Page 16 of 53 FirstFirst ... 6111213141516171819202126 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 1043
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    She was a former local news reader. No one doubted she could read a teleprompter. Now, think of that a half heart beat away from the presidency.

    Scares the hell out of me and I will expatriate if that situation occurs.
    If you do indeed end up expatriating, dathomas, the following video exhibits the method and style of travel you will most likely assume while enroute to your chosen foreign place of exile. Careful. Dont drop your backpack

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8df_1220531138
    Last edited by logmein; 09/04/2008 at 09:55 PM.
  2. #302  
    Religious indoctrination? It is the teaching of both sides. What you are not willing to admit though is that your agenda is indoctrination, even has religious connotations to it. You are willing to force your beliefs on me and my children, but...bubba, you really are one that really believes in 2 standards. Fairness is not what you are interested in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I don't care a bit if you know anything you'd like about God or religion; that's what places of worship are for. It is absolutely not the function of public education.



    You may believe that there is more to support a supreme being, but there is simply no science to support intelligent design. From an instructional perspective (as a former science teacher), there are no two sides of this issue.

    And if suggestible children are taught I.D. as if it's a valid alternative theory, it is (a) poor science, and (b) indoctrinating children into religious beliefs, in direct violation of the separation of church and state. (If we're going to blur that line, then, as a Pastafarian, I would demand that the beliefs of my Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also be taught as an alternative theory.)

    Let me be clear, I do not care if you believe in creation vs. evolution. I do not care if you teach your children this. I am not trying to prevent you from knowing anything. I do care if it's forced upon my kids, because they should have the freedom from religious indoctrination.
  3. #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The Republicans wanting to force their faith on others? Really? I believe it is the other way around. Those of us who are religious cannot express ourselves in many situations without fear of punishment. It is the left side of the room with a lot of support from the ACLU that is working hard at barring free speech in America.

    No, its not my belief that republicans force religion upon others. That wasnt my intention with that particular post. Ben, I am completely with you with regard to your sentiments toward the ACLU. They offend me as much as the religious fanatics.
  4. #304  
    McCain's speech would have been pretty good if crazy lady hadn't preemptively negated his pledge to work for ALL Americans. He absolutely blew it with the veep selection!
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Religious indoctrination? It is the teaching of both sides. What you are not willing to admit though is that your agenda is indoctrination, even has religious connotations to it. You are willing to force your beliefs on me and my children, but...bubba, you really are one that really believes in 2 standards. Fairness is not what you are interested in.
    Science shouldn't be about fairness, or politics. It's about objective data and research. Science classes shouldn't teach "both sides" of the issue if it's not supported by research. Both shouldn't be taught as if they have equal validity.... the only argument for teaching I.D. is that it conforms to religious doctrine. Thus, as I've said, it conflicts with the basic separation of church / state.

    Evolution isn't "my belief"....it's supported by incontrovertible data.

    I'm not interested in continuing this debate, but I'll just repeat: you can teach your kids whatever you want...but we can't disguise religion under the guise of alternative scientific theories that are unsupported by a shred of objective data. (Othewise I demand that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal time as well.)
    Last edited by Bujin; 09/04/2008 at 10:54 PM.
  6. #306  
    McCain gets a BARYE rating of between a C-/ D+

    Poorly staged (Blue ???), poorly delivered -- his low expectations were largely unmet.

    The body of the text attempted to find poetry -- it aspired to have some music to it -- but it was uniformly off key and off-puttting. I continually had the sense of being in a time warp -- that I was watching something from the 60's or 70's.

    McCain himself has now visited once too often to the Hanoi Hilton. (BARYE prefers visits to Paris Hilton).

    It was more than enough when his convention speakers, campaign videos, etc etc, retold that tale -- but it becomes less and less moving the more its retold and referred to.


    I'd give Pallin in contrast, a B/B+ -- she was disarmingly accessible, plain spoken, unscary. and human (and I don't mean that, in this case, as a pejorative).

