"I'm not running around in a scavenger hunt too."
I'll bet you already have, haven't you? Looked at my resume, realized how seriously outclassed you were, and decided to deny everything. |
|
Plainly put, Fluncky.
You are not worth it. |
|
"I'm not running around in a scavenger hunt too."
Like a little kid, holding his hands over his ears and going "wah, wah, wah, wah!" because he doesn't want to hear something. |
|
...Barry?
God help us all. |
|
You are not only ignorant, as previously proved, you are purely pathetic an individual.
I did not offer up this immature little game you suggested.
Sorry, lightweight, I'm not running around in a scavenger hunt too.
You're lame, you're a Fluncky, and you got no game.
Man, are you immature... |
|
"Produce the information----just as you professed."
What part of "my resume's right there on line, easy to find and easy to verify" don't you understand? Do you perhaps not know about search engines? Or are you just afraid of what you might find?
To quote Aaron Sorkin, you can't handle the truth. |
|
It's your game, BIG TALKER.
Produce the information----just as you professed.
I'm waiting patiently over here....not holding my breath.
Waiting... |
|
See this is the problem as I see it that you and your ilk seem to like to ignore:
"I know the difference between a million and a billion and a trillion. the sheer quantity of zeros mean nothing to me because the numbers themselves mean something."
While you claim to know the difference between a million and a billion, and a billion and a trillion, do you really, if you say they mean nothing to you?
You should actually pay more attention to what these numbers mean because they will have a huge impact on you and your posterity. Say we have a national debt of 20 trillion dollars - what would you suppose our daily interest on that debt would be?
Sticking your head in the sand is no solution to our economic woes. |
|
"Go ahead and list all of the high level corporate positions you held."
Hey, my resume's right there on line, easy to find and easy to verify. You don't even give your real name. |
|
Okay, let's play your game.
You start.
Go ahead and list all of the high level corporate positions you held.
Do not forget the ones you dreamed about.
Nor should you dismiss the ones you've read about in a book once.
You started this.
You go first, Mr. Flunck.
I'm waiting...patiently...over here. |
|
"It's clear you've never been within a mile of a real course in either subject, even at the high school level, or a book on any such subject, even at the "... for Dummies" level. Science and technology must be a complete mystery to you."
My name is not Flunck.
I'll give you a moment to ponder that.
You've no idea what courses I've taken---to speculate simply affirms your utter and hopeless ignorance.
I am infinitley comfortable that your public school education failed you miserably---have said it before, maintain the sentiments.
Just because you cannot admit that you were wrong about our exchange in that statistics issue, does not mean you are a bad person, Flunck.
You take it so personal.
|
|
"I don't, "publish", Flunck."
Of course you don't. I read the garbage you wrote about statistics and math at 11:24 PM above. It's clear you've never been within a mile of a real course in either subject, even at the high school level, or a book on any such subject, even at the "... for Dummies" level. Science and technology must be a complete mystery to you.
"That is left to the folks who cannot get a real job out in the workplace."
Ah, want to compare seniority of positions held at major corporations? Have you even risen to the level of "Manager of Fries & Restroom Supplies?" |
|
Pathologic Liberal
writes,
"I am the guy who says..."
...Again, calls me a clown.
From, "I am the guy who says".
Yes, pathologic liberal, we've heard this among the other countless nonsense narratives you spew on regular rants.
Should we capitalize "guy"? I'm just sayin'...
And, if you want to get, stuck-on-zeros, have at it.
However, you never did reply to my comment that you've never been exposed to so many zeros as you have by this Obummer.
That's a fact. Regardless of what area of finance you play in.
More zeros equates with more emptiness from, The Messiah. Oh yeah, I am plenty nervous, admittedly so.
You are too.
You just can't bring yourself to. Admit it, that is.
|
|
i don't have an aversion to zeros, i have an aversion to flimflam. I can swing with numbers just fine. I know the difference between a million and a billion and a trillion. the sheer quantity of zeros mean nothing to me because the numbers themselves mean something.
you're a clown. |
|
"How many papers on statistical methods have YOU published?"
I don't, "publish", Flunck.
That is left to the folks who cannot get a real job out in the workplace.
You know, "navel-navigators", not unlike you. |
|
I was going to define it for you in terms of "zeros", but having been immaturely reminded by you earlier, your aversion to zeros, it would have gone over your head.
Yeah, talk about meanderings. Apparently you've been drinking what Obama has.
Your usual nonsense is being further blurred---if that's even possible. I cannot make heads or tails of what your spewing. |
|
***Now, be off with you, "The GUY who says"...***
You make these pathetic, flimsy points, skipping along stupid bunny trails, straining gnats and swallowing camels as you go, and then high five yourself as if you have scored a clinching point. It is truly funny, your level of self-seriousness. I mean, i know that i am supposedly self-referencing, because i have invented myself, like all good Americans, because I have disciplined myself with honest self-examination and let loose with a phrase or two that seem pretty unconventional. but you are unbelievably--delightfully--self-serious. A self-serious stinker. dripping with self-seriousness. even as you snarlingly defend these utterly unimportant secondary and tertiary distinctions.
okay, i have wasted enough time on you and butt-buddy. see you in the funny papers, as they used to say.. |
|
yeesh, you are ridiculous, arentcha? thanks for "clarifying" truth and clarity--first with the reprimand, and then to confirm what I said. But with a lot of meandering and pointless and undisciplined stupidity. You are not a principled guy. You do not lead with princple. You just grab a "kernal" that suits your fancy. What a schmuck. A joke, really, just like the "conservatism" you advocate.
look, all your stupid mocking ("the guy who says," as though that's a form of "stop the presses" piece of ridiculousness) is not a hill of beans. you have no basis, no structure, no principle. you are just another clown who blames the world's ills on people who are not like yourself. |
|
"The only mistake made was your decision to argue on something you know nothing about."
You're saying I know nothing about math, about statistics? How many papers on statistical methods have YOU published? |
|
no one struck out, you fool--at least not on your say-so. In the first place, i wasn't referring to entitlement like some kind of government program. I thought you were supposed to be smart.
In the second, I know darn well what conservatism--true conservatism--is. A true conservative respects the fragility of the public order. A true conservative harbors no illusions about the equality of men. Nor does he harbor illusions about man's nature, which is sinful, and what might be done to improve it. A true conservative is grateful for the wisdom of the ages and is properly wary of new wisdom. A true conservative understands that civilization is not generated like some kind of spontaneous order, but has to be protected and nurtured from the top-down, as a kind of civic discipline--a discipline that takes centuries to build and which can be lost in a generation or two. A true conservative values social stability and does not take it for granted.
Compare that with you utopian clowns--invading Iraq to transform the middle-east, massive tax cuts, retracting worthy and stabilizing governmental programs, turning civil society over to the marketplace and consumerism. You oafs aren't conservative--you're a bunch of radical punks who never grew up.
so stick that strike 3 where the sun don't shine. |
|
|
The only mistake made was your decision to argue on something you know nothing about. That's been proven. Actually, several times. |
|
"I am through discussing math errors. You made a minor error, an understandable one, but refuse to aknowledge it."
Funny, I look at it similarly. Clarityseeker made a minor error with his 16.67% foolishness, you attempted to support him, and you both refuse to acknowledge your mistake. You're wise to drop the issue. |
|
It doesn't get much better.
We have access to a place in a cove on Deer Isle not far from Blue Hill. We spend a couplke of weeks each summer there enjoying exactly the things you describe. That salt air is the best.
We were there two weeks ago and are planning another week in late August - after our west coast jaunt.
|
|
Of my fondest memories are those created in having rented a home on the water in Blue Hill.
Nearby Ellsworth.
Peaceful. Restful. We spent a couple of weeks entertaining family.
Canoeing among seals.
Singing with the Loons.
Island venturing.
Seaweed sleuthing
Aurora Borealis Ooooohing and Ahhhing.
High-and-Low Tides to navigate and negotiate.
Berry picking on those undulating hills.
Bar Harboring with the Sperry Top Sider set.
Hiking on Cadillac Hill (named for that scurrilous Frenchman---wait a minute---that's an oxymoron. He who was forced out by locals, moved to Detroit, and now has his own auto named after him)
Exploring all of that former Rockefeller-owned property.
Gorgeous land.
Strange people.
Well, perhaps just the Down-easter's.
A place to be truly proud of.
I have an older daughter who still asks me to read to her, "One Morning in Maine" by McCloskey.
The illustrations alone are so well done, they literally come alive off the page for her.
She smells the strong salt air and the pungent wafting sealife to include clams and crabs and such.
We will return.
|
|
|
I REALLY hope he runs in 2012 |
|
Thanks for your kind words. I will never hold the fact that you are a former Masshole over you. In fact, some I actually like - I'm a huge Red Sox fan, requiring a certain level of acceptance of the southern neighbors.
Love New Hampshire. Live Free or Die. How great is that!? My son is in law school over there.
We Mainiacs are an independent sort, sometimes to our detriment - we send liberal Republicans to the Senate time after time.
I'm trying, but these Mainiacs around me are a stubborn lot. |
|
No wonder they call you "Mainiacs".
As I have shared earlier, I have a sibling who proudly wears the label of, "New Hampster".
And that my friend, is far better than hailing from the land of, "Massholes", where I once resided.
You sir, are a fine Mainiac indeed..
|
|
writes,
"Shrieker: seeking clarity does not equal seeking truth."
No----not in and of itself---and I never suggested at such a stupid notion, nitwit. You've once again conflated the words of another.
Indeed, it does not, unless the one doing the seeking has the larger goal of seeking TRUTH.
Well, there could be those occasions when one stumbles along a truth while shining the brightness of clarity to something.
And one cannot be sure to find, "TRUTH", unless one employs the tools of clarifying in the process. Weeding out the falsities, the lies, the smoke-and-mirror crapola, just as you so often effort to construct yourself.
If one genuinely seeks TRUTH, one naturally seeks to attain and achieve through bringing clarity to each kernel contained within.
And that is how I proceed.
And those Truths I have found have not so easily revealed themselves. It has required effort. And my efforts have very much involved bringing clarity to the process.
And there you have it.
Now, be off with you, "The GUY who says"... |
|
PL: "whatever else, you have forfeited your right to moral indignation"
MC: Wrong. I have forfeited nothing.
PL: "YOU are whining, tho. you guys are just coming from a place of entitlement."
MC: Strike Two. I am fighting against entitlements. All we want is to take care of ourselves, our families and help others as our dictates allow, and to be left alone from "Big Brother".
PL: "I have no problem with conservatism"
MC: Steeeeerrrriiikkke Three, and yer out! You have no clue even what the term means. I believe you even said you were more conservative here than most on TH. Heh, heh.
Back to the minors with you. You're out of your league. |
|
I am through discussing math errors. You made a minor error, an understandable one, but refuse to aknowledge it. No big deal.
Let's move on. |
|
MC: that's fine. whatever else, you have forfeited your right to moral indignation with your tit-for-tat stuff. There was a day, of course, when conservatives were quite comfortable with the fact that men are not equal. Those days are past. Now you sniff over smugness and arrogance.
also, i was not whining about my treatment. it was what it was. I engaged civilly, got treated incivillly, and decided to stop being such a douchebag.
