Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 8131415161718192021222328 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 639
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #341  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You're kinda right. The reform bill as it stands now, nobody wants. It is garbage and does nothing. What people wanted was what Obama proposed during his candidacy. What he proposed was robust health care reform that would have included either going to a system that included a public option for those who needed it. That was one of his policies, and he won the election by a landslide. There, the people had spoken.
    Slow down there. You are assuming a lot. First--that Obama provided sufficient specifics on his healthcare plan. Second that the people who voted for him were aware of those specifics. Third, that this issue was more important than all the other reasons they might have voted for him.

    I think it is reasonable to say that many people are for Healthcare reform (whatever they idealize most likely) as a general idea--much different from a specific plan.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    When the health care reform process started, polls for it were high. If I remember correctly, they were about 70% for it. The problem is the dems couldn't get their collective **** together, and the republicans started with the lies about death panels and euthanasia. During all of this, the bill became a watered down mess and sadly, some people actually believed the lies. As a result, the polls for the bill slipped as the public became disillusioned with the entire process.
    You are also assuming a lot here. You really don't know why people soured on this. You might want to claim is is due to lies, but one could just as easily say it is due to learning about the specifics and finding they don't like what was being proposed.

    While it is one perspective, simply stating the reasons that favor your view isn't a proven point. Saying that it essentially failed due to the public believing lies is a convenient claim, but you can't prove that.

    What we can say is that for whatever reason, the people have turned against the current effort, and their Congress Reps/Senators have heard that message in BARELY sufficient numbers to stop it it seems--at least right now.

    BTW--Thanks for understanding that I was referring to the EXISTING HEALTHCARE BILL in what you quoted.

    Another note on that--if it is not what anyone wants, then doesn't it make sense to scrap it and start again? Why not start with any point there is agreement, write it up and get it passed?

    KAM
  2. #342  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Do you think Obama picked Biden because of his looks?
    Not so fast, dude:

    Biden Criticized For Appearing In Hennessy Ads | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #343  
    Ok. I don't care who you are. Now THAT was funny!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #344  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I love that video. I bet he wished he had a crib note in his palm for that one.
    Wait, what is that video supposed to be showing? Isn't the major part of it, after the edit, Obama trying to speak, but a supporter interrupting with cheers? (You can't hear the supporter because Obama must have a unidirectional mic.) I'm not sure what it proves about Teleprompters, and I'm not sure Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) has used Teleprompters very much at Town Halls, rallies, etc., because they're not really suitable for that setting.

    Are people really stupid enough to think that Obama is single-handedly supporting the Teleprompter industry? Zillions of people who give speeches, read the news, etc., use them every day, like this guy:



    They serve a specific and useful purpose, and Sarah would be in much better shape if she hadn't talked herself into a position where she apparently can no longer use one. Guess that's her problem now.
  5. #345  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Slow down there. You are assuming a lot. First--that Obama provided sufficient specifics on his healthcare plan. Second that the people who voted for him were aware of those specifics. Third, that this issue was more important than all the other reasons they might have voted for him.

    I think it is reasonable to say that many people are for Healthcare reform (whatever they idealize most likely) as a general idea--much different from a specific plan.
    You are assuming a lot of people did not listen to his speeches or visit his campaign site


    You are also assuming a lot here. You really don't know why people soured on this. You might want to claim is is due to lies, but one could just as easily say it is due to learning about the specifics and finding they don't like what was being proposed.

    While it is one perspective, simply stating the reasons that favor your view isn't a proven point. Saying that it essentially failed due to the public believing lies is a convenient claim, but you can't prove that.
    I did not say it lost popularity just due to the lies alone. It was that and many other factors, which I stated.

    What we can say is that for whatever reason, the people have turned against the current effort, and their Congress Reps/Senators have heard that message in BARELY sufficient numbers to stop it it seems--at least right now.

    BTW--Thanks for understanding that I was referring to the EXISTING HEALTHCARE BILL in what you quoted.

    Another note on that--if it is not what anyone wants, then doesn't it make sense to scrap it and start again? Why not start with any point there is agreement, write it up and get it passed?

