King. However, as I stated in my post it is documented on numerous websites throughout the internet (and not just conservative sites) that more and more people throughout the country are noticing that he is acting like he believes he is a King. He even told one of his classmates his father was a king, so that might be where he gets that disturbing thought.
Posters here clearly are okay with that. They will defend his actions, but they just don't like people saying it. i just find it very ironic and hypocritical that they will say his actions that show he believes he is King is okay, but they just don't like anyone pointing it out.
My friend told me she thinks communism is a great thing because everyone would be equal, but she doesn't want to be called a communist (even though I just pointed out to her that she said communism is a great thing). It's the same thing here. It's okay, just don't point it out.
That's all i was sayin. Was just an generic innocent question not directed at anyone. Ya, know, they could have simply answered with "no". LOL
No harm done.
it was not generic, innocent, OR a question - (bystander)
[ In Reply To ..]This is not a question:
"So you are okay with him believing he is king and abusing his powers."
In fact, it's a rather pointed assertion wherein you are telling the poster what she believes ("so you are okay with him believing he is king"), and then criticizing HER for YOUR belief system.
You can't go around putting words in someone's mouth and taking potshots at people and then claim that they "they just don't like anyone pointing [something] out," and it's disingenuous on your part to claim that's "all" you were saying.
If you want to maintain a "no harm done" stance, you need to stick with your topic and stay away from the kind of rhetoric where you confuse a question with an assertion.
Not to mention saying none of the liberals had anything - intelligent to say.
[ In Reply To ..]and saying it...repeatedly.
I didn't write that post - Before you accuse anyone
[ In Reply To ..]Get your facts straight! I didn't write that post and i didn't get involved in responding to any of it.
If you've got a problem with that poster take it up to her in that post. Leave me out of it.
That is the post I linked to the moderator - who said she edited it.
[ In Reply To ..]This post. That's the one I'm talking about. I don't know what you're talking about.
It really doesn't matter anyway.
Didn't put no words in anyones mouth - just an observation
[ In Reply To ..]I said it was an innocent question and that's what it was. Don't need no mind readers assuming they know what I meant.
I read a post and my question was a generic one (generic means not directed at one person, yet everyone who thinks like that). Moderator starred out my word, but hey if you want to post what the moderator deleted be my guest.
Guess it's true though since some posters have their panties in a bunch over it. In fact it makes my point a stronger one if you keep pushing it.
The moderator starred out the offending word. No harm done. Leave it at that.
no mindreaders needed - last time
[ In Reply To ..](How should I put this?)
This ain't no question:
"So you are okay with him believing he is king and abusing his powers."
Believe me. Nothing is going to strengthen your point. Thanks for the update about my panties.
You need to stop trying to start an argument - I said leave it at that
[ In Reply To ..]Didn't even read your post, just opening it to tell you to stop trying to start a fight.
What the Moderator edited I am fine with. It still doesn't change the truth of the message. You just don't like it.
So, once again, not here to play games with you. Leave it alone already. Sheesh!
If it wasn't you, then was it another moderator who deleted it? - ''they're'' = *they* are
[ In Reply To ..]This post was originally deleted (see link).
I reposted it exactly the same, except exchanging "pundits, et al." for the original "they're" (and the Breitbart addition to hopefully clarify things some more), since it was apparently not possible to discern that "they're" referred to exactly the same subjects mentioned in the post I was replying to. (!) This really doesn't jibe with what you said above, Moderator, that posts aren't deleted "because someone says they, them, he, she, him or her."
You're absolutely right; and, in reality - vf
[ In Reply To ..]that thing that the President is doing is called "work" It's that thing Right wingers like to say he never does. The president is hard at work and doing a great job inspite of the right wing obstruction machine.
I dislike it mosty because it insults our republic. Also, the - ignorance and/or disrespect of truth
[ In Reply To ..]that I believe it reveals became old and irritating a very long time ago and would be appalling in someone I suspect votes, even more so the malice I believe underlies it; because I believe it was intended to offend and insult all of us who voted for President Obama and to promote dissension on this board; and because I see it as a complete waste of my time to read.
