FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: trucktina on December 17, 2011, 07:25:26 am
-
After the last two debates, I'm leaning towards Sen. Rick Santorum.
-
Mhmm! Aha! Ha! Ha!
Ron Paul. He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.
-
Mhmm! Aha! Ha! Ha!
Ron Paul. He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.
I don't think He's a nut. In fact I think he is a lot less crazy then all the other people running against him.
-
Ron Paul. He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.
I don't think He's a nut. In fact I think he is a lot less crazy then all the other people running against him.
Agreed. We have quite a crap-infested GOP lineup this time around.
We have candidates that say they're against gay rights and free thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA ,
Creationism should be taught in classrooms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html
And one's husband (who's probably gay) is running a facility that secretly offers "Gay Healing" USING YOUR TAX DOLLARS http://www.alternet.org/news/151592/michele_bachmann's_husband's_clinics_practiced_ex-gay_therapy_(while_pocketing_$161,000_of_your_tax_money)/
And Newt Gingrich. Do I really need to post a link for him?
We as americans have some pretty facepalm-inducing people up there on stage. During the debates, I do believe that Ron Paul is the only one with his head screwed on decently. I'm not a huge fan of him, but I have heard some of his ideas and I think they're the most rational (end the war asap, cut drastic fed spending across the board, etc.) up on the stage. And he gets a lot of irrational flak for them! It's ridiculous. I believe Paul vs. Obama would have some quite epic presidential debates and would be glued to my tv if he got the nomination just to see that go down.
-
Ron Paul. He's a nut, but has a couple decent ideas unlike the rest of the jokes running.
I don't think He's a nut. In fact I think he is a lot less crazy then all the other people running against him.
Agreed. We have quite a crap-infested GOP lineup this time around.
We have candidates that say they're against gay rights and free thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA ,
Creationism should be taught in classrooms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html
And one's husband (who's probably gay) is running a facility that secretly offers "Gay Healing" USING YOUR TAX DOLLARS http://www.alternet.org/news/151592/michele_bachmann's_husband's_clinics_practiced_ex-gay_therapy_(while_pocketing_$161,000_of_your_tax_money)/
And Newt Gingrich. Do I really need to post a link for him?
We as americans have some pretty facepalm-inducing people up there on stage. During the debates, I do believe that Ron Paul is the only one with his head screwed on decently. I'm not a huge fan of him, but I have heard some of his ideas and I think they're the most rational (end the war asap, cut drastic fed spending across the board, etc.) up on the stage. And he gets a lot of irrational flak for them! It's ridiculous. I believe Paul vs. Obama would have some quite epic presidential debates and would be glued to my tv if he got the nomination just to see that go down.
I hope you get your chance to see that happen. I am personally at the point of thinking of instead of electing individuals, we should just look at coorporations. They are the ones funding and running this country. So what corporation do you think will win? Well enough of politics, money, and individual candidates. FusionCash your self and have fun.
-
My major concern this election is in regards to the next president likely nominating 4 Supreme Court justices. That is the main reason that I fear Obama being reelected and have concerns over the election. If we get 4 crazy liberal justices it will most likely be the end of the nation. It wouldn't be a problem if liberals thought in a truly liberal fashion, but they do not, they are anti-thinkers and the most non-liberal people you are likely to encounter.
I will gladly take any of the republicans over Obama, and I hope that the rest of America has enough wisdom to see past their own prejudices to understand why that is important. Paul, even though I don't see him having a chance in hell, would likely be the best choice to point us in a direction of restoration, even if none of us liked what he did. The government is too large and has stolen too much power from us so we certainly need to elect people with the goal of reducing it and getting it out of our lives. Nearly every vulnerability and weakness we feel today can be attributed to the actions of an ever reaching and expanding federal government that has entangled itself into nearly every aspect of our lives.
People that like to live instead of being told how to live and people that like to think instead of being told how to think, need to wake up and realize exactly what is going on and take steps to correct it without fear of losing something other than their freedoms.
-
I want someone other than a lawyer
-
I hope you get your chance to see that happen. I am personally at the point of thinking of instead of electing individuals, we should just look at coorporations. They are the ones funding and running this country. So what corporation do you think will win? Well enough of politics, money, and individual candidates. FusionCash your self and have fun.
You too, man! And yeah, it's pretty much already at that point. It seems like something out of the movie "Idiocracy". I hope the politicians understand that's a major reason why the OWS protests are happening and stand up to show there's a major problem following lobbyists. It's sad to realize that if politicians don't have a few lobbyists riding on their backs, they pretty much don't have a chance at winning :(
-
I hope you get your chance to see that happen. I am personally at the point of thinking of instead of electing individuals, we should just look at coorporations. They are the ones funding and running this country. So what corporation do you think will win? Well enough of politics, money, and individual candidates. FusionCash your self and have fun.
You too, man! And yeah, it's pretty much already at that point. It seems like something out of the movie "Idiocracy". I hope the politicians understand that's a major reason why the OWS protests are happening and stand up to show there's a major problem following lobbyists. It's sad to realize that if politicians don't have a few lobbyists riding on their backs, they pretty much don't have a chance at winning :(
A simple solution to this problem would be smaller government.
This is also a perfect example of why OWS is absolutely wrong. The OWS solution is more regulation and larger government. If what you state about coorporations is true then the OWS solution could only make it worse. In effect you would be prescribing a treatment that has as a side effect the symptom you are attempting to treat in the first place and this is the definition of lunacy.
-
At this point, I don't know what to think. But I do think it is funny when the mud slinging starts. They dig up the most dark and dirty secrets. :BangHead: It makes me wonder if it is worth it.???
-
A simple solution to this problem would be smaller government.
Agreed, though I'm more of a proponent of trimming the fat and beefing up other areas if need be. Living near Chicago I'll say that I see a lot of fat that the fed and state should cut, but I really don't see OWS going "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING US IN EVERY ASPECT!"--that would be black and white thinking and I think OWS and the Teaparty movement are doing neither. I mainly see OWS attacking areas of the corrupted financial system in the country and how the fed gov has defended these bad practices-- it's obviously not working since everyone in the country is getting/has already gotten screwed over by it. Maybe ending the war and cutting a lot of "needless" fed aid and putting some effort into monitoring shady business practices would help trim the deficit down and keep people safe from banking traps.
I will gladly take any of the republicans over Obama
Ehh...I dunno...whenever I see candidates preaching anti-gay and creationist nonsense, they immediately lose all credibility because they obviously lack the logic skills to see what's wrong with their argument. That or they're just trying to grab the votes from the uneducated bible-belt voters (in which case they're putting an emphasis on deceit). It's like if we were discussing advanced algebra and I tell you 2+2= 7 or 5x5 = 137 and I refuse to change my answer, you're going to think that I probably shouldn't be teaching the class.
-
Agreed, though I'm more of a proponent of trimming the fat and beefing up other areas if need be. Living near Chicago I'll say that I see a lot of fat that the fed and state should cut, but I really don't see OWS going "WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING US IN EVERY ASPECT!"--that would be black and white thinking and I think OWS and the Teaparty movement are doing neither. I mainly see OWS attacking areas of the corrupted financial system in the country and how the fed gov has defended these bad practices-- it's obviously not working since everyone in the country is getting/has already gotten screwed over by it. Maybe ending the war and cutting a lot of "needless" fed aid and putting some effort into monitoring shady business practices would help trim the deficit down and keep people safe from banking traps.
I do see a lot of problems in Wall Street but I think much of it comes from peoples assumptions of what it is and that it is some sort of no risk guarantee. Wall Street is about risk and greed as that is primarily how it works. People should think of it more along the lines of giving their money to someone to take to a casino to gamble with than their apparent current impression that it is some safe and well regulated and low risk venture. OWS is attacking them for being what they are (that being greedy). OWS should be attacking the government for entangling itself within Wall Street and exposing our nation to direct risk instead of just those directly involved. OWS should be attacking the government for bailing out the foolishness of Wall Street. With OWS attacking Wall Street I cannot think of them as any more than a bunch of simple idiots with no comprehension of what is going on and simply having a desire to act afool. While I generally admire people stating what is on their mind and making an effort to accomplish their goals I cannot respect OWS as I think it is as wrong as can be imagined as to what the problem is.
Ehh...I dunno...whenever I see candidates preaching anti-gay and creationist nonsense, they immediately lose all credibility because they obviously lack the logic skills to see what's wrong with their argument. That or they're just trying to grab the votes from the uneducated bible-belt voters (in which case they're putting an emphasis on deceit). It's like if we were discussing advanced algebra and I tell you 2+2= 7 or 5x5 = 137 and I refuse to change my answer, you're going to think that I probably shouldn't be teaching the class.
I haven't seen any anti-gay preaching from the candidates and it seems to me that anymore if someone doesn't "put the gays in their mouth" that they are suddenly considered ant-gay. I am also amazed at the groups connected as those that are pro gay also tend to be evolutionists and spread the wealth types where an evolutionists should immediately recognize that gay does not fit within their model and that the 'spread the wealth' nonsense is also destructive to evolution. It baffles me as it seems to be more a collection of 'anti-s' than it is anything else. I don't think creationism should be taught in school either and I also don't think the Theory of Evolution should. Evolution requires more suspension of belief than creationism does. With creationism you need one "just agree with it" point, with evolution you need countless of these for every species and it always fascinates me how people wear their blinders regarding evolution and act like it actually has even one single answer instead of simply being the question it is. With all the virus mutation experiments we have done we have managed to accelerate beyond the entire history of nature and have yet to see any example of anything suggested by the evolution history. But I guess science doesn't need to be involved in evolution and all you need is a vivid imagination.
-
I do see a lot of problems in Wall Street but I think much of it comes from peoples assumptions of what it is and that it is some sort of no risk guarantee. Wall Street is about risk and greed as that is primarily how it works. People should think of it more along the lines of giving their money to someone to take to a casino to gamble with than their apparent current impression that it is some safe and well regulated and low risk venture.
Well what if those gamblers got drunk, threw your money away on the tables, and then got rich off of manipulating the system when the gov't came in to hand them more cash to make sure they stay on their feet while you walk away empty handed (and lose more due to the gov't stepping in)? To extend the example, I'd just like to see these gamblers take breathalizers before they enter the casino. I believe it's one area that should be well-monitored due to the irresponsible behavior already displayed in the past. It would still be a risky business, but having a smaller gov't pertaining to the financial district just seems like it would allow the same no-boundary situation that took place in 2008 which seems irresponsible to me.
OWS should be attacking the government for entangling itself within Wall Street and exposing our nation to direct risk instead of just those directly involved.
Agreed. Their focus should have been a duel priority imo- protesting WS and the Whitehouse. The last time I checked they are protesting both, but they should originally have been doing both. But lately I'm more concerned with the NDAA and SOPA passing so admittedly I've been missing out on any new info on the movement. Can you blame me? These bills scare the hell out of me.
I haven't seen any anti-gay preaching from the candidates and it seems to me that anymore if someone doesn't "put the gays in their mouth" that they are suddenly considered anti-gay.
I posted a video in an above post with Perry saying he has a major problem with homosexuals in the military (right after saying he's not ashamed to be christian...). When you openly disgrace the men and women of the military, are completely oblivious towards the separation of church and state, and practically promote inequality (via religion and sexual preference), you shouldn't be up on stage trying to be president.
. I don't think creationism should be taught in school either and I also don't think the Theory of Evolution should.
Now that I think of it, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools as long as it stays in mythological studies. Microevolution has humongous amounts of proofs and macorevolution has an ever-expanding fossil record to back the claims up. It is a practiced fact and scientific theory (parallel example being gravity or medicines), so it belongs in science classes. To say evolution is imaginary is literally saying biology is imaginary since evolution is the primary makeup of modern biology.
it always fascinates me how people wear their blinders regarding evolution and act like it actually has even one single answer instead of simply being the question it is.
I'm not sure what you mean here since science is about sharpening our understanding of the universe and it is always leaving the door open for new evidences and questions to be presented. More answers always lead to more questions in the scientific community and finding evidences of something being scientifically wrong is a good thing. Evolution still has major gaps, but that is by far not a reason to dismiss it.
-
Well what if those gamblers got drunk, threw your money away on the tables, and then got rich off of manipulating the system when the gov't came in to hand them more cash to make sure they stay on their feet while you walk away empty handed (and lose more due to the gov't stepping in)? To extend the example, I'd just like to see these gamblers take breathalizers before they enter the casino. I believe it's one area that should be well-monitored due to the irresponsible behavior already displayed in the past. It would still be a risky business, but having a smaller gov't pertaining to the financial district just seems like it would allow the same no-boundary situation that took place in 2008 which seems irresponsible to me.
That is why the government shouldn't have bailed them out. If everyone understood that there were no bail outs and that wall street took risks (often excessive and occasionally illegal), then people would keep a very close eye on their money. The best would rise and thrive and the worst would fall by the wayside and die. I would say that a considerable amount of the blame goes to people who invest their money and pay it no mind after that (except for how much they make). Those are as much the villains as anyone as they encourage the conduct by forgoing the most basics of personal responsibility.
Agreed. Their focus should have been a duel priority imo- protesting WS and the Whitehouse. The last time I checked they are protesting both, but they should originally have been doing both. But lately I'm more concerned with the NDAA and SOPA passing so admittedly I've been missing out on any new info on the movement. Can you blame me? These bills scare the hell out of me.
I absolutely agree, both of those scare the heck out of me and that they could even be proposed and that so many people are even as of now entirely unaware of them (and yet so eager to vote again in the next election) makes me wonder just how low the media has sunk.
I posted a video in an above post with Perry saying he has a major problem with homosexuals in the military (right after saying he's not ashamed to be christian...). When you openly disgrace the men and women of the military, are completely oblivious towards the separation of church and state, and practically promote inequality (via religion and sexual preference), you shouldn't be up on stage trying to be president.
I wouldn't call that anti-gay preaching but simple honesty on his part. His stating regarding his faith is entirely constitutional and in no way infringes upon this "separation of church and state" animal you speak of. Anyone who serves honorably in the military is counted among my heroes and their sexual orientation is not a factor as it has no business being discussed since the military has nothing at all to do with sex. Personally I consider homosexuality a bad thing and something that should be discouraged much along the lines of smoking, yet every day it is raised as if it were an issue signifying some quality that someone should want to have by people trying to justify their own guilt's against the undesirable traits of others. I suppose that makes me anti-gay and that makes me have to ask you then what is wrong with me having that position? It is certainly within my rights and a perfectly logical stance to take that does not suggest any bad qualities in me. In the above example of a gay soldier, the soldier would be a hero to me because he was a soldier and not because he was gay and the one quality does not transfer to the other or elevate it in any way. I don't care about his gayness and would prefer it to never be mentioned to me.
Now that I think of it, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools as long as it stays in mythological studies. Microevolution has humongous amounts of proofs and macorevolution has an ever-expanding fossil record to back the claims up. It is a practiced fact and scientific theory (parallel example being gravity or medicines), so it belongs in science classes. To say evolution is imaginary is literally saying biology is imaginary since evolution is the primary makeup of modern biology.
You sound like you are confusing adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is certainly proven and logical but there has never ever been even one single bit of evidence to indicate any evolution event ever occurring. Every single one of these fossil records that are suggested as hinting to support evolution also include a missing link on both sides -- Every Single One. People only seem to think about the often mentioned human 'missing link' and fail to realize that it is only one of many. For that to be so obvious yet so overlooked makes me adamant that the subject should not be taught in schools as it is being sold as a lie full of "pretend and ignore". To me it is smoke and mirrors and would be quite the same as showing the evolution of a nickle to a quarter by using a 'fossil' of a dime.
I'm not sure what you mean here since science is about sharpening our understanding of the universe and it is always leaving the door open for new evidences and questions to be presented. More answers always lead to more questions in the scientific community and finding evidences of something being scientifically wrong is a good thing. Evolution still has major gaps, but that is by far not a reason to dismiss it.
I was speaking along the lines of what I explained above but I didn't go into detail regarding it even though I should realize that most people don't see the problem I highlighted (although they should and it should be one of the first questions they ask when explained evolution but it isn't -- and I cannot understand why it doesn't immediately spawn red flags all around). I think scientific theory is quite sound and worthy of being introduced, but I barely can even qualify evolution as a theory and could never give it enough worth to be a viable subject to instruct in school (and you must admit that it is being taught more like fact than theory and with the worth of questions you proposed above that should offend you that the way it is presented does not invoke that worth and actually suppresses it).
-
None of them are sounding promising so far.
-
I think any candidate would be fine. I am quite happy with the array of Republican candidates. It's quite a group! Assures me that whoever they pick can't possibly win if people in this country are thinking with any modicum of logic and sense. I'm looking forward to seeing who they pick. It should be quite an interesting show.
-
That is why the government shouldn't have bailed them out. If everyone understood that there were no bail outs and that wall street took risks (often excessive and occasionally illegal), then people would keep a very close eye on their money. The best would rise and thrive and the worst would fall by the wayside and die. I would say that a considerable amount of the blame goes to people who invest their money and pay it no mind after that (except for how much they make). Those are as much the villains as anyone as they encourage the conduct by forgoing the most basics of personal responsibility.
I suppose our gov't just does not want another 1929 to happen and as a result they have spoiled WS to believe they are invincible. It seems either way it could have went would have economically devestated the US. I guess expecting mature decisions within all aspects of this is a pipe dream.
I absolutely agree, both of those scare the heck out of me and that they could even be proposed and that so many people are even as of now entirely unaware of them (and yet so eager to vote again in the next election) makes me wonder just how low the media has sunk.
Yeah. I'm warning everyone I can about it. It's really a red mark on any politician who supports either imo.
I wouldn't call that anti-gay preaching but simple honesty on his part. His stating regarding his faith is entirely constitutional and in no way infringes upon this "separation of church and state" animal you speak of.
Of course it's not a problem for him stating his faith-- it's what he attached it with in the video- specifically the anti-gay statement and false facts about how kids can't pray in school, openly celebrate christmas, or "Obama's war on religion". Seriously? Is he really that outright stupid? He either is or he's obviously pushing the theocratic agenda of an outdated fearmongering way of thinking. He's about 50 years too late to be pulling garbage like this and I'm very happy that the dislike bar is like 98% red. There are a lot of response videos the Perry vid that explain how not only is he muddling voters, but he's also muddling christian groups. Check them out if interested.
Personally I consider homosexuality a bad thing and something that should be discouraged much along the lines of smoking, yet every day it is raised as if it were an issue signifying some quality that someone should want to have by people trying to justify their own guilt's against the undesirable traits of others. I suppose that makes me anti-gay and that makes me have to ask you then what is wrong with me having that position?
You're allowed to have that position though it does not make any practical sense. I would not say homosexuality is on par with smoking as people are not sexually attracted to cigarettes-- you can't turn off sexual attraction.
It is certainly within my rights and a perfectly logical stance to take that does not suggest any bad qualities in me.
Except misinformation on the effects between say, a gay couple and the system as we know it-- for instance keeping a gay couple from marrying bans them from certain benefits such as tax exemptions, work/insurance/medical benefits, or power of attorney. Put yourself in that situation if you wanted to get married but couldn't and then something happened drastic happened to your partner. If the user Jordandog were here, she could explain it in depth of why the laws promote inequality. I wish I could find the post, but it was a real eye opener as she is in the medical field. Perhaps I broadened the spectrum here, but for the record- no I don't think you're a bad person! lol
In the above example of a gay soldier, the soldier would be a hero to me because he was a soldier and not because he was gay and the one quality does not transfer to the other or elevate it in any way. I don't care about his gayness and would prefer it to never be mentioned to me.
Exactly! A person's sexuality shouldn't matter-- it matters what that person did in life to benefit others. So why the hell would Perry even bring junk like that up in a political ad!? Gah!
Adaptation is certainly proven and logical but there has never ever been even one single bit of evidence to indicate any evolution event ever occurring.
This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html (recent genetic drift example)
There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.
(and you must admit that it is being taught more like fact than theory and with the worth of questions you proposed above that should offend you that the way it is presented does not invoke that worth and actually suppresses it).
Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.