    KAM
    Starting over is a viable option, but with the current attitudes in Washington now, I feel it will still lead to deadlock. I would personally rather see single payer sent through via reconciliation but that will never happen...
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  6. #346  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    First, you are incorrect--logic does not prove or disprove Religion.
    Second--perhaps you aren't aware of this thing called "freedom of Religion" which certainly does not require anyone to "keep it to themselves"
    Thirdly--I'm always interested in why people who dislike Religion seem more than happy to adopt other non-religious dogma (not sure if this is the case with you), as if the basis for a belief that motivates an action is more important (to a third party) than the action itself.
    Maybe for you logic does not prove or disprove it because religion in itself is in many ways illogical and results in a deep personal conflict that many people refuse to face or question, much less accept. Plain and simple it's not logical for there to exist "A Devine Being". If that's the case then we might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Also it's not about adopting 'non-religious dogma', it's about refusing to be drawn in to a cult. Like I said in another thread, the burden of proof will always lie with those who choose to believe in the supernatural.

    Also, freedom of religion and keeping it to oneself are 2 completely different things. When I said keeping it to oneself I meant keeping out of politics and/or trying to instill those beliefs on others. In no way does that take away from one's freedom of religion. Maybe I wasn't clear enough and I apologize for that.



    How could you possibly know this? You are simply stating an opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that Obama voters are highly emotionally motivated. There is no doubt that Obama APPEALED to independents, but you have no proof on what basis (emotional or otherwise).
    Like I said it's all opinions. Mine is based on what I've read and observed. No one can actually get into the head of a voter to know what they're thinking. However I've seen tons of polls on the issues at hand and it was pretty clear (to me) many folks were swayed one way or another by the issues for the most part.


    Media attention perhaps. Scrutiny? That is a good one. The media was his biggest ally, giving him a free pass or lip-service questioning at best. None of it had anything to do with him being Mixed Race as I saw it.
    Sorry I disagree, from what I saw they spent several weeks on the Rev. Wright issue, even after it was clear he won. It was front page on so many publications, I lost count.



    I would strongly disagree. While there were some minor negatives--like Wright (probably the biggest...which in the end had no effect). Obama had fawning media coverage for the most part. Hilary and McCain on about the same level...probably true.

    As far as Wedge issues--I think its probably more likely that you (favoring the left) simply criticize the right more for them.
    Again we'll just have to disagree here.


    Well, you are welcome to your view of course, and while I am not a bible literalist by any means, people aren't restricted from their Religious views in this country.
    The idea of the separation of religion and politics does not imply restricting one's religious views.



    One more thing. You do realize that President Obama is a Christian correct? Obviously, his Beliefs shape who he is, and therefore what he does.

    KAM
    Anyone can call themselves a Christian. However, actions speak much louder than words and while I do agree one's beliefs will affect their actions, an intelligent person will understand when those actions are encroaching on the freedom and rights of others. As of yet, I haven't seen anything for me to believe Obama has an agenda influenced by his religion. In fact, the right wing wackos have gone so far to accuse him of being Muslim.
    Last edited by darreno1; 02/11/2010 at 05:07 PM.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #347  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    You are assuming a lot of people did not listen to his speeches or visit his campaign site
    I'm not making any claims right now--just questioning your assumptions. I suggest there is no way of determining what people knew or didn't.

    That's not to say your claim is false or even unreasonable--just not known.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    I did not say it lost popularity just due to the lies alone. It was that and many other factors, which I stated.
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    Starting over is a viable option, but with the current attitudes in Washington now, I feel it will still lead to deadlock. I would personally rather see single payer sent through via reconciliation but that will never happen...
    Why would you be eager for Reconciliation--that is a poison pill. I'm really not sure what they can get away with, but I think the purpose of reconciliation is much more narrow than that would have to be.

    I've been thinking about the Public Option a bit. I've got no problem with it with only two conditions. A) It must follow every rule and law that insurance companies must follow, and B) It doesn't receive any public money. In other words, it must actually compete on its own merits. There is another requirement of course--there can be no direct or indirect system to force people into that system--it has to be an actual "option" not a default.

    KAM
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #348  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Maybe for you logic does not prove or disprove it because religion in itself is in many ways illogical and results in a deep personal conflict that many people refuse to face or question, much less accept. Plain and simple it's not logical for there to exist "A Devine Being". If that's the case then we might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Also it's not about adopting 'non-religious dogma', it's about refusing to be drawn in to a cult. Like I said in another thread, the burden of proof will always lie with those who choose to believe in the supernatural.
    Religion isn't based in logic--that is correct.
    A cult--do you know the definition of that, or is it just a pejorative term you like to apply to mainstream religions?