    She needed to rise at least to the level of being credible as a national leader -- as a potential VP or President -- as someone who is within the mainstream of thought, ideas, and hopes for america.

    This is especially important because the reality is that she is the most radical evangelical christian to ever potentially assume the Presidency (I think she's nuttier even than junior).

    That she can assume the role (sort of like Raygun and junior did) of a folksy hokey mom next door -- does much to neutralize that weirdness.

    Overall I'd give the GOP convention a C+. The race remains tight, I'm guessing that Obama is still maybe slightly ahead in next week's polls. (I continue to be very worried about November).
    Last edited by BARYE; 09/04/2008 at 11:02 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #307  
    Crazy? Please define what you mean there.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    McCain's speech would have been pretty good if crazy lady hadn't preemptively negated his pledge to work for ALL Americans. He absolutely blew it with the veep selection!
  8. #308  
    I thought McCain was a bit more inspiring than his usual speeches (it certainly isn't a strength of his)...if he could just resist the temptation to give that somewhat creepy smile after every sentence, it would have been much better. I find that smile distracting.

    I did like that fact that it didn't contain the venom of Giuliani and Palin's speeches.

    Overall, I think it was a successful week for the Repubs. The thing that continues to bother me was Rudy's speech, in which he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that the Dems wanted us to withdraw, and thus the US would be the losers, and who would be the winners? Al-Quida and Bin Laden. The continual attempts to link Bin Laden and Iraq bugged me to no end.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. #309  
    The intention of the ACLU is to destroy this country, to permeate it with the belief that everything you want to do is fine, that the majority is wrong, that the family is to blame for everything wrong in this country.

    Religious fanatics? Think about what you are calling a religious fanatic and then move to the next level with the ACLU - their action is predicated upon their belief - not really different than a religious belief. Their goal is to destroy society.


    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    No, its not my belief that republicans force religion upon others. That wasnt my intention with that particular post. Ben, I am completely with you with regard to your sentiments toward the ACLU. They offend me as much as the religious fanatics.
  10. #310  
    Bayre - she is main stream America. Her relationship with her family, her husband being a "union" member, has a family, setting goals for herself. She is much more main stream America than Obama is. Obama was a "Chicago activist," associated with murders, terrorists, et cetera. He knocked on the door of those people, Palin did not. Most Americans do not associate with the type of people that Obama knocked the doors of.

    Palin is not popular with the politicians in Alaska, though is with the people of her state. The scandal concerning secession which was blown out of the water by that group itself.

    Of the 4 involved, she is the only outsider and the only one that is really different.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    McCain gets a BARYE rating of between a C-/ D+

    Poorly staged (Blue ???), poorly delivered -- his low expectations were largely unmet.

    The body of the text attempted to find poetry -- it aspired to have some music to it -- but it was uniformly off key and off-puttting. I continually had the sense of being in a time warp -- that I was watching something from the 60's or 70's.

    McCain himself has now visited once too often to the Hanoi Hilton. (BARYE prefers visits to Paris Hilton).

    It was more than enough when his convention speakers, campaign videos, etc etc, retold that tale -- but it becomes less and less moving the more its retold and referred to.


    I'd give Pallin in contrast, a B/B+ -- she was disarmingly accessible, plain spoken, unscary. and human (and I don't mean that, in this case, as a pejorative).

    She needed to rise at least to the level of being credible as a national leader -- as a potential VP or President -- as someone who is within the mainstream of thought, ideas, and hopes for america.

    This is especially important because the reality is that she is the most radical evangelical christian to ever potentially assume the Presidency (I think she's nuttier even than junior).

    That she can assume the role (sort of like Raygun and junior did) of a folksy hokey mom next door -- does much to neutralize that weirdness.