-
I suppose our gov't just does not want another 1929 to happen and as a result they have spoiled WS to believe they are invincible. It seems either way it could have went would have economically devestated the US. I guess expecting mature decisions within all aspects of this is a pipe dream.
I would have rather we taken our lumps then instead of some now and even more than we would have taken initially, later. When we have set it all up to be even worse now while also suffering during the event it makes about as much sense to me as plugging a wound with a rusted, crusted, germ infected knife.
Yeah. I'm warning everyone I can about it. It's really a red mark on any politician who supports either imo.
Would you guess that even 10 percent of the population is aware of these?
Of course it's not a problem for him stating his faith-- it's what he attached it with in the video- specifically the anti-gay statement and false facts about how kids can't pray in school, openly celebrate christmas, or "Obama's war on religion". Seriously? Is he really that outright stupid? He either is or he's obviously pushing the theocratic agenda of an outdated fearmongering way of thinking. He's about 50 years too late to be pulling garbage like this and I'm very happy that the dislike bar is like 98% red. There are a lot of response videos the Perry vid that explain how not only is he muddling voters, but he's also muddling christian groups. Check them out if interested.
Part of that is true though. There are schools in the US where you cannot pray or openly celebrate Christmas (within the confines of your acts truly being considered 'free'). I wouldn't say Obama was waging a war on religion, but I would say he has a campaign against "Americanism" and American traditions and qualities. These traits do extend into religion but I don't put it as his primary focus point (although I believe he has contempt for religion just as he does for the constitution). I am not a big fan of Perry, although I consider him to be infinitely greater than Obama as I would likely also consider any other candidate -- be it Republican, independent, or Democratic). Regardless I see a much greater amount of fear mongering coming from the Democratic Party and from Obama on a daily basis.
You're allowed to have that position though it does not make any practical sense. I would not say homosexuality is on par with smoking as people are not sexually attracted to cigarettes-- you can't turn off sexual attraction.
I would be curious to see the chemical comparisons between the two, actually. Smoking certainly has the strongest desire force of the two, based on the combination of addiction qualities. Considering homosexuality would not be part of the propagation impulse it has to be more about domination than anything else (oh I know some might read this with great annoyance and I can imagine a chorus of nelly voices shouting hateful things my way -- but if you break it down to the science and logic the truth is somewhere within what I said with the only other possibilities being mental defects). Homosexuality is definitely more deadly to a species than smoking would be and yet it is actively encouraged here where smoking is openly (and likely rightfully) criticized.
Except misinformation on the effects between say, a gay couple and the system as we know it-- for instance keeping a gay couple from marrying bans them from certain benefits such as tax exemptions, work/insurance/medical benefits, or power of attorney. Put yourself in that situation if you wanted to get married but couldn't and then something happened drastic happened to your partner. If the user Jordandog were here, she could explain it in depth of why the laws promote inequality. I wish I could find the post, but it was a real eye opener as she is in the medical field. Perhaps I broadened the spectrum here, but for the record- no I don't think you're a bad person! lol
I cannot marry my truck either and that keeps me from having certain benefits such as tax exemptions, etc, also. If marriage is redefined to include things that are not marriage then it should also include everything someone wants to include to the point that everyone has these tax benefits and such things by default. The only things excluded are along the lines of family privileges and power of attorney and for them a legal document needs to be created allowing for such things. I don't have a problem with gays being provided a legal mechanism allowing for all the rights of marriage but it must be named something else instead of redefining what marriage is, because if they redefine it for them they are going to have to redefine it for me as they would certainly be discriminating against me in that event.
Exactly! A person's sexuality shouldn't matter-- it matters what that person did in life to benefit others. So why the hell would Perry even bring junk like that up in a political ad!? Gah!
Maybe he thinks he is playing to the audience. All politicians do this as Obama frequently demonstrates in every teleprompter read he makes it will always target the particular audience he has in front of him. I haven't tracked the targeted release area fro the ad so I cannot be more specific in my theory as to why, but it sounds like something I would be partially in agreement with just from the description you provide (although I always 'translate' what I hear said as I tend to consider almost all things greatly exaggerated).
This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html (recent genetic drift example)
There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.
While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out. Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other. As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.
Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.
I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on. Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).
-
This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html (recent genetic drift example)
There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.
While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution.
Are you a trained anthropolist, biologist, paleo-archeologist or just nay-saying?
There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.
Like what? can't be 'creationism' since that's even more speculative than the theory of evolution.
Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other. As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.
The fossil records are incomplete. Verifiable evidence of 'creationism' is nonexistent.
Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.
I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on. Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).
If we are to teach only what we know for a fact, let us remove all speculation to do with 'creationism' on that basis as well.
-
This statement is an oxymoron since adaptation is a form of microevolution which is evolution by definition. And there is plenty of evidence for evolutionary events occuring. Micro (natural selection/adaptation/genetic drift/mutation) and macro(transitional fossils/ microev. through enormous time periods).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html (recent genetic drift example)
There is also proof today that these events occurred through well-documented atavisms-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Most anti-evolutions claim the whole "missing link" argument destroys evolution. The problem with this is that they expect a fully completed fossil record-- an irrational basis. Unless you get every organism to ever live that left an intact fossil, this isn't going to happen. But the fact that there exists many (either highly or loosely incomplete records) of these transitional fossils that do show radical changes, it's hard to say it's not true. It's overwhelmingly accepted in all scientific circles, so it should be taught in science classes.
While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution.
Are you a trained anthropolist, biologist, paleo-archeologist or just nay-saying?
There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.
Like what? can't be 'creationism' since that's even more speculative than the theory of evolution.
Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other. As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.
The fossil records are incomplete. Verifiable evidence of 'creationism' is nonexistent.
Unless evidences can present themselves that contradict every evolutionary find completely, there's no reason to take it out of classrooms. And like I stated before-- if there was a truckload of rational proofs that contradicted evolutionary finds, that'd be a tremendously good day for the scientific community.
I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on. Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).
If we are to teach only what we know for a fact, let us remove all speculation to do with 'creationism' on that basis as well.
Let me review what valuable bit of wisdom you added to this discussion...hmm..wait..oh maybe that's it...nope...not a damned thing.
-
Let me review what valuable bit of wisdom you added to this discussion...hmm..wait..oh maybe that's it...nope...not a damned thing.
If so, your reading & comprehension abilities are in question. What was added was the notion that speculative opinions lacking any evidence whatsover, (such as 'creationism'), should be omitted from any school's curriculum. On the other hand, your specious sarchasm added zilch to the discussion.
-
Let me review what valuable bit of wisdom you added to this discussion...hmm..wait..oh maybe that's it...nope...not a damned thing.
If so, your reading & comprehension abilities are in question. What was added was the notion that speculative opinions lacking any evidence whatsover, (such as 'creationism'), should be omitted from any school's curriculum. On the other hand, your specious sarchasm added zilch to the discussion.
My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable, it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard. You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation. Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) into your reply to me where my argument didn't even utilize 'creationism') has seemingly blinded you to clarity and reason. You might want to get that checked out. What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation. As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.
-
My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable ...
Your claim remains unsubstantiated by evidence in this instance.
it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard. You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation.
Actually, were your comprehension abilities at more than a minimal level, you would have discerned that I did not, in fact, impute that particular alternative to the theory of evolution to you. What I did was to suggest that the entirely speculative 'opinion' of creationism lacks any evidentiary basis and does not need to be included in any school's curriculum. You'd realize this if you did comprehend what was written instead of taking it as an opportunity for a smarmy 'flame'. Parenthentically, lest you consider my response to your smarmy flame as a smarmy flame, both perceptions are largely a matter of perspective.
Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) ...
The suggestion of "hatred" is speculative on your part. Although I find it ironic that those who support 'creationism' are singularly unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim, this cannot logically be conflated with "hatred".
What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.
In other words, when asked what other alternative theories to evolution were extant, (when you wrote vaguely that there were and failed to specify what those alternatives were), one baseless alternative was suggested, ('creationism'), and this was characterized as "ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation". Not only that, a false accusation, ("ceaseless", "obfuscation"; supported by zero evidence but, ironically having an extensive basis of posted evidence coming from you - odd, that).
As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.
Now you're speculating about what I do or do not consider to be "grandiose"? I'll consider your hypocrisy as a winter solstice gift; thanks.
-
My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable ...
Your claim remains unsubstantiated by evidence in this instance.
it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard. You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation.
Actually, were your comprehension abilities at more than a minimal level, you would have discerned that I did not, in fact, impute that particular alternative to the theory of evolution to you. What I did was to suggest that the entirely speculative 'opinion' of creationism lacks any evidentiary basis and does not need to be included in any school's curriculum. You'd realize this if you did comprehend what was written instead of taking it as an opportunity for a smarmy 'flame'. Parenthentically, lest you consider my response to your smarmy flame as a smarmy flame, both perceptions are largely a matter of perspective.
Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) ...
The suggestion of "hatred" is speculative on your part. Although I find it ironic that those who support 'creationism' are singularly unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim, this cannot logically be conflated with "hatred".
What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.
In other words, when asked what other alternative theories to evolution were extant, (when you wrote vaguely that there were and failed to specify what those alternatives were), one baseless alternative was suggested, ('creationism'), and this was characterized as "ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation". Not only that, a false accusation, ("ceaseless", "obfuscation"; supported by zero evidence but, ironically having an extensive basis of posted evidence coming from you - odd, that).
As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.
Now you're speculating about what I do or do not consider to be "grandiose"? I'll consider your hypocrisy as a winter solstice gift; thanks.
-
My reading and comprehension skills are as more than capable ...
Your claim remains unsubstantiated by evidence in this instance.
Hey that made me laugh (not in an arrogant 'you are so mistaken' sort of way, but in a 'hey that was pretty funny actually' sort of way).
it is yours that appear to be questionable -- at least in this regard. You were in fact speculating that I was speculating on a topic that is entirely built up on speculation.
Actually, were your comprehension abilities at more than a minimal level, you would have discerned that I did not, in fact, impute that particular alternative to the theory of evolution to you. What I did was to suggest that the entirely speculative 'opinion' of creationism lacks any evidentiary basis and does not need to be included in any school's curriculum. You'd realize this if you did comprehend what was written instead of taking it as an opportunity for a smarmy 'flame'. Parenthentically, lest you consider my response to your smarmy flame as a smarmy flame, both perceptions are largely a matter of perspective.
Well in this particular instance if you will examine the quote you initially replied to ("There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.") in its context you would realize it was in regards to the articles linked by Falconer02. I don't know if you had the opportunity to read them, but within the context of my paragraph and its point as a reply to a quote from Falconer02 it becomes quite obvious. There was no 'creationism' mentioned or even required in my reply as the source itself leaves enough room for doubt with its use of such shaky words as "it appears", and then trying to use the ideas built upon by such language as a rebuttal to challenges. Since they are not even positive to use any stronger language than "it appears" one cannot really take them all that seriously and must only approach the points they raise with curiosity and a measure of skepticism and not believability enough to use them as facts. Until they can muster up more proof than the casual observation suggested by "it appears", I will not even indicate the many alternatives to the case I was able to formulate during the brief amount of time it took to read. To make this clear this is a discussion of an example in support of evolution that was presented by Falconer02 and it doesn't even have anything to do with 'creationism' as it is presented in support of evolution and not as opposition to 'creationism'. Creationism never entered into my reasoning on this and it was not needed as lack of evidence for the position was indicated from the pro evolution article, and many people reading it would immediately see the conclusions that were jumped to without first dismissing the other possibilities for the scenario.
I had to look up that word 'smarmy'. I like that word and will add it to my vocabulary. You thought I was being smarmy? I didn't intend it that way I was aiming more for a friendly/jesting form of haughty.
Your hatred of ideas that you don't agree with (made obvious by your multiple injections of the word 'creationism' (as it it were some sort of a poisoned dagger) ...
The suggestion of "hatred" is speculative on your part. Although I find it ironic that those who support 'creationism' are singularly unable to produce any evidence to substantiate their claim, this cannot logically be conflated with "hatred".
I will agree that it is speculation on my part. It does, though, seem that you are wielding your words as a weapon and trying to beat me over the head with it in some most demeaning fashion. I wasn't even discussing creationism yet you assailed me with the word three times and your implied disdain for creationism is obviously apparent to anyone who reads your words. What am I to make of it then? Surely you must concede that it is a bit odd for you to be trying to put me on the defensive of a topic that isn't even in my discussion?
What I did was try to end your trifling attempt at yet another of your ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation.
In other words, when asked what other alternative theories to evolution were extant, (when you wrote vaguely that there were and failed to specify what those alternatives were), one baseless alternative was suggested, ('creationism'), and this was characterized as "ceaseless attempts at distraction and obfuscation". Not only that, a false accusation, ("ceaseless", "obfuscation"; supported by zero evidence but, ironically having an extensive basis of posted evidence coming from you - odd, that).
I didn't read you asking that at all. You did skim some of the context then if that is what you think you asked and it is no wonder there is confusion. Being true to context it would be more precise to say you were asking me to show some alternate explanations for the observations in the salamanders indicated under the ring species articles (to use one case as an example). I indicated above why I don't feel it is necessary to do this. Your presentation here is enough to show obfuscation and distraction, even though it was the result of your failure in comprehension of the subject matter being discussed. So, for your satisfaction, I will entire your entire post I am replying to as evidence of the charge of obfuscation and distraction since it has not a thing to do with the reply I made to Falconer02 and only serves to draw away from that discussion.
As typical of you, though, you seem to imagine your written drivel to be so grandiose as if it is some gift you present to us -- one you are exceedingly generous in bestowing I might add.
Now you're speculating about what I do or do not consider to be "grandiose"? I'll consider your hypocrisy as a winter solstice gift; thanks.
Well you have passion that comes through in your words. You have certain patterns as well, that one can sense you gain a bit of delight in performing. This is not a fault, it is a trait of writing and oft found in those that enjoy putting down their words. It is a quality that both of us must posses to some degree to sustain the depth of back and forth that we, on occasion, reach or over reach. I wouldn't imagine that either of us would put much effort into something that we didn't enjoy, and to extend (via adversarial empathy) a part of my justification, I can only assume it holds true to you as well.
-
Do you folks hijack everyone's thread like this, or is it just mine? All I asked is who people think should win. LOL
-
Well in this particular instance if you will examine the quote you initially replied to ("There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.") in its context you would realize it was in regards to the articles linked by Falconer02. I don't know if you had the opportunity to read them, but within the context of my paragraph and its point as a reply to a quote from Falconer02 it becomes quite obvious. There was no 'creationism' mentioned or even required in my reply as the source itself leaves enough room for doubt with its use of such shaky words as "it appears", and then trying to use the ideas built upon by such language as a rebuttal to challenges.
As it happens, I did skim through the articles linked by Falconeer and am aware of the context contained in them. The reason that 'creationism' was interjected was not because you'd overtly raised that as an alternative to evolution but, because you didn't specify any of the "many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out", (whether these are nominally within the context of evolution or, the meta-context of 'how did all those critters get here?'). The inherent implication of your casting doubt upon theories of evolution was that there were other theories which account for species development. While it is true that I was anticipating 'creationism' as one of those theories, this was due partly to your failure to specify and partly to your previously established general stance on such matters.
Since they are not even positive to use any stronger language than "it appears" one cannot really take them all that seriously and must only approach the points they raise with curiosity and a measure of skepticism and not believability enough to use them as facts.
So you're essentially doubting some paleo-biological interpretations of fossil remains? Like dinosaur fossils showing feathers on a reptilian beastie or, what?
Until they can muster up more proof than the casual observation suggested by "it appears", I will not even indicate the many alternatives to the case I was able to formulate during the brief amount of time it took to read.
There's a bit more support for it than "casual observation" however, if Falconeer wishes to present examples of these, he no doubt can.
To make this clear this is a discussion of an example in support of evolution that was presented by Falconer02 and it doesn't even have anything to do with 'creationism' as it is presented in support of evolution and not as opposition to 'creationism'. Creationism never entered into my reasoning on this and it was not needed as lack of evidence for the position was indicated from the pro evolution article, and many people reading it would immediately see the conclusions that were jumped to without first dismissing the other possibilities for the scenario.
The discussion did not indicate a lack of evidence to support theories of evolution; it indicated your doubt concerning the interpretation of fossil and other records/biological processes. The only alternative to theories of evolution which completely lacks supportive evidence is 'creationism'; which was the reason I raised the matter, (instead of implying that you did).
I will agree that it is speculation on my part. It does, though, seem that you are wielding your words as a weapon and trying to beat me over the head with it in some most demeaning fashion. I wasn't even discussing creationism yet you assailed me with the word three times and your implied disdain for creationism is obviously apparent to anyone who reads your words. What am I to make of it then? Surely you must concede that it is a bit odd for you to be trying to put me on the defensive of a topic that isn't even in my discussion?
As indicated, the interjection of 'creationism' was made because it is an inherent aspect of xtian opposition to theories of evolution. If you can show disdain for theories of evolution surely others can show a similar disregard for alternatives which completely lack any evidentiary support.
I didn't read you asking that at all.
Quote from: Abrupt on 24-12-2011, 21:46:11:
There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out.
response from: falcon9 on 24-12-2011:
Like what? Can't be 'creationism' since that's even more speculative than the theory of evolution.
You did skim some of the context then if that is what you think you asked and it is no wonder there is confusion. Being true to context it would be more precise to say you were asking me to show some alternate explanations for the observations in the salamanders indicated under the ring species articles (to use one case as an example). I indicated above why I don't feel it is necessary to do this.
Indicating why you felt it was unnecessary to show alternate explanations is not the same thing as offering them after directly stating that, (unspecified), alternate explanations are extant. This being the case, I'd asked if you were a trained paleo-biologist or, had some reasoned basis for asserting that, (unspecified), alternative explanations exist.
Your presentation here is enough to show obfuscation and distraction, even though it was the result of your failure in comprehension of the subject matter being discussed.
None of your characterizations are accurate; my interjection of 'creationism' was as an inherent opposition by religious believers to evolution and not as an obfucatory distraction. If you are suggesting, (by implication), that 'creationism' has nothing to say in opposition to theories of evolution, then I agree. What I do comprehend is that, without some theory of evolution, the inherent default position is that species were 'created' as they now are and it was this position that I objected to, (expanding the overt context to the meta-context of discussion).
-
Do you folks hijack everyone's thread like this, or is it just mine? All I asked is who people think should win. LOL
Not always. Your thread still exists however, it experienced 'subject-drift' - a relatively common phenomenon during discussions, (which is why the thread title was altered to read "Re: Who do you think should win the specious species nomination?"). It's just a subthread, although the OP could have started a new thread, they may have gotten caught up in the 'pagentry' of it all.
-
I would have rather we taken our lumps then instead of some now and even more than we would have taken initially, later. When we have set it all up to be even worse now while also suffering during the event it makes about as much sense to me as plugging a wound with a rusted, crusted, germ infected knife.
HA! I like this. Though I see it as more of a balloon that needs to be deflated by a group that has the ability to put 'deflation laws' into the mix rather than immediately pop it which would startle everyone that's already suffering from shell-shock.
Would you guess that even 10 percent of the population is aware of these?
I'm not surprised. :(
Part of that is true though. There are schools in the US where you cannot pray or openly celebrate Christmas (within the confines of your acts truly being considered 'free').
My best guess is those were probably private schools. I looked this up and couldn't find anything saying people couldn't pray in public schools. If there are stories, I'm sure they have to do with noise levels or the methods they were doing it (maybe trying to lead others unwillingly or something). And as far as celebrating xmas goes, it's probably the same story. Though I will say there are religions that are against celebrating xmas and I'd wager they are the ones causing this "scare". For instance my brother works at a middle school and one of the students was a Jehovah's Witness. The parents came into the students class after school one day and asked if the entire class wouldn't celebrate xmas because it left their kid feeling out and xmas was wrong by "godly standards". Of course the teacher declined doing so as it's completely illogical. Heck, I'm an freethinker and I know xmas does not have christian roots, but I don't mind people praying publically at all and I love xmas! The majority of americans do too, and I don't see that changing. Getting back to Perry though-- he's just using old and irrational scare tactics on what's probably the older generation.