YOU are whining, tho. you guys are just coming from a place of entitlement. you think you have the right to our moral heritage. you do not. and when someone says you don't, you whimper like little children. waaaah. 'all we are trying to do is live according to the Founder's teachings. sniffle.' What a frigging crock.
Shrieker: seeking clarity does not equal seeking truth. Clarity has a role in the principled life, but drilling down to the details does not provide it. Clarity, to the extent there is moral clarity, is in the forest, not the trees. Clarity comes from refining--against rational inquiry--our first principles.
And that's my deal. I am here to discuss first principles. I have no problem with conservatism--my problem is with fools who, through their own grandiose sense of entitlement (however reinforced by a stupidass cohort), think they speak for our country and its traditions. So i push back, as this is a LIBERAL country, and to the extent we liberals adhere to a discipline of rationality and moral objectivity (which I do), the country and its traditions belong to US. You shall see that as time goes on. You owned the last few decades. We shall own the next few. |
|
I have spent much too much time arguing over a simple math error. It makes me not a better man than you, in fact probably makes me only stupider than you to be arguing such minutia.
The clearer argument, and to get back to the original topic of this post is finding a suitable alternative to run against "The Big 0" in the next election. Is it Newt? Maybe. He's certainly intellectually accomplished and has the experience. I just want someone who can articulate the disasters that the Obama adminstration has, and will inflict on this country.
Barry's philosophy is that we are all too stupid to make decisions for our own lives and we need government to make any major (and some minor) decisions so we're all in line. I just think that's wrong. You know, the old parable about giving a man a fish, or teaching him how to fish.
The left would like to give everyone who doesn't have one a fish, or I should say, want all of us who do have one to give a fish to those who don't. All that does is keep the masses dependent on uncle Barry to make us give them another when the first one is gone. Being dependent on him gives "the One" a purpose (and maintains votes).
Would it not be better to teach all those who have not a fish, how to fish, and require that they do so? That would lessen our dependence on government, increase productivity and give purpose to everyone's life, not just Obamoa's. |
|
"I did not read the post by Legally Remove... I was responding only to the posts between you and clarityseeker."
But you said:
MaineConservative 9:45 AM: "I was only pointed out the nitpicking that you constantly do in parsing each word and deflecting from the message of the post."
If you hadn't read the post, why did you accuse me of "deflecting from the message of the post?"
LRBO has posted that same message over a dozen times on multiple threads; you had most certainly read it.
"Incidentally, the 40% drop referred to by Legally Remove is obviously wrong and correcting him would have been fine, but not by saying the drop is 10%, not 40%."
But it was 10%, from 60% to 50% or from 65% to 55%. No one but you and the innumerate clarityseeker thinks otherwise. |
|
You are now going way overboard in proving just how much a better man than me, are you.
Yes, you are arguing this point from the correct position. Alas, my friend, look who it is you are toe-to-toe with?
Ignorance wears no better mug than the one on this schmoe's face. He's the poster boy for "DENSE".
He's sufficiently fluncked this subject. It is precisely why he does not "get it".
We've both stared honorably into the big dark ugly, my friend. And it 'aint pretty.
"MC", Truth is indeed there. You see it. I see it. He is too stubbornto admit he's wrong on this one. It's far too painful.
Perhaps it is because so many on this site have proved him ignorant so many times that he is impervious to anything but a shovel up side the head. |
|
You silly little girl, I am always open to changing my position.
ALWAYS.
(Some of my best moments have been the process of and ultimate realization that I shed a former belief, or, adopted a new one----a simply exhilarating human experience).
On occasion, the process and consequences, for me, has paralleled that old adage, "No Gain Without Pain".
And because of it I consider myself as, fully human, fully alive.
It simply eats at you that you've not affected this.
You've had no impact on my beliefs, other than your constant reaffirming my belief as to how wrong you are.
And, how self-absorbed you are.
And, how narcissistic you are.
And, how blind to the above you are.
You are. |
|
writes,
"I am the guy who says..."
Yes, and we are the peons who genuflect to, "the GUY who says..." (foamer...)
she also writes,
"I am always--always--willing to change my "beliefs" to accommodate the truth. i wish we could say the same about you."
Your comment speaks to "clarity" as necessary to reach truth.
Over three years ago we locked horns on your ignoring of "clarity" as it relates to Truth. Mine is the conviction that through "clarity", one arrives at, TRUTH.
Hence, my moniker.
You wanted nothing to do with it---claimed that it is always the reverse.
LOL.
That's fine. At least your ideas have been consistently wrong from the outset.
But as your own words attest above, one who is willing to change one's beliefs, is no doubt operating from my theory---whether they want to admit as much or not. One who is always clarifying, drilling down on the details, aspiring to arrive at Truth is better off for it. Because the human condition is such that humans are often wrong, it requires a good grasp of being able to clarify. Truth will be there regardless of whether the individual uses clarifying principles to find truth.
The truth is there waiting for the one who sheds the chaff from the grain. That is clarifying.
|
|
Do you not even read my posts? Let me try this one more time. I know you're getting old, but try to stay with me for just a moment.
I do not read each and every post on these threads. I did not read the post by Legally Remove... I was responding only to the posts between you and clarityseeker. Is that too difficult to comprehend?
Incidentally, the 40% drop referred to by Legally Remove is obviously wrong and correcting him would have been fine, but not by saying the drop is 10%, not 40%.
As you said in your 12:15 post, "if you're going to point out errors, you yourself have to be right".
Capiche? |
|
me: "The 40% thing WAS the message of the post; it was his subject line, and one that he'd used maybe a dozen times before. ..."
MC: "No it wasn't."
Copied verbatim:
"Legally Remove BO writes: Sunday, August, 02, 2009 2:42 PM
bo's 40% drop in Polls is Unprecedented!"
[last line in boldface in original] |
|
Yes, you are a better man than, this two-bit lout, Pathologic Liberal.
You've also exhibited to be better a man than me.
All that said, I am still a better human being than she. At least I have that goin' for me.
I am glad we got that all settled.
>:^D |
|
|
Just from what I know of you, I am a better man that you. |
|
In his first paragraph to me he says: "I am a better man not only in my own eyes. And stop whining like a victim"
Then immediately explains how he was vicrtimized here at TH: "the guys in here could not cope with alternative opinions and eventually organized a boycott of me...gave me the silent treatment and escalated--if that is possible--the nasty attacks on my character (speaking of me in the third person), psychobabbling as they went."
Wa, wa wa. Yeah, I'm whining like a victim.
Moral authority indeed. You need to grow up a bit young fella.
|
|
"if you're going to point out errors, you yourself have to be right."
I was right.
"The 40% thing WAS the message of the post; it was his subject line, and one that he'd used maybe a dozen times before. You're actually allying yourself with that fruitcake?"
No it wasn't. It may surprise you that I actually do other things than hang out 24/7 on TH. I didn't read a post regarding 40%. Now I went back and saw it and his calculation was wrong (and I agree with clarity's analysis of him/her). I only was responding to clarity's smackdown of your insistense that a drop of 60% to 50% drop was a drop of 10%.
Now, enough of that. It has no meaning anyway, the important thing is Obama's favorability ratings will soon begin to decline as rapidly as the favorabilty of his policies.
|
|
If Gingrich does run in 2012 I don't think he'll get my vote. I've never really been a big fan of his, though I liked his contract with America especially when those poor Democrats called it dirty politics for making promises and then ACTUALLY keeping them. As one Democrat said, "It's one thing to make promises; it's something totally different to actually keep them. It smacks of dirty politics."
A couple of months ago Gingrich rightfully referred to Obama as a Nazi. Then, people complained and, like the rest of the Republicans, he wimped out and apologized for his comments. And I thought he was a true conservative. True conservatives say what they mean and mean what they say and don't give a rat's a** about political correctness and they don't apologize when they say something that is politically incorrect or hurts someone's feeling because they don't like what was said (boo-hoo). No, I don't think I'll be voting for Gingrich in 2012. I want a true Conservative to vote for. So far, that description seems to fit only one Republican: Sarah Palin, and both the Democrats and Republicans are afraid of her. Now I wonder why.
It's time for another American Revolution!!
|
|
i understand that beliefs do not legitimate a single thing. I am the guy who says faith answers to reason and not the other way around.
as for your stupid self-insistence on the numbers matter--par for the course. ditto with disraeli. but again, it has nothing--nothing--to do with what we believe. even if we believe it with the force and conviction of all our mind and all our soul, belief is not, in itself, admirable or worthy of our deference. I am always--always--willing to change my "beliefs" to accommodate the truth. i wish we could say the same about you.
and it is not moral relativism to think that I am a better man than you barbarians. Next to civilized people, I am nothing special. But on the moral continuum, from savage to barbaric to civilized, it is right and just for the better man to recognize that he is better. and while that may enflame you own stupid sense of moral superiority--obviously it does--it is useful for you to hear that you are on a lower order to men of authentic moral principle. gives you something to shoot for. frankly, your arrogance and the arrogance of your radical brethren on matters concerning religion and morality is without merit. why should anyone in heaven or on earth give a whit if you should have to choke on a little arrogance in return? it is long past time.. |
|
"You can believe whatever it is you like"
Mark Twain himself attributed it to Disraeli, in his 1904 autobiography. |
|
...as for your efforts to correct me with a reference to,
"btw, i believe the lies and damn lies comment comes from Benjamin Disraeli."
You can believe whatever it is you like
(your incorrect beliefs as to interpreting percentage drops a perfect example).
The quote, as pertaining to who it is who coined it, has NEVER been settled. If you look at my comment, it clearly mentions "often attributed"---with no indication of definitiveness.
However, your "belief" is what really matters after all now---well, at least within your mind. Therefore, all of academia should be put on notice that you've solved the issue. |
|
"I believe I clearly indicated that I stuffed it back in your face because of the numerous times you have nit picked small miscalculation or math errors when it suits you"
Didn't work, did it? The thing is, if you're going to point out errors, you yourself have to be right.
"thus deflecting the message of the post."
The 40% thing WAS the message of the post; it was his subject line, and one that he'd used maybe a dozen times before. You're actually allying yourself with that fruitcake? |
|
Last evening's "exchange" regarding 'LRBO's' conceptual interpretation of a statistical change remains as fact (although wrong in stating that the decline was a 40% drop).
You and your pity-party pal, Bob Fluncky can preen over falsities all you like----it changes not a thing.
And it is further entertaining to watch you conduct yourself in the very way you hyper-criticize others.
Simply classic.
And, purely pathetic. |
|
She writes this with such mellifluent self righteousness---that hallmark which so many have come to know her by:
"i hold the high ground relative to these clowns"
"no apologies. i am the better man."
(indeed---she's a legend in her own mind)
The concept of "moral relativism" could not be better illustrated, in such short order, by such an expert practitioner.
In the old days, they used to call it, "A Kodak Moment". |
|
I am a better man not only in my own eyes. And stop whining like a victim ('we're just trying to live by the ancient wisdom'--yeah, right). You are not that noble. Nor do I feel like i am superior to everyone i meet. Only to the radical buffoons in here.