    Overall I'd give the GOP convention a C+. The race remains tight, I'm guessing that Obama is still ahead in next week's polls.
  11. #311  
    Bujin, your statement, "that the Dems wanted us to withdraw, and thus the US would be the losers, and who would be the winners? Al-Quida and Bin Laden." - how is that wrong? You know as well as I do that the Democrat leadership in the House and Senate (Nancy and Harry) want us out of Iraq regardless of the cost - that they have publicly stated many times. Obama himself initially said the same thing, changed his story a bit and when his left wing backers caught wind of the change, made him go back to his previous stance. So Bujin, how is that wrong? It is not wrong, not in the least.

    Try it again, you lost it with this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I thought McCain was a bit more inspiring than his usual speeches (it certainly isn't a strength of his)...if he could just resist the temptation to give that somewhat creepy smile after every sentence, it would have been much better. I find that smile distracting.

    I did like that fact that it didn't contain the venom of Giuliani and Palin's speeches.

    Overall, I think it was a successful week for the Repubs. The thing that continues to bother me was Rudy's speech, in which he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that the Dems wanted us to withdraw, and thus the US would be the losers, and who would be the winners? Al-Quida and Bin Laden. The continual attempts to link Bin Laden and Iraq bugged me to no end.
  12. #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Bujin, your statement, "that the Dems wanted us to withdraw, and thus the US would be the losers, and who would be the winners? Al-Quida and Bin Laden." - how is that wrong?
    Ummm...because Bin Laden has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq? He was in Afghanistan, remember? (little known fact: they are two different places)

    Because our current administration knowingly misled the American people to get us involved in Iraq, even though they knew that there was no connection to 911? Because Al-Quida wasn't even in Iraq until the war started? (see: "U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence")
    Last edited by Bujin; 09/04/2008 at 11:21 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  13. #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Crazy? Please define what you mean there.
    Flat earth bat$hit nuts:

    *ID in science curriculum
    * AO sex ed
    * Baninng books
    * Attempting to fire libriarians who refused book burning
    * Feminists for life
    *Pitbull with lipstick
    * Delusional about maverick status (bridge to nowhere flip flop)
    * Association with Alaskan separtists America haters!
    * Bristol, Track, Willow, Trig, etc (crazy names)

    That is just the begining of an ever growing crazy list. If Barracuda is not clinically nuts, she is without a doubt a hardcore extremist. She should not be allowed within 100 yards of the oval office.
  14. #314  
    Ok, who does most of what you are talking about? Association with Alaskan separtists America haters? Bubba, that was found to be an out right lie early on. Names? bunches of your liberal heros have crazy names. Pitbull with lipstick? I saw no pitbull, though I did see a picture of Nancy with lipstick once. Feminists for Life? Wow, we have a female hater here, do we not? Banning books - that is an issue in every community to one extent or another. There is nothing special there, though burning...but what about Obama and his knocking on the door of terrorists, criminals, murderers, slipping right in to the Chicago political machine. I do hope that some day you do address these issues, issues that the Democrat party does not want aired. Remember, he knocked on those doors and that should scare you.
  15. #315  
    There is the slightest possibility that I am wrong, but did not Bill state in his administration that there had to be a regime change in Iraq? Have you said anything about that? It is a fact, don't you know. You also conveniently forget that there were ties to Bin Laden and Iraq - http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...18/74151.shtml - did you conveniently forget this and others? You repeat the trash, try a different story.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Ummm...because Bin Laden has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq? He was in Afghanistan, remember? (little known fact: they are two different places)

    Because our current administration knowingly misled the American people to get us involved in Iraq, even though they knew that there was no connection to 911? Because Al-Quida wasn't even in Iraq until the war started? (see: "U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence")
  16. #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The intention of the ACLU is to destroy this country, to permeate it with the belief that everything you want to do is fine, that the majority is wrong, that the family is to blame for everything wrong in this country.