My fault mostly in this case. I avoid opening this type of post and, although this one wasn't clear out front, I think I had sufficient warning that I could probably pass on by without missing anything worthwhile.
Thank you for your honest replies. (sm) - LM
[ In Reply To ..]I do believe he has no problem doing something underhanded; however, I will refrain from posting such phrases when posting what I believe to be a legitimate topic for discussion in the future.
I don't like your "underhanded" term either, but I gave you a like - for your willingness to understand somewhat.
[ In Reply To ..]It would be great to see this be a board where the opposing sides really could discuss honestly and without too much insulting language our differences. I voted for the President twice, but I don't support every single thing he does (i.e., drones, Guantanamo, NDAA, etc.) I really wouldn't mind hashing things out if done in a respectful way, as best as can be managed.
That's what I would like to. I do truly believe the "underhanded", though, - so I won't rescind that. (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]I would love this place to be a place where honest discussion could be carried out. It hasn't been.
honest discussion - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I will believe you are interested in honest discussion when you can post without calling the president the "king".
I said I would, and I don't lie. It's really not important to me - whether you believe it or not. LM
[ In Reply To ..]nm
thank you for your honest reply -
[ In Reply To ..]
Wow. Okay. I agree he has no problem doing something - "underhanded," but in all my readings
[ In Reply To ..]I've never come on a single president or person in power who's been able to operate without "underhanded." Although I strongly believe government as a whole needs to be as transparent as possible, knowledge is power, and guarding it is an important part of handling power competently, as is misleading the opposition about what you really intend to do. Like a football player feinting right, then dashing left.
Now, if you mean illegal, that's also a term that shouldn't be tossed around casually. I'm also someone who strongly believes no one should be above the law, and it offends me greatly when people insist that a president they didn't vote for is breaking the law every time he turns around but make endless excuses for one they did vote for. This is something we need to take seriously, not just use to try to score worthless points in discussion.
I agree with the gist of what you say, but wouldn't something like "strategic" be - better than "underhanded"?
[ In Reply To ..]Or, scrupulously cunning, like a chess player or even a skilled football player, rather than something that implies he's Machiavellian? Which I rather hope the President I vote for is ... i.e., artfully (and scrupulously) cunning. He's dealing with some mighty unscrupulous people worldwide, so it may even be necessary to be an opportunist at times, at least to some degree.
Don't you think, especially for something this big (sm) - nm
[ In Reply To ..]- immigration - it should not be passed like the healthcare bill was. That was underhanded as far as I'm concerned. It affects everyone in the country and was passed unscrupulously, IMO. I have a problem with this. This President has done too much bypassing of Congress and most of the American people don't care. This scares me.
But congress had a chance to pass a similar - bill and chose not toNM
[ In Reply To ..]x
The way Congress is supposed to work, doesn't that - mean they need to debate it more? (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]OTOH, many did not want this passed, so why should they fold? That's not the way it is supposed to work.
Regarding "many did not want this passed" - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Are we talking about "many" congressmen or "many" people/citizens/voters.
Congressmen are charged with the duty of representing the people.
Obama's Dream Act EO was very popular amongst the people, proven by the vote.
If we are going to gauge Congress's effectiveness and functionality as it relates to their job description, then it really doesn't matter what "many" of them want. I think Obama grasps that concept.
As I think we are finding out now (sm) - nm
[ In Reply To ..]and as many of us suspected before, this healthcare is going to really cost us. Obama and the Democrats misrepresented it. As more and more comes out about it, we are finding out all the lies that were told. Even before that, though, many citizens did not want socialized medicine. I think people forget that someone has to pay. Nothing is free. My congressman, who is a democrat who loves Obama, would not even take phone calls regarding health care. I don't feel he represented us at all, though I agree they are supposed to.
Veering off track, but if you want to discuss the ACA... - mraker
[ In Reply To ..]I don't think they misrepresented it so much as it got watered-down and compromised to a somewhat pitiful state. I wanted single-payer and still do, or at least a decent public option, and am disappointed with what we ended up with, but this kinda yuck deal is better than nothing.