Look, from where I sit, you guys can dish it out but you cannot take it. And there is a word for folks who simply allow radical punks to bully and browbeat--pussies. And like i said earlier, just as one is not heartless just because he is a conservative, one is not a p*ssy just because he is a liberal (or a Californian, for that matter). But i understand that you fellows live to wallow in the stink of your stupid cliches and "clarities."
When i started out here, i engaged everyone civilly; speaking my own mind, to be sure, but being friendly and steering clear of insults. And turning my cheek, btw. But the guys in here could not cope with alternative opinions and eventually organized a boycott of me. They gave me the silent treatment and escalated--if that is possible--the nasty attacks on my character (speaking of me in the third person), psychobabbling as they went.
at that point, i figured, what the hay?! these are not my father's conservatives. these are a bunch of low-rent radicals--let's treat them with the contempt they deserve. And when one of them shows some adult tendencies, I'll engage that guy as an adult--as I engaged you back before Paddy and his half-wits got a hold of you. Soooo, I'm fine over here. Just busting chops, even as my own chops get busted. |
|
Most of you on the right appear to have a very short / selective memory. The media may have been harsh on Palin, but I didn't hear a peep out of any of you when Hillary was being given tough treatment. Be honest. You also seem to forget the smear campaign the right funded (Richard Mellon-Scaife being its milk-cow) to try and bring Clinton down. Now that Obama is being given equally tough treatment you like to say that the liberal media is turning on him. No folks, it's just called journalism. We on the center left don't savage anyone who speaks out against those we vote for just to tow the company line, like Republicans do. I've never seen people turn against their own so quickly. Colin Powell, anyone?
Let's move on to the Bush years, shall we? Anyone who spoke out against the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was/is pilloried by the right wing noise machine as a "traitor," someone who "hates America" hates "the troops," "undermining the president at a time of war..." Guess that's all out the window now that a Democrat is on office, eh?
Your going to get back what you've wrought, the gloves are hopefully off. The ascent of MSNBC as an answer to Faux News is hopefully proof of that. Don't dish it out of you can't take it, period. |
|
...and there you have it.
(between you and me, this 'Legally Remove BO' character does nothing to forward any argument, certainly not a conservative one. His calculator skills leave much to be desired, even though in concept he's correct----as you've affirmed. A rational person could not have allowed that one to pass)
>:^D |
|
Are your understanding skills beginning to slip with age?
["That's the point, not whether a drop from 60% to 50% is 10% or 16% [or 40%]. Why not stick to that point?"
[Don't tell me, tell Clarityseeker. And then read your own comment to yourself.]
I believe I clearly indicated that I stuffed it back in your face because of the numerous times you have nit picked small miscalculation or math errors when it suits you, thus deflecting the message of the post. Clarityseeker obviously did the same. Sorry your comprehension skills didn't allow you to understand.
We'll try again, however, I'm sure. |
|
"The only reason I supported clarityseeker on his calling you out on this ..."
At the expense of making yourself look as idiotic as he did.
"the reason he's making such an emergency of getting htings passed so quickly is ..."
The reasons are that it's been shown time after time that a new president has only a short window to get major initiatives through congress. Every president lays out his major programs and pushes them as hard as he can as early as possible. Also, we're having a bit of economic difficulty right now, and reforming health care will help alleviate that.
"That's the point, not whether a drop from 60% to 50% is 10% or 16% [or 40%]. Why not stick to that point?"
Don't tell me, tell Clarityseeker. And then read your own comment to yourself. |
|
|
The reason the libs are so frightened of Newt is simple .Newt would show Obama up in a debate . Huckabee and Romney would as well, although I think that Newt is far sharper than all of the above. |
|
"Nah, both clarityseeker and MaineConservative have been badly stung in the past; they're nursing grudges and lashing out."
Badly Stung? Really, when was that? Nursing grudges? A bit delusional, Mr. Munck?
The only reason I supported clarityseeker on his calling you out on this is because of the many times you have done the exact same thing to so many others. I certainly understand looking at a drop from 60% to 50% as a drop of 10 percentage points, but it is also a drop of 16+% from the 60% starting point. I was only pointed out the nitpicking that you constantly do in parsing each word and deflecting from the message of the post.
In reality, Obama is losing support for his policies. His apprioval ratings, while still high, are also dropping, but the reason he's making such an emergency of getting htings passed so quickly is, as the general public begins to understand how his health care reform, or cap & trade, or take over of the auto industry, or any other number of his huge governemnt control policies will inmpact their live, support for those policies deteriorates.
That's the point, not whether a drop from 60% to 50% is 10% or 16%. Why not stick to that point?
|
|
Looks like BO is set to raise taxes on the middleclass. I thought that he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than 250,000?
Another Obama promise broken. Has he kept any promises? Anybody surprised? |
|
See, this is the kind of attitude that sheds such a negative light on liberals and on you in particular:
"i hold the high ground relative to these clowns"
"no apologies. i am the better man."
See, the fact is that you are the better man only in your own eyes, and when you make that kind of a boast to those of us trying to live and fight for the values established by our founding fathers, while you constantly claim the moral high ground, you are denigrating those who disagree with you.
I'm sure, in your own narrow, liberal mind, you actually are of higher morals than everyone else you encounter, but in reality, that doesn't make it so. It's just a matter of you looking to government for the answers and solutions to all life's problems, while those of us on the right look at the individual as being responsible for himself for the most part.
Understanding you are from California, by the way, does explain much about you. Yes, I have been there numerous times, in fact, will be there next week. It's a beautiful place but unfortunately has been infiltrated so heavily by crazies, weirdoes, illegal aliens and such, that it's a difficult place even to visit, let alone live.
Now, I also live in an area with a fair share of crazies as well - the legislature recently ruled to redefine marriage, but we, the voters will rectify that soon. It's also a state that repeatedly sends two senators to Washington as Republicans but who will support the liberal agenda time after time. But it's a beautiful place and people let me live my life without much interference for the most part.
|
|
|
while i hold the high ground relative to these clowns, i will definitely admit that mine is the low road to "salvation." |
|
well, the truth hurts and you call it smug. tough luck for you.
btw, i believe the lies and damn lies comment comes from Benjamin Disraeli. |
|
busting chops is part of the fun. but i do occupy the high ground relative to these buffoons because my insults are generally delivered with an argument.
i've been around here for about 3.5 years. i do, on principle, believe in civility. but i am not a sap. after turning my cheek for the longest time, i decided to bare some fangs. as a rule, though, when guys treat me civilly, i respond in kind.
you know, one can be a conservative without being heartless. and one can be a liberal without being a p-ssy. there it is. no apologies. i am the better man. |
|
|
After some observing, it strikes me that you throw a lot of mud for someone who readily claims the high ground. It is a rather curious thing. |
|
promises of, "TRANSPARENCY".
From a president who has, in practice, engaged in anything but transparency.
The point?
You smug little phony harp endlessly about crapola you have literally no concept of, in reality.
You accuse others with that, waggin' finger of yours. Accusations of moral low ground and all of that puffed up crap----and you have the sheer audacity to come up with a triviality, so small as this:
"I think i remember 'shrieker referring to $1 trillion as $1,000,000,000,000.00. Maybe the number wasn't $1 trillion, but you get the idea. All those zeros make a point to the innumerate louts, i suppose. "Yowzah. Look at all 'dem zeroes!! it MUST be ridiculous."
Big freakin' whoop, lowlife. Just because you cannot read big numbers in their long form should be no cause or reason for dumbing down the reality of what the number truly represents in zeros.
Truth is, you've never seen so many zeros in your entire life as you've seen bandied about by this "community organizer".
Frankly, it scares the bejeeeeeebers outta even you. So------your resolve is to turn away from the numbers, gulp hard, and "HOPE" against real hope that these numbers do not dilute the future of your kids and potential grandchildren.
That's the long and short of all that puffery and falderal you've chattered on about.
Yeppppppppppp------In FACT, it is YOU who are really, "nursing grudges and lashing out", as you point that boney, aging finger.
When the full accounting of this administration is truly calculated, your skivvies will have already boasted of skid marks laid many times over. Simply put------you're as nervous as the next guy (as poll numbers increasingly reveal more and more).
You're simply too vainglorious, too drunk-on-stupid to admit it.
|
|
Pathologic Liberals are known to jump on Fluncky trains.
Hell, they all jumped on the Obama Train.
Sorry losers, I do not make this stuff up----simply reflect the truth of statistical measures and how they've been reflected, stated, reported for eons. I never said there was but ONE way, MY WAY, to state the "drop" from one figure to another.
I merely defended the way in which it was quoted by this schmoe, AKA 'Legally Remove Barack Obama'.
It is common to quote it as such in finance as well. Even Pathologic Liberals should know this----but then, she's come up empty on so much, well, hers is a predictable stubborness.
It is no accident that quotes abound on this subject:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Often attributed to Mark Twain
1) Numbers are tools, not rules.
2) Numbers are symbols for things; the number and the thing are not the same.
3) Skill in manipulating numbers is a talent, not evidence of divine guidance.
4) Like other occult techniques of divination, the statistical method has a private jargon deliberately contrived to obscure its methods from nonpractitioners.
5) The product of an arithmetical computation is the answer to an equation; it is not the solution to a problem.
6) Arithmetical proofs of theorems that do not have arithmetical bases prove nothing.
I've heard statistical data quoted in raw numbers and in percentages OF ratios for years---I never made the stuff up, simply learned to disseminate (and interpret from) that vernacular used by the very people who make it their business in such matters.
Now get along there, both you losers, on that troubled train whose conductor is the smoothest operator this side of surrealism.
Allllllllllllllllll Aboooooooooooooooard!!! |
|
That's funny.
I think i remember 'shrieker referring to $1 trillion as $1,000,000,000,000.00. Maybe the number wasn't $1 trillion, but you get the idea. All those zeros make a point to the innumerate louts, i suppose. "Yowzah. Look at all 'dem zeroes!! it MUST be ridiculous."
as i think about this 16.77% drop flimflam, the problem is that poll numbers are range-bound, somewhere between 0 and 1. 'Shrieker refers to "points," but that is shorthand for 0 to 1 multiplied by 100. In the end, percentages are decimals, and range-bound percentages are stuck between 1 and 0. If we were measuring something that is not range-bound--say investment performance or earned run averages--one could use that methodology (someone might say "his ERA has risen 15% since the All Star break"). but we are not. we are measuring something like a batting average. no one expresses batting average gains or losses as a percentage of the original number.
LRBO was engaging in percentage of a percentage flimflam to make a point. he did that either because he is not numerate or because he is a sour and dishonest prig. either way, nothing too flattering. |
|
"Who knows? Maybe they ARE that ignorant."
Nah, both clarityseeker and MaineConservative have been badly stung in the past; they're nursing grudges and lashing out. Cicero and arch are doing the same thing on another thread.
It's like the "Night of the Long Knives" except with over-ripe bananas. |
|
Who knows? Maybe they ARE that ignorant. Or, rather, they are so blinded by their need to be right that they'll engage in dishonest linguistic gyrations to prove a point.
***
Again, guys, take yourselves out of the equation and think objectively, if you can. No one ever refers to a percentage drop in one's polls as the fraction of the earlier approval number. Or rather, no one who communicates honestly. Only clowns who are married to the point they want to make. Didn't your mother tell you that you are supposed to be married to the truth?