    If you are claiming you can prove or disprove Religion with logic--I'd be happy to listen. Saying it is illogical however, isn't proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Also, freedom of religion and keeping it to oneself are 2 completely different things. When I said keeping it to oneself I meant keeping out of politics and/or trying to instill those beliefs on others. In no way does that take away from one's freedom of religion. Maybe I wasn't clear enough and I apologize for that.
    Why should anyone have to restrict their political activities because of Religious beliefs? Where are you thinking that there is a restriction on someone trying to instill (share) their religious views with others--assuming those people choose to listen?
    You can't really "take away" someone's religion I guess, but it sounds like you are suggesting that people with Religious beliefs should be restricted.

    And again, I will ask--why does it matter if I arrive at a position due to a Religious belief or some non-religious belief to you? If I advocate X, does my reasoning matter to you? Note--I'm not saying you should agree with me, but you have no right to demand I restrict what my influences are.

    What if I said that people can be leftists, as long as they keep it out of politics and don't try and instill those beliefs in others. If I'm understanding you correctly that is exactly what you said excepting I substituted leftism for religion. Why is a protected thing (religion) proper to restrict in your view? Also--I'm not talking about establishing a Religion, or forcing anyone to practice my or any religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Like I said it's all opinions. Mine is based on what I've read and observed. No one can actually get into the head of a voter to know what they're thinking. However I've seen tons of polls on the issues at hand and it was pretty clear (to me) many folks were swayed one way or another by the issues for the most part.
    What I saw was a bunch of fans, swept up in bandwagon thinking. But you are correct-these are just opinions. I would find it hard to believe anyone would deny "Obamania" existed however, and that doesn't seem to have the signs of issue analysis, but rather a popularity surge.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Sorry I disagree, from what I saw they spent several weeks on the Rev. Wright issue, even after it was clear he won. It was front page on so many publications, I lost count.
    Which came very late in his candidacy when he was essentially a lock, and it couldn't do him much harm. This issue was well known earlier, and yet for some reason, the media just didn't cover it...until it really didn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Again we'll just have to disagree here.
    Fair enough, but I've noted that many people enjoy highlighting things amongst those they dislike while ignoring the same thing in those they like.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    The idea of the separation of religion and politics does not imply restricting one's religious views.
    Nor in any other way--including Religiously motivated people participating in all levels of politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Anyone can call themselves a Christian. However, actions speak much louder than words and while I do agree one's beliefs will affect their actions, an intelligent person will understand when those actions are encroaching on the freedom and rights of others. As of yet, I haven't seen anything for me to believe Obama has an agenda influenced by his religion. In fact, the right wing wackos have gone so far to accuse him of being Muslim.
    Interesting. So, do you think that Obama is lying about being a Christian?

    You mentioned encroaching on the freedom and rights of others--again I ask--what does it matter the source? Is a secular encroachment on my rights ok? I'm sure you would agree it isn't.

    Right wing wackos...well, I suppose there are some that have. In some thread might have been this one, I posted a link that the origin of the Birther movement is actually with Democrats. Similarly the Willie Horton issue which is held up as a horrible example of dirty politics by Bush (41) was actually Al Gore's campaign's doing. My point is--things are often blamed on people, when others are actually responsible. Side subject I guess.

    Anyway--I'd look forward to you logically proving or disproving religion.

    KAM
  9. #349  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Religion isn't based in logic--that is correct.
    A cult--do you know the definition of that, or is it just a pejorative term you like to apply to mainstream religions?
    Cult

    Religion

    If you look at the definitions, they are pretty much enterchangable.

    If you are claiming you can prove or disprove Religion with logic--I'd be happy to listen. Saying it is illogical however, isn't proof.
    Logic dictates that if (a) we are here so we must have come from somewhere, i.e. a “designer” who is more complex and intelligent than us, then (b) a complex and intelligent designer, would also have to have come from somewhere i.e. a “designer” who is even more complex and intelligent.

    If the reasoning for a God is we’re here, then where did he come from? My favorite famous lines are “he always was” and “no one knows”. Shave the wool off your back and follow the herd if you believe that. If someone HAD to have created us, they would have HAD to have been created. If our creator could have ALWAYS been or just magically appeared, then so could we have.

    We can’t just assert that God is mightier and he just magically came to be, if that’s the logic, I say someone still had to find him in the bottom of a cereal box, it’s a paradox.