Regardless I see a much greater amount of fear mongering coming from the Democratic Party and from Obama on a daily basis.
Sounds like election time is right around the corner. Personally I see more mud-slinging from dems than fearmongering, though both can be mixed quite easily.
I would be curious to see the chemical comparisons between the two, actually. Smoking certainly has the strongest desire force of the two, based on the combination of addiction qualities. Considering homosexuality would not be part of the propagation impulse it has to be more about domination than anything else (oh I know some might read this with great annoyance and I can imagine a chorus of nelly voices shouting hateful things my way -- but if you break it down to the science and logic the truth is somewhere within what I said with the only other possibilities being mental defects). Homosexuality is definitely more deadly to a species than smoking would be and yet it is actively encouraged here where smoking is openly (and likely rightfully) criticized.
Both are well-known for being criticized and there are studies that show homosexuality can be dangerous to the persons involved (though heteros engage in similar dangerous things too...). Homosexuality is also very abnormal behavior seen all throughout nature too. But the major point we're forgetting is these people are fully-grown adults that are more than capable of making decisions based upon what they want out of life. If they want to be together, who cares? If you want to smoke, who cares? It's their life. Not yours or mine.
I cannot marry my truck either and that keeps me from having certain benefits such as tax exemptions, etc, also. If marriage is redefined to include things that are not marriage then it should also include everything someone wants to include to the point that everyone has these tax benefits and such things by default. The only things excluded are along the lines of family privileges and power of attorney and for them a legal document needs to be created allowing for such things.
Why would you marry your truck? This isn't Japan! "Sentience" is the major word here-- 2 sentient beings both agreeing to something. Gay marriage really isn't a big deal though according to the statistics-- nothing would majorly change and within a few years gay marriage would be even a smaller minority then it would be if it were fully-legalized (if the statistics stay parallel to other countires who have legalized it such as the Netherlands- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands ). It would just be 2 sentient beings being wed. Nothing more. There's no reason to create a work-around system and treat people like second-class citizens.
I don't have a problem with gays being provided a legal mechanism allowing for all the rights of marriage but it must be named something else instead of redefining what marriage is, because if they redefine it for them they are going to have to redefine it for me as they would certainly be discriminating against me in that event
"I don't have a problem with blacks being provided a legal mechanism allowing for all the rights of voting but it must be named something else instead of redefining what voting is, because if they redefine it to include them they are going to have to redefine it for me as they would certainly be discriminating against me in that event."
While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out. Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other. As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.
It would only be shooting blindly if they didn't have the millions of fossils/extinct creatures that show slowly-developing features to peruse. Remember-- millions of scientists around the world have studied these aspects and it's overwhelmingly accepted. Since neither of us are in the field of biology (unless my assumption is incorrect), I would have to say that you are nay-saying because you haven't suggested any reason to banish the most important aspect in biology class, haven't stated any examples refuting these claims, and haven't suggested any decent alternatives as to why there are transitional fossils, atavisms, etc.
I would take it out simply because it is a waste of time to focus on. Teach what we know and what is useful and leave the speculation sciences to areas of physics (such as higless vs higgs models and such).
You think teaching people of pesticide resistance in bugs is a waste of time? That's another perfect example of evolution. Genetic variation in bugs scares the hell outta me and the effect it's having in other countries is quite staggering.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/1/l_101_02.html
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Pesticide_resistance.asp
Damn you, evolution! Daaammmnnnn yyyyooouuu!!!
Anyway, take your time getting back to me if you wish. I'll try to respond to the posts below yours later. HOPE YOU ALL HAD A MERRY CHRISTMAS!
-
[quote from: Abrupt]:
While the species mutations are interesting, they do not indicate anything that I would classify as evolution. There are many other explanations for the observations that are even more viable and cannot be ruled out. Since they have recently realized that they have misidentified/misclassified many fossils and created categories of species that were in fact juveniles/adults of other species (they have recently began to remove some entire species from the fossil records), I don't have a lot of faith in the speculations they make about the relationships of one to the other. As much as they know, it is still a lot of shooting blindly.
It would only be shooting blindly if they didn't have the millions of fossils/extinct creatures that show slowly-developing features to peruse. Remember-- millions of scientists around the world have studied these aspects and it's overwhelmingly accepted. Since neither of us are in the field of biology (unless my assumption is incorrect), I would have to say that you are nay-saying because you haven't suggested any reason to banish the most important aspect in biology class, haven't stated any examples refuting these claims, and haven't suggested any decent alternatives as to why there are transitional fossils, atavisms, etc.
I concur with the excellent points you raise; which is why it was inferred that an unspecified alternate theory was being tacitly implied.
-
Ron Paul We need real change and this is the only person who can set things right for this country!
-
Only Mitt Romney or Newt could beat Obama in the general election. Neither of them will get the nomination because they don't [removed by admin] enough.
[admin note: take it easy on the slurs]
-
Nominate Warren Buffet as a write-in.
-
Only Mitt Romney or Newt could beat Obama in the general election. Neither of them will get the nomination because they don't [removed by admin] enough.
[admin note: take it easy on the slurs]
I did laugh at the original message though. And I'd wager that the candidates have/had called homosexuals 'you-know-what' off camera (past or present) considering the majority have these shadowy/illogical anti-gay contentions (Perry above all). I'll go by my old opinion and say if they don't like homosexuals but don't like lesbians, they're probably in-the-closet themselves.
-
Someone who has the ability to lead, commands the respect of people, and is worthy of it.
Is trustworthy, stick to his convictions and will get the job done regardless of ratings or popularity.
Sooooo no one alive today.
Bring back George.
The good one, Washington.
-
Who is the Vice President Nominee for Gangich
-
I think Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination. If he does, the election will be close and interesting to say the least.
-
Who is the Vice President Nominee for Gangich
No one picks a VP until the convention next summer, when the party's nominee picks him/her. The first actual "vote" will be on Tuesday, when Iowa holds its caucuses. Hope this helps! :)
-
I think Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination. If he does, the election will be close and interesting to say the least.
I disagree. What makes you say he'll win?
-
I think it really doesn't matter. There is a commonality among all of them. I feel like I am watching the clown cars at the circus.
-
wow this site is fun could spend hours on it,oh yeah romney he is fine to look at
-
Ron Paul is the only man in either party who truly understands the problems we face and can set us on the right track. If we had been listening to him for the past 30 years, things might not suck so bad now. As it stands today, our gov't has no budget, has to keep running by special funding bills every couple of months and now we're talking about bombing Iran because we "think they might be making a nuke". It's pure madness. This election is simple if you want WW3 elect anyone buy Paul, if you want peace and prosperity no one but Paul.
-
Out of all of them I personally liked Huntsman, but he doesn't stand a chance.
With the latest set, while I have troubles with a number of Ron Paul's positions, if I had to choose I'd choose him. A lot of his positions that I disagree with are a very small concern when held up against the points I do agree with him on.
-
:BangHead:Ron Paul should get the nomination, but the candidates who make sense are "assassinated" by their own kind and by the media. I believe mitt Romney will easily get the nomination.
-
No one. All of the candidates are terrible :BangHead:
-
All of the Republican candidates stink... but they all look like George Washington compared to the current clown in the WH.
-
I think Ron Paul should win the Nomination. He is focused on our freedoms and getting the budget fixed. He wants small government, which is what many Americans want to see. If your tired of the banker bail outs and the lack of concern for the direction the country is going towards, vote Ron Paul. IF you want more of the same vote for anyone else. Simple.
-
All of the Republican candidates stink... but they all look like George Washington compared to the current clown in the WH.
What did he do that was so bad? Kill Osama Bin Laden? Save the American Car Industry? Try tirelessly to provide basic needs such as healthcare for everyone? Make consistent dents in the unemployment rate? Which of those make him a "clown"?
-
All of the Republican candidates stink... but they all look like George Washington compared to the current clown in the WH.
What did he do that was so bad? Kill Osama Bin Laden? Save the American Car Industry? Try tirelessly to provide basic needs such as healthcare for everyone? Make consistent dents in the unemployment rate? Which of those make him a "clown"?
Aside from continue to tank the economy... I'll respomd to your silly list.
1. Obama didn't kill OBL... the military did.
2. He saved the Autoworkers Union, not the US car industry. The US car industry could have recovered without taxpayer 'help'. Ford didn't take a bailout and is doing better than GM.
3. Everoyone had basic healthcare before ObamaCare. Now we are being forced to buy health insurance. See the difference? Not to mention it is totally unconstitutional for the government to force a citizen to buy something as a condition of being alive.
4. Dents? The unemployment rate has been higher is every single quarter, even with the WH fudged numbers than it was in any quarter under Bush, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan.
I won't even mention the bloocking of new energy exploration, squandering billions on non-existent 'green jobs', the disastrous stimulis package, the division of Americans as a campaign strategy, multi million dollar vacations, dozens of rounds of golf, non-recess recess appointments, avowed Marxists in his cabinet and appointed as czars, a massive addition to the national debt, 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits, an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc...
Yes, he is a sad and dangerous clown.
-
I dont think any of the candidates Dem. or Rep. are worth their their weight in salt. I Think someone needs to STANDUP for this country that is REALLY for this country or we could be in real trouble. :crybaby2:
-
Aside from continue to tank the economy... I'll respomd to your silly list.
1. Obama didn't kill OBL... the military did.
2. He saved the Autoworkers Union, not the US car industry. The US car industry could have recovered without taxpayer 'help'. Ford didn't take a bailout and is doing better than GM.
3. Everoyone had basic healthcare before ObamaCare. Now we are being forced to buy health insurance. See the difference? Not to mention it is totally unconstitutional for the government to force a citizen to buy something as a condition of being alive.
4. Dents? The unemployment rate has been higher is every single quarter, even with the WH fudged numbers than it was in any quarter under Bush, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan.
I won't even mention the bloocking of new energy exploration, squandering billions on non-existent 'green jobs', the disastrous stimulis package, the division of Americans as a campaign strategy, multi million dollar vacations, dozens of rounds of golf, non-recess recess appointments, avowed Marxists in his cabinet and appointed as czars, a massive addition to the national debt, 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits, an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc...
Yes, he is a sad and dangerous clown.
1.Ummm the Military didn't DECIDE to put down OBL, that was our commander in chief's call.
2. Ford DID take a bailout. So, number two simply isn't true.
3. Rush Limbaugh's talking points? We are forced to own automobile insurance to drive cars, forced to immunize children to go to school.
4. Just not true.
- Blocking new energy exploration... spin talk for "drilling for oil"
- The stimulus package has yet to be proven "disasterous"
- Multi-million dollar vacations are not exclusive to this President or any public figure.
- Non recess appointment are not uncommon. He has I believe 50 less than Ronald Regan did in his first term.
- "an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc..." It is NOT illegal no matter what Rush tells you.
Drink the kool Aid man. I don't see how a republican in the oval office benefits you unless you are a millionaire with substantial capital gains income. And if that is the case... why are you clicking for pennies on fusion cash?
-
Aside from continue to tank the economy... I'll respomd to your silly list.
1. Obama didn't kill OBL... the military did.
2. He saved the Autoworkers Union, not the US car industry. The US car industry could have recovered without taxpayer 'help'. Ford didn't take a bailout and is doing better than GM.
3. Everoyone had basic healthcare before ObamaCare. Now we are being forced to buy health insurance. See the difference? Not to mention it is totally unconstitutional for the government to force a citizen to buy something as a condition of being alive.
4. Dents? The unemployment rate has been higher is every single quarter, even with the WH fudged numbers than it was in any quarter under Bush, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan.
I won't even mention the bloocking of new energy exploration, squandering billions on non-existent 'green jobs', the disastrous stimulis package, the division of Americans as a campaign strategy, multi million dollar vacations, dozens of rounds of golf, non-recess recess appointments, avowed Marxists in his cabinet and appointed as czars, a massive addition to the national debt, 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits, an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc...
Yes, he is a sad and dangerous clown.
1.Ummm the Military didn't DECIDE to put down OBL, that was our commander in chief's call.
2. Ford DID take a bailout. So, number two simply isn't true.
3. Rush Limbaugh's talking points? We are forced to own automobile insurance to drive cars, forced to immunize children to go to school.
4. Just not true.
- Blocking new energy exploration... spin talk for "drilling for oil"
- The stimulus package has yet to be proven "disasterous"
- Multi-million dollar vacations are not exclusive to this President or any public figure.
- Non recess appointment are not uncommon. He has I believe 50 less than Ronald Regan did in his first term.
- "an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc..." It is NOT illegal no matter what Rush tells you.
Drink the kool Aid man. I don't see how a republican in the oval office benefits you unless you are a millionaire with substantial capital gains income. And if that is the case... why are you clicking for pennies on fusion cash?
Ford did not take a bail out. Produce your evidence or quit lying. The did take advantage of a 2009 DoE campaign designed to get automobile manufactures to update operations to provide more fuel efficient automobiles. All of the money they received for this they have repaid with considerable interest. This was not a bail out of any sorts though it was a campaign to motivate manufacturers to comply on an earlier schedule to the fuel economy standards. I didn't like this campaign either as it isn't any of the governments business but I can understand why a company would take advantage of it especially when its competitors were doing such.
We are not forced to buy automobile insurance by the federal government. We are not even forced to buy automobile insurance by the states and they do have authority over that area too where as the federal government has no authority over health or automobile insurance. States each have their own laws regarding automobile insurance while operating a vehicle within their borders. I am not aware of any federally enforced immunizations but I know states have these laws and they vary state to state. It is within the states authority to do this while attending public schools, but it is not a power possessed by the federal government.
Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above. Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic. I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position. I will bend my knee to no man.
I don't understand people like you that want to be "ruled over". How could you so voluntarily desire to give up your freedom? You consume whatever they suggest and you agree to whatever they propose without any indication of possessing a will of your own. They shackle you and any progeny you might have and you seem delighted at the prospect of being a slave. Such foolishness isn't even displayed by the most apathetic people I have have ever encountered and so I can only assume you are either brainwashed, beguiled, an enemy of The Republic and The Constitution, or possessing some mental defect(s) that prevent you from possessing willpower, reason, and clarity of thought.
-
All of the Republican candidates stink... but they all look like George Washington compared to the current clown in the WH.
What did he do that was so bad? Kill Osama Bin Laden? Save the American Car Industry? Try tirelessly to provide basic needs such as healthcare for everyone? Make consistent dents in the unemployment rate? Which of those make him a "clown"?
How is any of those things a good thing?
1. And yet we are still supporting illegal wars in the middle east. What was the point in killing Bin Laden if it didn't make any difference in our foreign policy? We could have took care of Osama much more quickly and effectively then we did. As a nation, we didn't have to go to war and cause the deaths of thousands for retribution for the deaths resulting from 9/11. We could have use the Death of Bin Laden as a turning point, and end to this on-going conflict, but instead it changed little. The only thing that resulted from it was what you just used it as, a glorification of our president.
2. Bailouts do not save Industries. They save billionaires who screwed up and should have become bankrupt, but instead are given money at the expense of taxpayers, and the billionaires worker's.
3. Healthcare isn't basic need. Our basic needs are oxygen, food, and water. All of which are provided by nature, freely (and can be obtained much more easily with some effort.) If we didn't need it at the dawn of our species, we really don't need it now. All human endeavors up to that point have been luxeries, and the problem is that we now see things like the Internet and Phones as a need for survival. Healthcare is a service, and not service can be considered a basic need. In order to get that need you need to get that service from someone else, or provide that service for yourself. Effective Healthcare takes a lot of skill and time to master. To assume we are all entitled to healthcare, assumes we are all entitled to enslave those who can provide it. Sure, the government can pay those people and pretend they are not enslaved. But allowing the government to get involved in healthcare would allow then the position to determine who gets the healthcare, what kind of health care is provided, how much those who provide health care get paid, whether or not a health care provider can provide healthcare (or not allow them to provide free healthcare to those insured by the government, allowing the government allows people to buy their healthcare.) The power is given to those who pays for it. I won't even go into how the government pays for it, which is through tax payer money (where taxpayers pay for it anyway) and printing (where everyone pays for it anyway.)
4. You could argue that our current economics policies are keeping the unemployment rate steady, and keeping a huge depressions with hyperinflation from happening. I could argue that its only delaying the inevitable, and by doing so will make our future situation even worse.
However, Obama is hardly the cause for any of this. He IS going along with it, and supports the currently policies the US Government is following. But I don't blame all these things on Obama, but if he did really care for the future of our country there is plenty he could do to help.
-
Aside from continue to tank the economy... I'll respomd to your silly list.
1. Obama didn't kill OBL... the military did.
2. He saved the Autoworkers Union, not the US car industry. The US car industry could have recovered without taxpayer 'help'. Ford didn't take a bailout and is doing better than GM.
3. Everoyone had basic healthcare before ObamaCare. Now we are being forced to buy health insurance. See the difference? Not to mention it is totally unconstitutional for the government to force a citizen to buy something as a condition of being alive.
4. Dents? The unemployment rate has been higher is every single quarter, even with the WH fudged numbers than it was in any quarter under Bush, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan.
I won't even mention the bloocking of new energy exploration, squandering billions on non-existent 'green jobs', the disastrous stimulis package, the division of Americans as a campaign strategy, multi million dollar vacations, dozens of rounds of golf, non-recess recess appointments, avowed Marxists in his cabinet and appointed as czars, a massive addition to the national debt, 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficits, an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc...
Yes, he is a sad and dangerous clown.
1.Ummm the Military didn't DECIDE to put down OBL, that was our commander in chief's call.
2. Ford DID take a bailout. So, number two simply isn't true.
3. Rush Limbaugh's talking points? We are forced to own automobile insurance to drive cars, forced to immunize children to go to school.
4. Just not true.
- Blocking new energy exploration... spin talk for "drilling for oil"
- The stimulus package has yet to be proven "disasterous"
- Multi-million dollar vacations are not exclusive to this President or any public figure.
- Non recess appointment are not uncommon. He has I believe 50 less than Ronald Regan did in his first term.
- "an illegal absence of a Senate passed budget for over 1000 days, etc etc etc..." It is NOT illegal no matter what Rush tells you.
Drink the kool Aid man. I don't see how a republican in the oval office benefits you unless you are a millionaire with substantial capital gains income. And if that is the case... why are you clicking for pennies on fusion cash?
I believe abrubt said it all... you are either totally misinformed or are lying. Either way not worth any added effort.
-
We have no good choice...neither republican and definitely not the democrat!
-
Ford DID take a bailout. They secured a 9 billion dollar line of credit form the government and took a 5.907 Billion dollar loan from the department of energy.
-
Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments
-
Flackle... when your kid needs to go to the doctor and you can't afford it, THEN you can tell me healthcare isn't a basic need.
-
lol @Abrupt thinking Republicans don't want to "rule over" us... ummm who drafted the Patriot Act?
-
Also @ Abrupt... No I am not possessing a mental defect. I'm simply a person with good sense. I'm not racist, homophobic, or closed minded.
At the billionaire level sure, a Republican wants to stay out of your life. But for most Americans, yourself included, Republicans want to CONTROL your life. They want to tell you that you cannot form a labor union, marry the person you love, terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I'm sure in your simple little southern town you don't see poverty up close so it isn't a real issue to you.
-
Ford DID take a bailout. They secured a 9 billion dollar line of credit form the government and took a 5.907 Billion dollar loan from the department of energy.
Show this bailout you are speaking of. Yes they did request a line of credit, but that is a common thing in business for companies to do and hardly a bailout to avoid bankruptcy. Yes the took advantage of the DoE loan to upgrade manufacturing to the fuel standards the DoE was encouraging (the entire purpose of the DoE loan progarm). This again was not a bailout to avoid bankruptcy but instead a program by the DoE to speed up compliance with their future fuel standards.
Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments
What is your point here as many presidents have mad recess appointments and they are allowed to (to a degree, but honestly I feel that many of them have abused the intentions of recess appointments). Considering the discussion was about a NON recess appointment which is a direct violation of the authority granted by The Constitution, the matters of recess appointments are entirely irrelevant. This is not a minor difference, this is a major violation of law that occurred.