Actually, i don't think you guys can take yourselves out of the equation. I think you must be retards or something--retarded in the sense of being enslaved to your own ideas. Ha! That's funny. I just got the notion that you guys do not process your ideas--your ideas process you. How else could you come up with such cockamamie nonsense about 60% to 50% being a "16.77% drop"? How else does one just turn himself over to such dishonest gyrations? In the end, it is because he is not the master of his own soul. And, as the wise old woman once said, a man who is master of his own soul has more power than a general who is master of a city.
|
|
How many times do i gotta tell ya? insults are fun, but being lazily dismissive does not amount to an rebuttal. what i said stands. it is hard finding moral truth. It is hard because it takes a comprehensive soul, on the one hand, and a humble one, on the other. The two are rare mix. But where flat and self-satisfied souls are concerned, easier to be lazily dismissive.
And btw, i am proud to be from the greatest state in the Union. Have you ever been here? you should come. I dare say it even rivals your fair state in beauty and natural splendor. Just got back from taking my family to Mt. Shasta and the Trinity Wilderness. As for our "bowl of cereal" reputation (fruits, nuts, and flakes), that's fun too. If we Californians can make the rest of you self-serious clowns feel good about yourselves, have at it. The reality is plain to see: California is the locomotive that drives the nation (okay okay, i'm kidding--kinda). |
|
Nobody will ever talk about John Edwards as a serious candidate again after his whole affair thing.
Personally, I think what Edwards did was wrong, but he was trying his best to spare his wife pain. On the other hand, Newt handed his sick wife divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery.
It isn't the divorce, it's the hypocrisy. |
|
|
bad cause of his divorceing his wife, but ITS LEGAL TO DO SO , but oh yeah, that arguement is reserved for the murderers of babies, and newt didnt do it the DEM WAY, CHEAT ON YOUR DYING WIFE, AND THEN humilate her by having her stand by your side before the world and 'forgive' you. Yes thats so much more honorable, dems like munch NEVER MAKE SENSE, maybe because they dont have a working brain or heart. |
|
"He was clearly stating it in terms of a PERCENTAGE drop."
LBRO said exactly "bo's 40% drop in Polls is Unprecedented!" A "40% drop in Polls" would be, for example, a drop from 60% to 20%; it's clearly describing a change in the value of 40 percentage points. If he'd lost 40% of his 60% approval, his new approval level would be 36%, but that's not what LBRO said; he DIDN'T say "a 40% drop in his approval level."
In fact, the drop was 10 percentage points, from 60% to 50% in one poll and 65% to 55% in the other. Poll numbers are in UNITS of one percent -- percentage points. Their values are based on a total of 100 percentage points.
You also seem to be claiming that BOTH OF THOSE are drops of 16.67% of his approval rating; that's clearly erroneous.
I'm quite sure you actually know that you're wrong; nobody is THAT ignorant about percentages. |
|
This exactly the type of comment that Mr. Munck is quick to point out when others use that logic.
Wonder if he'll admit his error? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaa! |
|
You may argue the veracity of polling data all you want, but it has all the value of weather prediction. Two best jobs in the world, weatherman and pollster, because you never have to be right. At the days end if your conservative it is still your duty to pray for the President, the congress, and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life. No poll has ever measured the power of prayer. Pit that in your statistical pipe and smoke it.
Mike Prahm |
|
Silly little boy.
"Bob Flunck writes: Sunday, August, 02, 2009 3:02 PM
Legally Remove BO 2:42 PM
'bo's 40% drop in Polls is Unprecedented!'
According to Rasmussen, he's gone from 60% approval on Feb. 2 to 50% approval today. That's a 10% drop. According to Gallup, he's gone from 65% on Feb. 2 to 55% today. Again, 10%. He's showing 92% approval among liberal Democrats, but even 34% of liberal/moderate Republicans and 14% of conservative Republicans approve of what he's doing. Pretty good."
Fluncky, you were responding to a very specific way in which 'LRBO' quoted percentages. LRBO stated his comment in terms of, percentage drop, though Legally Remove B.O. was indeed incorrect is saying it was, "a 40% drop." A change from 60% to 50% is simply a 16.77 percentage drop.
Put in another way, 50% is .8333333333 of 60%.
It is 83.33% of 60%
It represents a 16.77% drop.
Now---if 'Legally Remove BO' had said it represented a 10 percentage POINT drop (in terms of raw POINTS), this would have been stated correctly. Even if you had corrected him by saying it was a 10 PERCENTAGE POINT drop, that would have been factually correct.
This was not, however, how 'LRBO' stated his case.
He was clearly stating it in terms of a PERCENTAGE drop. Again, 50% approval ratings is 83.33% (or a 16.77% percentage drop) from a previous approval of 60%.
***You can continue to argue your incorrect position 'til the cows come home----it will still not make it CORRECT.***
>:^D
|
|
"Nooooooooooooo, actually, it's a bit over 16%"
The difference between 60% and 50% is 10%; you don't take a percentage of a percentage. If the statement had been "he's lost 10% OF HIS SUPPORT," then you would have been right, it should have been "he's lost 17% of his support." In fact his support dropped from 60% to 50%, a loss of 10%. Putting it in your terms, the baseline number is 100%, all the possible support. He lost 10% of that.
We were taught percentages in 5th or 6th grade; did you miss those years? |
|
LOL-----"The Dark Ages"
Observing these yahoos using, "The Dark Ages" as example of Christian "wrongs" is not far off from offering the analogy of accusing me of the slave trade. It's as laughable an idea as the one proffering it.
Me- How is that off? The Christians burned all sorts of knowledge related to the ancient world because it was "pagan", and you had all of that art and architecture that was lost to western civilization for centuries until the Renessainse rediscovered it or found it moldering in an archive somewhere.
Christianity likes to take credit for Western Civilization, but western civilization was a pagan idea that Christians co-opted.
|
|
Flunck writes,
"Bob Flunck writes: Sunday, August, 02, 2009 2:28 PM
clarityseeker 1:40 PM
"The Truth makes no sense to you."
Admit it, CS; what you wrote makes no sense to you either. It's just religious mumbo-jumbo.
Mr. Flunck,
While you are seeking basic math skills tutoring from your parents (my nearby post illustrates clearly your need in this area), you might ask them for some linguistics assistance.
My response to your, Sunday 11:57 AM post, stands.
Yours was ridiculous in nature (actually pathetic-----so much like the rest of your smug posts).
If one reads yours, one immediately understands my address to it.
|
|
How many times do we need to go through these, "teachable moments" with Bob Flunck?
He simply keeps coming back for more:
Fluncky writes,
"According to Rasmussen, he's gone from 60% approval on Feb. 2 to 50% approval today. That's a 10% drop.
Nooooooooooooo, actually, it's a bit over 16%, Fluncky. The baseline number (in this case %) is 60. That's where you start. I could go through it step-by-step. I'll spare the other readers from this. Please go upstairs and see if your mom or dad could help you do so. Not 10%. In relative terms, you are way off.
We do appreciateyour insatiable desire to rewrite the rules of math. You've efforted to do the same with many FACTS as well. |
|
One more thing. Polls are like listening to the weather man. Good for scaring the old folks, and mommies, but of no practical value for those who deal in reality. Polls measure the past. It is yesterdays measure against the promise of the day.
Mike Prahm |
|
Are there rules, and manners that must be followed. I am new to town hall, and it appears to me that we have deviated from the context of the blog, and turned it into a boxing ring. If so how many rounds do I have to go to get a win, and how many fights do I have to win. who is the judge. Seems we are all self-appointed. there are alot of striped shirt comments made by all. let us be frank and honest in our discussion, but by all means let us be decent. We do need each other, and the time is approaching where we will need each other more than we know. It is not about party, I thought this was about patriotism, about love of country. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.
Mike Prahm |
|
Pat lib write at 12:43 PM: "the only true path to a principled life is via the rational soul--and the only true way to a rational soul is via the liberal temperament.
am i one of those true liberals? that doesn't matter. when it comes to power and truth, politics and religion, the only thing that matters is the moral order of things. i am devoted to that order, regardless of the thousand cuts my soul must endure to find it. as for you? have fun being "right." i feel confident, now, that your capacity to inflict suffering on others has been radically reduced by the evaporated moral authority and toxic leadership of your cohort."
Then at 12:52 PM: "Prepare for guffaws and rolling eyes as Americans take stock of you self-important half-wits."
You really think the guffaws and rolling eyes are at us after writting such mumbo jumbo nonsense immediately prior?
I guess we're all just lazy fatso clowns and buffoons (some of your favorite names) because we see through your self absorbed twaddle. After I saw that you are from California your prattle is a bit more understandable. |
|
"bo's 40% drop in Polls is Unprecedented!"
According to Rasmussen, he's gone from 60% approval on Feb. 2 to 50% approval today. That's a 10% drop. According to Gallup, he's gone from 65% on Feb. 2 to 55% today. Again, 10%. He's showing 92% approval among liberal Democrats, but even 34% of liberal/moderate Republicans and 14% of conservative Republicans approve of what he's doing. Pretty good. |
|
|
|
"The Truth makes no sense to you."
Admit it, CS; what you wrote makes no sense to you either. It's just religious mumbo-jumbo. |
|
|
informed agnostic?????? Goodness gracious are you smart!!!! Semi-practicing Catholic????? You do provide humor! Poor soul and your attempts at logic, well, hopefully you haven't strained anything critical in the gray matter! |
|
|
Yes, Bob, we know. The Truth makes no sense to you. This has been confirmed on far too many occasions. |
|
"Perhaps YOU think it is coming to an end more because of your inability to reconcile ..."
Did any of that even make sense to you while you were writing it? It's pure irrationality. Try to express yourself a bit more clearly. |
|
Pathologic Liberal claims NOT to be self-absorbed, contradicting the last few years of proof on Hugh Hewitt's threads.
Yet-------in one fell swoop-----just one post, we are once again subjected to her:
1.) past relationship woes between her and her father
2.) her projections of all conservatives getting "hot-and-bothered" over, Michelle Malkin.
3.) redundant postings of her personal opinion that previous quotes to Neo bear repeating. "C'mon guys, you never patted me on the back for what I deem as very clever stuff here."
4.) Can I tease you about my relationship with my spouse-----"oh, yes, and did I mention to you what I am doing today?" "Please inquire further and I'll be happy to provide additional details about my favorite subject----ME." |
|
i'm self-absorbed. i'm narcissistic. i had a bad relationship with my dad. blah blah blah.
i will fess up to having an examined soul--the unexamined life not being worth living. and, of course, fools like you confuse THAT with self-involvement. but you're wrong about that. maybe not e-v-e-r-y little thing, but you are wrong about that. it is indicative of a lazy conceit on your part--one that would not be there if you had done a little moral self-examination.
i quoted tom wolfe the other day to neo: a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. many guys on your team--maybe even you--say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. there is the difference. conservatives are self-absolving victims. liberals are morally responsible.
btw, did you clowns see Michelle Malkin get mugged today on This Week? Ouch. what a child. also, you guys think she's hot or something? yikes. you must not get laid much..
speaking of getting laid, Mrs. PL wants to go to West California and spend the day at the beach. Later.. |
|
|
doesn't bother us at all. After all the ridicule that you have gotten here, one would think you would have figured that out by now. |
|
writes,
"...it is not about me, tho,..."