    Religious fanatics? Think about what you are calling a religious fanatic and then move to the next level with the ACLU - their action is predicated upon their belief - not really different than a religious belief. Their goal is to destroy society.
    You have an uncanny knack to sound very uninformed (trying to be kind here). Just as you called Dukakis a looser (sic) earlier on in this thread, claiming that the ACLU intends to destroy this country/society holds no merit in any shape of form.

    NEWS FLASH FOR BEN
    The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
    Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

    Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

    Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

    Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
    We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
    If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

    http://www.aclu.org/about/

    ^ That my TreoCentral friend is actually what makes OUR country great.

    What a guy. I'm off to enjoy my "feel good" lifestyle. Tah tah.
    Last edited by pdxtreo; 09/05/2008 at 12:24 AM.
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Bayre - she is main stream America. Her relationship with her family, her husband being a "union" member, has a family, setting goals for herself. She is much more main stream America than Obama is. Obama was a "Chicago activist," associated with murders, terrorists, et cetera. He knocked on the door of those people, Palin did not. Most Americans do not associate with the type of people that Obama knocked the doors of.

    Palin is not popular with the politicians in Alaska, though is with the people of her state. The scandal concerning secession which was blown out of the water by that group itself.

    Of the 4 involved, she is the only outsider and the only one that is really different.
    Reality is of no consequence to BARYE.

    I don't care a wit for if her hubby is a "union" guy -- or if Obama poured soup for lepers.

    All I have ever cared about -- and I have made this clear previously in the past -- its the acquisition and exercise of power.

    Speeches, biographies, hypocritical prego daughters -- all that is meaningless to BARYE except as devices that deflect or guide navigation toward that exclusive goal: power.

    If McCain wins, my world will be poorer, less free, darker, and more sunk into the mud of war.

    That is an irrefutable fact for me -- and everything else is perceived as relative to that.

    The GOP fatcats in that convention hall last night have an equally absolutist vision of the future: they envision oil companies having less wealth and power, courts upholding constitutionally protected rights of privacy and liberty, and a country where the second amendment is no longer more important that the first. A world where woman are not compelled to complete their unwanted pregnancies.

    Its not just that BARYE is a cynical heartless unemployed former monarch who moans for pure unbridled power -- its that he understands that the other side sees things EXACTLY that same way.

    I hate my liberal "progressive" friends who castigate Obama for compromising on stuff like offshore oil drilling, protecting the telco companies, or being unsure when he'll leave Iraq.

    Personally I wouldn't care if he promised to stay in iraq for a 100 years and to cut taxes to zero -- I want him to do WHATEVER it takes to prevail.

    I know the other side not only feels that way -- but practices "democracy" that way.

    Recent research (as well as admissions by Diebold about their Ohio voting machines), confirms my belief that Ohio was stolen 2004, as was Florida in 2000.

    I absolutely believe that the GOP is able to manipulate as much as 5% of the vote in critical states and precincts -- to change election results as needed.

    But even without mechanical cheating they are masters of the attack, the lie, the smear. They can persuade unemployed garment workers who are losing their homes, that they ought be riled up about Death Taxes on rich people, and whether or not the democratic candidate wears a flag lapel pin on his sport coat.

    Except for Bill Clinton (and it almost wasn't so even for him) the democrats have almost always chosen a nominee more suited for their primary, than the national election.

    Obama is a great example of this -- he ran the perfect primary campaign, but is utterly unable to understand that if he's not attacking, not putting the GOP on the defensive -- he is on the defensive -- he is losing.

    If this were any other year, McCain would defeat Obama even with the generic democratic preference being 10-20%.

    But thankfully, this is not any ordinary year.

    Accepting that the war has essentially been neutralized as an issue -- that oil prices are much much less an issue -- that demagoguing taxes is not so much the issue as its been in previous elections, that the dollar's devaluation is not understood or appreciated by most americans...

    What makes this election sufficiently different is that the economy is really really bad -- bad in places where it matters that its bad. Places like Ohio, Florida, and Michigan.

    People are losing their jobs, their homes -- and McCain is offering them nothing except more of the same GOP snakeoil (which if this were a normal year they'd suck down happily.)

    But this is no normal year. And as I wrote about in the Mortgage thread, whole communities are being devastated by this tsunami of foreclosures. Abandoned homes become gutted shells stripped of their copper pipes and wiring -- destroying whole neighborhoods.

    I think McCain will eventually lose because the midwest is being hurt more than many folks on the east coast understand, and more of the same is more of a risk to these people than taking a chance on a neophyte, wet behind the ears, former community organizer.

    addendum:

    BTW -- of the four speeches, over time only hers will be perceived as having made a meaningful difference in the trajectory of this campaign.

    I continue to believe that Obama's was vastly over rated, that Biden's was less than irrelevant, and that McCain's was bad.

    By talking to an audience as large as Obama's, and by speaking much much better than anticipated -- she has made herself into a credible candidate, and saved Mccain's candidacy at least for now ...
    Last edited by BARYE; 09/05/2008 at 04:13 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #318  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    There is the slightest possibility that I am wrong, but did not Bill state in his administration that there had to be a regime change in Iraq? Have you said anything about that? It is a fact, don't you know. You also conveniently forget that there were ties to Bin Laden and Iraq - http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...18/74151.shtml - did you conveniently forget this and others? You repeat the trash, try a different story.
    Bill didn't invade a sovereign country under false pretenses. As for ties berween Al-Quida / Iraq: I'm sure you didn't actually read the link I posted, or the Iraq study report. Once you do, and start actually questioning instead of just reflexively repeated the Bush party line, then I'll be willing to talk with you further.
  19. #319  
    Those rights you speak of are and have been there for years. We have a freedom of speech that the ACLU is attempting to stiffle. Comments that were allowed before are now considered "hate crimes," so how is that freedom of speech. You speak of freedom of religion - that is a big laugh with them and you know it. They have many times attempted to block the use of schools by churches, the Boy Scouts use of schools, the list is out of sight in length and you cannot deny it.

    Right to due process? Years. The right to privacy? There! The ACLU though believes that no matter what, even in times of national emergency, it is better to be blown up than saved.

    Equal protection under the law - that is an open joke. It amounts to more protection of a group than all groups. We all have the same protection and now they want to add benefits to specific groups under specific circumstances - that is equal protection under the law? Not even you can fail to see it. National origin? Religion? all covered and with the ACLU involved, it becomes unequal rights. Look at those who want to cross-dress, this is just disgusting. How have the rights of cross-dressers, trans-gendered, homosexuals been curved? They have not - the ACLU makes sure they have more rights - it is a group that associates itself with the fringe of society. The normal person's rights are sequestered.

    The last part of your quote, "If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled," who are the vulnerable people they are talking about? Read without thought and it sounds good. Looking at its history and it is not good. There has been no loss of rights to anyone.

    Feel-good society, do what you want, really now.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    You have an uncanny knack to sound very uninformed (trying to be kind here). Just as you called Dukakis a looser (sic) earlier on in this thread, claiming that the ACLU intends to destroy this country/society holds no merit in any shape of form.

    NEWS FLASH FOR BEN
    The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
    Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

    Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

    Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

    Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
    We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.
    If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled.

    http://www.aclu.org/about/

    ^ That my TreoCentral friend is actually what makes OUR country great.

    What a guy. I'm off to enjoy my "feel good" lifestyle. Tah tah.
  20. #320  
    I read it when it first hit and yes, I re-read it yesterday. The Iraq Study Group - have you looked at who made up the group and its purpose? A few members did resign before the "study" was released. Had we followed the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, the success we are currently seeing in Iraq would never have occurred. The ISG was flawed from the beginning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Bill didn't invade a sovereign country under false pretenses. As for ties berween Al-Quida / Iraq: I'm sure you didn't actually read the link I posted, or the Iraq study report. Once you do, and start actually questioning instead of just reflexively repeated the Bush party line, then I'll be willing to talk with you further.

Posting Permissions