-
You asked what my "point" was about the 243 (more than Obama) recess appointments made by Regan was? Ummm you said he NEVER made one. He made 242 more than one.
-
This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:
"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above. Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic. I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position. I will bend my knee to no man."
He made 243 of them. Spin that.
-
Chris Christie
-
This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:
"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above. Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic. I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position. I will bend my knee to no man."
He made 243 of them. Spin that.
I will say this again to see if your reading comprehension has improved. Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment and you saying that he made 243 is a lie (unless you are so limited in intellect that you cannot tell a "recess" appointment from a "non-recess" appointment. You don't seem to understand what the difference is here and honestly if you don't then you have no business discussing the matter (except to ask one of us to explain to you the difference). I mean that should show you how uniformed or brainwashed you are that you continue to mention this and yet you still do not understand the simplest difference between the two.
-
"Brainwashed"? You actually believe the republican party cares about you. How is that for brainwashed? They will destroy you and the entire middle class. Lords and serfs. That's how their model would work if completely implemented. But maybe it's your racism or homophobia or bible thumping that keeps you form seeing that.
-
"Brainwashed"? You actually believe the republican party cares about you. How is that for brainwashed? They will destroy you and the entire middle class. Lords and serfs. That's how their model would work if completely implemented. But maybe it's your racism or homophobia or bible thumping that keeps you form seeing that.
I don't trust any of them, although there are a few individuals amongst each party that seem better than the bulk of them all. We don't have a class based system in America so there is nothing to affect in that regard. I am not a racist or homophobic, so I wonder if you are projecting your prejudices upon me (if only you knew some of my friends you would understand how ridiculous your accusations are). My religious teachings instruct me not to judge people, so it could never approve of the prejudices you propose. I consider people purely by their actions, although sometimes I will include their intentions as well. Where do you get this idea that I am racist or prejudice or is this just a natural tendency to label people in such a manner in an attempt to shut them down? It will not work against me, regardless.
-
I don't trust any of them, although there are a few individuals amongst each party that seem better than the bulk of them all. We don't have a class based system in America so there is nothing to affect in that regard.
Can't really argue against that. It's more of a sensible centrists statement.
-
If you vote for Romney, you're voting for a soulless android. If you're voting for a soulless android, you might as well write "Lt. Commander Data" in on your ballot. He has as much chance of beating Obama as Romney does, and his positronic brain is far superior.
Or heck, just write in "Lore." At least he wasn't shy about being evil.
-
If you're voting for a soulless android, you might as well write "Lt. Commander Data" in on your ballot.
Give me Data over Romney any day. Atleast he can make educated decisions rather than just talking about how many kids he has, how much he irrationally despises gay rights, or how much he puts an emphasis on wanting creationism in science classes. It really depresses me that these out-of-date theocratic ideas are still heavily presented in our political system. If a political candidate seriously can't use just a little common sense in figuring out why it's problematic to still push these out-of-date ideals, then they shouldn't be up their on the podium trying to grab one of the most powerful seats in the world. It's like they're either really that authentically stupid or they're deceitfully grabbing the votes of the lowest common denominators.
(http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr258/cornishmonkey/data.gif)
Don't let our country turn into santorum! VOTE LT. COMMANDER DATA STARDATE 2012!!!
-
"Brainwashed"? You actually believe the republican party cares about you. How is that for brainwashed? They will destroy you and the entire middle class. Lords and serfs. That's how their model would work if completely implemented. But maybe it's your racism or homophobia or bible thumping that keeps you form seeing that.
Typical leftist. Call someone names who does not believe in your political ideas. Sickening. Reported to moderators.
-
Typical leftist. Call someone names who does not believe in your political ideas. Sickening. Reported to moderators.
This is debate and discuss. It says "Enter at your own risk!" for a reason. And considering many of the republican candidates have displayed homophobic and bible thumping tendencies, I think Sigi was just making an overgeneralization-- just like you did with the quote above.
-
If you're voting for a soulless android, you might as well write "Lt. Commander Data" in on your ballot.
Give me Data over Romney any day. Atleast he can make educated decisions rather than just talking about how many kids he has, how much he irrationally despises gay rights, or how much he puts an emphasis on wanting creationism in science classes. It really depresses me that these out-of-date theocratic ideas are still heavily presented in our political system. If a political candidate seriously can't use just a little common sense in figuring out why it's problematic to still push these out-of-date ideals, then they shouldn't be up their on the podium trying to grab one of the most powerful seats in the world. It's like they're either really that authentically stupid or they're deceitfully grabbing the votes of the lowest common denominators.
(http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr258/cornishmonkey/data.gif)
Don't let our country turn into santorum! VOTE LT. COMMANDER DATA STARDATE 2012!!!
Did you just suggest an attribute of "common sense" to politics (if even qualified by "a little")?
-
Flackle... when your kid needs to go to the doctor and you can't afford it, THEN you can tell me healthcare isn't a basic need.
You can't give me a specific condition and call it a basic need. To me, at least, a basic need is someone every single human being on the planet needs on a frequent basis. I am in constant use of oxygen, I frequently drink water, I live in my house daily (can be applied to any sort of shelter), I eat every day, and so does all other over 6 billion people living on the planet (to say otherwise means they are not alive, or will not be for very long.) I myself, as millions of other people, have not gone to the doctor today. In fact, I haven't been to the doctor since I was a kid, and that was only because I had to get a booster shot. I've gotten sick, like everyone, but not everyone who gets sick has to go to the doctor. I am sorry your child couldn't get healthcare when he needed it, just like I am sorry that those who die as a result of flooding can't afford a helicopter. Helicopters are not basic needs, but they are a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do. Just like healthcare is not a basic need, it is a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do.
You could argue that the food we get is a result of human scientific advancement, but I could also argue that the reason food is a basic need is because we always required it to survive (even before our species existed, other forms of life required food). Same applies to water and shelter. Even clothing (since other animals have fur to protect them from cold.)
The point that I am making is that we need to DEFINE what is or isn't a BASIC need, because while I agree that we need food, halthcare, helicopters, and pencils they are not all BASIC needs. If consider every need as basic, then how can you define basic when there are no just regular needs?
Above all else, I don't believe the government's job is to provide us with our basic needs for survival. The government is a result of a society that has gone well past its ability to provide for its basic needs, and we should continue to rely on ourselves to provide for those needs. The governments job is purely social, it is there to protect our basic human rights, to establish a rule of law that punishes those who would impose on others by means of force (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness). You could argue that pursuit of happiness includes getting free healthcare, I could argue that obtaining happiness itself is getting healthcare, but the PURSUIT of happiness is trying what I can to obtain that happiness without harming others. The governments job is to insure that I am free to do what I can to obtain healthcare as long as I do so without harming others, its not the governments job to actually help me obtain that healthcare. Its the governments job to insure that doctors are free to do what they can to cure the ailments of those they choose without harming others. It isn't the governments job to tell the doctors who they can or cannot help.
-
Did you just suggest an attribute of "common sense" to politics (if even qualified by "a little")?
Point taken! lol
but not everyone who gets sick has to go to the doctor. I am sorry your child couldn't get healthcare when he needed it, just like I am sorry that those who die as a result of flooding can't afford a helicopter. Helicopters are not basic needs, but they are a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do.
Exactly! Just like firefighting--oh wait...
If consider every need as basic, then how can you define basic when there are no just regular needs?
I would put healthcare over the usps, fire fighting, or local libraries as a basic need. I'm sure most people would too.
-
Did you just suggest an attribute of "common sense" to politics (if even qualified by "a little")?
Point taken! lol
but not everyone who gets sick has to go to the doctor. I am sorry your child couldn't get healthcare when he needed it, just like I am sorry that those who die as a result of flooding can't afford a helicopter. Helicopters are not basic needs, but they are a result of human scientific advancement and may be very much required to continue existing as we do.
Exactly! Just like firefighting--oh wait...
If consider every need as basic, then how can you define basic when there are no just regular needs?
I would put healthcare over the usps, fire fighting, or local libraries as a basic need. I'm sure most people would too.
Thats assuming I believe the government should provide these things. Which I don't. Thats also assuming that because the government does supply these things that they are in fact basic needs. Which is untrue. Legally, however, the states and local governments has the authority to provide fire fighting, usps, health care. The federal government has no authority over any of these things besides a postal service, of which I don't believe the federal government should supply.
-
Newt Gingrich. He has been battle tested as Speaker of House. Plus he is a shrewd politician-a plus in his favor because he won't back down when "duking it out" with Congress.
-
Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments
This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:
"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above. Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic. I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position. I will bend my knee to no man."
He made 243 of them. Spin that.
I will say this again to see if your reading comprehension has improved. Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment and you saying that he made 243 is a lie (unless you are so limited in intellect that you cannot tell a "recess" appointment from a "non-recess" appointment. You don't seem to understand what the difference is here and honestly if you don't then you have no business discussing the matter (except to ask one of us to explain to you the difference). I mean that should show you how uniformed or brainwashed you are that you continue to mention this and yet you still do not understand the simplest difference between the two.
Sorry, abrupt, but sig is correct. You keep talking about NON-recess appointments and sig stated, correctly, they were recess appts. "President Reagan made 243 recess appointments over two terms."
(Source:Congressional Research Service and Senate Historian's Office)
Perhaps your 'reading comprehension' needs a little work, not sig's. ;)
This (below) really bothers me, no matter which Prez would have done it, but especially since it is yet another 'Obamaism' showing his lack of regard for the constitutionality of his own actions. It is another example of just how above the law he believes he is.
President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, has said Barack Obama’s non-recess “recess appointments” have pushed the nation dangerously “close to a constitutional crisis.”
Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s program on the Fox Business channel, Meese said the appointments of Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three pro-union members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were historically unprecedented and violated constitutional order. He noted that since the House did not give consent for the Senate to go on recess for more than three days, nor did the Senate go into recess, there was no recess; thus, the president could not legally make a recess appointment. He said all Americans must ponder one question: “If the president is willing to violate the Constitution now, when he has an election upcoming, think what he would do if he was in his second term with no election ahead. To what extent he would literally shred the Constitution during that period of time.”
http://tinyurl.com/8xk6y8p
I am NOT a fan nor a follower of FOX News, but this is the same story they all (sources) have run in the last week. This is from just one, of many, for info on this. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is something I do NOT take lightly. If anyone actually thinks this is 'okay' to do or should become the new SOP for the sitting President, please reconsider whether or not you are even knowledgeable enough or informed enough to cast a vote....... :confused1:
-
Ronald Reagan made 243 recess appointments
This was your direct quote about Regan and recess appointments:
"Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, much less the 51 you are lying about above. Personally I am in shock that no matter how much you might admire someone you would still actively advocate a dictatorship over our Republic. I know that I wouldn't care if it was my favorite person in the world as president, if they go against the constitution I will be adamantly against that position. I will bend my knee to no man."
He made 243 of them. Spin that.
I will say this again to see if your reading comprehension has improved. Ronald Reagan never made a non-recess appointment and you saying that he made 243 is a lie (unless you are so limited in intellect that you cannot tell a "recess" appointment from a "non-recess" appointment. You don't seem to understand what the difference is here and honestly if you don't then you have no business discussing the matter (except to ask one of us to explain to you the difference). I mean that should show you how uniformed or brainwashed you are that you continue to mention this and yet you still do not understand the simplest difference between the two.
Sorry, abrupt, but sig is correct. You keep talking about NON-recess appointments and sig stated, correctly, they were recess appts. "President Reagan made 243 recess appointments over two terms."
(Source:Congressional Research Service and Senate Historian's Office)
Perhaps your 'reading comprehension' needs a little work, not sig's. ;)
This (below) really bothers me, no matter which Prez would have done it, but especially since it is yet another 'Obamaism' showing his lack of regard for the constitutionality of his own actions. It is another example of just how above the law he believes he is.
President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General, Ed Meese, has said Barack Obama’s non-recess “recess appointments” have pushed the nation dangerously “close to a constitutional crisis.”
Appearing on Neil Cavuto’s program on the Fox Business channel, Meese said the appointments of Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and three pro-union members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were historically unprecedented and violated constitutional order. He noted that since the House did not give consent for the Senate to go on recess for more than three days, nor did the Senate go into recess, there was no recess; thus, the president could not legally make a recess appointment. He said all Americans must ponder one question: “If the president is willing to violate the Constitution now, when he has an election upcoming, think what he would do if he was in his second term with no election ahead. To what extent he would literally shred the Constitution during that period of time.”
http://tinyurl.com/8xk6y8p
I am NOT a fan nor a follower of FOX News, but this is the same story they all (sources) have run in the last week. This is from just one, of many, for info on this. I don't know about the rest of you, but this is something I do NOT take lightly. If anyone actually thinks this is 'okay' to do or should become the new SOP for the sitting President, please reconsider whether or not you are even knowledgeable enough or informed enough to cast a vote....... :confused1:
Wait a minute, how is he correct? We were talking about non-recess appointments and not recess appointments. He quoted numbers for recess appointments to back up his claim that Reagan made 50 more of them than Obama did (Reagan never made a non-recess appointment, but I hear Bush considered it). If you read back to the point where the discussion started regarding NON-RECESS appointments you will see exactly what I am talking about. Recess appointments do not matter at all since they are a power given to the President (although it was for the original 6 month recesses with the event of a vacancy occurring during such times as congress was away and it is abused in spirit now even with the 'allowable' recess appointments).
-
Don't let our country turn into santorum! VOTE LT. COMMANDER DATA STARDATE 2012!!!
I'm making a bumper sticker for that!
-
I always find politicians quite slimy and dishonest. With all that being said, I would vote for Romney only. There are no other viable Republican candidates in my mind. Een so, I don't really love Romney, more of a reflection on the others.
-
I am not sure. Would like to take parts of each candiate and make one person.
-
Frankly, the term "non-recess appointment" is Rush Limbaugh/Fox speak.
They are saying that Obama illegally made appointments to offices when Congress was in session. The legal term is a intrasession appointment. It is legal to make a recess appointment even if that comes during a recess within a session.
What is non-recess? It would mean congress is in a current session. Our President did not appoint anyone during a session then say FU, you don't get to review it. Kool Aid drinking man. If you dislike this President because you own a huge business and don't like that he wants to preserve labor unions, or you are afraid that your 100+ million dollar estate will incur an inheritance tax... then I can't blame you. But if you are a silly gun totin' southerner who has been tricked into rich white people thinking they care about you, open your eyes.
-
Frankly, the term "non-recess appointment" is Rush Limbaugh/Fox speak.
They are saying that Obama illegally made appointments to offices when Congress was in session. The legal term is a intrasession appointment. It is legal to make a recess appointment even if that comes during a recess within a session.
What is non-recess? It would mean congress is in a current session. Our President did not appoint anyone during a session then say FU, you don't get to review it. Kool Aid drinking man. If you dislike this President because you own a huge business and don't like that he wants to preserve labor unions, or you are afraid that your 100+ million dollar estate will incur an inheritance tax... then I can't blame you. But if you are a silly gun totin' southerner who has been tricked into rich white people thinking they care about you, open your eyes.
Well there isn't really a legal term as it isn't allowed and has never been done before and so any term that is used and catches on would be the correct term. Congress is in session and during such times the President has no authority to make appointments. The President overstepped his authority and this should be intolerable and distasteful to everyone. The appointment was made while congress was in session. The president can only make recess appointments, hence this was a non-recess appointment. This is much like his war that wasn't a war in Lybia where he ignored Congress.
The only person that cares about me, is me. Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person. I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me. Perhaps you have for yourself. Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.
-
Frankly, the term "non-recess appointment" is Rush Limbaugh/Fox speak.
They are saying that Obama illegally made appointments to offices when Congress was in session. The legal term is a intrasession appointment. It is legal to make a recess appointment even if that comes during a recess within a session.
What is non-recess? It would mean congress is in a current session. Our President did not appoint anyone during a session then say FU, you don't get to review it. Kool Aid drinking man. If you dislike this President because you own a huge business and don't like that he wants to preserve labor unions, or you are afraid that your 100+ million dollar estate will incur an inheritance tax... then I can't blame you. But if you are a silly gun totin' southerner who has been tricked into rich white people thinking they care about you, open your eyes.
Well there isn't really a legal term as it isn't allowed and has never been done before and so any term that is used and catches on would be the correct term. Congress is in session and during such times the President has no authority to make appointments. The President overstepped his authority and this should be intolerable and distasteful to everyone. The appointment was made while congress was in session. The president can only make recess appointments, hence this was a non-recess appointment. This is much like his war that wasn't a war in Lybia where he ignored Congress.
The only person that cares about me, is me. Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person. I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me. Perhaps you have for yourself. Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.
The appointments will hold up. They were legal. Congress was in recess.
-
The appointments will hold up. They were legal. Congress was in recess.
You are no more qualified than I am to decide the legality of the situation. Let us see what Obama's top constitutional attorney has to say about it: “The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days,” -- Neal Katyal. Senators from both parties — including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate — have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.
Senate Democrats who, after taking control of the chamber, used pro forma sessions to stop President Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008. “I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he summed up the legal consensus in 2008. Mr. Obama was in the Senate at the time.
Obama made this appointment a day after a session of congress (it was pro forma). He was obviously informed of his unprecedented power grab regarding long held decisions about what designates a recess but he just as obviously doesn't care about The Constitution, other than trying to bend its meaning to conform to his socialistic beliefs.
-
The appointments will hold up. They were legal. Congress was in recess.
You are no more qualified than I am to decide the legality of the situation. Let us see what Obama's top constitutional attorney has to say about it: “The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than three days,” -- Neal Katyal. Senators from both parties — including Democrats in 2007 and 2008, when Mr. Obama was in the Senate — have said it takes a recess of at least three days before the president can use his appointment powers.
Senate Democrats who, after taking control of the chamber, used pro forma sessions to stop President Bush from making recess appointments in 2007 and 2008. “I had to keep the Senate in pro-forma sessions to block the [Steven G.] Bradbury appointment. That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he summed up the legal consensus in 2008. Mr. Obama was in the Senate at the time.
Obama made this appointment a day after a session of congress (it was pro forma). He was obviously informed of his unprecedented power grab regarding long held decisions about what designates a recess but he just as obviously doesn't care about The Constitution, other than trying to bend its meaning to conform to his socialistic beliefs.
Sigmapi... I know you are a liberal, but even liberals stop trying to defend the indefensible when they are caught lying. Just stop. You are embarrasing yourself. Just stop.
-
When Obama went ahead with the controversial recess appointment of Richard Cordray, in order to initiate yet another high cost government agency ie "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau", he broke the very law he fought for and signed just a short time ago. How is that 'aboveboard' in anyone's eyes?! He has also repeatedly stated he intends to govern in 2012 without Congress. So why bother having seated Senators and Representatives from each state? Why even bother remembering/bringing up the fact that this country has a Constitution when he obviously feels the 'constitutionality' within it's guidelines does NOT apply to him?
If these self declared 'options' Obama has given himself in order to skirt around the duties and boundaries outlined in his job description do NOT alarm you, maybe a different country would be more to your liking. Perhaps one with a more socialistic ideology......
-
They will hold up and be deemed legal.
-
I'm having some sort of deja vu here because I recall these exact overpowered-president arguments constantly happening in the Bush era on another forum. It's like word for word! Not much has changed I suppose. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html
The only person that cares about me, is me. Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person. I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me. Perhaps you have for yourself. Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.
When I read this, my mind totally visualized some hermit up on a mountain with a shotgun in hand 24/7. lol jk jk! But no matter what you do and if you're on any sort of documentation, like it or not a gov't will have some sort of authority over you.
Edit: JDOG! Where've you been? How have you been?
-
I'm having some sort of deja vu here because I recall these exact overpowered-president arguments constantly happening in the Bush era on another forum. It's like word for word! Not much has changed I suppose. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html
The only person that cares about me, is me. Nobody else can have my truth into what is best for me and I will not surrender authority over me to any person. I have never met anyone more capable of deciding what is best for me, than me. Perhaps you have for yourself. Perhaps you need to be led around on a lead and told what to do.