    Why should anyone have to restrict their political activities because of Religious beliefs? Where are you thinking that there is a restriction on someone trying to instill (share) their religious views with others--assuming those people choose to listen?
    You can't really "take away" someone's religion I guess, but it sounds like you are suggesting that people with Religious beliefs should be restricted.
    Because by using your religion in politics to inact laws, you are forcing your religion and virtues on to people who may not share your same beliefs. Kind of like the stories that my dad was saying early on in Obama's presidency, (he, unfortunatly, is a bit of a tea partyer) that he was going to start passing all of these crazy Muslim laws. Well, what makes Muslim laws crazy and not Christian laws? To me they are both one in the same. That is why "separation of church and state" works both ways.

    And again, I will ask--why does it matter if I arrive at a position due to a Religious belief or some non-religious belief to you? If I advocate X, does my reasoning matter to you? Note--I'm not saying you should agree with me, but you have no right to demand I restrict what my influences are.

    What if I said that people can be leftists, as long as they keep it out of politics and don't try and instill those beliefs in others. If I'm understanding you correctly that is exactly what you said excepting I substituted leftism for religion. Why is a protected thing (religion) proper to restrict in your view? Also--I'm not talking about establishing a Religion, or forcing anyone to practice my or any religion...
    First of all, "leftist" is not a religion or even a belief, but it is a political stance so your analogy is absurd. Religion has nothing to do with basis of politics so it can very easily be ommited.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  10. #350  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Regarding the Bible, first of all, it contains about 7 different types of writing, each of which should be "read" differently. Not all of the Bible was meant to be taken literally (but many/most fundamentalist Christians would disagree with me here). Secondly, miracles have been verified to have occurred throughout history, so some things like water being turned into wine at Cana are to be taken as literally happening. Biblical scholars universally agree that this was the first miracle that Jesus performed. Third: the OT forshadows the NT in ways that would have been impossible to predict, or "game" by people, and this validates the book in a way which can be done with no other book or so called "prophecy". Fourth: Jesus was either an evil, deceitful man, or he was how he said he was: God incarnate sent to save us. History and logic bear this out. Feel free to study and validate (or try to refute) this assertion. Ffith: Many people/groups believe/understand different things from the Bible. The Catholic Church (who compiled the New Testament and recognized Jesus as the Messiah) is in the best position to interpret what the Bible really means. I'm sure this post may ruffle many feathers. (When it comes to religion, everyone thinks what they believe is correct.) I don't really think this is the place to argue this. I'm just hoping I gave you enough here to research this on your own should you want to.
    LOL, There is no research there. You mention logic, logic doesn't factor in believing an invisible man, created a flesh man to save us 2 thousand years ago. Also the bible and christiantiy is spotty anyway. many books were removed, they tried to destroy the nag hamadi library. Then theres things like the fact that reincarnation was taught in christianty, then 300 years after jesus died, it was voted out of the religion, for ridiculous reasons. Plus no miracles have ever been proven. Not to mention the entire story of jesus was originally an ancient 'pagan' story. But if it makes your life better....
  11. #351  
    KAM, All one has to do is actually look at the true history of religions, then they should all be able to be dispelled. And I dont mean all the terrible things christians and such have done and still do. I mean the actual history of them, all the way back to the sumarians.

    Personally I dont care what anyone believes in, but it has no place in politics. It has no place to decide the rights I'm afforded in life. Does that not infringe on my rights as an american per the constitution.

    Also I hope everyone realizes, if they were born in afghanistan, india, china, thailand, etc. the odds of them thinking jesus is so great is pretty slim. Your christian now, but you could've easily been born a suicide bomber in the name of allha.

    There is more evidence of global warming than there is of Gods existence, and you choose to disregard global warming?
  12. #352  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I approve of her having the right to write crib notes wherever she wants, and would expect that the left would be mature enough to let it go.
    I then approve of obamas use of teleprompters, like every other politicians use of them. So perhaps that should be let go of also.

    BTW, it's the actions of the right, that has many of us so angry. You are the last people that should question maturity. I have no doubt some of you are morally decent, but I think majority rules, right?
    Last edited by redninja; 02/11/2010 at 10:48 PM.
  13. #353  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    the "legal" persecution and pursuit of Clinton was contrived by many of the same right wing zealots who are so breathless in their love of Palin.

    Those right wing zealots ceaselessly pursued Clinton from the day he was elected, making endless ersatz accusations on matters like Whitewater, "travelgate", Foster's suicide, and Clinton's extramarital explorations. They finally succeeded in finding an event so embarrassing and humiliating to him that they were able to maneuver him into a questionable verbal tangle, which was ultimately sufficient for a minor legal sanction.

    Many of these same right wing zealots have been behind the: Obama doesn't have a birth certificate, that he's a moslem, that he pals around with terrorists etc. etc.

    I see a trend here.

    (How many remember btw, that the impeachment process was begun by a lame duck congress immediately AFTER the repugs were humiliated in the '98 election where impeaching Clinton was a prominent GOP campaign issue).
    I think it's funny they spent 42million to prove he got a bj. And only 3million into 911 research.
  14. #354  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Religion isn't based in logic--that is correct.
    A cult--do you know the definition of that, or is it just a pejorative term you like to apply to mainstream religions?
    Whereas the word 'cult' has many definitions, religion fits nicely under at least one. Google is your friend.

    If you are claiming you can prove or disprove Religion with logic--I'd be happy to listen. Saying it is illogical however, isn't proof.

    It is enough proof for me and many others. Can you disprove the tooth fairy? Or does logic not dictate he/she doesn't exist? It's a waste of my time to argue the obvious. As far as I'm concerned you're grasping at straws and the burden of proof isn't with me. You're talking about an alternate sense of reality that no one has been able to prove. So therefore it is illogical to think it really exists. I can see and experience one, YOU have to prove to me the other is real.



    Why should anyone have to restrict their political activities because of Religious beliefs? Where are you thinking that there is a restriction on someone trying to instill (share) their religious views with others--assuming those people choose to listen?
    Well that's the problem with your argument. You're assuming. If someone chooses to be a Christian, Muslim, Catholic, whatever, I don't care. If they however are able to influence a political figure into enacting laws that go against the majority view, including mine, I have a problem with that. If they put up banners and ads in public places in an attempt to propagandize their religious beliefs, I have a problem with that. No one religious group should have that amount of influence.

    There was a reason the founding fathers sought to separate religion from the matters of state. It was to restrict the power of any one religious group as more often than not, some form of persecution follows. How many wars have been fought over religion? How many dead? Religion should be personal as there are too many varying beliefs. Giving one too much power is only asking for trouble.

    You can't really "take away" someone's religion I guess, but it sounds like you are suggesting that people with Religious beliefs should be restricted.
    They should be restricted if it's going to encroach on others rights, beliefs etc.

    And again, I will ask--why does it matter if I arrive at a position due to a Religious belief or some non-religious belief to you? If I advocate X, does my reasoning matter to you? Note--I'm not saying you should agree with me, but you have no right to demand I restrict what my influences are.
    Actually your reasoning do matter to me. But more importantly what matters is that your influences don't encroach on other's rights or beliefs DESPITE the source. However laws centered around religious beliefs in particular, tend to do just that e.g anti-abortion legislation. I know that topic alone opens up a huge can of worms but I'm not going to get further into it.

    What if I said that people can be leftists, as long as they keep it out of politics and don't try and instill those beliefs in others. If I'm understanding you correctly that is exactly what you said excepting I substituted leftism for religion.
    Then our political system will collapse. How can you restrict or separate left or right-wing beliefs from our politcal system? It's impossible. Even though our society is split politically, it's in name only (as in democrat or republican). The reality of it is many people are close to the center sharing some leftist and right-wing views. Those beliefs ARE our politics.

    It's just not the same as restricting any one religious group's political influences. Think about what would happen if the KKK or God hates *** s groups for example were allowed to be a huge political force in this country.



    Why is a protected thing (religion) proper to restrict in your view? Also--I'm not talking about establishing a Religion, or forcing anyone to practice my or any religion.
    Because religion (especially when organized) tend to divide and perpetuate hatred in some form or another. And proof of that can be seen literally everywhere.




    Which came very late in his candidacy when he was essentially a lock, and it couldn't do him much harm. This issue was well known earlier, and yet for some reason, the media just didn't cover it...until it really didn't matter.
    Actually no it didn't. As soon as it came to light (well before he won) it was front page news, day after day after day. Hillary made sure of that. And that was just the Rev Wright issue. There was also Michelle Obama's supposed lack of patriotism with something she said that was taken totally out of the context. Then there was the lapel pin issue. And what about the constant mention of his inexperience? I'm sorry but you must have seen a different campaign to what I saw.



    Interesting. So, do you think that Obama is lying about being a Christian?
    Did I say that, or even imply that? My point was the word Christian is just a label.