Don't really have time to discuss it today, but (sm) - LM
[ In Reply To ..]your post implied that it got watered down because of opposition. Obama claimed at the outset that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." He said he did not want single payer, (even though I think we both know that was a lie) because he was recorded saying that he did a few years back. So if it did get watered down, it was watered down at the start.
Single payer and keeping your doctor - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I don't think one has anything to do with the other, not from what I'm reading... unless you're referring to something else?
Single payer means one entity (the government) controlling the entire insurance process. Like Medicare.
And it was watered down, by both Reps and Democrats (Blue Dogs specifically), and then there was Dennis Kucinich who almost didn't vote for it because he didn't like the watered-down version, i.e., no single payer.
In my opinion not having the single payer defeats the whole purpose of reform. Health care should not be controlled by for-profit insurance companies.
Then after single-payer was killed, the public option was chopped, then the CO-OPs recently. - mraker
[ In Reply To ..]link
Then why did he ram it through in the dark of night? - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
*********** - nm
[ In Reply To ..]Never mind, wrong deadline. Not up on all the right-wing buzzwords and phrases.
TY for link - sm
[ In Reply To ..]What a mess.
Health Care shouldn't be controlled by the government, either - because they don't know how to do anything ri
[ In Reply To ..]They screw up every program they control and waste money. Look at Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP for a couple of mismanaged programs. Look at how they spent thousands of dollars on tools and equipment 100 times over the real cost (remember $700 hammers?)
Government is not a business and they have no business pretending they know what they're doing.
agree, particularly regarding single payer - tvc15
[ In Reply To ..]It reminds me of the adage: a camel is a horse created by committee.
bypassing of Congress - tvc15
[ In Reply To ..]I think the main problem here is that you don't really understand the legislative process. I think your interpretation of outcomes is influenced more by your feelings than by knowledge.
we only get to pick from your two choices? - color me outwitted
[ In Reply To ..]Similar Messages:
King Of The Blues -- B.B. King Has PassedMay 15, 2015
He will be missed. ...
Obama's ThreatsSep 14, 2011
Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn't getting his way on raising the debt ceiling? He threatened to not pay: Social Security Retirees, Military Retirees, Social Security disability and Federal Retirees. Now…Let this sink in really good - He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens He did not threaten to take frivolous benefits such as internet access away from violent inmates He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal ...
Reporting ThreatsJun 04, 2017
Here is the Secret Service's website to report death threats against the president. https://www.secretservice.gov/contact There is also this: "The U.S. Secret Service wants Twitter users to report threatening tweets against the president or other top officials." ...
Death Threats In The News - SmOct 20, 2009
Some very interesting comments at bottom. ...
Now American Idiots Are Getting In On The ThreatsSep 14, 2012
As usual, some so-called Americans think they're being funny calling in bomb threats to campuses and buildings. If and when they're caught, I hope they get the book thrown at them. No sensible reason for it. AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Thousands of people streamed off university campuses in Texas and North Dakota on Friday after phoned-in bomb threats prompted evacuations and officials warned students and faculty to get away as quickly as possible. No bombs were found on either campus ...
Death Threats Against The RomneysOct 17, 2012
Media Ignores Dozens of Post-Debate Death Threats Against Romney --by Nick Nolte Man alive, can you imagine the media reaction if in 2008 Obama was this close to winning the presidency and dozens of citizens made public death threats against him? Between the tweets collected at Twitchy and Info Wars, the Secret Service will have plenty to keep them busy for the next few weeks. But the media has shown no interest whatsoever in what is a legitimate story. The corrupt media's ignoring ...
Gee, I Hope No Death Threats Nov 07, 2012
God help us if Biden is president. Then maybe it will be Hillary. Hope Obama will be safe the next 4 years. Well, another successful presidential election accomplished with no rioting in the streets, or bloodshed. Thank God for America! Good Night fellow citizens, thanks for doing your duty and VOTING! ...
Threats To American LivesFeb 26, 2017
"Since 1975 terrorists born in the 7 nations in Trump's travel ban killed zero people in America. Over the past 4 decades guns have claimed 1.34 million American lives - about as many as in all wars in U.S. history." ...
You Tube Mantage Of Tweeted Threats AgainstJan 13, 2011
This is completely and utterly disgusting. I thought what was on DailyKos was bad, but that was child's play compared to this. At the bottom of the article is the link to the You Tube posting with all the hate speech, disgusting language what REAL violent rhetoric looks like. Now does anyone wonder why I liken them to Nazis? Just add "Jew" in the place of Palin's name or references to the right and you tell ME what it sounds like. If you wanted to do a video o ...
Man Twitters Death Threats To The PresSep 06, 2012
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/06/justice/obama-threat-arrest/index.html?eref=ib_technology What is wrong with people? Although I disagree with the president on many issues, I would never wish harm to come to him or his family. Some people are just nuts!!! ...
Colleges Reacted To Threats Of Change By GoingDec 14, 2012
" Now they are $205 billion in debt, with students and taxpayers facing the bill." [But to my mind, that's the least of it. They are NOT doing their job.] "A decade-long spending binge to build academic buildings, dormitories and recreational facilities — some of them inordinately lavish to attract students — has left colleges and universities saddled with large amounts of debt. Oftentimes, students are stuck picking up the bill. Overall debt levels more than doubled from ...
Don't Let The President's Threats Of Sequestration Scare YouFeb 21, 2013
I've looked at a few sources and the link I'm going to post spells it out better than anything else. The President has stated that health programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veteran's and other public employees will all be hurt, but I truly think he's just trying to scare people because according to the below link, I really don't think it will happen. Maybe he's talking about years later down the line, but I'm sure Congress will find a way to change ...
Putin In Control. Threats From The US Laughed At.Mar 01, 2014
Disgusting ...
Why Are The Russian Threats Of Nuclear War Receiving So LittleOct 14, 2016
It might be that Putin is bluffing, of course, but if so it would seem very foolish on his part if he had to back down - and I don't think he'd paint himself into that kind of a corner. He's not a fool. Even so, it still shouldn't be a back-page story IMHO, because this goes along with the polls showing that the Russian populace has been "educated" by their government to believe that the United States is their greatest enemy. We haven't had this kind of overt ...
Giffords Had Faced Threats And Vandalism Previously.Jan 08, 2011
It's important for all leaders ... to say, 'Look, we can't stand for this," Giffords told MSNBC last March, when a window in her Tucson office was smashed after Congress passed President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul. Giffords said she faced a deluge of threats for her support of the healthcare bill. "We've had hundreds and hundreds of protesters over the course of the last couple of months," Giffords told MSNBC. "Our office corner has really become ...
Tea Party And Conservatives Receiving Death ThreatsAug 26, 2010
One of Washington's principal supporters of the Tea Party movement, former GOP Majority Leader Dick Armey's FreedomWorks, has been receiving death threats and profanity-laced phone calls as it gets involved in the fall elections. The number and intensity have reached such heights that the organization is leaving its downtown location near the FBI and moving to a high-security building near the U.S. Capitol. "FreedomWorks and Dick Armey receive dozens of threatening and harassing ...
Threats To Student Over T-Shirt And Heckle Parents Oct 07, 2012
Threats for Romney T-Shirt Teen Students are angry a favorite teacher is being investigated By Shelley Laurence and Lu An Cahn | Friday, Oct 5, 2012 | Updated 5:59 PM EDT The family of a Philadelphia high school student says the teen is getting threats, after sparking a controversy with a political T-shirt. "The kids now, in that school are sending her threats on Facebook and they're texting her too. And these people used to be her fri ...
Death Threats On Romney By Liberals...disgusting...smOct 18, 2012
This is absolutely disgusting. ...
Mr. Metro Trying To Show His Manhood With Veto Threats. (sm)Jan 19, 2015
:)) Try again, Sonny. Link ...
All Bozo's Threats Of Veto - Poof. He Was Shamed - Apr 15, 2015
nm ...
Threats Prompt Lockdowns At 8 High Schools In Sep 17, 2015
Phoned in threats were received at eight schools within 15 minutes, officials said. Eight high schools in San Diego received threats Thursday, prompting lock downs at all eight schools facilities and an immediate response from San Diego and district police officers. nbcsandiego.com ... ...
Justice Department Investigates Death Threats Against SenatorsMar 10, 2011
Don't even try to tell me this is acceptable behavior or that the everyday people of Wisconsin support this. What I see are a lot of angry young white men with backpacks storming the public building and then being dragged out of the building by the police. These people are frightening. Since these aren't Erik Holder's "people," will he allow these threats to continue or we will see some arrests? Can you just imagine the outrage if these protesters had been part of the "rad ...
Man Accused Of Making Threats Against Jewish Community CentersMar 12, 2017
A man accused of making at least eight threats against Jewish community centers, Jewish schools, a Jewish museum and the Anti-Defamation League was arrested by the FBI in St. Louis, Missouri, this morning, though the man is not believed to be the main suspect behind this year's rash of bomb threats, two law enforcement officials told ABC News. Juan Thompson, 31, is accused of what federal prosecutors called a “campaign to harass and intimidate.” He’s charged in New York with cyber ...
Echoes Of Denmark? Tea Baggers Send Death Threats To CartoonistJan 09, 2010
By Daniel TencerFriday, January 8th, 2010 -- 2:23 pm An award-winning California-based political cartoonist says he is receiving death threats over a 90-second animated film he created that teaches viewers "how to speak Tea Bag." Mark Fiore compares his predicament to that of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, whose cartoon depicting the prophet Mohamed caused rioting across the Muslim world several years ago, and an attempt on his life last week. "Muslim extremist, meet Tea Party extremist. ...
Death Threats Lead To Newtown Church Evacuation During Mass.Dec 16, 2012
Grieving kids and parents witnessed another intimidating display of assault weapons en masse as law enforcement officers hastily evacuated 400 of them during a Sunday morning celebration of Mass, while social media abusers played out their various psychoses online. God help us all if any of these monsters get their hands on more weapons. ...
Electoral College Death Threats Won’t Be The Last Bid To Overturn The ElectionDec 16, 2016
The Electoral College is due to meet Monday, when the electors chosen on Nov. 8 will establish Donald Trump as the winner. Then Democrats’ efforts to steal the election will finally come to an end — right? Don’t bet on it. So bitter are American liberals that they may go down as the sorest losers since the invention of democracy. They’re apt to try anything to overturn voters’ decision. Certainly Election Day didn’t stop them, even though the Electoral College outcome was unamb ...
What I Am Wondering, Amid All Of The Brown Flack, ISIS Threats, Why Is No One Talking About Ebola?Aug 26, 2014
nm ...
King For A Aug 15, 2012
Can we try a little peaceful game? Let's just say you are King for a Day. No senate, house, etc. You are the one making the rules. What would you do to fix this country? I'd like to hear some ideas without mudslinging and name calling. If you don't like what someone would do, please share why you don't like it and what you would do without calling someone a name. Maybe some subjects like healthcare, employment, fixing the debt, immigration. I bet there are some really good id ...
ONE-EYED MAN IS KINGDec 12, 2009
I thought of this when I was reading a post from someone thinking of going out on her own and getting her own accounts. About 20 years ago, I had the great pleasure of attending a seminar where a great man, Mr. Jim Rohn, who recently passed away, was speaking. He was speaking to a group of business people who were starting their own business in the health and wellness industry. Anyway, one piece of advice that he gave was this: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man (or ...
Rep Peter KingApr 05, 2011
What the heck is happening in my country lately? Seriously, this is scary stuff. This is not a right/left thing. This should outrage ALL Americans. Bloody pig's foot sent to Rep. Peter King Authorities intercepted a parcel this morning addressed to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) containing a bloody pig's foot and a derogatory message, a source has confirmed to CBS News. The parcel was intercepted at the Congressional mail facility in Landover, Maryland, where mail sent to lawmakers is ...