When I read this, my mind totally visualized some hermit up on a mountain with a shotgun in hand 24/7. lol jk jk! But no matter what you do and if you're on any sort of documentation, like it or not a gov't will have some sort of authority over you.
Lol I read that back after I posted it and pictured something similar, including denim overalls and a long and scraggly beard. I try to stay as off the grid as I can but it is not really possible. To sell my catch I have to have a commercial license and that requires routine reports to the government about the daily take. I could always sell to individuals but then I would not be able to maintain the volume, even though I could make a larger profit per pound.
Once (as an experiment..you buy that? eh? maybe there was another reason) I took up an alias and lived under it for four years. It was actually a blast and I had no problems working and cashing my checks and renting, getting utilities, etc. I was even hand cuffed by the police and had a background check ran on me (under the alias) and after a bit of bullshitting he uncuffed me and let me go (which surprised me honestly as he asked me my SSN and I started giving my real one and paused part way through and said "no that's not right it is..."). I must say that was the most free that I have ever felt in my life and I could easily adopt that lifestyle again, if only I could uproot myself from my complacency.
-
I'm going to have to go with "none of the above" on both tickets this year. I'm so tired of hearing from all of them. :BangHead: :BangHead:
-
When Obama went ahead with the controversial recess appointment of Richard Cordray, in order to initiate yet another high cost government agency ie "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau", he broke the very law he fought for and signed just a short time ago. How is that 'aboveboard' in anyone's eyes?! He has also repeatedly stated he intends to govern in 2012 without Congress. So why bother having seated Senators and Representatives from each state? Why even bother remembering/bringing up the fact that this country has a Constitution when he obviously feels the 'constitutionality' within it's guidelines does NOT apply to him?
If these self declared 'options' Obama has given himself in order to skirt around the duties and boundaries outlined in his job description do NOT alarm you, maybe a different country would be more to your liking. Perhaps one with a more socialistic ideology......
SigmaPi's loyalty lies with his party and not his country. Nothing his political leadership does is ever wrong. He is the perfect party supporter... mindless, easily led, and without care of the law or the country when told to ignore it. It is so sad to see any American act as court jester for the political elites.
-
SigmaPi's loyalty lies with his party and not his country. Nothing his political leadership does is ever wrong. He is the perfect party supporter... mindless, easily led, and without care of the law or the country when told to ignore it. It is so sad to see any American act as court jester for the political elites.
Are you suggesting that Sig's party is Republican?
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
Ah, standard political fare then?
-
I am not fully happy with any of them. I too think Ron Paul is making good sense. Big time Republicans keep pushing Mitt down our throats and my end up spliting the party.
-
I try to stay as off the grid as I can but it is not really possible. To sell my catch I have to have a commercial license and that requires routine reports to the government about the daily take. I could always sell to individuals but then I would not be able to maintain the volume, even though I could make a larger profit per pound.
Fisherman? Cool!
It was actually a blast and I had no problems working and cashing my checks and renting, getting utilities, etc. I was even hand cuffed by the police and had a background check ran on me (under the alias) and after a bit of bullshitting he uncuffed me and let me go (which surprised me honestly as he asked me my SSN and I started giving my real one and paused part way through and said "no that's not right it is..."). I must say that was the most free that I have ever felt in my life and I could easily adopt that lifestyle again, if only I could uproot myself from my complacency.
Hahaha wow! Where I'm from, you could never get away with that if a cop stopped you and started asking q's. I'm curious to know why you used a different alias though. Just for kicks?
-
I try to stay as off the grid as I can but it is not really possible. To sell my catch I have to have a commercial license and that requires routine reports to the government about the daily take. I could always sell to individuals but then I would not be able to maintain the volume, even though I could make a larger profit per pound.
Fisherman? Cool!
It was actually a blast and I had no problems working and cashing my checks and renting, getting utilities, etc. I was even hand cuffed by the police and had a background check ran on me (under the alias) and after a bit of bullshitting he uncuffed me and let me go (which surprised me honestly as he asked me my SSN and I started giving my real one and paused part way through and said "no that's not right it is..."). I must say that was the most free that I have ever felt in my life and I could easily adopt that lifestyle again, if only I could uproot myself from my complacency.
Hahaha wow! Where I'm from, you could never get away with that if a cop stopped you and started asking q's. I'm curious to know why you used a different alias though. Just for kicks?
Yes I am a fisherman (not a deadliest catch or swords type though...nothing quite so thrilling -- although I do enjoy it).
I used an alias because I was a fugitive from justice (I will not get into the details, except to say that it is foolish of the legal system to tell me I am facing "life in prison" and then give me a twenty five hundred dollar bail. I wasn't facing life in prison though I later found out and they were just using that as part of their 'interrogation' techniques to feign the going of leniency for self incrimination. As an additional bit of advice to anyone every arrested or charged or brought in for questioning I strongly recommend you to never say anything to the police or sheriffs as regardless of what they say there is nothing they can do to help you and can only use what you say against you. I cannot stress that enough, you should always have an attorney present for questioning and to Hades with how that might look to the police as it doesn't matter how it looks to them anyways).
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
Ah, standard political fare then?
Pretty much
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
Sure. When exactly was the constitution "trampled" again?
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
Sure. When exactly was the constitution "trampled" again?
Lets start with ObamaCare. The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act. I'll let you begin the twisted defense of the indefensible and lying now. Just a couple of hints to get you started, Democrat. The Constitution does not allow the government to force you to purchase a good or a service without you first engaging in some sort of act (examples driving, interstate commerce). We are also protected by the 6th and 14th Amendments with that quaint notion of trials by jury and such.
I will look forward to your contorted explanation of why you feel that these acts by a clown president are not 'trampling' of our rights.
-
Lets start with ObamaCare.
This should be meant for a whole different thread and will take away from the primary topic.
The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Woah woah woah hold ya horses! We still need to take care of the Patriot Act, right? Or wait...maybe you're just targetting things the current president did. Back up a lil...
Just a couple of hints to get you started, Democrat.
:dontknow:
-
The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act.
Woah woah woah hold ya horses! We still need to take care of the Patriot Act, right? Or wait...maybe you're just targetting things the current president did. Back up a lil...
The National Defense Authorization Act is a United States federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 49 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. That means that republicans had to have passed the measure some time during that 49 year period, as well as democrats.
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
Sure. When exactly was the constitution "trampled" again?
Lets start with ObamaCare. The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act. I'll let you begin the twisted defense of the indefensible and lying now. Just a couple of hints to get you started, Democrat. The Constitution does not allow the government to force you to purchase a good or a service without you first engaging in some sort of act (examples driving, interstate commerce). We are also protected by the 6th and 14th Amendments with that quaint notion of trials by jury and such.
I will look forward to your contorted explanation of why you feel that these acts by a clown president are not 'trampling' of our rights.
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
-
It's all Rush/Fox talking points given to hillbillies so they can bark.
-
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
Remember, The Constitution doesn't have to say something is forbidden in order to make it forbidden. The constitution is a simple document that defines what powers the federal government has. Anything not mentioned is forbidden because it isn't a power granted. Basically the states gave a portion of their authority to the federal government, and the authority they gave was enumerated in The Constitution. The federal government draws it's powers from the states and they ultimately retain any power not expressly given to the federal government.
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
Sure. When exactly was the constitution "trampled" again?
Lets start with ObamaCare. The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act. I'll let you begin the twisted defense of the indefensible and lying now. Just a couple of hints to get you started, Democrat. The Constitution does not allow the government to force you to purchase a good or a service without you first engaging in some sort of act (examples driving, interstate commerce). We are also protected by the 6th and 14th Amendments with that quaint notion of trials by jury and such.
I will look forward to your contorted explanation of why you feel that these acts by a clown president are not 'trampling' of our rights.
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
You are even more ignorant than I imagined... and I imagined a lot. If you paid a second of attention to the debate, you would know that is the crux of the argument against it. The Constitution protects our liberties and has what are called enumerated powers. The enumerated powers in the Constitution do not allow the government to mandate a purchase of a good or service as a condition of beoing alive. Your boundless ignorance of the Constitution is astonishing but also illustrative as to why you are a party over country Democrat. My view on ObamaCare isn't my own. It has been challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional. In a few months the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional as well. Also, I added driving as an example where government could force you to buy a good or service as a condition of engaging in an activity or commerce. Again, your ignorance leaves you no room to learn or listen. I assumed you would use the discredited driving argument to support ObamaCare as his minions have tried (and failed) in the past. Apparently you are so far behind the debate you haven't heard that one. Love the 'Fox speak' line... this coming from an ignorant party over country Democrat whos news and information comes from the back of a cereal box.
So, now that you lied and were caught. Now that you are shown to have almost no understanding of the debate at hand and have absolutely no knowledge of the US Constitution, could you please apologize and give up showing us how totally ignorant you are? I would have been embarassed and given up long ago. Apparently you are taking the donkey icon of your beloved Democrat party to its (il)logical end. What a mindless puppet you are.
Care to try again? Or have you had enough humiliation on this thread?
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
Sure. When exactly was the constitution "trampled" again?
Lets start with ObamaCare. The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act. I'll let you begin the twisted defense of the indefensible and lying now. Just a couple of hints to get you started, Democrat. The Constitution does not allow the government to force you to purchase a good or a service without you first engaging in some sort of act (examples driving, interstate commerce). We are also protected by the 6th and 14th Amendments with that quaint notion of trials by jury and such.
I will look forward to your contorted explanation of why you feel that these acts by a clown president are not 'trampling' of our rights.
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
You are even more ignorant than I imagined... and I imagined a lot. If you paid a second of attention to the debate, you would know that is the crux of the argument against it. The Constitution protects our liberties and has what are called enumerated powers. The enumerated powers in the Constitution do not allow the government to mandate a purchase of a good or service as a condition of beoing alive. Your boundless ignorance of the Constitution is astonishing but also illustrative as to why you are a party over country Democrat. My view on ObamaCare isn't my own. It has been challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional. In a few months the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional as well. Also, I added driving as an example where government could force you to buy a good or service as a condition of engaging in an activity or commerce. Again, your ignorance leaves you no room to learn or listen. I assumed you would use the discredited driving argument to support ObamaCare as his minions have tried (and failed) in the past. Apparently you are so far behind the debate you haven't heard that one. Love the 'Fox speak' line... this coming from an ignorant party over country Democrat whos news and information comes from the back of a cereal box.
So, now that you lied and were caught. Now that you are shown to have almost no understanding of the debate at hand and have absolutely no knowledge of the US Constitution, could you please apologize and give up showing us how totally ignorant you are? I would have been embarassed and given up long ago. Apparently you are taking the donkey icon of your beloved Democrat party to its (il)logical end. What a mindless puppet you are.
Care to try again? Or have you had enough humiliation on this thread?
*bleep*
-
I think what he means is that when you agree with his views you are patriotic and love america. When you disagree you are mindless and easily follow.
No, I meant that you are trying to defend the indefensible by out and out lying.
You do this because your party loyalty trumps what is patritic and 'American'.
You smile when your leaders trample the Constitution.
Understand now?
Sure. When exactly was the constitution "trampled" again?
Lets start with ObamaCare. The we can move to the National Defense Authorization Act. I'll let you begin the twisted defense of the indefensible and lying now. Just a couple of hints to get you started, Democrat. The Constitution does not allow the government to force you to purchase a good or a service without you first engaging in some sort of act (examples driving, interstate commerce). We are also protected by the 6th and 14th Amendments with that quaint notion of trials by jury and such.
I will look forward to your contorted explanation of why you feel that these acts by a clown president are not 'trampling' of our rights.
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
You are even more ignorant than I imagined... and I imagined a lot. If you paid a second of attention to the debate, you would know that is the crux of the argument against it. The Constitution protects our liberties and has what are called enumerated powers. The enumerated powers in the Constitution do not allow the government to mandate a purchase of a good or service as a condition of beoing alive. Your boundless ignorance of the Constitution is astonishing but also illustrative as to why you are a party over country Democrat. My view on ObamaCare isn't my own. It has been challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional. In a few months the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional as well. Also, I added driving as an example where government could force you to buy a good or service as a condition of engaging in an activity or commerce. Again, your ignorance leaves you no room to learn or listen. I assumed you would use the discredited driving argument to support ObamaCare as his minions have tried (and failed) in the past. Apparently you are so far behind the debate you haven't heard that one. Love the 'Fox speak' line... this coming from an ignorant party over country Democrat whos news and information comes from the back of a cereal box.
So, now that you lied and were caught. Now that you are shown to have almost no understanding of the debate at hand and have absolutely no knowledge of the US Constitution, could you please apologize and give up showing us how totally ignorant you are? I would have been embarassed and given up long ago. Apparently you are taking the donkey icon of your beloved Democrat party to its (il)logical end. What a mindless puppet you are.
Care to try again? Or have you had enough humiliation on this thread?
*bleep*
Ha ha ha ha ha... You lose lying, ignorant Democrat. You are a truly sickening individual. Tough when there aren't facts on your side to back up your feelings. I am surprised it took you this long to collapse into full name calling mode... it always happens when you back a party over country Democrat in the corner with fact and logic.
-
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
Remember, The Constitution doesn't have to say something is forbidden in order to make it forbidden. The constitution is a simple document that defines what powers the federal government has. Anything not mentioned is forbidden because it isn't a power granted. Basically the states gave a portion of their authority to the federal government, and the authority they gave was enumerated in The Constitution. The federal government draws it's powers from the states and they ultimately retain any power not expressly given to the federal government.
Party over country Democrats and the new Progressives hate the US Constitution and do not understand a thing in it. Arguing with this guy is like trying to tell the Pope that God does not exist. Their left wing politics are a religious cult based on faith rather than fact. A sad state of affairs as we head off the end of the road into the abyss... SigmPi and the rest of them will still be singing from their hymnals as they plummet.
-
Exactly where in the constitution does it say the government can't force you to purchase a good or service? I doubt driving was in there. Pretty sure cars weren't invented yet. But you're just assuming that I would say the government forces us to buy car insurance. Fox speak has created extra lines in the constitution now?
Remember, The Constitution doesn't have to say something is forbidden in order to make it forbidden. The constitution is a simple document that defines what powers the federal government has. Anything not mentioned is forbidden because it isn't a power granted. Basically the states gave a portion of their authority to the federal government, and the authority they gave was enumerated in The Constitution. The federal government draws it's powers from the states and they ultimately retain any power not expressly given to the federal government.
Party over country Democrats and the new Progressives hate the US Constitution and do not understand a thing in it. Arguing with this guy is like trying to tell the Pope that God does not exist. Their left wing politics are a religious cult based on faith rather than fact. A sad state of affairs as we head off the end of the road into the abyss... SigmPi and the rest of them will still be singing from their hymnals as they plummet.
so we are wrong about healthcare. id prefer if we could have the canadian model here. It probably won't be very sucessfull in 2014 when the mandate kicks in. Especially since the fine for not getting insurance will be cheaper than the price of insurance for many. Yes, a potential money grab.
But Im not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I know that so many other issues are better handled by democrats. socially, the republican party is in the stone ages. As far as the environment, people in the republican party still call climate change a "myth". I also feel a bulk of the taxes should be paid by the VERY wealthy. Middle class guys like you and I shouldn't have to shoulder
-
Shoulder the same burden as the wealthy. The poor cannot afford to pay, no one expects them to. But tax cuts for extremely wealthy folks leads to a heavier burden on the middle class.
Will obamacare be the answer? No. But it is progress. I am for progress. It will hopefully eventually lead to the canadian model of healthcare someday.
-
so we are wrong about healthcare. id prefer if we could have the canadian model here. It probably won't be very sucessfull in 2014 when the mandate kicks in. Especially since the fine for not getting insurance will be cheaper than the price of insurance for many. Yes, a potential money grab.
But Im not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. I know that so many other issues are better handled by democrats. socially, the republican party is in the stone ages. As far as the environment, people in the republican party still call climate change a "myth". I also feel a bulk of the taxes should be paid by the VERY wealthy. Middle class guys like you and I shouldn't have to shoulder
Insurance has always been a fools bet. In order for insurance/health care to work, it must charge a greater amount than it provides as a service. It went from a foolish luxury to suddenly being considered a requirement. Being forced to buy this is enslaving me so that the government can wager a bad bet and that does not sit well at all with me.
History tells us that virtually every civil rights and social rights bill was penned by a Republican. What are some of the social bills democrats penned...oh yeah jim crow, segregation are two of their biggest. That has always been the democratic way, executive with force at the expense of the freedom and liberties of the people. Republicans do not deny climate change as climate change has been ongoing since the earth had a climate. They deny evidence of man made climate change (they don't consider the man made data to indicate man made climate change to be valid -- nor should anyone with any lack of gullibility). I lived through the great global freezing scare, through the global warming scare and now I see some are already starting the global freezing scare again haha. I suspect I may live through it too.
-
Ha ha ha ha ha... You lose lying, ignorant Democrat. You are a truly sickening individual. Tough when there aren't facts on your side to back up your feelings. I am surprised it took you this long to collapse into full name calling mode... it always happens when you back a party over country Democrat in the corner with fact and logic.
You sound like an 80's cartoon villain.
History tells us that virtually every civil rights and social rights bill was penned by a Republican. What are some of the social bills democrats penned...oh yeah jim crow, segregation are two of their biggest. That has always been the democratic way, executive with force at the expense of the freedom and liberties of the people.
Past vs. present. The D's even supported the KKK way back in the day, but now? Of course not. D+R's have changed a lot just in the last 20 years alone, and the amount of blatant racism and sexism still coming from republicans is mind boggling when weighed against the Democratic party-- Sigi is 100% right when he says the R's are still in the stone age when it comes to social qualities.
Republicans do not deny climate change as climate change has been ongoing since the earth had a climate. They deny evidence of man made climate change (they don't consider the man made data to indicate man made climate change to be valid -- nor should anyone with any lack of gullibility).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI5ulKiZAoE
-
If you think man made pollution isnt effecting climate change even in the face of scientific evidence there is no hope for you.
-
History tells us that virtually every civil rights and social rights bill was penned by a Republican. What are some of the social bills democrats penned...oh yeah jim crow, segregation are two of their biggest. That has always been the democratic way, executive with force at the expense of the freedom and liberties of the people.
Past vs. present. The D's even supported the KKK way back in the day, but now? Of course not. D+R's have changed a lot just in the last 20 years alone, and the amount of blatant racism and sexism still coming from republicans is mind boggling when weighed against the Democratic party-- Sigi is 100% right when he says the R's are still in the stone age when it comes to social qualities.
Democrats actually created the KKK, it was their militant arm. There was even ex KKK grand wizard as a senator of the democratic party as recent as 2010 (he publicly used racial slurs as late as 2001 so when he changed his ways I am not quite sure). Yeah times have certainly changed. Most republicans today seem more like democrats of 20 years ago and most democrats seem like a major left shift from what they used to be.
I don't see much, if any, racism and sexism from the republicans but I see quite a bit of it from the democrats when a woman or minority is a republican or sides with the republicans in an issue. It honestly seems to me that democrats treat women and minorities as property. I don't know if our difference in how we see this is ideological or what but what I described is as unbiased as I can be describing what I see. Sure the democrats are more apt to give 'free' (*cough* since anytime the government gives something away for free it is through enslaving or stealing from others) stuff to minorities, or special privileges above and beyond everyone else. This seems to be a clever and long thought out vote buying process if you ask me though. Republicans seem to me to treat everyone the same regarding race and gender with no special considerations given based on such.
I try to check multiple sources of media to get a feel of what is all out there. I don't trust any of them as they all have their bias (I would relish the old days when it was the media for the people against the government...). I just don't see the racism you describe. I do see quite a bit of accusation of racism but no evidence is ever provided, or if it is it always seems to be in the form of "..doesn't want to give special privileges...". Maybe you could expand on some examples as there could be things I have missed.
-
If you think man made pollution isnt effecting climate change even in the face of scientific evidence there is no hope for you.
First I would love to see some untainted scientific evidence. Carbon, for instance, has never been proven to be a precursor of warming, but instead a follower of warming. Oh wait, the global warming group realized that recently and changed their phrase from 'global warming' to 'climate change' since they also realized the earth wasn't warming like they claimed it was.