    You mentioned encroaching on the freedom and rights of others--again I ask--what does it matter the source? Is a secular encroachment on my rights ok? I'm sure you would agree it isn't.
    You're trying to put religion on the same plane with other social ideologies and this is where I disagree. Religion isn't based on logic (as you admitted before) and I have a problem having illogical interpreted beliefs shaping the laws of my country especially when those beliefs aren't shared by the majority or when those beliefs clearly involve the restriction of rights and pratices. So yes the source does matter to me as well.

    But to answer your question, NO ENCROACHMENT of rights or beliefs by others is ok regardless of the source of influence. However as a society we must have laws and some form of government to progress and ensure that everyone is treated fairly and is represented (as much as possible) so to have no encroachment at all is impossible. However I just don't see religion's influence as a needed ingredient. IMO, it will only make it worse.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  15. #355  
    matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Maybe the right will here this, because I'm sure your jesus would want healthcare for everyone. Especially when theres children that are dying.
  16. astrobill's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    15 Global Posts
    #356  
    Sarah Palin is a failed "sports journalist" and beauty pageant contestant who wasn't qualified to be mayor of Wasila and was CERTAINLY not qualified to govern Alaska (even though it has fewer people than Long Island, NY or Chicago).

    It's a national embarrassment this talentless, ignorant woman was even CONSIDERED for ANY federal office, much less the Vice Presidency.

    Palin is now relentlessly feeding on the right-wing, tea party nutbags in a transparent effort to sell as many books and get as many speaking engagements as she can before even the lunatics grow tired of her.

    Unfortunately, her method of staying in the limelight among her followers involves dangerous demagoguery and frighteningly irresponsible statements that get carried by the national media and serve to mislead the less-educated among us....a common theme in our history (Ref: Joe McCarthy).

    She's truly a scary, dangerous, woman who I hope goes away as soon as possible.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #357  
    Quote Originally Posted by astrobill View Post
    Sarah Palin is a failed "sports journalist" and beauty pageant contestant who wasn't qualified to be mayor of Wasila and was CERTAINLY not qualified to govern Alaska (even though it has fewer people than Long Island, NY or Chicago).

    It's a national embarrassment this talentless, ignorant woman was even CONSIDERED for ANY federal office, much less the Vice Presidency.

    Palin is now relentlessly feeding on the right-wing, tea party nutbags in a transparent effort to sell as many books and get as many speaking engagements as she can before even the lunatics grow tired of her.

    Unfortunately, her method of staying in the limelight among her followers involves dangerous demagoguery and frighteningly irresponsible statements that get carried by the national media and serve to mislead the less-educated among us....a common theme in our history (Ref: Joe McCarthy).

    She's truly a scary, dangerous, woman who I hope goes away as soon as possible.
    feel better?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #358  
    Obama is a bigger embarrassment. No qualifications before his election and he has failed at everything he has attempted. He was under the impression that all he had to do was say it and it was done. Look hard and tell us what he has accomplished and where he has accomplished it. Did he accomplish it over seas? other than appologize for everything American, he has failed miserably. At least she does not need to rely upon a teleprompter, just a few key words. And look at your buddy Biden. A bigger fool than Obama, though not as dangerous.

    Can you tell all of us why Obama was better qualified than Palen? Really Now Obama is truly a scary, dangerous man bent on converting this nation to a 3rd rate power. He stands up to no country. He stands for no real value. What a waste.
  19. #359  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Obama is a bigger embarrassment. No qualifications before his election and he has failed at everything he has attempted. He was under the impression that all he had to do was say it and it was done. Look hard and tell us what he has accomplished and where he has accomplished it. Did he accomplish it over seas? other than appologize for everything American, he has failed miserably. At least she does not need to rely upon a teleprompter, just a few key words. And look at your buddy Biden. A bigger fool than Obama, though not as dangerous.

    Can you tell all of us why Obama was better qualified than Palen? Really Now Obama is truly a scary, dangerous man bent on converting this nation to a 3rd rate power. He stands up to no country. He stands for no real value. What a waste.
    Oh wow, none of that was serious, right? I believe you should have a seat.
  20. #360  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Because religion (especially when organized) tend to divide and perpetuate hatred in some form or another. And proof of that can be seen literally everywhere.
    Hi,

    Local Bible Thump-er Berd here.

    I saw Religion creep into this thread and some comments were difficult for me to refrain from replying to. You have made some I disagree with, but the above is just too evident to ignore. You are absolutely correct on this comment.
    Just call me Berd.

Posting Permissions