I beg to differ, Oh Self-Absorbed One.
Indeed, as you've proven myriad times, it is about YOU, as well as what your intended AFFECT is on those around you.
Yes, there are brief glimpses of respite from this constant narcissistic catterwaul of yours. Those are moments when you feign humility, pulling back from the otherwise relentless assault on everything-but-your-path to enlightenment.
It is about you as you've reminded those on these threads countless times. |
|
|
Prepare for guffaws and rolling eyes as Americans take stock of you self-important half-wits. |
|
that's fine. I'm wrong on e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. it is not about me, tho, and not about you. it is about removing ourselves from the equation and thinking objectively. you guys can't do it. liberals--true liberals--can. which is why the only true path to a principled life is via the rational soul--and the only true way to a rational soul is via the liberal temperament.
am i one of those true liberals? that doesn't matter. when it comes to power and truth, politics and religion, the only thing that matters is the moral order of things. i am devoted to that order, regardless of the thousand cuts my soul must endure to find it. as for you? have fun being "right." i feel confident, now, that your capacity to inflict suffering on others has been radically reduced by the evaporated moral authority and toxic leadership of your cohort. |
|
12 Simple Steps to Clean out Corruption in Government
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants. |
|
writes,
"...Christianity is in the latter part of the cycle right now, but I think it's coming to an end, judging from some of the rhetoric we see on TH."
Perhaps YOU think it is coming to an end more because of your inability to reconcile (read personal guilt) why your pathetic life has been spared. Rather than considering yourself as fortunate, it is understandable why you would lash out at others for not putting you out of your misery.
|
|
"Christians wouldn't separate your head from your shoulders for expressing your ludicrous beliefs."
That's true right now, but I think we're just in a lull. Religions seem to go through cycles of being bloodthirsty for a while and then pacific for a while. Christianity is in the latter part of the cycle right now, but I think it's coming to an end, judging from some of the rhetoric we see on TH. |
|
"we are forming Grand Juries to INDICT politicians for their crimes."
How would you go about doing that? What are the steps? |
|
|
Observing these yahoos using, "The Dark Ages" as example of Christian "wrongs" is not far off from offering the analogy of accusing me of the slave trade. It's as laughable an idea as the one proffering it. |
|
|
|
writes,
"Clarity
why don't you clowns just stop with your economic predictions? you are wrong virtually every time.
You know, that may be true---but even TRUER is the proof you've provided in that you are not only wrong on economic issues, but, e-v-e-r-y subject you chime in on.
|
|
"as i said before, on balance and on the average, Christianists are more civil and less barbaric than Islamists, but that is a function of their proximity to the broader western civilzation, which is a kind of apex of human achievement. Did Christianity play a role in developing Western Civ? in my opinion--maybe I am wrong--Western Civ was instrumental in developing Christianity. "
Me- Just remember, the Dark Ages were a Faith Based Initiative! |
|
BJ- There is no comparison between Islam and Christianity. Islam teaches compulsory conversion at the point of the sword (there's this book called the qur'an, read it for the details. Muhammad was a "barbarian," and so are his followers). Christianity teaches conversion through setting and example through love--in other words, if people like you, they will want to be like you (and thus your muse, Christ).
Me- Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
ACTS 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
Revelations 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Sorry, this doesn't sound like a peaceful diety to me... Sounds like a reading from the Book of Threats!
|
|
a used car salesman, but it is an insult to used car salesman.
bo can buy used "clunkers" with borrowed money but he sure can't sell the junk heaps that he is producing. |
|
why don't you clowns just stop with your economic predictions? you are wrong virtually every time.
and there is no "bipartisanship" with the likes of you, which sadly, is the lion's share of the Republican party.
win an election, if you can. failing that, grow up, lose some of the self-insistence, and the Dems will cut you in every time. |
|
oh cut it out with the "seething hatred" hogwash. my problem is with the ignorance that leads to evil, not with Christian faith. you buffoons would be much more effective if you addressed the argument on the merits and didn't lazily shortcut your way to the guy articulating the argument. no wonder the moral authority of the American right is evaporated.
as for Churchill, i quite agree with it. In fact, i am more conservative than most folks around here--who are little more than radicals (i.e. who never grew up). my problem is not with those who became conservative at 40. It is with those who were never liberal at 20. Those clowns are toxic, nasty, and barbaric.
as i said before, on balance and on the average, Christianists are more civil and less barbaric than Islamists, but that is a function of their proximity to the broader western civilzation, which is a kind of apex of human achievement. Did Christianity play a role in developing Western Civ? in my opinion--maybe I am wrong--Western Civ was instrumental in developing Christianity. |
|
Put those two together, whataya' got?
"A Teachable Lesson"
One that reveals the incredible inefficiency of government.
A case book study for the ages:
"Cash-for-Clunkers" |
|
"There is only a handful at best of conservatives who have the ball to fight."
Maybe they could work in pairs.
"For decades the progressives have planned this day. They put a black man in office for a reason."
I see your problem. |
|
commenting about far away speculations, all the while ignoring present day delusions of an administration.
This president vastly oversold the stimulative nature and what it would do for the economy. He simply wanted it ramrodded through. Screw bipartisanship. Unemployment is over 9.5%. It was NOT, by Obama's declaration, to exceed 8% if everyone 'rushed' to pass the $1 trillion package.
The "Cash-for-Clunkers" program was ill-conceived. Regardless of what one thinks of the wealth-distribution characteristics of it, it is underfunded, poorly organized, and yet another indication of the chaos roiling within the minds of this administration.
The healthcare debacle has done NOTHING, if not confused the American public. Has certainly NOT instilled any confidence. And Obama's done NOTHING to provide any clarity in all of his opportunities (i.e. press conference, etc.) afforded him to communicate his idea.
AND THE MEDIA?
It is focusing and speculating on events 3 and 4 years from now. Silly, silly, silly media. |
|
One last thing:
There is no comparison between Islam and Christianity. Islam teaches compulsory conversion at the point of the sword (there's this book called the qur'an, read it for the details. Muhammad was a "barbarian," and so are his followers). Christianity teaches conversion through setting and example through love--in other words, if people like you, they will want to be like you (and thus your muse, Christ).
I was a counterintelligence analyst for three years, and lived in the middle east for one year. Love or hate Christianity, Christians wouldn't separate your head from your shoulders for expressing your ludicrous beliefs. Come to think of it, atheist states aren't so great either, are they? (no need to answer, that's a rhetorical question) Hitler's Germany and the USSR come to mind. |
|
|
Churchill once quipped that liberalism is the privelege of youth, and as one ages he should become more conservative (thus wiser). What the hell happened to you? |
|
Your comments on Christianity seem to indicate a seething hatred under the surface. What's the matter, did you get kicked out of the Church for diddling little boys or something?
Religiously, as far as Christianity is concerned, it's the behavior of homosexuality that is wrong. Christians preach love and tolerance (not acceptance, which is what the gay "marriage" debacle is all about). Being Christian no mare makes one "barbarian" than being atheist makes one enlightened and civilized.
Scientifically, homosexuality was viewed as a mild mental illness--to be pitied and treated--for most of the history of the US, not an "alternative lifestyle" to be celebrated. It wasn't until whacko libs like you got a hold of the APA did that change. In typical lib fashion, your kind didn't like the rules, so you merely had them changed (and don't kvetch about slavery changing either, because it was conservatives and the GOP who changed that one).
Politically, gays have the exact same rights as normal people. Marriage is not a right (show that one in the Constitution), it is a private status that is recognized by the state. Gays don't want equal "rights," they want the state to force society to accept their lifestyle as normal; it's about control, not "tolerance."
Personally, I don't care if you want to have your alimentary canal plugged by another man; that's your choice. To me it makes as much sense as changing a flat tire with a banana, but whatever. I just wish that all of those AIDS research dollars would have gone to find a cure for something that is more likley to affect the innocent--like childhood leukemia, rather than those who choose to live a risky lifestyle. |
|
The ridicule of fools is tonic for this old soul.
but believe me, it is one of the great pleasures of my advancing years to see fools revealed to be fools. whatever else, whatever my flaws, life does not surprise me. I am never caught flat-footed. I do not make bold and unambiguous assertions that turn out false. It is a great delight to see the conceits of American "conservatism"--or what this generation called conservatism, anyhow--lose its traction, and to see its once-arrogant advocates standing with empty pockets, with zero moral authority. It is a sweet and beautiful justice.
____________________________________________
Bwahahahahahahaha! No your tonic is Kool-aid! There is no such thing as a liberal anymore...just socialist fools who believe that mankind is to stupid to think for themselves and thus need the almighty big brother to direct their lives. These are the mentally challenged who have given up trying to live for themselves, be successful and bow to a higher authority..the GOVERNMENT! Sad state of affairs that propelled the current "used care" salemen into a position of power.
People are now starting to realize just how foolish this folly is unless of course..you live in Venezuela! |
|
In justifying his vote for Sotomayor, Lindsay Graham said, "Elections count."
They sure do! They count up like steps on our road to perdition. We just got finished counting the mother of all hellacious elections. So, now what do the politicians tell us to do? Count the days to 2010 when we can do it all over again and replace Dems with Rinos and expect a different result. We are not holding elections in any meaningful sense; we are engaged in defining our political insanity.
Nothing is going to change when we replace the Dems with Rinos in 2010. Call the car a Chrysler or call it a government-issued Dodge. It's the same car; and that government car is still careening down the road to hell. We have stuck ourselves on this dysfunctional vehicle and there will be no cash for this clunker at the end of our disastrous road.
It didn't have to be this way. Our Founding Fathers gave us a road map back to sanity. It is called the Fourth Branch of Government, the Citizens Grand Jury provided for in Our Constitution. As Justice Scalia eloquently stated in United States vs. Williams, “Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history...the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” The power of the Grand Jury was assigned to We the People by Our Founding Fathers. Those wise and courageous men created the Citizens Grand Jury concept precisely as a remedy for such perilous times as we now face, when the government of the People seeks to dominate its People.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/our-privilege-our -right-our-duty.html
|
|
"Well, you don't know that. The economy could be going gangbusters in 2012 and the Dow could be at 15,000. Then a lot of Evangelicals might figure Obama don't look so bad."
I'll take that bet. At the rate the Obungling fool is going, we'll be fortunate to be at "only" 20% unemployment. Dow at 15k, indeed! The Dow has NEVER flourished under a democrat (Bill Clinton's tech bubble excluded). |
|
12 Simple Steps to Legally Remove BO Now!
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/our-privilege-our -right-our-duty.html |
|
|
and the Wall Street Journal accuses liberals of "criminalizing policy differences." |
|
Christianist barbarism? there is the extreme variety, like blowing the heads off doctors who perform late-term abortions. you see it in here too, as "Christians" chortle and snicker nastily at the misfortune of others.
but i mean more from the soteriological standpoint--the uninspired "salvation" message and its tendency to dehumanize others. Someone once said there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think the world breaks into two kinds of people and those who don't. Christian barbarians, with their doctrine of the saved and the damned, belong to that first category. The difference between them and the Islamists, say, are differences in degree, while the difference between us liberals and the Islamists are differences in type. I would argue that Christianists are better than Islamists because they were the beneficiary of living in Western Civ, where the stewards of the rational soul--us liberals--were more proximate to them. But they are barbaric nonetheless. Not savage. Not animals. Not terrorists. But not quite fully civilized human beings.