Let me repeat this again. When I was a kid it was global freezing. They had all this fancy data and fancy charts and 'scientific' evidence of our impending doom. We have since passed that 'doom'. Then it was global warming. Then it was climate change. Now there are many talking about global freezing again. Credited 'scientists' in all of these groups, and all with their hands out asking for money to prove this or that. Nice charts and data in all of these groups. Even if it was real, I simply don't care anymore as they cried wolf far too many times. Also, according to the fear evidence presented by the global warming proponents it was far too late to do anything about it to save us by the time they discovered it. Now perhaps they used too much 'fear' in their arguments but simply going by their data there is no way to prevent this impeding doom even if you killed every single human on the planet tomorrow.
-
Thought the topic was who we wanted as the Republican nominee? Sounds more like a shouting match. I don't think name calling helps in any debate. By the way I like Newt over Mitt but wanted Rick Perry.
-
Democrats actually created the KKK, it was their militant arm. There was even ex KKK grand wizard as a senator of the democratic party as recent as 2010 (he publicly used racial slurs as late as 2001 so when he changed his ways I am not quite sure). Yeah times have certainly changed. Most republicans today seem more like democrats of 20 years ago and most democrats seem like a major left shift from what they used to be.
lol "Grand Wizard". I will never get over that.
I don't see much, if any, racism and sexism from the republicans but I see quite a bit of it from the democrats when a woman or minority is a republican or sides with the republicans in an issue.
I must have missed it. When?
I do see quite a bit of accusation of racism but no evidence is ever provided, or if it is it always seems to be in the form of "..doesn't want to give special privileges...". Maybe you could expand on some examples as there could be things I have missed.
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/rep4that
(funny vid with all the examples displayed below it)
First I would love to see some untainted scientific evidence.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
(refs on the bottom)
Now perhaps they used too much 'fear' in their arguments but simply going by their data there is no way to prevent this impeding doom even if you killed every single human on the planet tomorrow.
Well...that seems like a pretty careless and depressing way to view the current issue. Do you have any sources stating this? I'm not trying to argue here-- I've just never heard of this "impending doom we're already F'd and can't distill it" POV with climate change.
-
Shoulder the same burden as the wealthy. The poor cannot afford to pay, no one expects them to. But tax cuts for extremely wealthy folks leads to a heavier burden on the middle class.
Will obamacare be the answer? No. But it is progress. I am for progress. It will hopefully eventually lead to the canadian model of healthcare someday.
Move to Canada, Democrat... they already have it and we don't want it.
Plus that pesky Constitution... you know, that impediment to the installation your Worker's Paradise?
-
Shoulder the same burden as the wealthy. The poor cannot afford to pay, no one expects them to. But tax cuts for extremely wealthy folks leads to a heavier burden on the middle class.
Will obamacare be the answer? No. But it is progress. I am for progress. It will hopefully eventually lead to the canadian model of healthcare someday.
Move to Canada, Democrat... they already have it and we don't want it.
Plus that pesky Constitution... you know, that impediment to the installation your Worker's Paradise?
That's dumb hillbilly talk. "you like the way thy do it go there... MERCA"
Flat Earth thinkers like you that stand in the way of progress. If we never challenged the way things were done and lazily defaulted to our slave owner forefathers, we would be so far behind the rest of the world. If you don't like it, leave is the mantra of the simple. If you don't like it, CHANGE it, are the actions of the great.
-
If you don't like it, leave is the mantra of the simple. If you don't like it, CHANGE it, are the actions of the great.
Well said. The current healthcare fiasco definitely needs to be fixed. And soon. Anyone who disagrees is obviously naive to the completely unfair side of the current system. I have in the past and it's ridiculous. On the otherhand, Obama's plan is dubbed unamerican, so obviously the solution lies somewhere in the gray.
-
I find it ironic that so many people that bash "obamacare" might end up voting for a guy that basically installed it in his state.
-
Shoulder the same burden as the wealthy. The poor cannot afford to pay, no one expects them to. But tax cuts for extremely wealthy folks leads to a heavier burden on the middle class.
Will obamacare be the answer? No. But it is progress. I am for progress. It will hopefully eventually lead to the canadian model of healthcare someday.
Move to Canada, Democrat... they already have it and we don't want it.
Plus that pesky Constitution... you know, that impediment to the installation your Worker's Paradise?
That's dumb hillbilly talk. "you like the way thy do it go there... MERCA"
Flat Earth thinkers like you that stand in the way of progress. If we never challenged the way things were done and lazily defaulted to our slave owner forefathers, we would be so far behind the rest of the world. If you don't like it, leave is the mantra of the simple. If you don't like it, CHANGE it, are the actions of the great.
Earth to stupid... the US Constitution FORBIDS what you openly embrace. No flat earther stuff here, Democrat... just reality. If you like Canada or Europe, move there or legally change the US Constitution. You can't just break laws where you see fit, Democrat. But, as your Commie heroes from days gone by have said, "The ends justify the means" , right Comrade? Progressive 'thinkers' have done nothing but bankrupt nations and bring down the class of living for entire societies in the name of 'helping'. You brain dead progressives will never get it right or learn from your mistakes. The COnstitution has the answers, but you all feel you know better.
You make me laugh with your ridiculous name calling and non-defense of the indefensible. Just a worn out dog eared playbook with the same tripe that you liberal pimps have been pushing and lying about for decades.
-
From a political standpoint, if your intention is to get Obama out of office (Please Dear Lord!! :BangHead:) Then you must look at which candidate has the best chance of accomplishing that goal. And that depends on one's perspective, and probably wont be known until later on in the primaries. I personally have some very specific views on who that could be and why, but I will defer those opinions for the time being. I will let others ponder my comments and decide for themselves.
-
Republicans want genocide and a system of lords and serfs. They are all racist and homophobic. They hide behind the bible to spread hate.
SEE, I can spout nonsense too joey.
-
Republicans want genocide and a system of lords and serfs. They are all racist and homophobic. They hide behind the bible to spread hate.
SEE, I can spout nonsense too joey.
No, you speak Democrat theology. I speak the truth backed up with facts.
This is why you have to resort to calling people 'fags' (what a non-homophobic thing to say, hypocrite) instead of presenting a cogent thought or any sort of verifiable data.
Aren't you getting tired of the daily verbal beat down, Democrat? I would have slithered off in shame days ago, yet you keep coming back for more. Truly pathetic.
-
No, you speak Democrat theology. I speak the truth backed up with facts.
You do? When?
-
No, you speak Democrat theology. I speak the truth backed up with facts.
You do? When?
You aren't capable of identifying a fact if it walked up and bit you in the *bleep*. I showed you the numbers, Democrat. I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat. All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense. Keep trying, Democrat.
-
You aren't capable of identifying a fact if it walked up and bit you in the *bleep*. I showed you the numbers, Democrat. I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat. All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense. Keep trying, Democrat.
Generally it's ideal to back your facts up with legitimate links on a forum. Otherwise you can make up anything. Wasn't it Abraham Lincoln who once said "People will believe anything they read on the internet"?
And I'd suggest stop using the terms "Democrat" and "Liberal" with such prejudice like you're doing here. You make it sound vilifying which in turn makes your stance look pretty discriminatory. A major problem with our country is the failure of both parties to come to compromises and work together. When you're talking like this, you're talking as if you're the tip-of-the-sword with this problem. Explain something without the obvious emotional flak.
-
I showed you the numbers, Democrat.
When? What numbers?
I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat.
Nope, you told me what YOU think is in there though.
All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense.
Yep, that imaginary world where we thought it wasn't right to segregate blacks, so we got that changed. Where we thought women should be able to vote, so we got that changed. But you are right, changing things that we don't think are right is just a fad.
-
I showed you the numbers, Democrat.
When? What numbers?
I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat.
Nope, you told me what YOU think is in there though.
All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense.
Yep, that imaginary world where we thought it wasn't right to segregate blacks, so we got that changed. Where we thought women should be able to vote, so we got that changed. But you are right, changing things that we don't think are right is just a fad.
You have to be retarded. Eisenhower had as much to do with desegregation as Truman. Also, what kind of idiot claims that women's suffrage was opposed by Republicans/Conservatives? Did you forget that Lincoln wsa a Republican, moron? Jesus are you a dolt. And yes, you live in an imaginary world.
-
After the last two debates, I'm leaning towards Sen. Rick Santorum.
Hi trucktina. :wave: Do you still favor Senator Santorum?
There are things I like/dislike about all four candidates but I am hoping it will be Ron Paul.
-
I showed you the numbers, Democrat.
When? What numbers?
I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat.
Nope, you told me what YOU think is in there though.
All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense.
Yep, that imaginary world where we thought it wasn't right to segregate blacks, so we got that changed. Where we thought women should be able to vote, so we got that changed. But you are right, changing things that we don't think are right is just a fad.
You have to be retarded. Eisenhower had as much to do with desegregation as Truman. Also, what kind of idiot claims that women's suffrage was opposed by Republicans/Conservatives? Did you forget that Lincoln wsa a Republican, moron? Jesus are you a dolt. And yes, you live in an imaginary world.
You're also right that only liberals resort to name calling when proven foolish. Republican/Democrat isn't relevant here. I am talking PROGRESSIVE vs CONSERVATIVE. Yes, CONSERVATIVE people fought Women's suffrage and Civil rights tooth and nail. The parties have changed and morphed. There used to be whig and tory and federalist parties. Lincoln was a Republican? Sure. By name only. He was a PROGRESSIVE though. Your flat Earth/keep things the same mentality would have kept slaves still working and women unable to vote. PROGRESSIVE vs CONSERVATIVE not Democrat/Republican. Parties Change, people typically do not.
-
I find it ironic that so many people that bash "obamacare" might end up voting for a guy that basically installed it in his state.
Amen to that, sigmapi1501. Just say no to Romneycare.
-
Yup, I'm even more in favor of Santorum now. He totally dissected Romneycare and took Romney and Gingrich to task for supporting the bank bailout in the last FL debate. While I respect your pick, Paul doesn't really want to be president. He's trying to get enough delegates to have a say on the party's platform at the convention.
After the last two debates, I'm leaning towards Sen. Rick Santorum.
Hi trucktina. :wave: Do you still favor Senator Santorum?
There are things I like/dislike about all four candidates but I am hoping it will be Ron Paul.
-
I showed you the numbers, Democrat.
When? What numbers?
I walked you through the US Constitution, Democrat.
Nope, you told me what YOU think is in there though.
All you can do is retreat to that imaginary world that liberals have to create in order for their ideas to make sense.
Yep, that imaginary world where we thought it wasn't right to segregate blacks, so we got that changed. Where we thought women should be able to vote, so we got that changed. But you are right, changing things that we don't think are right is just a fad.
You have to be retarded. Eisenhower had as much to do with desegregation as Truman. Also, what kind of idiot claims that women's suffrage was opposed by Republicans/Conservatives? Did you forget that Lincoln wsa a Republican, moron? Jesus are you a dolt. And yes, you live in an imaginary world.
You're also right that only liberals resort to name calling when proven foolish. Republican/Democrat isn't relevant here. I am talking PROGRESSIVE vs CONSERVATIVE. Yes, CONSERVATIVE people fought Women's suffrage and Civil rights tooth and nail. The parties have changed and morphed. There used to be whig and tory and federalist parties. Lincoln was a Republican? Sure. By name only. He was a PROGRESSIVE though. Your flat Earth/keep things the same mentality would have kept slaves still working and women unable to vote. PROGRESSIVE vs CONSERVATIVE not Democrat/Republican. Parties Change, people typically do not.
The problem I see here with both you, Sigmapi1501, and Joeyramone is that we are assigning labels to entire political ideologies. You cannot describe any one person's views on society, governments, and economics in total with one word.
You could say that because I opposed Lincolns methods of "freeing the slaves" that I am a conservative, but in fact I believe that war and aggression to solve ones problems is one of the oldest (and therefore conservative) forms diplomacy. In fact I don't think Lincoln had much to do with freeing the slaves as he did with trying to "preserve the union" by disregarding state's ability to secede. If we didn't end the confederation, perhaps they would have kept slaves longer than they did. But I believe that the end of slavery didn't come about from the decisions of a few people in power but a general consensus in that it is wrong to enslave other people. You could say that because I believe the civil rights act of 1964 should have never been passed that I am some racist over-the-top conservative, but in fact the reason I believe so is because the benefit of the elimination of legalized prejudice in the government does not out-weight the elimination of a business owners freedom to decide who may or may not do business with them on their own private property. I simply think the civil rights act of 1964 went too far. I could argue that the declaration of ownership the government places on ones business in regards to whom they do business with is a show of force as old as humanity itself (and therefore very conservative).
The point I am making is that it words like Progressive or conservative, democrat or republican, left-wing liberal nutjob right-wing conservative nutjob have meanings that are too opinionated and diverse that they have no real meaning at all. Instead of talking about labels, one should focus on actual issues. How should society be run? Who should run it? Is our federalized system of government not strong enough, or should we falter to a more oligarchical system of power by one ruling section of government? Should the free market dictate goods and services, or should those be left to a small number of people (whether elected or not.)? And everything in between these ideologies.
Our federalized system of power is the best way to ensure that no single section of the government has complete power over all its people. That a free-market system with little government interference and a fair-playing field for all involved is they best way to ensure that no single group has any ruling power over another (I believe economic power is only as powerful as one is willing to consent themselves to it being, and that government interference gives business the power to use the governments laws, military, and police to give them an advantage). A republic (a system of laws beyond the power of any single human being) with a touch of democracy (the ability for those to elect whom should represent them in specific matters) is the best representative of the peoples best interest, as opposed to an oligarchy (small number of people ruling over everyone else) or a true democracy (the mob ruling over everyone not in the mob.)
So far I have had difficult in ascertaining what either of you truly believe in regards to these matters because of all this name-calling that does not belong in this forum.
-
I'll agree here Abrupt that name calling and mud slinging does less than very little, in fact it's counter productive. I'm guilty of it and it tends to strip my argument of credibility.
As far as civil rights law in 1964, I just fundamentally disagree with you. I also don't believe your reasons. It's nice to say that you disagree with a civil rights law because you feel it strips business owners freedoms. However, Just because you are not CONSCIOUSLY being racist, doesn't meant you aren't being racist.
You've probably tricked yourself into believing that the reason you don't support same sex marriage is the ideal family benefit (we give incentives to married couples because that's the ideal way to raise a family). Because that's more acceptable than "It's weird and I don't understand men/men marriages"
Don't admit it. Don't vehemently deny it. Examine it. Honestly. Just you and your thoughts.
-
I liked Rick Perry but I will take Newt over Mitt.
-
Been watching a lot of TNG lately and I stand by my earlier comment that Lt. Commander Data is, by far, the superior choice.
DATA/LORE 2012
-
Been watching a lot of TNG lately and I stand by my earlier comment that Lt. Commander Data is, by far, the superior choice.
DATA/LORE 2012
Lore would be funner. What do you think about Seven of Nine as president?
-
What do you think about Seven of Nine as president?
Resistance would be futile?
-
What do you think about Seven of Nine as president?
Resistance would be futile?
I remember seeing a photo of her with the caption "Resistance doesn't even make sense".
-
I remember seeing a photo of her with the caption "Resistance doesn't even make sense".
Any hetero-male, (and likely some females), who has seen her in that 'sprayed-on' body suit from the series would have to agree.
-
What do you think about Seven of Nine as president?
I don't know about President, but she has my vote for First Chancellor of Trek Hotness. Counselor Troi can be her Vice-chancellor.
Come to think of it, Seven was pretty much the only decent thing about that god-awful Voyager series. What a waste.
-
You know, I don't think anyone that has not done any research on any of them - republican or democrat - should even have an opinion. Most of what is posted here is simply repeating what they heard. I pray that the man that is elected will seek GOD's will and not his own. The man there now is a god in his own mind and that of his followers. To be honest, my heart is breaking for this country and her fate.
-
I pray that the man that is elected will seek GOD's will and not his own.
What you dub 'god's will' is the will of what the man wants. You can get away with anything as long as you throw the most popular god into the mix. It's very dangerous and is a major reason why there's a separation of church and state.
The man there now is a god in his own mind and that of his followers
How so? Got any sources on this? Fox News does not count.
-
Well, it seems to me, that no matter what, the winner is the one with the most bucks. I think people really don't do there own thinking anymore and just go by what the ads, commercials and news pundents say. I think our congress all the way to the President is basically bought!
But that is just my opinion.
-
Well, it seems to me, that no matter what, the winner is the one with the most bucks. I think people really don't do there own thinking anymore and just go by what the ads, commercials and news pundents say. I think our congress all the way to the President is basically bought!
But that is just my opinion.
Really? How did Rick Santorum win three states on Tuesday then? Why didn't the "one with the most bucks" -- Mitt Romney-- win even one? I hope that you can temper your cynicism with a little more faith in your fellow citizens. We're not happy with going with whoever the GOP shoved down our throats! Unless or until Romney is the nominee, I'm not supporting him.
-
What I don't like about these races, is that usually money wins the nomination. Also why don't these wanna be Presidents show who they want to be the Vice President? That to me would also help the people in their selection. As the VP is just a heart beat away, and I think should be shown up front. But in answer to the question, if the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot, the you will have President Obama for a second term.
-
These people haven't chosen a VP because it's presumptuous, and it wouldn't be official anyway. The party has to okay who is the VP at the convention. For example, John McCain chose his VP pick a couple days before the GOP convention in '08 (the end of August). Way too early.
I somewhat agree with your second point. If Republicans go around attacking each other like left-wing Dems, we're in big trouble. Santorum hasn't done that. You may want to give him a second look. :D
-
Santorum hasn't done that. You may want to give him a second look.
As much as I hate to say it, attacking eachother's merit to the extreme is part of the political getup. Though he gets a few points for what you stated (though he has attacked Mitt), there's really no reason to look into him. He's a completely out-of-touch imbecile on basic issues. If one can't trust his judgement on the basics, I doubt one can trust him on the higher/technical issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzDrOR30U8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html
Top comments in the videos-
" If Santorum does win the republican nomination, it would virtually assure a second term in office for Obama."
"I suspect Rick Santorum is a double agent of the liberals, planted to discredit conservatives."
-
I don't understand why you've posted these videos and articles, Falconer. In the first one, Santorum starts by stressing that he is talking about a personal view, and that he votes "for and supports birth control." All Americans have a right to their conscience, and this does not disqualify anyone to hold public office.
In the second video, Santorum does his best to debate a student, a student who is not respectful and doesn't want to debate but yell at him. Santorum points out that just because an organization says something, that is not evidence that something is true. I'm not aware of the group the student cited, by he's correct that the AMA doesn't include many, many doctors.
As far as the HuffPo article, it's a left-wing periodical. Again, you're confusing personal views with something that someone is doing as policy. Thanks for sharing these! :wave:
Santorum hasn't done that. You may want to give him a second look.
As much as I hate to say it, attacking eachother's merit to the extreme is part of the political getup. Though he gets a few points for what you stated (though he has attacked Mitt), there's really no reason to look into him. He's a completely out-of-touch imbecile on basic issues. If one can't trust his judgement on the basics, I doubt one can trust him on the higher/technical issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzzDrOR30U8
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html
Top comments in the videos-
" If Santorum does win the republican nomination, it would virtually assure a second term in office for Obama."
"I suspect Rick Santorum is a double agent of the liberals, planted to discredit conservatives."
-
When has Santorum attacked Mitt Romney on any issue that isn't factual? I was talking about the Axelrod-Chicago-style personal attacks flying between Mitt and Newt starting after the IA caucuses...
-
Santorum starts by stressing that he is talking about a personal view, and that he votes "for and supports birth control." All Americans have a right to their conscience, and this does not disqualify anyone to hold public office.
He thinks and openly states that birth control is harmful to women and society. Personal or political- either way it's an major asinine quality in this day and age.
Santorum does his best to debate a student, a student who is not respectful and doesn't want to debate but yell at him. Santorum points out that just because an organization says something, that is not evidence that something is true.
The American Psychological Association can provide a lot more educated proof than some old ancient bible can, which seems to be what his whole argument is based off of. Creationists use the same tactic in everything they don't agree with without actually looking at or understanding the evidences that are presented. Notice how he moves around the subject and immediately uses a false dilemma and slippery slope- "Gay marriage will destroy the moral ecology of America! It will undermine the family and destroy faith! And then anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is labelled as a bigot! Any people presenting evidences against me just like to hear themselves talk!" No, Santorum. Do some *bleep* research on gay marriage statistics around the world and get your butt out of the bible-belt mindset for 2 minutes.
As far as the HuffPo article, it's a left-wing periodical.
Any individual who attempts to push a theocratic agenda into public schools is unamerican-- it's trying to break the wall of church and state. The odd thing is that Santorum was the one who appointed the judge for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, who then ruled that Intelligent Design isn't actual science. And yet here Santorum is 7 years later still talking about how it should be in schools.
Again, you're confusing personal views with something that someone is doing as policy.
I honestly don't want someone in a position of power who sports such uneducated and out-of-date viewpoints. They may affect his choices in policy. Looking at comments whenever he's mentioned, the words "Dark ages" appear more times than they should.
I was talking about the Axelrod-Chicago-style personal attacks flying between Mitt and Newt starting after the IA caucuses...
Ahh alrighty then.
-
I am not thrilled with any candiate but I sure don't want another 4 years with our current President.
-
I am not thrilled with any candiate but I sure don't want another 4 years with our current President.
Why not?
-
At this point i don't know who will be running, All i know is i won't vote for the one that is in power right now. He scares me. All of this smack talking right now is now helping the rep. they should be bring up all the negative things that have gone on this past 3 years, well almost 4.
-
At this point i don't know who will be running, All i know is i won't vote for the one that is in power right now. He scares me. All of this smack talking right now is now helping the rep. they should be bring up all the negative things that have gone on this past 3 years, well almost 4.
I think they're doing their best, Vickysue. The problem is that the Mainstream Media is working in league with this WH. So the attacks and the questions are not focused ever on what Obama has done. Google "Media Matters" and the controversy with them and the Obama Admin. essentially writing news broadcasts for CNN, MSNBC and the like. Our liberties, here the 1st Amendment, are under assault.
-
Ummm the "Media" is not in bed with Obama. What is the most watched news? Fox News. The are nothing more than a propaganda arm for the GOP. MSNBC is very liberal but they are hardly credible.
-
Ummm the "Media" is not in bed with Obama. What is the most watched news? Fox News. The are nothing more than a propaganda arm for the GOP. MSNBC is very liberal but they are hardly credible.
Actually much of the media, other than Fox News, is in bed with Obama. Have you seen the recent admittance of Media Matters on how they have daily meetings with the White House and then basically write the news for many organizations (MSNBC is literally word for word, if not exactly word for word. There are many others besides that though).
Yes Fox News is the most watched news, because it is the most balanced. There are no left leaning programs on it and only 2 that are right leaning. The rest are "fair and balanced". Even the right leaning ones allow for opposing voices and they do let the other side get their say in. Half the important news one would never be aware of if they didn't watch Fox News and that is just a shame that the other media has fallen to such depths.
-
Actually much of the media, other than Fox News, is in bed with Obama.
Yes Fox News is the most watched news, because it is the most balanced.
Even the right leaning ones allow for opposing voices and they do let the other side get their say in
BALANCED? Granted all news channels are arguably corrupted, Fox News hands down takes the cake (with msnbc coming close second). No offense to you, but how can anyone take you seriously if you're defending the worst major news station in the country? Even other countries make fun of how laughably biased and exhaggerated the stories and claims they constantly make are. I've talked to many people around the world first-hand (even housed 2 vacationing germans and a russian) and whenever politics comes up in our convos, they mention fox news while rolling their eyes.
-
Actually much of the media, other than Fox News, is in bed with Obama.
Yes Fox News is the most watched news, because it is the most balanced.
Even the right leaning ones allow for opposing voices and they do let the other side get their say in
BALANCED? Granted all news channels are arguably corrupted, Fox News hands down takes the cake (with msnbc coming close second). No offense to you, but how can anyone take you seriously if you're defending the worst major news station in the country? Even other countries make fun of how laughably biased and exhaggerated the stories and claims they constantly make are. I've talked to many people around the world first-hand (even housed 2 vacationing germans and a russian) and whenever politics comes up in our convos, they mention fox news while rolling their eyes.
In my opinion if 'the rest of the world' is against Fox News it even reinforces my points all the more. The rest of the world has been anti-US for a long time. Some of it is hostility based and some of it is just fatigue of seeing the same team wining repeatedly. You do understand that don't you? I mean do you take the word of the Irish about the fairness of the English? Or the word of the English about the civility of the french? You have never struck me as naive and these statements of yours seem as if from an imposter.
I mentioned there were two right wing shows and yes they do exaggerate some points (but no more than to the degree the other media ignores important points or exaggerates in favor of liberal policies). Some of these points need to be exaggerated, though, and the reason is so that people realize how serious some of these seemingly 'petty/miniscule' bits are. Freedom isn't stolen all at once, it is slowly eroded away over time or traded for a measure of safety or profit. People don't tend to notice such things unless they are 'exaggerated'. The most important job of the media is to hold the government accountable and to warn us when our freedom is being threatened. I don't care if they do exaggerate it in such cases as the loss of even the smallest bit of my freedom is worth getting fired up over.
-
Lol @ the notion that Fox News channel is fair or balanced.
-
Basically, even in his own justification of why fox news exaggerates, abrupt basically says that the people watching fox news are too stupid to understand the news unless it is framed for them.
We report. You decide.
Nope.
-
You do understand that don't you? I mean do you take the word of the Irish about the fairness of the English? Or the word of the English about the civility of the french? You have never struck me as naive and these statements of yours seem as if from an imposter.
Well no-- these notions are very old and out-of-date. With all of the foreigners I've met (which is surprisingly a lot in the last few years due to my brother and friends being involved in various political and foreign studies), the general view of America from their countries is decent- I've heard this from Aussies, Polish, French, Russians, Germans, and Kenyans. Generally we all felt the same about the world and how things are going, so I'm just under the impression that the ones who hold such notions aren't looking in the present or are concentrating on current hot issues where the true information isn't even being told correctly.
Freedom isn't stolen all at once, it is slowly eroded away over time or traded for a measure of safety or profit.
True. Though as countries grow in population, sometimes these freedoms are eroded due to the growth aspect alone.
The most important job of the media is to hold the government accountable and to warn us when our freedom is being threatened.
I find it funny then that when the courts ruled video games are covered by the first amendment, Fox News was the one dissing it and posting reports around the lines of "The government thinks your kids should play violent and gory video games!". This is a prime example of what Fox News does-- it has an overly-opinionated and 'lamely-exhaggerated' agenda that's so out of date, dull, and biased. When a news network goes so low as to call The Muppets dangerously liberal, there's an obvious glaring problem with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8YhED4IgQA
(fox source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl6ekkvWnOE&feature=related )
We report. You decide.
Nope.
"Faux News"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
-
Basically, even in his own justification of why fox news exaggerates, abrupt basically says that the people watching fox news are too stupid to understand the news unless it is framed for them.
We report. You decide.
Nope.
I didn't imply that at all and your previous statement isn't just an exaggeration of what I said but a deliberate misrepresentation and a lie. This is the trouble with trying to give any agreement to prejudice and brainwashed liberals such as yourself -- when we agree on a point you try to run with that agreement and wield it as a weapon, exaggerate and deceive and downright lie about what was said. You wonder why their cannot be compromise after what you have just presented above?
Let us repeat what was said then and add a bit of stipulation: Fox news exaggerates some issue, but nowhere near as badly as the rest of the media. Some issues need to be exaggerated because the issues are of such importance that people need to realize them. The loss of freedom is seldom instant and in a free society it is a slow erosion that often goes unobserved, sort of like a tick latching on for a feeding. When this tick is noticed the person being fed on needs to be made aware. If they shrug their shoulders when it is mentioned to them then they need to be reminded in a more firm manner, even if it means exaggerating the risks of spotted fever and other such things carried by the tick.
Now why don't you take what I have just given you and make another lie about what I said.
-
You do understand that don't you? I mean do you take the word of the Irish about the fairness of the English? Or the word of the English about the civility of the french? You have never struck me as naive and these statements of yours seem as if from an imposter.
Well no-- these notions are very old and out-of-date. With all of the foreigners I've met (which is surprisingly a lot in the last few years due to my brother and friends being involved in various political and foreign studies), the general view of America from their countries is decent- I've heard this from Aussies, Polish, French, Russians, Germans, and Kenyans. Generally we all felt the same about the world and how things are going, so I'm just under the impression that the ones who hold such notions aren't looking in the present or are concentrating on current hot issues where the true information isn't even being told correctly.
Freedom isn't stolen all at once, it is slowly eroded away over time or traded for a measure of safety or profit.
True. Though as countries grow in population, sometimes these freedoms are eroded due to the growth aspect alone.
The most important job of the media is to hold the government accountable and to warn us when our freedom is being threatened.
I find it funny then that when the courts ruled video games are covered by the first amendment, Fox News was the one dissing it and posting reports around the lines of "The government thinks your kids should play violent and gory video games!". This is a prime example of what Fox News does-- it has an overly-opinionated and 'lamely-exhaggerated' agenda that's so out of date, dull, and biased. When a news network goes so low as to call The Muppets dangerously liberal, there's an obvious glaring problem with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8YhED4IgQA
(fox source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl6ekkvWnOE&feature=related )
We report. You decide.
Nope.
"Faux News"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
The notions may be somewhat stereotypical but, they are for a reason. Where you hint at antiquity you forget about culture. Considering these other countries are highly socialistic it isn't any wonder they would be against the one news agency that doesn't blindly voice socialism. Are you surprised that people from a socialist upbringing dislike a news agency that consistently bashes socialist ideas? That is more rhetorical and to bring awareness to any other readers then to garner a response from you, so you know. Personally, if I knew someone enjoyed their socialist lifestyle, I would ask them what their favorite news agency was and then I would mark it down on my list of "suspect" media.
Are you even aware of the issue regarding the Muppets? Are you aware of the context it was used in. Do you understand the significance of using "an evil oil executive" in a kids movie and having to force the character into the spot where it was better fit by any other villain? I am sure such subtlety escapes many but wonder had it been an "evil abortion doctor" if the same blindness would have been applied. You present this Muppet incident like it was some full fledged Fox News covered item but it was mentioned on one show and the liberal grunts that look for anything to fault Fox News on quickly jumped on the topic and then misrepresented and exaggerated the short bit in the segment on the show to make it appear as if Fox News had "breaking now coverage" on it. Why is it such an issue do you think? Why do you know of it? Why do you care that someone things that stealthy manipulation of children to always villainize the rich is a liberal tactic that needs to be curtailed? Why is the evil villain in most westerns always a rich cattle baron with a massive herd of cattle that you always hear but never see?
I have never seen "The government thinks your kids should play violent and gory video games!" on Fox. You are aware that often times when dealing with legal issues they will get two lawyers on the program and have them each take a stance (one pro and one con and argue their points -- and even if they don't hold the position). You can very well see a lawyer on Fox yelling an arguing an outrageous point along the lines of what is provided by law and being challenged in turn by another lawyer as if in a courtroom (the common segment for this is Kelly's Court). After the round and round she will give her legal opinion of what was argued. Considering most people on Fox think the government needs to stay out of our business and let the parents handle the kids I am pretty sure your proposed quote either came from such a segment or was entirely made up by the source you got it from. You should investigate and see what is what.
-
I think all of the Republican nominees are good, but I'm leaning toward Newt because I think we need someone with big ideas and experience.
-
I think all of the Republican nominees are good, but I'm leaning toward Newt because I think we need someone with big ideas and experience.
And Ethics violations
-
@Abrupt.... If you don't even realize that Fox news is nothing more than GOP propaganda, then there is no reason to go back and forth.
I didn't lie about what you said. You said they exaggerate some things because we need to realize them. That's not reporting. That is telling the people what to think because you assume they are too stupid to come to the conclusion you desire by just reporting to them. Quick example (grossly exaggerated; because somethings need to be):
Three poor people die in a fire. The Fire was caused by a faulty and outdated space heater. The people lived in low rent section 8 housing.
Fox's spin. Three people dead. They were poor. It was probably their fault. They should have been rich.
-
@Abrupt.... If you don't even realize that Fox news is nothing more than GOP propaganda, then there is no reason to go back and forth.
I didn't lie about what you said. You said they exaggerate some things because we need to realize them. That's not reporting. That is telling the people what to think because you assume they are too stupid to come to the conclusion you desire by just reporting to them. Quick example (grossly exaggerated; because somethings need to be):
Three poor people die in a fire. The Fire was caused by a faulty and outdated space heater. The people lived in low rent section 8 housing.
Fox's spin. Three people dead. They were poor. It was probably their fault. They should have been rich.
Fox news is conservative, not GOP. Simply because one is more apt to see a conservative in the GOP is why you likely make the connection. They are harsh towards rhino's just the same as they are towards democratic liberals and socialists. The other media would break their necks to prostrate themselves and then take any of the socialist democrats into their mouths. They don't just advocate a position, they deliberately lie to their viewers and omit important pieces of information (such as context and sources and affiliations) and also omit news that is damaging to the DNC and the socialist movement. Speaking of thinking for themselves, the obviousness of who believes citizens cannot think for themselves is clearly visible if you look at all the petty laws the liberals pass in the US and the even crazier ones they try to pass that don't get passed.
Once again you continue following the liberal mantra of misrepresent and repeat it until people become brainwashed into believing it. First of all the original statement was that two shows on Fox I find more than once using exaggeration while you make it seem as if it is the entire network all the time. Your liberal side exaggerates as the minimum and lies as the standard, and the bulk of your posts here clearly demonstrates that pattern -- and the reason I mention you in comparison as you are very liberal and obviously put in your belly the food that they give you. You mentioned MSNBC, but where do they get their information...Media Matters...and where do they get their marching orders...straight from the white house. The other left wing propaganda spewers are not as bad as MSNBC, but they will omit any information damaging to the socialist/liberal agenda and only reluctantly report on it after Fox has been mentioning it for over a week. This is why people watch Fox is because they are starting to become obvious of the deception. Any exaggeration Fox is guilty of, the others are guilty of one hundred fold worse.
You example, while you may contend it to be an exaggeration, I call it nothing more than a lie, for that is what it is. You are apparently so use to having to misrepresent and lie about the facts that you don't even realize what you just did in your example. With all the readily available exaggerations (as you claim), what do you choose to provide as proof of your point? A deliberately made up lie about Fox coverage of a story. That is purely laughable and completely exposes and discredits you.
-
Justifying Fox's gross journalism by saying "MSNBC does it too" doesn't work. I don't find MSNBC credible.
I'm saying that you can't call the "media" liberal when the highest rated news is nothing more than right wing talking points.
-
The notions may be somewhat stereotypical but, they are for a reason. Where you hint at antiquity you forget about culture. Considering these other countries are highly socialistic it isn't any wonder they would be against the one news agency that doesn't blindly voice socialism. Are you surprised that people from a socialist upbringing dislike a news agency that consistently bashes socialist ideas? That is more rhetorical and to bring awareness to any other readers then to garner a response from you, so you know. Personally, if I knew someone enjoyed their socialist lifestyle, I would ask them what their favorite news agency was and then I would mark it down on my list of "suspect" media.
Who said anything about socialism? You're trying to play down Fox News as being some sort of victim here. This has nothing to do with socialism or a liberal agenda. It has everything to do with Fox News just being a flatout bad source of news. Granted not all of it is fictitious or wrong, according to the statistics, Fox being a poor news source is completely true. Or do you believe those statistics are part of a socialist/liberal agenda as well?
Are you even aware of the issue regarding the Muppets? Are you aware of the context it was used in. Do you understand the significance of using "an evil oil executive" in a kids movie and having to force the character into the spot where it was better fit by any other villain? I am sure such subtlety escapes many but wonder had it been an "evil abortion doctor" if the same blindness would have been applied. You present this Muppet incident like it was some full fledged Fox News covered item but it was mentioned on one show and the liberal grunts that look for anything to fault Fox News on quickly jumped on the topic and then misrepresented and exaggerated the short bit in the segment on the show to make it appear as if Fox News had "breaking now coverage" on it. Why is it such an issue do you think? Why do you know of it?
Evil oil executives, evil rainforest destroyers, or evil land-grabbers are much more common in kids movies than an 'evil abortion doctor' (something that probably shouldn't be in a PG film with friendly puppets anyhoo...). You're taking an unrealistic and extremist stance on something that's really nothing more than a common stereotypical movie or cartoon antagonist. You have to understand that this is on the same level as those extremists who called "Captain Planet" a kids show promoting communist ideals when it was nothing more than a cheap show talking about responsibility in the environment...or the ones who claimed that "Sim City" was promoting a crazy liberal agenda. It's not news. It's comedy. And this instance had become a big deal because stupid things said on news channels deserve to be displayed, tarred, and feathered for their false and exhaggerated claims. Our society should value reason and truth, and Fox news has a long history of doing the exact opposites.
And I know of it because I like the muppets! When the new movie came out, I checked out the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and then watched some clips on utube and voila- found it there on the side.
have never seen "The government thinks your kids should play violent and gory video games!" on Fox.
It was actually on the main website, but I cannot find it. Many humorous pictures of it were circling around the net a while back. I'll have to get back to you on this though since I cannot find it atm.
Three poor people die in a fire. The Fire was caused by a faulty and outdated space heater. The people lived in low rent section 8 housing.
Fox's spin. Three people dead. They were poor. It was probably their fault. They should have been rich.
I wholeheartedly agree with this example. Want to laugh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
-
Justifying Fox's gross journalism by saying "MSNBC does it too" doesn't work. I don't find MSNBC credible.
I'm saying that you can't call the "media" liberal when the highest rated news is nothing more than right wing talking points.
I didn't justify anything (other than that I don't mind exaggeration when an important topic is not realized for what it is -- such as a precursor or forerunner to something else) , and I especially would never make comparative justifications. I included MSNBC to point out that it is an indirect arm of the White House via Media Matters, which is a direct arm. Media Matters doesn't just write the news for MSNBC though, but for many of the other networks as well and often times word for word. It is good you don't find them credible, but do you follow the connections back from there to the source of their 'news'?
Most of the media is liberal, with the most obvious exception being Fox. Could it be that these 'right wing talking points' are what is important to the viewers and exactly aligned to their beliefs? If so that would make them mainstream and not right wing and the others would be mostly left wing to extreme left wing (MSNBC).
-
Who said anything about socialism? You're trying to play down Fox News as being some sort of victim here. This has nothing to do with socialism or a liberal agenda. It has everything to do with Fox News just being a flatout bad source of news. Granted not all of it is fictitious or wrong, according to the statistics, Fox being a poor news source is completely true. Or do you believe those statistics are part of a socialist/liberal agenda as well?
I mentioned socialism to shed light on a missing variable for the reasons some don't like Fox News. Could we agree that a socialist wouldn't like Fox News because it tends to voice capitalism? Certainly a liberal wouldn't like Fox News because it advocates a more conservative voice. I contend that a socialist or a liberal would not have a favorable view of Fox News strictly due to confirmation bias. Every bit of statistics I see from reliable sources rate Fox News as a very reliable news source. Again this is very unlike you to post a claim without supplying a source. Hmm making me nearly suspicious enough to break out my archaic pattern analyzer...except that it never worked well in the first place...
Evil oil executives, evil rainforest destroyers, or evil land-grabbers are much more common in kids movies than an 'evil abortion doctor' (something that probably shouldn't be in a PG film with friendly puppets anyhoo...). You're taking an unrealistic and extremist stance on something that's really nothing more than a common stereotypical movie or cartoon antagonist. You have to understand that this is on the same level as those extremists who called "Captain Planet" a kids show promoting communist ideals when it was nothing more than a cheap show talking about responsibility in the environment...or the ones who claimed that "Sim City" was promoting a crazy liberal agenda. It's not news. It's comedy. And this instance had become a big deal because stupid things said on news channels deserve to be displayed, tarred, and feathered for their false and exhaggerated claims. Our society should value reason and truth, and Fox news has a long history of doing the exact opposites.