Now I must go do other things. bye. |
|
Your comments on the founders and faith is fine. True even. As for classical liberalism, it also had a "republican" or "whig" component, which not only advocated free-enterprise, but also emancipation and democratic representation. In terms of democratic capitalism, of course, we are all democrats and we are all capitalists--but the two systems have points of contradiction, the resolution of which is the origin of our two party system. So...liberalism evolves. It must evolve. Our moral knowledge is not stuck at two points--the time of Jesus and the time of the Constitution. It is a continuity. And as contemptible as multi-culturalism and other aspects of contemporary liberalism are, it is possible to be a liberal using current information AND holding true to the original vision of an objective, rational moral order.
Your argument on gays seems to be derived from the 3% rule, or whatever, and the lack of DNA. The demographics are changing in terms of majority acceptance, so i wouldn't peg my hat on that one. As for the lack of a scientific factor, i freely acknowledge that it is most likely a function of environment. so? what is burned into us at an early age is burned into us. and btw, i don't like special rights either. but i do like equal rights. I even like equal opportunity. And i think if people could organize their civic and moral values based upon the public interest--taking themselves out of the equation and thinking objectively--they would come to the same conclusion.
|
|
numbers. Also I am encouraged by the Citizens Grand Juries that are being organized across the Country.
Forming Grand Juries to investigate corrupt politicians is the best way to let congress know in no uncertain terms that we want our Country back. |
|
in the end, i'm an informed agnostic. a practicing (actually, semi-practicing) Catholic, but an agnostic at the bottom. "Courage" has nothing to do with it--other than the courage to know what you do not know.
Spare me the psychobabble about my dad. That stuff is unserious and degenerate. If you disagree with me, fine. But "conservatism's" turn towards psychologizing (calling liberals "mentally sick" or whatever) reflects the wheezing nonsense of a worldview that has either grown lazy or exhausted itself. Either way, given the need for an authentic and vibrant conservatism, a sad and pathetic sight.
Also, Christianity did not transform your soul. If you are an a--hole before you came to Jesus, you are an a--hole after you came to Jesus. If Jesus turned you around and made you a saint, then you weren't such a bad guy to begin with.
so for the record, whether with the Lord or without him, don't worry about leaving money on the table where i am concerned. i can watch myself. but on principle, i don't take advantage of people either. |
|
12 Simple Steps to Legally Remove BO Now!
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/our-privilege-our -right-our-duty.html |
|
|
right. like Kant--the two things that fill me with wonder are the starry skies above and the moral law within. |
|
We are seeing a well orchestrated takeover of our country. We do not have time to wait four more years for anyone to run!
We have to do something now!
There is only a handful at best of conservatives who have the ball to fight. But do they have the wisdom, knowledge or understanding of what is really happening here?
For decades the progressives have planned this day. They put a black man in office for a reason. They are destroying America and we are helpless. No one is stopping them.
If anyone tries to stop it, by impeachment or whatever means, the rioting (mostly racial) will ensue in historical proportions.
We must do something now. |
|
When the time came, the Founders framed the documents in terms that were respectful of all faiths, and no faith. They had the wisdom to recognize that they couldn't impose any religious or faith preference on a diverse populace, then and for the future. That's foresight.
The use of the term "liberal" was different then compared to now. Now it means "progressive" or "statist", in particular as it pertains to centralized power and planning - i.e. "command and control economy" vs free enterprise capitalism.
Sorry, but I still couldn't follow your paragraph on "barbarism". I had asked for an example of that.
With re: gays - I did the math and told you the numbers. Do you dispute that? Your contemplation of "walking in someone elses' shoes" demands that anyone who finds same-sex attraction repulsive somehow counteract that reaction, all under the guise of "rationality and naturalistic reasoning". Again, sorry, but that doesn't address the scientific demand of the lack of evidence for homosexuality being an immutable characteristic of human beings.
Please understand, I don't hate gays. Many of them are very pleasant, productive, creative, successful people. Most of them appear not to want "marriage" licenses in order to feel fulfilled or accepted. It's the militant minority who seek to overturn thousands of years of tradition - across all religions, faiths and cultures - that makes the majority of Americans unwelcoming of this demand. Look at the votes. |
|
read leviticus from 13 to 16 amd psalm 139 4 and 5
a baby starts at conception and abortion is a sin and obama hussien and who ever supports him and voted for him will be punished by god,its not change anymore its my new motto enough is enough its time for a 2 million man march upon washington they will have 30 days to either go back to putting god in our country and our pledge aligience back in our school ,or get kicked out of washington,because enough is enough,please sign up for our march to washington lets put it back where it belongs in gods hands,write to itsingodshands@hotmail.com |
|
dismantling the Welfare State.
Little did we know that bo would come along to create that government mess all over again.
President Newt would be the perfect guy to clean that crap out of DC all over again. |
|
"life does not surprise me. I am never caught flat-footed"
Look at some of the deep-sky shots from the Hubble telescope: utterly, jaw-droppingly surprising and fascinating. Or consider the recent, utterly-out-of-the-blue discovery that the expansion of the universe is ACCELERATING! Or the astonishing long-term survival of the old Voyager spacecraft or the recent Spirit and Opportunity rovers. The universe surprises me every single day.
But of course that's not the kind of surprises you were talking about. |
|
|
Even with the teleprompter Obama will be at a huge disadvantage in the debates . With the economy continueing to tank and with cap and trade it will not be able to recover obama is toast. |
|
..the rush of gratification that attends feelings of moral superiority. But that's all they are--mere feelings. So snicker. And Zzzz. What do I care? The ridicule of fools is tonic for this old soul.
It is about math. It is about rationality. It is about our humanity. It is about virtue. And the principled man will not cling to any one principle. Rather, he will reconcile the several competing values in a coherent manner, keeping in mind the old Scripture that whatever God does, he does consistently--and he does with virtue and goodness.
but believe me, it is one of the great pleasures of my advancing years to see fools revealed to be fools. whatever else, whatever my flaws, life does not surprise me. I am never caught flat-footed. I do not make bold and unambiguous assertions that turn out false. It is a great delight to see the conceits of American "conservatism"--or what this generation called conservatism, anyhow--lose its traction, and to see its once-arrogant advocates standing with empty pockets, with zero moral authority. It is a sweet and beautiful justice.
In any event, Mrs. PL wants to go see 500 Days of Summer, or some such thing. adios, y'all. |
|
|
Because I am a Christian,I daily forego taking advantage of chumps like Patty L. I've left a lot of money on the table because no profit can compensate the loss of your soul. Like you Patty L ,I was once an atheist. Someday I'll bet you'll get it. I'm sorry I had to get rude with you,but you're very rude with everyone else.Seek first the kingdom.pal, and stop being angry at your Father. It's a waste of time. |
|
The large duty before us as citizen's it seems is to pray for our country and leaders. since many of the liberal's identify them selve's as un-associated with the most high, that gives us moral relativist a clear advantage. An advantage I try to exploit daily.
MikePrahm |
|
|
I just wasted another part of my life reading the stupid unoriginal "thoughts" of Patty Lib advocating like a weasel "Christianity" without Christ. Excuse me kid but that's just so dumb.Could you get a real education before you go on and on and on like an adolescent ? Have the courage to be a real atheist and acknowledge there is no absolute morality or fall on your knees and pray there is a God,dumbo. |
|
|
The young lady,Patty Lib accuses her conservative foes of "moral relativism". Tell us about your system of moral absolutes my liberal friend beginning with abortion. |
|
|
on the King of Pomposity...zz..zzzzzz...ZZZZZ..! |
|
|
|
|
too bad "conservatism" is wracked by moral relativism--and to the point of being a joke. It is astonishing how degenerate and unprincipled this generation of American conservatives are. |
|
regardless of what some Founders said in their personal effects and papers, when the social contract moment arrived, they neglected to frame the nation in Christian terms. They could have but they didn't. They failed to do so, not because Christianity was the given (see Washington's letter to the Jews of Newport RI), but because they saw themselves "giving to mankind examples of a liberal and enlarged policy: a policy worthy of imitation."
with reference to the barbarism of Christianist hoohaw (sorry Cicero), morality is a continuum from savagery to civilized through barbarism. I would rather have a guy wave a pamphlet at me and say I am going to hell than wave a gun at me and demand my money. As such, i have no problem with weaving religion into public life. Human beings are barbaric and religion can elevate them--albeit incrementally and non-dramatically--to higher levels of behavior. But underneath this practical reality, we should not confuse ourselves that the religion which disciplines the savage souls among us is at the heart of what it means to be "this new man--this American." THAT is something much more important than second-rate chanting about following Jesus or going to hell.
With ref. to gays: like i said, it has to do with walking around in the other person's shoes--which is, btw, the true cornerstone of moral wisdom. If you cannot extrapolate from your own unwillingness to be with men a reciprocal unwillingness on the part of gay men to be with women, then i cannot help you. It is a character thing. But i encourage you to do the math. THAT is the American way. Rationality and practical naturalistic reasoning is the American way. |
|
|
Taxation doesn't involve coercion, you know. |
|
I see "axey" is suffering from another episode of fantasy in his 6:21 pm rebut wherein he invokes the moral relativist's mantra of "nothing is wrong and everything is right!" This explains his avid support of Obumbles and the mess he created! Poor soul more than likely is incapable of committing to an ideal since he can't quite grasp what an ideal actually is. One can only feel pity for someone so characterless!
Me- Yes, It must be much easier to preach down to everyone else and not live up to your own standards...
For instance, you guys insist abortion is wrong because the bible 'says so" (It doesn't) but would balk at killing your own child for cursing...
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/07/chasers-war -on-everything-help-me-put.html
Incidently, I'm not seeing a mess Obama created. I'm seeing a huge mess George W. Stupid created. You religious nutters let the corporate dogs off the leash, and they mauled everyone... now you live in mortal fear Obama might actually pull it off...
Oh, record month for the Dow in July...
|
|
|
It's clearly a confusing path to tread, the relativist's! |
|
"did you know that obama is ineligible to be president?"
He was born in Kenya, you know. |
|
While the sacred writers of D.C. do and have thrown forcible weight in all they believe, but the boys at msnbc couldn't make the cut on the hill billy news hour. We need someone with the tenacity of Reagan. All the while they were beating him up in Cal. they made him known nationally. Hell, they even bitched about him at Woodstock. Have I thanked all you hippies for helping make the Reagan years possible? One thing is for sure, the next candidate for the Republican had better walk with the wisdom of the wise, and leave the prophecy of the fools alone.
Mike prahm |
|
|
is suffering from another episode of fantasy in his 6:21 pm rebut wherein he invokes the moral relativist's mantra of "nothing is wrong and everything is right!" This explains his avid support of Obumbles and the mess he created! Poor soul more than likely is incapable of committing to an ideal since he can't quite grasp what an ideal actually is. One can only feel pity for someone so characterless! |
|
Dems do it, too(try to impose, legislate their form of morality).
You'd have to be really, seriously goofy to think otherwise.
Oh, wait... |
|
If any real mental health professional got within 10 feet of you, you'd be committed by now.
There are conservatives on this site who do hold their own in an argument. Big Sky Cowboy and Wise Woman are two...
You are not. |
|
Axey
If Newt was hypocritical, he was no more so than Bill. Bill and Hil also spouted the 'family values/personal responsibility' line. They ALL do.
You're just not too bright if you look to any of these people(repubs or dems) as your personal moral compass.
Me- Bill didn't try to ruin anyone else's reputation by using it. (Although some of his followers did, just ask Livingstone.)
I don't look at EITHER party as role models. However, only ONE party is trying to impose its moral (not policy) values on the rest of us.
I happen to think there is nothing morally wrong with Abortion, gays aren't evil, and the Bible is a truly horrible book with no redeeming qualities. But if you think the opposite of that, no one is going to force you to have an abortion, be gay or think for yourself... it's a free country, and I aim to keep it that way.
|
|
|
I caught your post and I have to agree with everything you said about nancy pelosi, not newt. |
|
Media says bad things about a Republican ie Gingrich = "vicious slander campaign".
Media says bad things about Obama (not a citizen, not eligible to be President, a Socialist, a Communist, a Muslim, an Arab, a Kenyan, palling around with terrorists, connected to Chicago thugs, undeserving of his university degrees, incompetent, an empty suit, a deer in the headlights, and the Antichrist) = "aha, at last we are getting at the truth". out". |
|
|
is the least of it for her. She's "liar of the month", and one with no credibility. A proven liar. |
|
that "a solid majority of Americans don't want Sarah Palin to become President", then whats the problem, "tricky dicky"? Is that not what your kind would want? So sit back, kick off your shoes, relax, let us make the mistake. Rather than excoriate this choice, it would seem that the prudent thing for you to do would be to shut that lying leftist mouth of yours. And let the good times roll, right there "tricky dicky". Viva obama, viva Fidel, viva Hugo, and Central American banana republics.
"tricky" while i gotcha' on the line, did you know that obama is ineligible to be president? Yeah, he is. Election law at the time of his birth stated that "if only one parent was a US citizen, that parent must have resided in the US for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which had to be after the age of 16". His mother was 18 at the time of his birth, for her to be in compliance with election law, she would have to of been 21 years old for him to be a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution states. This is a very clear and blaring violation of election law. If this stands, what would keep Arnold S. from becoming president, he's a naturalized citizen, just like your "messiah". This is but one violation, there are probably others, too. A usurper inhabits the White House, and as such has no Constitutional mandate or power. But the democrats are counting on the fact that no one has the guts to pursue it, causing a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions. All brought to us by the democrat party, the party of extra-Constitutional powers. "praise obama, praise his holy name". |
|
pretty much agree with your Newt assessment. He's not suited for the highest office largely because of Temperament.
**That said, I'd still love to see a few debates between he and The Messiah. Ohhhhh, Bammy would be gutted from stem to stern.** |
|
knows from which he speaketh, Little Dude. Trust him on his accuracy. He was the very first honoree and, as I recall, nobody came close. For you, Kid, several came close...but, you did it!
Yours in Disreputable Lowlifehood,
Humble Sensitive Fuzzball Neo |
|
Newt was given something by the people of the U.S. called a majority in the house, and as speaker failed. He has proved the he has no tactical savvy. No clear head under fire. He is free to talk all the blah, blah, that he wants, but he is not a leader. he is typical of the modern conservative. He is directed by ambition, instead of steadfast principle, and as speaker, cared more for his popularity, than running cross-grain to the sacred journalist of D.C. I'm a conservatives conservative, and I cannot abide the man.
Mike Prahm |
|
|
And the American left holds others to lower standards than they hold themselves to. BS they climb over anyone to lap up the latest scandel that msnbc comes out with. We on the right are disgusted when anyone commits adultery you only when it concerns a republican. |
|
|
Let me take a moment and tell you way to go you deserve the honor. |
|
if only to watch him debate the Boy Wonder. I believe Newt would eat Boy Wonder's lunch.
Other than that, I don't much care. |
|
|
I salute you for your reasonable response, despite my goading. I have some frigging work work to do. But I'll reply to your post. Always interested in a civil exchange of ideas with worthy souls. |
|
|
I think neo is referring to the fact that Paddy named you Horses A** of the Month. It is a high honor to be disliked by disreputable lowlifes, so congratulations. |
|
|
'Honors', Kiddo! No, really. It was close, God knows, but you deserve the win. :-) |
|
GRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..! You are giving my neighbor head-shrinker much belly laughter, Home. You and Blovie Needy Boy. Too funny. The tired, endless, one-note challenge equals, according to the aforementioned psychiatrist, that--and I quote-"You OWN the poor Fool, Neighbor Neo."
Now, Girl, I gotta go wipe some axe off my shoe,'Yo. Which reminds me, Boyo...Ya ready to take that(cough, snicker)battle seasoned carcass down to the 'Hood with me, Homes. Nope, didn't think so. God, would my 'yoots luv you!
*Multiple Cloned Lefturd* |
|
So how do you explain the language used by the Founders - if not directly in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, then in their own personal writings and speeches? They appear to me to be secure enough in their faith, and the faith of the majority of Americans at the time, to not need to identify any explicit God or Creator. They didn't want the State (FedGov) to pick any faith over another the way it had been done in England. Worship as you will, what you will - or not, it's your choice.
Please give an example of the "barbaric side to the American character--the judeo-protestant side" - an example that hasn't already met with strong public protest and objection by responsible leaders in the Catholic and Protestant faiths.
Sorry, your anecdotal evidence by your gay friend doesn't address my point. I posited that there is no scientific evidence to support the immutable character of homosexuality. The fact that some people are attracted to people of the same sex doesn't lend support to your argument.
Since human history records homosexuality as never achieving any greater number than, maybe, 3% of the population, in a purely scientific approach, that is not high enough to be self-sustaining over time, since there is no reproduction occurring in same sex unions. Where is my "pathology" in this assessment? |
|
Spot on! They clearly ARE worried that Barry's 'spell' over the folk has had such a short shelf life.
It's kinda funny to watch 'em fuss and fume over the turn of events.
Axey's a gem, truly. Provides much mirth! Next to Boomy, that is, who takes the prize for trying REALLY hard! Boomy is so in earnest. It's quite touching. ;)
|
|
If Newt was hypocritical, he was no more so than Bill. Bill and Hil also spouted the 'family values/personal responsibility' line. They ALL do.
You're just not too bright if you look to any of these people(repubs or dems) as your personal moral compass. |
|
RL- "Careful...axe...Eugene, apparently lying under oath is OK as long as it is personal????? Gee whiz, how many years did Bubba loose[sic] his law license????"
Me- Wow, so that was your great victory. You spent 70 Million and invoked the constitution's greatest penalty over a lie about a blow job?
Didn't vote for Clinton and thought he was kind of a creep. But when he was president, the economy produced 20 million new jobs, we were at peace for the most part.
Let the poor man get a blow job in peace. |
|
exactly wrong. As a general matter, the American right holds others to higher standards than they hold themselves to. And the American left holds others to lower standards than they hold themselves to. That's the primary difference. And it is one reason why your team's moral authority is at zero.
Back in the 70s, when society was careening on the wreckage of radical liberalism, people looked to your team for answers. Now, a generation has passed, and nobody is looking to you guys. You don't stand for anything other than your own empowerment. You are unprincipled. You are pretentious and usurpative. And respect for the Republicans is much where respect for Democrats was in the late 70s--flat-lined. |
|
|
who is sleeping with whom, when it is a republican, dems can sleep with, kill women, do drugs, and it is ok because they don't have the morals that republicans claim to have. People of faith don't like adulterers republican or democrate, we do believe in God forgiving our sins, with that comes the responsibility to not sin again. The Right will forgive behavior, if the other choice is a controling candidate like obama. The disgust for adultery should be for either party not just the other party. |
|
|
Look, Pubs are not going to give Newt the nomination unless it appears he could beat the devil in the WH. The real point is MSNBC and its hate campaign against all conservatives , the GOP, Christians and free enterprise. Today in Salon, Greenwald actually stands up for Keith the Hater vs Bill O. The Left has slowly gone insane over the leftist socialist pacifist naif in the WH and is supporting the Dem Party without any journalistic integrity at all. That is the real point. Newt is not going to become the GOP nominee but the Left hates him so much that they fear him like Sarah, Rush, Sean and yes, even townhall.com. |
|
Newt is different from the others. He's a nut. I'll concede that. But he's a conservative who really believes what he says. Sure he made the Hillary is a b____ comment and the comment about giraffes. But he really is? dedicated to fiscal responsibility.
The Republican Congress headed by Newt is partially responsible for the outstanding fiscal policies during the Clinton administration. Welfare reform. The Contract With America. That was all good stuff.
Unlike so many others who talk a good game (and we know who they are even though many conservatives will never admit it), Newt is real. |
|
GOP: Party Of Torture
That should be the 2012 platform. Townhall won't run this horrifying blistering JAG military smackdown of the GOP politicians and lawyers who left this nation a moral disaster and have to answer for the torture of a 12 year old child:
_________________________________________
Now we know why Obama got elected and the type of people who voted for him. Geeezus! Kool-aid.........
|
|
Wow, you caught a typo!!! Boy are you sharp! Yet you still managed to ignore the gist of my post! Dare I say typical lib?!?! Yes, indeed, you really articulated the lib point of view, you can't use facts, so you resort to character assassination! Fortunately more and more of the Obumbles voters are catching on and seeing him for the iconic zero he really is.
Careful...axe...Eugene, apparently lying under oath is OK as long as it is personal????? Gee whiz, how many years did Bubba loose his law license????
Good man's wife, please don't confuse "axey" with the actual facts of the impeachment bill. These little episodes of fantasy gratify him too much.
Douglas, 9:17 am post, Bravo!!! Well said!!!! So true, hence the beginning of the msm dunces attack and picked up by the drooling drones here!
Good man's wife, did you note the brilliant rebut from "axey?"
Folks, the drooling drones who persist in blogging here are beginning to worry; because, even they, are beginning to recognize Obumbles for what he is, an iconic-zero! |
|
That should be the 2012 platform. Townhall won't run this horrifying blistering JAG military smackdown of the GOP politicians and lawyers who left this nation a moral disaster and have to answer for the torture of a 12 year old child:
"Throughout the Global War on Terror we have heard repeatedly from our military and civilian leaders that this was a new kind of war, a war that requires new methods, new ideas, "thinking outside the box." So that is what the highly creative and motivated people at Guantanamo did; they abandoned the tried and true and lawful methods of Army Field Manual 34-5262 and wrote a new playbook, a playbook that included intimidation with dogs, sexual humiliation, and sleep deprivation. These and other methods were employed at Guantanamo and, as the Schlesinger report put it, migrated to Abu Ghraib, where they resulted in the shocking conduct portrayed in the infamous photographs.
The Secretary of Defense said "take the gloves off" and the soldiers and sailors of Guantanamo saluted smartly and said, "Yes, Sir!" In fact, many of the illegal and abusive "enhanced" interrogation techniques were personally approved for use by the Secretary of Defense; other techniques, like the frequent flyer program, were simply invented on the fly.
"Sadly, this military commission has no power to do anything to the enablers of torture such as John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Robert Delahunty, Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, David Addington, William Haynes, Vice President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, for the jurisdiction of military commissions is strictly and carefully limited to foreign war criminals, not the home-grown variety. All you can do is to try to send a message, a clear and unmistakable message that the U.S. really doesn’t torture, and when we do, we own up to it, and we try to make it right."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/us/31gitmo.html?_r=3 |
|
..lets march through your stupid assumptions on being gay. I once asked a gay friend what he thought of sleeping with a woman. He said that it seemed disgusting to him.
Okay, now one sign of a man's character is his ability to look at something from another guy's perspective. Let's flip it around. Suppose someone told you that you had to sleep with men. Presumably you would be repulsed. I know I would be. I could not bring myself to do it. Now why in God's name would the reverse not be true?
You clowns are a bunch of pretentious buffoons whose morality is based on pathologies and assertions, not logic. |
|
sorry, pal. These were Christian colonies, but it took the Enlightenment to make us a Republic--a country. Our civic heritage is a natural rights, rationalistic, secular liberal heritage. The Calvinist hoohaw was being phased out even as the Revolution was being phased in. Is the word "Jesus" in the Federalist Papers? the Constitution? even the frigging Declaration of Independence? Do you think that was an oversight?
There is a barbaric side to the American character--the judeo-protestant side. And although it is better than outright animal savagery--which is always possible with human beings--America exists to serve the liberal soul and temperament. |
|
|
Stories are for children,adults should rely on Facts. Be very careful! You would not want to be charged as a co-conspirator. Sedition laws exist in large numbers, starting before 1812. |
|
You said: "Libs don't preach morality. That's irrelevant in public office just like it is at one's own office." How do you square that statement with what our Founders said at the beginning of this Republic as to the qualities of those people who would govern?
We have a secular government but a Constitution based on Judeo-Christian values - not Hindu, not Buddist, not Islamic, not atheist. The laws and basic morality of the people reflect that. The fact that politicians and general citizens fail on occasion at exercising those values doesn't discount the importance of having a framework within which to live. Otherwise you have anarchy and chaos.
You have an obsession with "gay civil rights". From an historical perspective, "civil rights" has been known to apply to those characteristics or traits that are immutable, like gender and race. Since homosexuality hasn't been proven to be immutable, how can it be considered a "civil right" vis-a-vis marriage? |
|
"Funny...Libs Here Seem To Think There's
a deep lingering resentment over the awful injustice handed Billy Bubba with impeachment. Jeepers, I'm terrified. This is the same Historical Memory, I take it, that "forgot" a thing called 9-11 and a Global War on Islamist Terror and the wish of our Radical Muslim enemies to destroy our civilization. Ya know, the razor sharp mass forgetter & wishful thinker that got our Ponzi Schemer in Chief elected??"
Me- Well, we can't be in that much danger if you haven't headed down to the recruitment station and signed up to fight in some country where Al Qaeda isn't....
Oh, hey, how did that "Dead or Alive" thing work our for Bush, exactly? Oh, that's right,
it didn't.
YOu guys road the 9/11 horse as far as it took you... now no one trusts you anymore.
|
|
CP_Axe ,Gingrich did not try to impeach clinton,they did in fact impeach clinton for lying under oath."
Me- For which the Senate acquitted him.
CP- "He should have been impeached for sexual harrassment under our current workplace laws ,according to the eeoc it is harrassment when a boss bangs an intern on company time in the office consensual or not."
Me- Uh, no, actually, it's not. It's only harrassment if the attention is unwanted.
CP- All that aside, Newt is brilliant and you can not deny his readiness for the office.
Me- Intellectually, I think he's one of the brightest guys in politics. Morally and stability, he isn't. Also, he isn't electable.
CP- As far as his past indescretions are concerned; they are in the past and redemption and forgiveness from and of sin is what both evangelicals and catholics believe deeply in .
Me-, Oh, yeah, most organized religion is based on selling guilt and forgiveness... It doesn't make him any less of a creep.
CP-There will be some work to gain acceptance from evangelicals, but after 4 years of Obama and the dems not as much as you would think .
Me- Well, you don't know that. The economy could be going gangbusters in 2012 and the Dow could be at 15,000. Then a lot of Evangelicals might figure Obama don't look so bad. |
|
Clinton never should have been brought to court to start with. The judge dismissed the freakin' case. So he was impeached for lying in a case the judge found had no merit... just to keep scorew. And his cheif tormentor was a guy who was cheating on HIS wife. Ahhh, Republican Family Values...
__________________________________________
Bwahahahahahaha! You funny! |
|
"Axey
Actually, wasn't Bill impeached for obstruction of justice, perjury and the like? I don't remember him being impeached FOR the actual act of 'inserting the cigar'. He was impeached for lying about the whole thing.
So what's your point re: Newt? I thought sexual freedom was a good thing with you lefties? You should be celebrating his healthy sense of sexual exploration amoung consenting adults."
Me- It ain't the sex, it's the hypocrisy. Clinton never should have been brought to court to start with. The judge dismissed the freakin' case. So he was impeached for lying in a case the judge found had no merit... just to keep scorew. And his cheif tormentor was a guy who was cheating on HIS wife. Ahhh, Republican Family Values...
|
|
|
called herself an attorney, but was found not to be one. She's pathological, a pathological liar, just like her sister woman, "kayboom". Comments from either of them should be avoided, because they both lie. Leftists liars should be identified, and then ignored. |
|
|
Killer I think that you may have it wrong, its Obma who wants to control ones life. Now I would put Newt up against Obama any day to discuss politics and world situations, ask yourself this what else don't we know about Obama he is not as translucent as he claims. Chicago connections tell me stories about your man that crack me up. |
|
|
These are real numbers; 2% of the American people understand Newt. A full 1/2 of the aforementioned, don't really understand but are "Head Shakers". On the other hand 50% of the American people don't like how he treated his real wife. Then you have 48% who realize that Newt is a "Lifer". He wants to control your "Life", while he enjoys his. I am going to do something "Wild", vote OBAMA... |
|
mean that smooth talking grifter who has been Shut the Fudge Upped successfully by The One's nimble strategery? Vaguely remember...Ohhh, yes, the originator of 'Clinton Fatigue'. NOT on the American radar screen any more, Homes. In Billy Boy's case, he truly doesn't exist if we can't hear him. What a friggin' relief!
For that great service, we owe The Bamma our heartfelt gratitude. He out maneuvered the Clintons by hiring Hilly--with high office and NO power--and, he knew, that would shut Billy's yap. Ohh, and with the hideous Rahm in the White House, The Messiah has a vile turd who knows where the 2-aforementioned live..Big Time. |
|
Libs don't preach morality. That's irrelevant in public office just like it is at one's own office. No one gets fired for having an affair--unless it falls into the sexual harassment category.
But it is the fact that people like Gingrich and others take such pious stands against Clinton, or against gay marriage, after they try to impose some christian biblical overlay to our decidedly non-religious constitution, when they 'fall', we on the left have a field day. It isn't because we think the 'fall' is about morality, but because the very people lecturing on morality cannot walk the walk or talk the talk. Don't tell me that you are against gay marriage because it damages the sanctity of marriage when you undermine it on daily basis.
What I like the most about the hypocrite christian pols and their followers is they think by 'feeling ashamed' or 'knowing they've fallen', that makes what they did 'ok', so they can go back to their denial of gay civil rights. Like a catholic confessional....utter nonsense, but clearing your conscience. |
|
Lets get rid of the Messiah, he isn't worth a chit anyway, he talks good but his actions sucks
____________________________________________
Now we know why he drinks "lite" beer! Bwahahaha! |
|
|
Lets get rid of the Messiah, he isn't worth a chit anyway, he talks good but his actions sucks |
|
|
Yup, Newt is smarter than all of em. I personally would vote for him. He had a personal issue with divorse but given how all these politicians are (perverts, thieves, tax cheats)...and those are the Dems, he should have no problem with the electorate. |
|
|
It would indeed be a wonderful thing to watch Newt eviscerate Barry in a debate. |
|
|
No one in either party can stand with Newt as far as KNOWLEDGE about every facet of government and foreign policy, or defense or really any subject. He will make mince meat of ANY OPPONENT, sure the left will attack his BELIEFS but whats new, but for FACTS, he will destroy every lie and every mistaken statyement from OBAMA or ANY ONE period.He has a grasp , no a complete grasp of all the facts not IDIOLOGICAL SPIN like the DEMS rely on.I hope he runs and brings TRUTH AND FACTS to the debate and shows OBAMA for the fraud he truely is.A teleprompter wont help against NEWT, thats for sure. |
|
a deep lingering resentment over the awful injustice handed Billy Bubba with impeachment. Jeepers, I'm terrified. This is the same Historical Memory, I take it, that "forgot" a thing called 9-11 and a Global War on Islamist Terror and the wish of our Radical Muslim enemies to destroy our civilization. Ya know, the razor sharp mass forgetter & wishful thinker that got our Ponzi Schemer in Chief elected??
I've never been a big Newt fan, but, be assured, in deepest alpha sleep the man's 5-times smarter than The Messiah, Mister Liar in Chief. OMG...Imagine 5-debates, covering ALL AREAS, between Newt & The One!!!!!!! |
|
|
Axe ,Gingrich did not try to impeach clinton,they did in fact impeach clinton for lying under oath. He should have been impeached for sexual harrassment under our current workplace laws ,according to the eeoc it is harrassment when a boss bangs an intern on company time in the office consensual or not. All that aside, Newt is brilliant and you can not deny his readiness for the office.As far as his past indescretions are concerned; they are in the past and redemption and forgiveness from and of sin is what both evangelicals and catholics believe deeply in .There will be some work to gain acceptance from evangelicals, but after 4 years of Obama and the dems not as much as you would think . |
|
|
|
|
The problem with Newt is the baggage he has from the impeachment of Clinton, along with a public perception that's such a distorted caricature. But the caricaturization is something that any Republican will have to deal with once he or she rises to prominence. The real Gingrich is actually a very thoughtful and extremely intelligent man who is a dedicated public servant. Get him in front of America, unfiltered by Big Media's distorted lens, and America might see that for themselves. |
|
While all our liberal liars are bemoaning assorted Reps personal conduct could I just take this opportunity to point out something you'll never hear in the MSM.
Remember Willam "Cold cash" Jefferson (Democrat, louisiana)...yeah, well the jury in his bribery trial retired yesterday to consider it's verdict. You know, the guy with $90K in his freezer. The guy the FBI have on tape accepting bribes - $400,000 worth.
You frickin' liberals get all wound up about whose dippin' his wick where 15 years ago and not a word about the thieves liars and cheats infesting your own party.
Bunch of ignornat hypocrites. Some considerbaly more ignorant than others...yeah you, dumbo!
|
| | |