And I know of it because I like the muppets! When the new movie came out, I checked out the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and then watched some clips on utube and voila- found it there on the side.
There is a reason for this, and it is a type of bias. I suppose an "evil environmentalist" would be a better choice than an abortion doctor for my point, but that was the first thing that came to mind. Personally I think it was a bit of high brow humor on Eric's part and if you have never watched much of him you wouldn't tend to appreciate his animated style. Generally when I watch him I know he is going to make a point but he is going to exaggerate and actually make the example humorous and enjoyable. That doesn't discredit the basic truth of what he says though. The point he was making was that it is a type of indoctrination set at the young. It might seem rather timid to you, but the prevalence of such things in kids programming and education does indoctrinate them into a mindset of a tendency to think in one way. They are being taught that being rich and successful, and being skilled and performing well at a task is a bad thing. They are being taught that being ineffective and impotent in capability are perfectly acceptable. These things are subtle and incapable of penetrating the established thoughts of most adults, but children are impressionable and shouldn't be forced to choose a side on a matter that is out of their element of understanding or appreciating.
I also like the Muppets (except for Miss Piggy -- I never could stand her).
have never seen "The government thinks your kids should play violent and gory video games!" on Fox.
It was actually on the main website, but I cannot find it. Many humorous pictures of it were circling around the net a while back. I'll have to get back to you on this though since I cannot find it atm.
Three poor people die in a fire. The Fire was caused by a faulty and outdated space heater. The people lived in low rent section 8 housing.
Fox's spin. Three people dead. They were poor. It was probably their fault. They should have been rich.
I wholeheartedly agree with this example. Want to laugh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
That was a Fox affiliate, not FNC so please make the distinction. I think if you removed the silly sound effects it would have been perfectly fine, and fairly accurate, but with the sound yeah I did laugh. Certainly you are not defending Anonymous are you? I have had personal experience with other hackers and generally found most to be fragile and emotionally unstable people. One threw a monitor at me in a lab once back in the good old days of DOS after I bested him in a little coding challenge. He quit and never returned.
-
I don't like Fox news because they blatantly lie. Union members protested in Madison, WI. Fox news reported "riots". The footage shown had Palm trees in the background... You know, the kind of trees that grow commonly in Wisconsin.
-
Could we agree that a socialist wouldn't like Fox News because it tends to voice capitalism?
Sure, but they probably wouldn't like it due to the old conservative qualities rather than the capitalist qualities moreover since those are usually first to stick out.
Every bit of statistics I see from reliable sources rate Fox News as a very reliable news source.
Again this is very unlike you to post a claim without supplying a source.
I haven't seen studies showing that Fox is reliable mainly due to the massive amount of flak it gets for the inconsistencies. I had supplied info earlier but it was just directed at Sigi. And I've been trying to cut down on posting links in general just because another member said I post too many :-/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
There is a reason for this, and it is a type of bias. I suppose an "evil environmentalist" would be a better choice than an abortion doctor for my point, but that was the first thing that came to mind. Personally I think it was a bit of high brow humor on Eric's part and if you have never watched much of him you wouldn't tend to appreciate his animated style. Generally when I watch him I know he is going to make a point but he is going to exaggerate and actually make the example humorous and enjoyable. That doesn't discredit the basic truth of what he says though. The point he was making was that it is a type of indoctrination set at the young. It might seem rather timid to you, but the prevalence of such things in kids programming and education does indoctrinate them into a mindset of a tendency to think in one way. They are being taught that being rich and successful, and being skilled and performing well at a task is a bad thing. They are being taught that being ineffective and impotent in capability are perfectly acceptable. These things are subtle and incapable of penetrating the established thoughts of most adults, but children are impressionable and shouldn't be forced to choose a side on a matter that is out of their element of understanding or appreciating.
This is simply not true. If there ever was an underlying message in kid's media, it's generally just about being cautious to avoid large problems (thinking ahead) or caring about the environment. Kids are not taught to fear success. If they were, the main characters would never succeed in their task. Almost all story-oriented media follows an old pattern of getting struck with a problem, finding a way to solve that problem, refining the skill to defeat the problem, tackling it, and then learning the moral at the end. Even Spongebob does this (...usually...).
Kids are impressionable, but any 'secretive theme' in media will usually pass right over their head. One could argue that Super Mario is promoting communism because he looks like Stalin and at the end of each level he lowers a peace flag, walks into the castle, and raises a red star. But no kid is going to grow up and become a communist or sport comrade ideals because of that. To them a cigar is just a cigar.
I think if you removed the silly sound effects it would have been perfectly fine, and fairly accurate, but with the sound yeah I did laugh.
Glad you did. I have sort of a love-hate relationship with Anonymous and have a friend who loosely associates with them (though she's far from unstable). They can be major idiotic trolls, but at the same time they do target things that I deem acceptable like Scientology, Ebaumsworld, Westboro, etc. It really just depends on the target. I have $10,000 worth of scientology information because of them hacking and spreading it across the net. Did you know Jesus got his powers from touching a crashed UFO? It's true!
Union members protested in Madison, WI. Fox news reported "riots". The footage shown had Palm trees in the background... You know, the kind of trees that grow commonly in Wisconsin.
I've been to Madison and I must say I've always admired those trees in the coldest of winters.
-
I don't like Fox news because they blatantly lie. Union members protested in Madison, WI. Fox news reported "riots". The footage shown had Palm trees in the background... You know, the kind of trees that grow commonly in Wisconsin.
That was B roll footage regarding union protests and introduced as "all over the country". It was never presented as being from Madison, WI., there was footage from Madison labeled "Madison, WI." and footage from elsewhere labeled "Union Protests". This was a segment covering the anger in Union Protests and not simply union protests in Madison.
So, after reviewing all the facts we are left with one conclusion. Anyone who falsely made the claim that Fox presented this as Madison, WI footage is either really really simple minded or they are lying or they were intentionally deceived by someone else into believing it and are thus gullible for not checking sources. Take your pick and let me know which fits you and which fits the source you got it from.
-
Could we agree that a socialist wouldn't like Fox News because it tends to voice capitalism?
Sure, but they probably wouldn't like it due to the old conservative qualities rather than the capitalist qualities moreover since those are usually first to stick out.
Okay, no argument here.
Every bit of statistics I see from reliable sources rate Fox News as a very reliable news source.
Again this is very unlike you to post a claim without supplying a source.
I haven't seen studies showing that Fox is reliable mainly due to the massive amount of flak it gets for the inconsistencies. I had supplied info earlier but it was just directed at Sigi. And I've been trying to cut down on posting links in general just because another member said I post too many :-/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=media-bias-presidential-election
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
I wasn't aware of complaints about your links and that explains why it seemed unusual to me.
No complaint with the scientificamerican claim, although I would like to see more of the base values it was drawn from because frequency becomes relevant in cases like this when establishing a pattern. Omitting frequency does raise concerns for suspect presentation. Also the time frame is somewhat limited in this section and there were still many disappointed and angry Hillary supporters about so I feel where it could well be accurate it is an incomplete snapshot but likely relevant to that period.
Fair is a liberal organization and biased so heavily as to be completely worthless.
No real complaints with the wiki information and I don't see how that necessarily discredits Fox in any way. There is enough information to source everything to find out what claims or statements are biased for or against Fox. I don't really think someone would just believe every word posted there and under that assumption I am fine with the page.
There is a reason for this, and it is a type of bias. I suppose an "evil environmentalist" would be a better choice than an abortion doctor for my point, but that was the first thing that came to mind. Personally I think it was a bit of high brow humor on Eric's part and if you have never watched much of him you wouldn't tend to appreciate his animated style. Generally when I watch him I know he is going to make a point but he is going to exaggerate and actually make the example humorous and enjoyable. That doesn't discredit the basic truth of what he says though. The point he was making was that it is a type of indoctrination set at the young. It might seem rather timid to you, but the prevalence of such things in kids programming and education does indoctrinate them into a mindset of a tendency to think in one way. They are being taught that being rich and successful, and being skilled and performing well at a task is a bad thing. They are being taught that being ineffective and impotent in capability are perfectly acceptable. These things are subtle and incapable of penetrating the established thoughts of most adults, but children are impressionable and shouldn't be forced to choose a side on a matter that is out of their element of understanding or appreciating.
This is simply not true. If there ever was an underlying message in kid's media, it's generally just about being cautious to avoid large problems (thinking ahead) or caring about the environment. Kids are not taught to fear success. If they were, the main characters would never succeed in their task. Almost all story-oriented media follows an old pattern of getting struck with a problem, finding a way to solve that problem, refining the skill to defeat the problem, tackling it, and then learning the moral at the end. Even Spongebob does this (...usually...).
Kids are impressionable, but any 'secretive theme' in media will usually pass right over their head. One could argue that Super Mario is promoting communism because he looks like Stalin and at the end of each level he lowers a peace flag, walks into the castle, and raises a red star. But no kid is going to grow up and become a communist or sport comrade ideals because of that. To them a cigar is just a cigar.
I thought more about this and I realized the bias stereotyping isn't just limited to rich and successful. There is the traditional bias of nearly every educated junior officer in a war movie being some sort of idiotic 'bad' character. Perhaps it is just a villain tendency of what types are easier to hate and used strictly for that purpose. I don't like this type of manipulation though and I don't find it helpful to society. I don't think that kids should be nudged towards any cause or crusade and should simply be left alone to be kids. Educate them, do not indoctrinate them as the later is counter to the former.
I think if you removed the silly sound effects it would have been perfectly fine, and fairly accurate, but with the sound yeah I did laugh.
Glad you did. I have sort of a love-hate relationship with Anonymous and have a friend who loosely associates with them (though she's far from unstable). They can be major idiotic trolls, but at the same time they do target things that I deem acceptable like Scientology, Ebaumsworld, Westboro, etc. It really just depends on the target. I have $10,000 worth of scientology information because of them hacking and spreading it across the net. Did you know Jesus got his powers from touching a crashed UFO? It's true!
I am similar about liking some things they do and disliking others. I know hackers that just like the art of the game, but there are others who are fueled by hate and inferiority that are prevalent in that area for some reason or other.
Union members protested in Madison, WI. Fox news reported "riots". The footage shown had Palm trees in the background... You know, the kind of trees that grow commonly in Wisconsin.
I've been to Madison and I must say I've always admired those trees in the coldest of winters.
See my reply to sigmapi1501 above about how that was misrepresented.
-
That was B roll footage regarding union protests and introduced as "all over the country". It was never presented as being from Madison, WI., there was footage from Madison labeled "Madison, WI." and footage from elsewhere labeled "Union Protests". This was a segment covering the anger in Union Protests and not simply union protests in Madison.
So, after reviewing all the facts we are left with one conclusion. Anyone who falsely made the claim that Fox presented this as Madison, WI footage is either really really simple minded or they are lying or they were intentionally deceived by someone else into believing it and are thus gullible for not checking sources. Take your pick and let me know which fits you and which fits the source you got it from.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!
C'mon! There is a huge protest in Madison (none of which was violent) Fox shows RIOT FOOTAGE and it wasn't intended to be presented as going on in Madison???? They had no intention of making people think that this what was currently taking place in Madison at the time? Get Real! That is comical. You are keep digging. You're so far underground it's getting funnier.
-
That was B roll footage regarding union protests and introduced as "all over the country". It was never presented as being from Madison, WI., there was footage from Madison labeled "Madison, WI." and footage from elsewhere labeled "Union Protests". This was a segment covering the anger in Union Protests and not simply union protests in Madison.
So, after reviewing all the facts we are left with one conclusion. Anyone who falsely made the claim that Fox presented this as Madison, WI footage is either really really simple minded or they are lying or they were intentionally deceived by someone else into believing it and are thus gullible for not checking sources. Take your pick and let me know which fits you and which fits the source you got it from.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!!!!
C'mon! There is a huge protest in Madison (none of which was violent) Fox shows RIOT FOOTAGE and it wasn't intended to be presented as going on in Madison???? They had no intention of making people think that this what was currently taking place in Madison at the time? Get Real! That is comical. You are keep digging. You're so far underground it's getting funnier.
Watch the whole segment, and not some excerpt of a part of it. I cannot see how anyone could conclude that it was taking place in Madison if they actually watched the segment. The only person that could possibly conclude that is someone who watched the Media Matters abbreviated edit of the segment. You say you don't hold MSNBC as creditable but that edit footage you speak of comes from the people who write for MSNBC, and that is Media Matters.
-
Ron Paul should be the one, but if he doesn't get the nod he will be the candidate for the Independent nomination. either way he'll get my vote
-
No real complaints with the wiki information and I don't see how that necessarily discredits Fox in any way.
...Really?
I thought more about this and I realized the bias stereotyping isn't just limited to rich and successful. There is the traditional bias of nearly every educated junior officer in a war movie being some sort of idiotic 'bad' character. Perhaps it is just a villain tendency of what types are easier to hate and used strictly for that purpose. I don't like this type of manipulation though and I don't find it helpful to society. I don't think that kids should be nudged towards any cause or crusade and should simply be left alone to be kids. Educate them, do not indoctrinate them as the later is counter to the former.
This is just basic storytelling though! The "junior officer" example you gave is nothing more than a loss-of-innocence quality given within the story-- some people feel sympathy for the character, others outright hate him. A perfect example is Upham from Saving Pvt. Ryan. This is character stereotyping. Doing this is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old. It's not manipulative unless a person needlessly lets it be. And these are the people making up and complaining about stupid things like the prime examples I made in my posts above instead of concentrating on the main and (usually) simple message of the story-- something that kids do concentrate on.
-
After watching fox news over the last 20 + years, it's easy to declare they are bought and paid for by the elite corporate Republican engine controlling government. Too bad they won't defeat OBama again the next election. Just shows the few real Working Americans that still vote outnumber the crooked bought votes by the corporate elite.
-
After watching fox news over the last 20 + years, it's easy to declare they are bought and paid for by the elite corporate Republican engine controlling government. Too bad they won't defeat OBama again the next election. Just shows the few real Working Americans that still vote outnumber the crooked bought votes by the corporate elite.
What sort of being are you to have been able to watch it for four + years longer than it has been broadcasting? Defeat Obama again? Certainly you posses some strange powers to have witnessed them do this when nobody else has. Are you a time traveler? Do you possess precognitive powers? Delusional? Or are you just a poor liar that doesn't think before you make statements?
-
No real complaints with the wiki information and I don't see how that necessarily discredits Fox in any way.
...Really?
Yes, with sourcing indicated it is easy to track which of the bits of information presented are controversial. One can readily dismiss statements by Media Matters and Fair (not saying they cannot accidentally tell the truth sometimes but just that one knows they will deliberately lie so there is no sense in taking anything they say from them).
-
Hey Abrupt, 20+ years means I've seen that propaganda channel as long as I can remember it being on. Not able to defeat Obama again, means they won't defeat him this election, just like they didn't defeat him last election. You really are a loser dude. BIG TIME.. If you can't chat with a civil tone, then crawl back under your hole.
-
Hey Abrupt, 20+ years means I've seen that propaganda channel as long as I can remember it being on. Not able to defeat Obama again, means they won't defeat him this election, just like they didn't defeat him last election. You really are a loser dude. BIG TIME.. If you can't chat with a civil tone, then crawl back under your hole.
I have no problems conforming to the standards of civility but you forfeit such niceties when your opening statement is a lie. If you meant longer than you could remember you should have said that instead of posting easily verified false information. If you meant they wouldn't be able to defeat him this election then you should have said that instead of saying they wouldn't be able to defeat him again (very different meanings between those two). So let me get this straight, I am a loser for catching you spinning yarns and I am uncivil for calling you on it? If that is the case then perhaps I should proudly change my handle to "The Uncivil Loser" because I will certainly call out you liberal grunts when you spew such cheap nonsense without even doing basic fact checking.
-
Like I said, crawl back under your hole. Loser
-
Like I said, crawl back under your hole. Loser
I don't really know that it is possible to crawl under a void. I am familiar with "crawl back under your rock" and "crawl back in your hole" but your phrase is new to me. I am still curious as to how I suddenly become a 'Loser' for identifying your deception. What exactly have I lost at?
-
Hey Abrupt, You really are a loser dude. BIG TIME.. If you can't chat with a civil tone, then crawl back under your hole.
The level of irony present in the above would be astounding were it not so obvious.
-
glad I could make you laugh and cringe at the same time. Who should win the republican nomination? I don't think it really matters this time around.
-
NOT Sen. Rick Santorum, he voted a raise for himself and didn't care about the American People, putting them more and more into debt!!!
-
Don't forget that Santorum voted to raise the Debt Ceiling 5 times while in office. He loves to spend gov't money.
-
Don't forget that Santorum voted to raise the Debt Ceiling 5 times while in office. He loves to spend gov't money.
There is no such animal as government money...it is our money, but I guess that is what you meant. All of this 'free' stuff Obama is giving away is paid for with money stolen from us -- not that it is just him but I too often hear accolades from the liberals about the wonderful free stuff he is providing them. Remember the government doesn't earn money, it cannot invest money, all it can do is steal and consume and waste. Some is necessary (defense, roads, things authorized by the constitution) and some is not (health care, social security, etc).
-
Exactly the gov't doesn't have any money of it's own, it takes our (the people's money) you're dead on about that. In order for the gov't to help one group of people it has to take from another group to do it. You should watch a great documentary on taxes and such called "Freedom to Fascism" I think it's on google videos and youtube. Was quite an eye opener.
-
Some is necessary (defense, roads, things authorized by the constitution) and some is not (health care, social security, etc).
I think this is just where I fundamentally disagree with you. I am not for gov't providing health care, but social security isn't an "entitlement"... you pay into it your entire working life.
-
Some is necessary (defense, roads, things authorized by the constitution) and some is not (health care, social security, etc).
I think this is just where I fundamentally disagree with you. I am not for gov't providing health care, but social security isn't an "entitlement"... you pay into it your entire working life.
Participants also pay Medicare part B, (or D, etc.), premiums as well so, that would more accurately be termed as a subsidized benefit, (unlike farm subsidies, where farmers are paid not to grow crops?).
-
Some is necessary (defense, roads, things authorized by the constitution) and some is not (health care, social security, etc).
I think this is just where I fundamentally disagree with you. I am not for gov't providing health care, but social security isn't an "entitlement"... you pay into it your entire working life.
Participants also pay Medicare part B, (or D, etc.), premiums as well so, that would more accurately be termed as a subsidized benefit, (unlike farm subsidies, where farmers are paid not to grow crops?).
I wasn't clear... I am not for gov't COMPLETELY handling health care.
-
I wasn't clear... I am not for gov't COMPLETELY handling health care.
So far, it doesn't. Medicare/Tricare/Medicaid etc. are goverment programs however, there are numerous other private healthcare providers. No private programs providing healthcare insurance is completely free from government involvement/regulation but, patients still get billed $12 for an aspirin in hospitals. The question posed was how much involvement is appropriate? The answers have ranged from none to some, (where the 'some' varies).
-
I wasn't clear... I am not for gov't COMPLETELY handling health care.
So far, it doesn't. Medicare/Tricare/Medicaid etc. are goverment programs however, there are numerous other private healthcare providers. No private programs providing healthcare insurance is completely free from government involvement/regulation but, patients still get billed $12 for an aspirin in hospitals. The question posed was how much involvement is appropriate? The answers have ranged from none to some, (where the 'some' varies).
Hippy
-
I wasn't clear... I am not for gov't COMPLETELY handling health care.
So far, it doesn't. Medicare/Tricare/Medicaid etc. are goverment programs however, there are numerous other private healthcare providers. No private programs providing healthcare insurance is completely free from government involvement/regulation but, patients still get billed $12 for an aspirin in hospitals. The question posed was how much involvement is appropriate? The answers have ranged from none to some, (where the 'some' varies).
Hippy
:peace: