Flurge Amy Poehler Hillary Clinton Saturday Night Live
Flurge Amy Poehler Hillary Clinton Saturday Night Live-Flurge is defined by the Urban Dictionary as followed:
A cross between flush and purge.”I flurged the wax from my ears.”
Flurge was used on Saturday Night Live by Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton in a sketch with Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin.
That’s all we have for now on Flurge Amy Poehler Hillary Clinton Saturday Night Live.
peep | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Palin (Tina Fey) said “Stop calling me a MILF”
Clinton (Amy Poehler) said “And stop calling me a FLIRJ, I looked it up on the internet and I don’t like it”
By the definition of MILF:
“Mother I’d Liketa F___”
FLIRJ means:
“First Lady I’d Rim J__”
PaulV | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
DOes not matter, Msnbc is campaigning for the Obama Team everyone knows that,
but it does not matter, if she has a agenda or not one thing for sure Obama does not have one, and he has less experience than than Palin,
Obama is riding on the bubba Vote, just like Dick Armie meet the press,
Obama getting the BUbba vote, in other words black people and many others are going to vote for Obama no matter what, even tho he has no agenda,
and he wants more, of the same voter, Obama wants any vote he can get, 75% bubba Voter,
Me I feel the same way, THey should be able to vote for everyone they want,
it their right,
I Voted Hillary , but now McCain,
Now I am Voting strictly for Palin,
A woman , Pretty , Sexy, more experience than Obama ,
I am hot for Teacher,
If we can train and give Obama on the job Training just like Joe Biden said, then we can train
A woman who looks HOT,
And on the other subject, Bias
Media, Fox is Favors to the right but over all THe balance is very fair, I never use to watch Fox every until this elec
Does anyone in here really believe, in this Kieth Oberman insanity,
His days are numbers on Msnbc, Bias,, then he got upset, during the republican convention, when they showed, 911, footage,
But Msnbc thru is his face, and then 09/11/08 Msnbc did show mostly the same footage McCain showed,
HMMMMM talk about throwing it in his face,
Now you know why they kicke them out of the coverage,
Now kieth Oberman, is going to sunday night Football,
Now he going to screw that up,,
TaLK ABOUT THE WORST NEW STATION EVER, LAST IN THE RATING UNLESS YOU ASK OBERMAN, LIKE oBAMA,
tion, Because CNN & Msnbc is on barack Obama Payroll,
They are upfront campaigning for the barack Obama Team, Obama TOld Last week CNN & Msnbc, to go after
Palin, they are on the Obama Payroll to change history,
anonymous | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
FLIRGE – First Lady I’d Rather Get Elected (as opposed to one you’d rather F***)
D | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Paul IV,
Your point would have had more intellectual appeal if your grammar was better, or your spelling correct.
MSNBC is certainly in leftist hands and I would also say that CNN has a left-leaning bias. However I think it is a very un-objective opinion to say that Fox is not equally biased as their competition. I am constantly exposed to Fox news at work and find it strongly biased toward the right.
Regardless though I think it is necessary for someone of a particular mindset to expose themselves to the biased propaganda of opposite persuasion because it will tell you more truth than the propaganda of your side. It is necessary for leftists to watch fox and right-wingers to watch msnbc to expose themselves to the ideas of the opposition. By exposing yourself to dissenting opinions you force yourself to defend your own. Dissention is a necessary facet of any successful democracy and I think you should pay more heed to what is said rather than turning a blind eye.
As for the so called ‘bubba vote’. I find that to be a statement mired in ignorance with an underlying theme of bigotry. I am certain that Obama enjoys a lot of support from blacks and that might just be because he is the candidate they can most easily identify with. Which I might add is exactly the same strategy employed by the McCain campaign by when he chose Palin as a running mate. Except that he was targeting a different (and larger) constituency. The choice of Palin was obvious and transparent pandering which made nearly all of his campaign’s previous criticisms of Obama not only obsolete but also very hypocritical.
Now they are trying to steal the mantle of change, which I would think impossible for an incumbent party with a platform not much different from the existing executive policies. Doesn’t anyone else find it strange that McCain, who has spent his entire campaign abandoning his maverick positions for established party doctrine, is attempting to claim change as his agenda?
TIG | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
In reality, Fox has MORE liberals working at their station than conservatives, D.
Contrary to your assertion, D, Fox IS balanced.
By that, it is simply meant the following: the NEWS persons deliver NEWS that is unbiased and the COMMENTATORS comment according to their views (which are well-known and not hidden for each commentator whether liberal OR conservative).
The issue of bias (as ANY person who has prepared him or herself to work in the news industry is aware) comes into play when the supposed NEWS persons don’t present NEWS, but instead present their biased feelings/beliefs as NEWS instead of stating up front they are delivering COMMENTARY (e.g. their own biased opinion).
That is why NBC is scraping to stay alive: they went all liberal COMMENTARY almost ALL of the time, yet they were LYING and saying it was NEWS. They began dying when the public stopped watching their worthless crapola in favor of HONEST news sources.
NOTE TO NBC: it also does no good to act like you fired liberal party hacks like Matthews and Olberman while giving them pay raises and simply moving them to a little different area of the network.
Lorsonline | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Go McCain. Hands down, the only choice. They are trying to dig up every time he even burped in the past to trash him–saying he cheated on his wife (like 30+ years ago) and took up with a rich heiress. Same people didn’t care if Clinton was getting ’serviced’ while IN the White House, while married, because they thought the economy was good. All of a sudden clinton followers so freaking moral. Give me a break. nobama gonna rob your pockets big time.
Taxman | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
“nobama gonna rob your pockets big time.”
Actually, King George already did, but you haven’t checked your account balance (the national debt) for awhile, so you haven’t noticed.
You probably have noticed that food and gas are more expensive, though. That’s because the dollar is sinking, in part because of our national debt.
Kathy | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I voted Hillary but Sarah Palin stands against everything I believe in and as Hillary has asked, I am now voting Obama. 8 years is enough. Who would want 4 more?! VOTE THEM OUT!!! No McCain! No Palin! And frankly, Palin is an embarrassment to all women…she can keep her church and not force it on my state, thank you!
Common Sense | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Wow. That is the dumbest statement ever.
I think I will hire Klan members and give them primetime shows, but since I will not censor anything I am clearly unbiased.
Dumb Dumb Dumb argument.
Maria | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I don’t think the Clinton followers are taking the moral stance on the above mentioned. I believe they are exposing just one of the MANY lies told by McCain and his camp. Yes, he did cheat on his wife and take up with the drug addict rich heiress. Ah, the drug addict who admitted a good portion of her wrong doing (writing prescriptions in other names…) and somehow escaped any legal action. Diplomatic passport from your husband must be nice. Or how about all of his campaign folks being hardcore lobbyists…the ones he swore to rid DC of?? Or defending Palin for only requesting earmarks while mayor…she has a CURRENT request for the next year as GOVERNOR. I don’t care to argue every point in the game, mainly because we’d be here forever. If you see fit to vote for Mc Cain, you deserve the country you’ll continue to live in for the next term. And quite honestly, I do not like Obama, I was a Hillary supporter, and not because she was a woman…but I will not vote McCain/Palin…that would be like cutting your nose off to spite your face. And that reminds me, take a look at ALL FOX news coverage of Hillary, and then tell me how balanced they are. I shudder to think of the future of this country when there are people out there who are willing to re elect Bush for a third term.
Joe | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Anyone who believes fos is fair and balanced, is either naive or a hard core right winger. Papa bear fair? Karl Rove balanced? Please spare me…
Joe | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Fox is the official press secretary of the bush administration… Or was that Tony Snow? I get confused. It hard to tell them apart.
Wrong | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
FLIRGE = FIRST LADY I’D GIVE an ENEMA to
j | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I cant believe this is happening…
Sarah Palin….???
She can not even look after her own kids and now she wants to look after the USA …
If McCain is elected, the world is so screwed because seriously, the guy is not well, and here is this second rate red-neck woman from Alaska who thinks she can do it all. No, you can not do it ALL as a woman. I have a five month old just like Sarah Palin, and I struggle with doing it ALL and she has a DS baby… who spends time with that baby??? Definately not her, she is too busy trying to run for VP. mmmm Gee what a fabulous role model for the USA…. Nice pick McCain….hahah
Peter | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I try to imagine a candidate as President representing me, representing all of us, in meetings with heads of state of other countries both friend and foe. I can imagine Obama in those meetings, I can imagine McCain, I can imagine Biden, but I cannot in any way imagine Sarah Palin.
After the past eight years we need the best and brightest in the highest office in the land. We need to have the best statesman as president. We need to have the most nuanced thinker guiding our industry and national goals. The choice is obvious, we need Barack Obama.
c | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
D –
nice to see someone with intelligence and a vocabulary posting here. I’m so tired of the rantings of bubbas (like the ‘milf’ lover – yes, sure, let’s elect someone because they are HOT) or those whose opinions are so unbalanced and uninformed that they think FOX isn’t right leaning. I guess the days of trying to make America a meritocracy are over -
Frogspond | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I would suggest you look up McCain’s voting record. Just google it. Then make your decision as to who you are voting for. Don’t buy bullsh!t, don’t buy the soundbites. Look for yourself.
McCain lied about supporting the troops. He voted against the Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment – S 2020 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3692&can_id=53270) and the Health Care for Veterans Amendment – HR 2863 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3643&can_id=53270). Then he didn’t even bother to show up to vote for or against the GI Bill this past May.
Added bonus: He voted against the amendment that would have made it illegal to price gouge for gas after a declared state of emergency. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3704&can_id=53270) and he voted against the Corporate Financing of Terrorism Amendment (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3584&can_id=53270)
MD | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
j – are you kidding me? Apparently, it is ludicrous to imagine that someone, especially another woman and mother, can spend time with her children and be successful. I am a mother of a toddler and a child in Heaven. Our first son had a birth defect and died. That being said, there is no doubt from anyone of how much or living son is loved. Your answer to “who takes care of that child?” The parents do! And news flash, many families have two parents. That’s right, two. I know it is a foreign concept. Luckily, I have a wonderful husband who enjoys being a father and helps take care of OUR child. He manages a child-focused business, so his work hours are after school hours and Saturdays. We are striving to make our life and our child’s life better. So while I work in a full-time management position, while trying to complete my M.B.A., I am the primary caregiver to our child.
We are also very fortunate to have both of our mothers help watch our son, while I am in class and my husband is still at work. My mother is also willing to come to my house and entertain our son, while I study or write papers (in the same room, so I can be with him). Some people can manage doing more than one thing at a time and be successful at it. If you were to ask anyone who knows us, our child is a “momma’s boy” and who is loved more than life itself. My son and husband know they come first. And if you question that in the least… when you carry a (your first) child to term, especially one that has a fatal birth defect and will die shortly after birth. You hold your dying and dead child in your arms, bury that beautiful child, and then with all cruelty, your body doesn’t know that your child is dead and everything is quiet, it gives you a new perspective on life. Life is too short and your family and future children will always be the most important thing. Instead of criticizing someone else as a mother, try to live one day in her shoes.
I was undecided leaning towards Bob Barr, but all of this b.s. has helped me make my decision. McCain/Palin 2008
Palin/Jindal 2012
Gert | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I’m not sure we have much of a choice,but I am sure I don’t want Elmer Fudd and Rambo ruining the country for 4 more years. Bush and his cronies have helped themselves and their friends get richer and killed our middle class and the economy. I’m willing to take a chance with Obama–what’ve we got to lose but our homes and our jobs, oh yeah, that’s already happening; then there’s also all the lives we’ve lost and for what?!
Monica | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Funny how people ctitize Palin for not spending time with her kids but dont say the same about their dads… and of course if you have a baby with DS, i guess your life is over right???
Frankly a politican is a politican.. They say what they need to say to get elected… Maybe I am being negative about it but I am just going to vote for the less of two evils.
darthvader | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I thought the jokes in this skit were hilarious and fairly reflective of the two ladies. The only cheap shots were about Hillary’s cankles (very low blow) and Sarah’s supposed ingnorance of the Bush doctrine (which one?).
anonymous | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
the bubba vote is the white racist vote. ever heard of a black guy called bubba? No, and you never will because “bubba vote” refers to those whites who won’t vote for a black candidate just because they’re racist.
get your facts straight. oh yeah, that’s right. you’re a rabid conservative you don’t need to worry about facts. you say lies over and over until YOU think they’re true.
Jenna | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Kathy,
We all have our own views and are entitled to them as Americans.
I like Sarah Palin and am glad that there is FINALLY a woman who MOST American women can agree with (Hillary could never be that one).
You wrote of Bush’s “8 years.” Well, this is his 8 years:
1) Enter the White House after Clinton left us with the Clinton/Gore RECESSION.
2) Within months attacked (9/11)
3) Begin the War on Terrorism
4) All liberals said we would lose jobs, but during Bush’s term, we have had the LOWEST unemployment rate in about 5 decades (we are now up a couple of points, yet you would think there is a real problem from all the LIES the liberals have spouted (can you say Olberman, the libs uber-hero?)
5) Katrina hit and you would’ve thouhgt the only one culpable was Bush…NOT so. The liberal liar of a mayor who wanted to make it a “chocolate town” didn’t do ANYTHING correct, but WTH, all he needed to do was blame Bush for his own (and his Governor’s errors)
6) More homeowners than EVER in the history of this great nation. (Yes, there are now issues with lenders – do you know what % of homeowners ACTUALLY are having issues? It’s between 2 and 4%. for those who do math, that means 96-98% of homeowners are doing alright…soounds like another “crisis” derived from liberal propaganda).
7) A recession is 2 OR MORE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH in our economy. Guess how many negative growth quarters we are up to?
…….NONE! That’s correct, NONE, so those notions of a recession are BS, basically.
If any liberal had that track record, the news media would be going crazy praising them, but since it’s Bush, they LIE and say it is a bad record.
History WILL vindicate President Bush, that is, as long as the history you read is accurate and truthful…watch and see.
Katie | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
When asked about Iraq, Palin said “I haven’t spent much time focused on that.” Right. And so why are we spending so much time focused on her?
Let’s move on. Obama ‘08.
Jenna | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
j, you sure act as though you know a lot about Ms Palin.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or are you just a liberal hack?
andrew | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Jenna, that is hilarious. Got any more?
ekp | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
Jenna –
I think it’s nice that you have the decency to stand up for your father — while he will doubtless go down in history as one of the worst presidents of this great republic, he’s probably fun at holidays, right?
YellowDogBill | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
I am amazed at how Republicans try to turn the character thing around with McCain. Yes McCain is an adulterer. It’s not how we Democrats feel about Clinton, its how Republicans feel about Clinton. You can’t have it both ways.
YellowDogBill | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
MD – I find it hard to believe you hadn’t already decided on McCain, by your signature gives it away. By the way, Palin doesn’t make McCain a better choice, fish still stinks after three days, no matter how much paper you wrap it in. Here’s some food for thought.
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
* If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people with a balanced budget that you run into a $22 million debt, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, where you accept over $350 million of earmarks, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.
* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian. (Even though there is no religious test to be President.)
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian. (Again, there’s no religious test, but you’re still an adulterer.)
* If you teach children about sexual predators, you are irresponsible and eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible.
* If your wife graduates from Harvard law and gives up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s.
* If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude”, with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that hates America and advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
Oh, let me add — If your wife was addicted to prescription drugs, went through some rehab in lieu of jail time (unconfirmed) and stole from her charity (confirmed) — well then you’re even better qualified to be President!
John McCain is an adulterer, Sarah Palin is the queen of earmarks.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden want to change the direction of our country.
Jesus Christ was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate
Kathy S. | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Many employers these days require a physical exam before giving you the job. Common practice. There is a group of doctors requesting McCain to make his health records public. We, the public, the Americans who are voting to give him the job for 4 years should be allowed access to McCain’s records to see if he will be physically fit to actually do the job for 4 years. This group of physicians is saying that he takes a lot of medication and he has had cancer and he has high cholesterol. If his cancer returns, he will have to be in treatment which will make him unable to do his job. We need to know the truth about McCain’s health. We have that right.
it says required | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
opps didn’t realize my entire name would appear
I dont like Sarah | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna
If things are so great than WHY do Sarah and McCain want to “shake up Washington” and CHANGE THINGS?
You need to read a newspaper or talk to one or two people at the corner coffee shop. Things are not so rosy.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Many employers these days require a physical exam before giving you the job. Common practice. There is a group of doctors requesting McCain to make his health records public. We, the public, the Americans who are voting to give him the job for 4 years should be allowed access to McCain’s medical records to see if he will be physically fit to actually do the job for 4 years. This group of physicians is saying that he takes a lot of medication and he has had cancer and he has high cholesterol. If his cancer returns, he will have to be in treatment which will make him unable to do his job. We need to know the truth about McCain’s health.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
JENNA
If everything is so great why do Palin and McCain want to CHANGE things? Why do they want to “shake up Washington?”
Bill O'Rights | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Lorsonline says
“–saying he cheated on his wife (like 30+ years ago) and took up with a rich heiress. ”
There’s a time limit on being a douchebag?
“Liberals” aren’t saying he cheated on his wife. HE DID! He cheated on his 40+ year old crippled wife with a 24/25 year old woman he met in a bar. He then dumped his wife to marry said woman.
Go read some newspapers if you don’t understand fact from your talking points. Or read JOHN MCCAIN’S OWN BOOK where he talks about what a rat bastard he is.
(And so what if Clinton also cheated on his wife…how does that excuse John McCain?)
A cheating douchebag is a cheating douchebag, regardless of party.
youtube.com/watch?v=tShJHUqSyWI
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
There is hope!
Just read that the largest crowd to ever assemble in the great state of Alaska happened today – it was Women Against Sarah Palin.
They DONT want her – go to the site to look at the photos of all the women with their signs “Bush in a skirt” “Sarah flip flops” “Voted for her once, Never again”
Look for: mudflats
mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/#comment-21325#comment-21342#comment-21353#comment-21426#comment-21919
Tara | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Katie,
Love your comment! I’d have to agree!! Obama ‘08!
Kathy,
You seriously need to get a clue. Your information is lacking. I suggest you get a library pass and bone up on your studying. Then maybe you might see the light of day.
PaulV & TIG,
Fox is totally right-sided. Just as MSNBC is totally left-sided and CNN is somewhat left-sided. Get it straight!
D,
Love your point that people should venture out to see other points of view. News Channel surfing is an idea I think everyone needs to embrace for us to ever come together.
Tricia | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
You’ve got to give it to the GOP, they know their demographic. They always had the GREEDY and were able to suck the OBLIVIOUS back in with one shiny object.
Anonyomous | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna-
OF COURSE there are more homeowners than ever nowadays-they purchased homes in the early 2000s, with every intention of selling them again someday, and when that day, TODAY, came, they COULD NOT sell their homes because NO ONE can afford to buy homes! They are stuck with these homes because no one can but them, NOT because they want them. Believe me, I know. I am living that right now. You really need to take a good look at your opinions before you publish them on the Internet. You are one of those people who can make Americans ashamed to live in the same country.
Anonyomous | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
OBAMA/BIDEN ‘08!
It’s time for change! During Bush’s second term, especially, he was generally disliked and often mad fun of for numerous reasons by the same people who put him in office! Now, those people who voted Bush ‘04 are going to vote McCain ‘08! WHY? McCain and Bush are of the same mold. Do you actually think, with McCain, our country will be better? When I look at Bush and McCain, I see the same person. It’s really time for change.
Dra | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Wow! Govenor Palin has no experience! She was govenor of a state that has a smaller population than the county I live in. During the time she was mayor she put the city of Wassila into a 25 million dollar debt. She’s an idiot, not because she’s a woman, but because she’s stupid! I’m not saying this to be mean, but come on, is this the person you want running the country when McCain drops dead? It’s not a race about vaginas and skin color, it’s about what’s best for the country.
KN | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Hello,
First, I want to applaud those who post here on the conservative side. It takes guts to speak up when you are in the minority. However, ranting does not help your cause. When your response is written, take advantage of the medium and organize your thoughts. A well presented set of arguments will more often be listened to. For those of you who have spelling and/or grammar problems like I have, write in word and then cut and paste.
Second, I have a few items that seem to be logical assumptions that I would like to put out there.
John McCain had the courage to stand up and say more troops are needed in Iraq. One of the strongest arguments against the war in Iraq (and there were many) was that “if you break it, you own it” – Colon Powell. We broke it, we own it. It is our responsibility to stay in Iraq until it is at least as strong as it was before we tore it apart. Even though I adamantly opposed the war with Iraq, it is a moral obligation and the right thing to do.
John McCain says he wants smaller government. This means reduced regulation and less enforcement of regulations. This means increased corporate corruption, economic crisis, and tax payer bailouts. Who reaps the rewards from this policy?
John McCain has a laundry list of ideas he wants to implement, but wants to further reduce taxes. Increase spending while reducing revenues does not work with a home budget or a federal budget. Is John McCain just another Credit Card Conservative who wants to run up debt and pass the “interest” to the general public in the form of a weak dollar?
Globally speaking, American politics has no communist party. It has no socialist party. Stating either of these leanings is political suicide. America now has politicians that have attacked other countries for no other reason than they want to, have suspend the hall marks of our democracy to protect it, and openly profess faith as a reason they should be in charge and there personal beliefs as being God inspired. American politics has a strong far right and little to no far left. What we call liberals (particularly those left of center) are in fact centrists.
I have often heard that liberals dream of creating a utopia that will never be. While this may or may not be true, it is equally true that conservatives dream of reverting back to a utopia that never was. Change is inevitable. Given this, whose stance is more realistic?
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Andrew and ekp,
I see you two have no logical abilities to deal with the truth and the facts, but that’s normal for you liberals, obviously.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
YellowBellyDog,
Here’s one to add to your list:
If you memorize the lies on the liberal blogs each day and spout it off everywhere you go as though it is truth and without being able to verify it, then you are a liberal hero (because, everything is relative…right? No ultimate truth exists…at least that is what your friends say, and you would hate to not fit in with the San Francisco freaks in Cali, right?)
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Kathy, do you remember John Kerry (your former hero) who wouldn’t make his health records public?)
-How easy you forget
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Ok, “I don’t,”
The shake up in Washington is needed because the Dems (or is that “dims”) (who have exclusively controlled BOTH houses of Congress for 2 years) have the LOWEST APPROVAL RATING IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA)
Yeah, I would say there is a LOT that needs to be changed in Washington DC
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Let’s see, Bill: when Slick Willy (ie Bill Clinton) was cheating IN THE OVAL OFFICE), y’all said it was nobody’s business.
Now things are different…can you say that you are a political hack? I knew you could!
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks, I don’t believe you liberals posting lies like “the largest crowd of women in Alaska” oppose Palin being posted on the Internet.
Let’s see, she has an 80% approval rating IN ALASKA, hence your assertion of more disliking her than agreeing with her is pure bs.
davo | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
There’s no point in using a library any more. Palin will ban the better books. Oh sure, not some of the ones on the circulated list… but some of them….
Maria | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Its like beating a dead horse. Hats off to the Republicans for staying with your candidate just because he’s in your party. Brainwashing anyone?
John | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jesus man, learn to type and talk! How can anyone take you seriously when your grammar is all over the place? Your vote is one of stupidity as you are retarded!
Cathy | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Did you hear that Obama just lost the lower class black vote? Yea, he promised them jobs, so now they’re not voting for him…
JLM | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I’d rather risk having the turtle and the bulldog in the white house over someone who wants to get rid of company provided healthcare and take on national healthcare. It will put most of us in the poor house. News flash, some of our people can’t even afford the company provided healthcare, let alone dealing with the full cost of healthcare on their own! I have done alot of comparision to the promises they provide. They are all liars anyway, I just don’t like the negative things Obama wants to do to our country.
Copy and paste the link below to see what troops say about Obama.
youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
genius | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Palin is the Dan Quayle of this decade. Smarten up and learn from history and stop being a sheep.
Polar Bear | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
she hates my people
ahjdvm | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
KN- I commend your comments – the initial posts are good, but the quibbling on cheating is a little over the top. The fact is that we live in a very conservative country. So much so that many folks here call Britain socialist – remember the two parties there are actually called conservative and liberal (which really represent each side) – yes, and by the way, it is a free market society. I believe all the candidates want what’s best, but we have to decide what is best. The country has been run by, what most of the world would consider, far right conservatives for a very long time. It hopefully is time for us to get back to reality and realize the world has evolved and moved on without us, we need to move to the center, socially, economically and politically to exist.
Daoud | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Barack Obama is a flippin’ idiot!
He has never even held a real job not to mention he is completely unqualified to be president… Geez, where is Jesse when ya need him?
Run Jesse Run!
MML | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
You have got to be kidding me right? All of a sudden radical conservatives are complaining about MSNBC after the last 8 years of FAUX News? (That woudl be FOX, Paul, in case you didn’t get it.)
How does a woman who was a mayor of a town of 8000 in the middle of nowhere and a short-term governor have more experience than someone with years in the Illinois State Legislature and three years of experience as a U.S. Senator? Other than Canada & Mexico , what foreign experience does she have? And it doesn’t matter how close Alaska is to Russia, that does not count.
You can’t write too well, but if you can read better than you can write, maybe you should read, “The Audacity of Hope.” It outlines very clearly what Sen. Obama would like to accomplish as president. And it has nothing to do with teaching creationism in the schools, banning books, or impeding Americans’ personal freedoms. Maybe that wouldn’t appeal to you. And what the hell does someone’s appearance have to do with their ability to lead?!?! Hot for Teacher? Go back to you room in your mom’s basement and leave politics to people who can defend their positions.
kiki | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
sarah palin is a total douchebag
Blacmange | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
FLIRGE = First Lady I’d Rather Get Elected (than have sex with).
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Anonyomous,
Actually, people buy homes TO LIVE IN, NOT to resale, Anonymous…Doh!
In REALITY, the value of homes rose FAR faster under Bush than it EVER did under the liberals you worship (Clinton, Carter and other assorted looney tunes).
There HAS been a “correction,” in the market (everybody who knows ANYTHING about markets is aware of this because it happens regularly in EVERY TYPE of market). A correction is where the value of homes rose significantly, then it settles back to a lower amount (NOTE: the value has STILL increased as it always should from the years before, unless in foolishness, the person bought the home at the TOP of the price range which is poor common sense in choosing a home. Those who research beforehand rarely have this problem).
You, like so many other greedy people are apparently not willing to take the substantial increase in value for your home that your home has incurred over the last number of years (or you bought at the highest price because you didn’t educate yourself about the market first)…you want more than your home is worth, obviously (and it STILL has gone up in value under Bush’s presidency).
Now, which of us is as you wrote: “one of those people who can make Americans ashamed to live in the same country”?
Is it you because you didn’t take the time to research before you jumped into a huge commitment of me because I stated the FACTS?
Those who desire truth know it is you.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Anonyomous, I find it interesting that you want to vote for Biden and you actually talk about Pres Bush’s “low” approval ratings.
The Dems have controlled Congress for years now and Biden is ONE OF THEM.
How high is the Democratic Congress’s approval rating?
(HINT: It is the LOWEST IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY – SINCE THE DEMS TOOK CONTROL. Furthermore, it is about 1/2 OF PRES BUSH’s Approval rating).
Dem’s da facts
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Dra, why are you lying about Ms Palin?
She has FAR more executive experience than Obama.
She did NOT put Wasilla into debt during her Mayoral term (the PEOPLE CHOOSE on the ballot to vote for an initiative to fund infrastructure – I believe there was a arena or something like that built, BUT the VOTERS voted to do that, and they CHOSE to raise sales tax, I believe it was to pay for it).
For a non-American, you seem ready to open your yap about things that are none of your business. At least get the facts right next time then you won’t get slapped down with the facts as you did here.
Bill | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna, you go girl. The Democrats can’t face the facts. if they do, then they find out they re just as much at fault as the Republicans. And they’ve done NOTHING to try to help the middle class.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
KN, You have got to be kidding! At least you gave me a good laugh with the stuff you posted!
Iraq was NOT “strong” before, unless you consider a tyrant who murdered at least hundreds of thousands (and possibly a million) of his countrymen, women and kids.
Last week we handed over the MOST DANGEROUS area to the control of the Iraqi government…this war is all but over THAT is why Bush is now withdrawing troops.
Secondly, reduced government does NOT equal more corruption, as you stated.
You either don’t know the facts about McCain or you don’t care about the facts. The FACT is that by cutting the pork given out by the Federal gov’t, our national debt will drop (McCain is the ONLY presidential candidate who ACTUALLY has a proven track record of opposing pork).
The Democrats have been taken over by American Socialists and they have gotten their poster child chosen as a presidential candidate. THAT is why Obama doesn’t want people to know that he adores income redistribution (a Socialist action). (You are correct, in that, if the people understand that is what he wants, it will be “political suicide,” thank God!)
The far left (socialists/Communists) are Obama’s homeboys. It is a laugh that you think there is no far left here…The left in America has NO relation to the center, the left are far looney tune whack jobs. They are so far out there, they can’t even see the center.
America has been and is the superpower for around 200 years and during that WHOLE time, it has been a conservative nation. With each step we take towards liberalism, we lose our place as leaders of the free world.
Facts are facts.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
davo, you wrote about “banned books,” but you can’t name ONE that Palin banned because she didn’t!
That tripe is internet liberal blog crapola (ie – it is a lie!)
Jenna Fan | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna- You are my hero. I’ve been reading your responses and I am very impressed. The left appears to have nothing but hatred and hypocrisy to stand on. Their illogical stances will make our fight east in November. Keep up the fight.
Jenna Fan | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Of course I meant “easy” in November, but you all already knew that. There are a lot of us out here, silently raising our families and teaching values/morals & responsibility/accountability to our kids…we already know who we have to vote for.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
MML, the news trackers that study biases agree that MSNBC bit the liberal big one (THAT is why they “fired Olberman and Matthews) and during the conventions, even a Dem leader (I believe it was Rendell) said Fox was t he fairest at reporting news.
A little education for you on executive leadership: the executive branch of government leads the military (ie – the law enforcers). The President is at the TOP of the executive branch.
Obama NEVER HAD ANY executive experience/leadership. Almost ALL of Palin’s experience has been executive. Therefore, she has FAR more executive (ie – president type) experience than Obama does.
As to foreign experience that you mentioned, Obama has none, other than he visited his father who ran off to other countries and visited his half brothers and sisters that his father spawned all over the globe. That being the fact, you have nothing to down Palin for (and McCain has FAAAAAAAAAAAAR more foreign experience than Obama.
Joe | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Hey Jenna,
So what is your ruling on whether we can talk about a politician’s extramarital affairs? If you thinks it’s off-limits, then stop bringing up Clinton. If you think it’s fair game, then please allow us to put out the facts about how John McCain cheated in his first wife. So what if it was a few years back. Does your definition of immorality have an expiration date? And is cheating allowed depending on your job?
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Thank you so much for the encouragement, Jenna Fan.
Just keep searching for the truth and it will set us all free (even the libs need to be “set free,” the problem is that they don’t even realize the bondage they are in due to their own nature as well as their wrong beliefs).
I am thankful that I have known people who have taught me these facts and how to distinguish the truth from the lies (that requires being able to locate the details and actually looking them up to make sure I am accurate in what I am posting about).
I have been blessed to have people help me to learn truth. (It also requires us to believe in ultimate truth is our foundation for all of our beliefs).
There is actual truth out there for us to discover and stand strong in and on!
Mike G | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Maybe you should vote for someone who wants to improve public education??
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
you ought to be ashamed
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
JENNA: you posted: I don’t believe you liberals posting lies like “the largest crowd of women in Alaska” oppose Palin being posted on the Internet.
Then you write: Check the facts
Well, maybe you ought to check the facts Jenna. I gave you the website.
The fact is, when Sarah Palin returned to Alaska 1200 women stood with homemade signs saying “I voted for her once, NEVER AGAIN” and “Bush in Pants” THEY ARE SAYING THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER
It is not a lie, there are PHOTOS and a video at the website I gave you.
All Repubicans ever do is call Democrats names, refuse to listen with an open mind and say “oh that’s a lie”
Do you Jenna, ever stop to look and listen? Or do you just quickly reply with an insult or name calling?
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I watched an interview with Sarah Palin over the weekend. Palin said “I did not fire a state trooper, he still has his job” Sarah Palin KNOWS noone said she fired the state trooper, she fired his BOSS. SHE LIED (and she lied well) right on national television.
Can you explain that one away?
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Did you see the photo of Sarah Palin at college with the tee shirt that says:
I may be broke – But I’m not flat busted
nice
must make a parent proud, huh?
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
she didn’t ban the books – but she tried. That is documented too. And I actually called the Wasilla Library because I wanted to find out for myself.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Isn’t is curious that “The Elite Six”
(that is what Sarah Palin and her 5 closest friends call eachother)
when interviewed, only ONE of Sarah Palin’s friends said she was going to vote for McCain/Palin. The others said they would watch the debates then decide.
How odd – how would YOUR CLOSEST FRIENDS vote if YOU were runing for President?
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I am a Democrat, but I do have an open mind. I watched Gore win the election in 2000. We all know that he won. But, the court gave the presidency to George W. Bush.
Bush said he was a UNITER – not a divider.
When we were attacked on 9/11 I saw ALL Americans come together. We all supported Bush. We rallied together. That SHOWS that Democrats are open-minded, the rallied around Bush. We all came together. But then Bush started the Iraq War.
Americans stood in the streets against that war. Bush’s administrtion led us to believe that Iraq was “connected” to 9/11 and they led us to believe there were weapons of mass destrution. Then, many years and many lives later Chaney said: WE NEVER SAID IRAQ HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!
and there were no weapons of mass destruction.
SO, was it for the oil? or was it revenge?
Well, we didn’t get the oil, China did.
So, I hope we didn’t loose over 4000 American boys for the oil.
At the end of his Presidency, it turns out Bush is NOT a Uniter, but a Supream DIVIDER.
He has divided the country and he has divided families.
Republican hate Democrats.
Repulicans call Democrats names.
Republicans will never discuss the issues or the plan – they just say “you’re a liar” or
“The news media is biased”
Bush has divided the country and Sarah Palin will embarrass the entire nation if she becomes President. Sarah Palin in her bikini. Sarah Palin in her “Im not flat busted t-shirt” Do we really want to give the honor of the highest job in the country to Sarah Palin?
McCAin made a big mistake.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Joe, obviously extramarital affairs are wrong. they break up families; they hurt people severely.
As I stated, it is wrong also for you all who said Clinton’s cigar tricks in the Oval Office are off limits and not for public approval or disapproval to then go on and whine about McCain’s indiscretions.
I will say there is a HUGE difference between the characters of the two men we are discussing: Slick Willy (ie – Bill Clinton) never evidenced true sorrow for his actions (at least not without being strong-armed by those who caught him in the act and forced him to discuss it…and to anybody honestly evaluating it, Clinton wasn’t showing honest repentance, no, he was like the kid caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar…he HAD to say he was sorry whether he was or not).
The other character in the play (McCain) took a big chance and came clean on national TV at Rick Warren’s interview answering that his biggest failure was that of his first marriage. McCain then went further and stated that he takes responsibility for it all upon himself (Clinton “never had sex with that woman,” but McCain took responsibility without being forced to do so.
Two different men and two VERY different manners of dealing with personal failure.
Lastly, McCain’s situation was NOT “a few years back,” Joe, it was a few DECADES back and it was also not so long after McCain had been released from being a prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton (heck, McCain had been a prisoner longer than he had been married to his first wife, if I am not mistaken).
Joe, have you ever heard PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)? I can almost guarantee you McCain was dealing with some severe mental distress after being freed from 5 years of imprisonment and daily beatings/mental torture.
Not many people live through that stress let alone avoid divorce afterwards. (Be aware that McCain was so harmed that he attempted at one point to take his life while in prison…yes, he was definitely harmed and it took years for him to recover).
Maria | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Ah, I love how hypocritical some of these posts are. “Democrats can’t face the facts”…hmm, sounds oddly familiar. Its funny that people are going to waste their time, everyone feels they’re superior and are going to show the light. Like I said, its like beating a dead horse, and hats off to the Republicans on here…I hope you can sleep soundly at night knowing this country is potentially about to endure four more years.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks, did you even bother to read the rest of my post that you took a few words from?
Let me review: the FACT is that at the present, Sarah Palin has an 80% approval rating by the voters in Alaska (that is 8 out of 10 approve of her leadership…ONLY 2 out of 10 do not approve of her).
Assuming women make up about 50% of the population, that means that EVEN IF EVERY man in Alaska approved of her, STILL more than 1/2 of all Alaskan women also approve of her as a leader.
According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html, Alaska had a population of 670,053 in 2006 (there are likely more people there today).
You said 1200 women protested Palin recently, right. I don’t know if that is true, but even if it is, that is true, the percentage of women in Alaska at that “protest” of Palin was 670,053/2 (we split it in half top approxiamte the number of women vs men in Alaska) this gives us 335026.5 women in Alaska.
Now, we divide your number of protestors by the number of Alaskan women and we get 1200/335026.5=less than .004 that is LESS than .4% of women (ie – far less than 1/2 of 1 percent). In money terms, it would take almost three times the number of women at your “protest” to equal a penny, if we imagined all Alaskan women to be 100 pennies (I use money because often people understand that better in math, but this is such an incredibly small number that it is statistically irrelevant as opposition to Palin in Alaska).
Now, the issue is worse for you if you say 1200 Alaskans were there protesting because that would make the number of protestors 1/2 as much (remember a minute ago we took 1/2 of the population out as an approximation of the number of Alaskan men?
It seems that the numbers you are making hay about are more like a needle in a haystack compared to those who didn’t even bother to show up!
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks, BTW, I will say that I rarely believe what liberal bloggers post because they lie such a HUGE percentage of the time. Their theme is throw any lie out there and if something “sticks” (ie – if somebody is actually dumb enough to take us liberal bloggers at our word) “then we have won a battle in our goal of deception.”
Call me crazy, but I don’t trust known liars such as liberal bloggers.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna
Are you sure he is fit to be the President after the PTSD?
Quite honestly, do we really want a president who has indured 5 years of imprisonment and daily beatings/mental torture.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks, John McCain has had MANY years to recover from whatever he suffered from as a result of the torture.
PTSD is very treatable and he has had a very stable marriage for decades now and has raised numerous healthy children (these last two things are GREAT signs of his recovery).
I believe VERY strongly that a man who endured torture and came out the other side well-adjusted is the absolute BEST person we could possibly choose to lead our military (remember, the President is the chief of the Executive Branch of our government – that means he is the top person overseeing our military/defense/protection of America).
Believe it or not, I don’t agree with everything McCain believes, but Obama would virtually DESTROY our wonderful country (unless somebody controlled him and taught him a few million things)
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna: I was talking about Wasilla. Do the math using the population of Wasilla
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I heard Sarah Palin talk about going to war with Russia. I worry about her becoming the person who oversees our military/defense/protection of America
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
oh, and John McCain’s marriage is great except for the time his wife Cindy stole drugs from the charity she worked for. But, she said it’s only because she was a drug addict at the time. And then there’s the time he called her the “C” word in front of reporters. So, besides that….
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks, in my first reply to you, I somehow jumbled a few words on the 5th paragraph, so I will rewrite it more understandably here:
“You said 1200 women protested Palin recently, right? I don’t know if that is true, but even if it is, the percentage of women in Alaska at that “protest” of Palin would be 670,053/2 (we split it in half to approximate the number of women vs men in Alaska) this gives us 335026.5 women in Alaska.”
That is better, now put that together with the rest of my post a few posts above this and you get my point more accurately.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna: I was talking about Wasilla. Do the math using the population of Wasilla”
One problem with doing it that way, ks, Palin Governs the WHOLE state of Alaska, NOT just the town of Wasilla.
My calculations stand.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I heard Sarah Palin talk about going to war with Russia. I worry about her becoming the person who oversees our military/defense/protection of America”
Ok, that’s nice, ks, I also heard Obama talk about going to war with Pakistan, that is meaningless without a quote.
There is not a single President or candidate for President who hasn’t spoke about war at some time, so writing that you “heard her talk about war” is irrelevant unless you can point to a SPECIFIC issue from one or more of her quotes that is an issue, got it?
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
oh, and John McCain’s marriage is great except for the time his wife Cindy stole drugs from the charity she worked for. But, she said it’s only because she was a drug addict at the time. And then there’s the time he called her the “C” word in front of reporters. So, besides that….”
When did these events happen, ks? (Do you even know?)
Or did they even happen at all? (You don’t know, of course).
What liberal blog did you read them on? (remember lib blogs are choc full ‘o lies)
Have YOU ever called anybody a bad name? (of course you have)
Now, have YOU EVER had an issue like PTSD to work through? (I would bet you haven’t).
I’m sure it took John some years to work through his issues left over from being a hero/prisoner and he probably said many things to people because that rage takes a while to deal with.
Now, as to Mrs McCain, do I need to walk you through the TONS of people on the liberal whacky left (that would be your cohort) who have been or still are drug addicted?
It seems that 20 years ago, Mrs McCain had 2 back surgeries and was given two VERY addictive painkillers (a sad, but very common thing back then). Sadly, like so many thousands of people, she became addicted to the powerful drugs.
Since Mrs McCain had for years been using her great fortune to set up free medical help for people all around the world, she had access to some drugs and it appears her addiction drove her to make some bad decisions and take some drugs for her newly acquired habit.
So, in her attempt to help others using her own money, she fell into the drug trap because of the crappy drugs she was prescribed and got hooked on. Unlike many others, she confessed to the problem and has been drug free for 20 years. (If this was a Hollywood flaky actor, you would be praising him/her, I bet!)
(BTW – Note that she signed a prenup with John McCain separating their assets at marriage…she is the “rich one” of the family because of her inheritance)
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Did you see the photo of Sarah Palin at college with the tee shirt that says:
I may be broke – But I’m not flat busted
nice
must make a parent proud, huh?”
Well, ks, was she flat? Was it a lie?
Have you ever worn anything to show your “assets” off to a guy or somebody else?
In college, huh? That would be about 20 years ago for Mrs Palin…have you done anything wrong in the last 20 years, ks?
She has grown up: she stated she wears the hair, etc to take attention away from her “features” (that is MY word, BTW).
She has matured and isn’t stuck on herself.
I think that is VERY respectable!
Ryan | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Yes, MSNBC (Olbermann et al.) has a very progressive point of view. The difference between Olbermann and the Fox crew is that the latter frequently lie, intentionally mislead and misrepresent matters, and very frequently articulate double standards. All of these things are documented on a regular basis by Olbermann and others. A recent example of Bill O’Reilly’s two-facedness was shown on, I believe, the Daily Show, when back-to-back clips were shown of O’Reilly defending Sarah Palin’s teenage, unmarried, pregnant daughter and defending Palin herself as dealing properly with a completely personal matter, and on the other hand, pompously blaming Jamie Lynn Spears’s parents for having a, um, teenage, unmarried, pregnant, daughter. And then there was the spectacle of one of Fox’s “news” people (a woman — I’m sorry, I don’t know her name) suggesting that the fist bump that Barack Obama gave his wife after a speech was a terrorist (!) sign. Now, you may not like Olbermann’s politics, and that’s certainly your right — and whether you do or not, you certainly are advised to consider his and his associates’ political leanings when watching or listening to them. But I don’t think that anyone can demonstrate that any of the MSNBC crew have engaged in the kind of shoddy second-rate pseudo-journalism that Fox engages in on a regular basis.
Oh, BTW, I thought that PaulIV’s bit was a brilliant piece of open verse, done intentionally to sound like a cretin.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
she didn’t ban the books – but she tried. That is documented too. And I actually called the Wasilla Library because I wanted to find out for myself.”
It is documented, ks? …Mind telling us where?
According to my research, she ASKED a librarian IF they would consider pulling some books (I need to double check that, though).
Now, I can tell you that liberals have tried to ban books MANY times (especially Christian books, beginning with the Bible in venues such as libraries…is that ok with you, ks?)
Let me give you a scenario that plays out regularly in libraries across the USA: a child goes to his/her school library and finds a book that tells him or her about sex between two men (heck, or even sex between a man and a woman).
When the parents of kids at that school say it shouldn’t be in the library, liberals moan, saying that is censorship.
Of course it is: and censorship is a VERY good and ESSENTIAL thing under certain circumstances (small elementary kids have NO need for that book in their library – THAT is common sense, but liberals have very little in common with sense).
Before screaming “censorship,” ks, think: if you have kids, would you allow them to browse through explicit porn sites on the Internet? If not, then YOU are being a censor, but it is appropriate censorship.
So remember, you need to give DETAILS about what stuff you think Mrs Palin thought was innapropriate before spouting off about “banning” books as if it is always wrong to do!
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I am a Democrat, but I do have an open mind. I watched Gore win the election in 2000. We all know that he won. But, the court gave the presidency to George W. Bush.”
Really? Can you tell us HOW the President is elected, ks?
I will summarize, so you can understand: we each vote, but THAT does NOT elect the President.
No, that is why we have the Electoral College (a group of people who represent us and cast the ACTUAL votes for President).
The problem is that ya’ll think we live in a true Democracy, but we don’t…never have in the USA.
Nope, America has ALWAYS been a Representative Democracy (hence the words Republican and Democrat). Also, ALL of the people agreed to this from the beginning: we elect people to represent us at ALL levels (such as City Councils, Mayors, Governors, Senators, President, etc).
NONE of us vote on every issue (we would NEVER get anything done in a true democracy).
So, if you understood the process of election, you could NEVER say with a straight face that Gore won because the popular vote is NOT what elects the president. (BTW – there has been more than one instance of a US President being elected without winning the popular vote…it helps to study history some, ks).
ks wrote:
“Bush said he was a UNITER – not a divider.
When we were attacked on 9/11 I saw ALL Americans come together. We all supported Bush. We rallied together. That SHOWS that Democrats are open-minded, the rallied around Bush. We all came together. But then Bush started the Iraq War.”
Wrong again, ks!
How many of your liberal Dem friends in Congress voted for the War in Iraq? (Do you even know?)
I know only a VERY small percentage of liberals (out of the hundreds in Congress) voted against the Iraq War, so your assertion that Bush did something against all of those libs you love to “divide” Americans is a bad joke, at best and a lie at worst (I’m sure you read that lie on some liberal lie-filled website).
Actually, those liberals decided that they wanted to change AFTER they voted for the war, so they made Bush into a target for political purposes (and, sadly, those stupid enough to believe the liberals have taken the lie hook, line and sinker).
“Attack Bush” became their battlecry and for EVERYTHING that the libs thought they could make into an issue, they blamed our President.
So, you see, the TRUE dividers have ALWAYS been the nut-jobs on the left in dealing with Bush. Lie after lie after lie has been the mantra of the left “If we can lie and gain politically, since we have no morals, we will lie to our heart’s content”…Oh, “and we will blame President Bush at the same time for everything.”
ks, it seems like you have run out of arguments and are just attacking without evidence. It’s best to regroup…you are coming unglued.
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
This is to make paragraph #12 in the above post to ks more readable:
“I know only a VERY small percentage of liberals (out of the hundreds in Congress) voted against the Iraq War, so your assertion that Bush did something against all of those libs you love, just so he could “divide” Americans is a bad joke, at best and a lie at worst (I’m sure you read that lie on some liberal lie-filled website).”
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Ryan, you prove by your writing that you don’t watch Fox enough to see them answer their critics (such as your O’Reilly example).
O’Reilly the next night showed how your heroes on the Daily Show lied, but you don’t care about that. No, instead you take the word of “comedians” as being true on the face-value (remember, they are doing comedy, NOT NEWS reporting. Comedians distort to MAKE things more funny…don’t you get that?)
Anybody can splice video clips together to make a person appear to say what they did not. John Stewart does that ALL of the time!
You see, the problem arises from you libs taking Stewart as if he is a real news reporter and not just the mere comedian that he is. (A recent poll showed that a LOT of liberals actually think they are getting true news via the Daily Show…wake up…it is ONLY comedy!)
Jenna's GOOD Twin | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Wow! I started reading this thread and couldn’t stop. How great is it that we actually have this opportunity to debate the issues.
Unfortunately the previous posts are higher in character assaults and childish mud slinging than mature debate on issues and philosophies.
Up front, I’m fairly liberal, but don’t just slurp any progressive Kool-Aid that comes along.
Someone stated it previously, and I quickly wanted to agree that it’s difficult to find unbiased news. CNN does the best, but they do lean to the left a bit in the way that they trip over themselves to not offend, which is anti-Republican by nature. MSNBC is very liberal and Fox News is ridiculously “conservative”. MSNBC wins the war though as Scarborough is much more compelling than Colmes, who gets bent over daily by “Hatridy”. I quoted conservative because the word connotates something quite different that what I’ve experienced in my 28 years. Olbermann is over the top at times, but at least he reports on things I care about and has the balls to scream at the top of his lungs when he perceives TRUE injustice. Like corporate and gov’t corruption and exploitation. I’ve tried to stay a bit balanced and check out the Noise (Fox Noise that is), and I’ve found quality programming at times, but O’Reilly and Hannity make me sick usually. They personify to the extreme the problems I have with many Republicans. Anti-everything, high-schoolish attacks, and complete spinelessness when being confronted with an opposing philosophy, refusing to debate at all… While many on both sides fail to do their homework, I find it to be a direr situation on the Right. I’m sure I’ll be ridiculed by some as an over-analytical or some other non-sense, but I try to shoot straight.
Onward… I’ll likely be voting for Obama, but will be proud to be an American if McCain wins fair and square*, and would’ve been prouder if Dubya hadn’t slimed him in 2000. * – I’m looking at you Jeb. I’ll be quite unenthusiastic about participating in country that thinks we should outsource our gov’t to profit driven corporations that rarely answer to anyone and scapegoat constantly. McCain is smarter than most of us and proved it by choosing the Governor of Alaska to be his running mate. While I disagree with her on multiple fronts** and will be terrified if Palin has to step in, she did energize his campaign and his possible supporters. ** – Go Science and Education! Last I checked they’d contributed more in the past couple hundred years than all these imaginary gods people are constantly deferring decisions to. **continued – is abortion really the biggest issue of our time? Last I checked we had much bigger issues concerning the 6+ billion people that are already here, and anyone who has 5 kids is an insult to common sense. It’s called overpopulation, greed, gluttony, and ignorant disregard for your neighbors around the world (and I can appreciate unique names, but did she name all her kids in 7th grade?). Sorry I had to take one shot
Finally on Palin, people point out how the conversation comparing Obama and Palin is taking Obama off his game and making McCain look better, and I agree for the most part. However, what I haven’t heard brought up as much is the cause for the effect. McCain’s health and well-being are in question and while politically Palin seems to be a great choice, in reality she’s a huge risk in all arenas. She does have more executive experience than Obama, but it’s like comparing the head coach of a High School football team with the Offensive Coordinator of an NFL team.
Jenna’s got like 45 posts (must work for the campaign, or be getting a free ride on the ‘rents to have so much time) so I’ll try to give my thoughts on a few.
You wrote of Bush’s “8 years.” Well, this is his 8 years:
1) Enter the White House after Clinton left us with the Clinton/Gore RECESSION.
If memory serves, Dubya had a record budget surplus he could’ve used to forestall said recession, but instead started handing it out like he was H.W. on “Coke day” back in college.
2) Within months attacked (9/11)
I’m baffled as to how anyone except Dubya can have that blood on his hands. His F_CKING FATHER was the President once, so much for Republicans being the party of “Defense”.
3) Begin the War on Terrorism
War on Terrorism is the scariest marketing term ever devised. Let’s create a vague blanket term that gives us carte blanche to strip away anyone’s rights and imprison and torture them indefinitely.
4) All liberals said we would lose jobs…..
Losing skilled jobs and gaining service jobs is a numbers scam. America has failed to evolve as fast as China and India because half the country doesn’t even think progress(evolution) is possible, and now we’re paying for it.
5) Katrina hit and you would’ve thouhgt the only one culpable was Bush…
Bush doesn’t take all the blame obviously, but it’s his dumbass faux-cowboy style leadership that’s stretched our resources thin and crippled our ability to get help where it’s needed. “You’re doing a great job Brownie”
6) More homeowners than EVER in the history of this great nation….
Your percentages reek of more statistical manipulation. Homeowner is another marketing term to make people warm and fuzzy about being owned by someone. Feudalism is alive and well, how bout calling it what it is – mortgage owners.
7) A recession is 2 OR MORE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE GROWTH in our economy….
I’m not an economist and I doubt you are either, as this sounds like a one-liner from the Rush Limbaugh show sponsored by OxyContin. Last I checked some of the biggest pillars of our economy were crumbling…
—“There HAS been a “correction,” in the market (everybody who knows ANYTHING about markets is aware”
Sorry I’ve got a full-time job like most people, and don’t really have the time to be a real estate agent / economist / historian on the side. A large number of the people in foreclosures brought it on themselves and should’ve known better, but another large number were duped. I don’t expect the gov’t to hand out free money to fools, but I do expect them to enforce so morals and fairness. Free market capitalism has brought us many great things, but without accountability and oversight it leaves a wake of destruction.
—-“ Iraq was NOT “strong” before….”
We agree! Iraq wasn’t strong, it was just one of many places where bad things were happening. Face facts, we were attacked by Saudis and Afghanis, and now we look like bumbling, incompetent fools for shooting the wrong bad guy and letting the REAL bad guy get away.
—-Random pork comments…
We almost agree. I love McCain for this. The useless pork that fills so many bills disgusts me. Unfortunately McCain’s idea of pork is a bit far reaching at times. Science isn’t pork. Veterans aren’t pork. Public financing IS pork. Then again I’ve heard that most of the “pork” constitutes a very small part of the overall budget. I was disappointed when Obama turned his back on “Public Financing” for… well… PUBLIC FINANCING. There should be NO money in politics. I know it’ll never happen, but that’s no reason to let it go on this way. If politicians want to be on TV, get up on a stage, LIVE and debate, converse, but not smear from a distance.
—“… reduced government does NOT equal more corruption”
Not always, but far too often to be disregarded as you have done.
—“McCain has FAAAAAAAAAAAAR more foreign experience than Obama.”
Maybe a bit too many As in that, but you’re correct, sort of. Unfortunately “foreign experience” (I’m sure policy/relations was meant to be in there, otherwise Obama has McCain) doesn’t historically hinder/benefit presidents consistently. I’ll take Biden’s judgment, temperament, mentality, and wisdom over McCain’s hot-headed, outdated, bigoted, xenophobia. Give me a REAL generational change in philosophy and attitude over an evolved version of an old idea set.
—McCain made the tough choice on “The Surge”
Very true. Another reason I’m in awe of McCain’s many accomplishments. He may have single handedly saved Bush from going down in history as the Elmer Fudd who f’ed up the beginning of a new millennia. Unfortunately he was one of the many that failed to see we were going down the wrong path in the first place. I’ll take someone who makes the right decisions the first time around, rather than rush to action only to have twice as much work to do afterward.
In semi-conclusion…
when the Executive branch has never been more powerful, and the country has rarely been plunged into such a deep hole of partisanship and disarray. On a side note, leave Willy and Mickey alone with the adultery non-sense, it matters little, if at all, in the big picture.
The Democratically “controlled” Congress is unpopular and pretty ineffective, but I’m unsure how you can place much blame on a Congress that gained power 20 months ago (sounds like a familiar term
At my core I’m a conservative/libertarian by my interpretation, but in reality both are very selfish and delusional. I want the government to be as small as possible and to allow me as many freedoms as possible, but not at the expense of others or others children. If you want to make gov’t smaller and open up new markets legalize drugs. Of course we know that’ll never happen for reasons few can justify when compared to similar circumstances. Plus, we wouldn’t want to lose our status as the least tolerant industrialized civilization on the planet. Maybe Singapore will loan us caning to help cut down.
Trickle-down economics is a joke, “please sir can I have another”, grow a pair and tell McCain to donate 5 of those houses to some of the homeless vets he claims to give a sh!t about. I don’t want to tax people or companies to death, but when the average CEO is making 400 times what the average American is (which is 20 times the average of other industrial countries) there’s something wrong. Reward those who work hard proportionally, but rewarding “risk-takers” as McCain advocated in his RNC speech is dicey at best. If people / businesses want to take risks then that’s great, but by nature they’ll be rewarded handsomely or else they won’t be taking the risk. Common sense. I truly care about other people and that’s why I support Democrats usually. Even if they’re not completely truthful, at least they act like they care. I welcome the onslaught of detractors from this short novella that has erupted from me, but tried to make a point or be funny at least and not just spout paragraphs of hatred.
P. J. O’Rourke:
The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna
I said do the math using the population of
W A S I L L A
T H E Y W E R E I N W A S I L L A, JENNA
Might be hard to coordinate an afternoon protest state-wide, especially when the state is Alaska, Jenna
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
I said we all rallied around Bush.
We all came together and supported him.
and your reply: wrong again
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
it seems like you have run out of arguments, Jenna and are just attacking without evidence. It’s best to regroup…you are coming unglued.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
it seems like you have run out of arguments, Jenna Bush and you are just attacking without evidence. It’s best to regroup…you are coming unglued.
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
it seems like you have run out of arguments, Jenna
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
you are just attacking, Jenna
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
you are coming unglued, Jenna
ks | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
what is the heart and the soul of The Republican Party going forward?
do you know, Jenna?
Ask Mitt Romney
Will you marry me Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Jenna,
I think I’ve fallen in love!
Sam | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
She said FLERG, meaning flaccid penis or foreskin. The joke is that Hillary’s old and wrinkly and about as attractive as one.
ks | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Do you thnk we should have a president who understands economy? Especially after what happened yesterday?
ks | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
TO: will you marry me Jenna
You should probably know, Jenna is really a boy
Darren | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
I just wanted to point out a couple of things on this board.
1. There is a reason Fox News is number one and only 33% of the people who watch fox news identify themselves as a republican. It is the most fair and balanced news. The newscaster (most of them actually left leaning) do not show any bias. They also have commentators on both sides. This is why so many people think that they lean right because no other station has any representation from the right. The world is only used to the left in the traditional media.
2. The costs rising all center around fuel costs. Something needs to be done about this and this does not involve the government adding addition taxes to out full. We tried that in the seventies and it was a disaster. The government currently makes more per gallon the oil companies and the government is not drilling, barreling or refining. Also a strong reduction in spending needs to happen. Over the last few years spending has continued to go up. This is a problem on both sides. The congress has been under democratic control and the spending is now out of control however, Bush is letting these bills through and is not vetoing.
3. Sarah Palin does have a record. As a person from Chicago, I will let you know Barack Obama does not have an equivalent record. Palin has stood up strong for her state cut spending, not just projected spending… she actually reduced the current spending. She cleaned up her own party. She is head of a state that has 1/5 of the nations energy. That is no small undertaking. It is also a sad sign that Barack Obama has to compare himself to the bottom of the McCain Palin ticket.
Will you marry me Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
ks,
If Jenna is really a boy, I must must say that he should be referred to as a man since the comments added by Jenna are far more mature than those you’ve provided, ie your Wasilla demonstration comments. Besides, you have no idea what gender I am.
But I do see a pattern with your comments. You jump to conclusions before knowing any of the facts.
DT | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
First of all, I would like to say: ks – shut up!!! You are wasting everyone’s time with your ridiculous replies. Just face the facts that Jenna kicked your butt and that you have no intelligent comebacks for the points that she challenged you. Yes, I know that you were referring to the female population of Wasilla. Let it go!!!
Secondly, I would like to thank Jenna and Jenna’s Good Twin for some entertaining debating and reading. It is nice to see that there ARE some folks who lean to the left but who also agree with the right side of the aisle on certain issues, of course. And when they don’t agree they don’t start spewing a bunch meaningless nonsense.
star | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Bubba Gump?
ks | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Anytime a Republican tries to discuss politics they resort to name calling. Instead of having an intelligent discussion or actually listening to or discussing the issue, they attack the speaker (a fellow American who they don’t even know) and scream insults or call the other person “stupid.”
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Do you thnk we should have a president who understands economy? Especially after what happened yesterday?”
ks, if you understood our government, then you would know that the President oversees the Executive Branch (ie – the military and other services that protect us from harm).
The Congress is the “holder of the purse strings.” It is the Congress, NOT the President who oversees the money we pay in taxes as well as writing laws for the financial institutions in the USA.
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
ks wrote:
“ks | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
TO: will you marry me Jenna
You should probably know, Jenna is really a boy”
ks, NOT true…I have never had a sex change!
How silly!
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Great post, Darren, that deserves a reprint (see below):
“Darren | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
I just wanted to point out a couple of things on this board.
1. There is a reason Fox News is number one and only 33% of the people who watch fox news identify themselves as a republican. It is the most fair and balanced news. The newscaster (most of them actually left leaning) do not show any bias. They also have commentators on both sides. This is why so many people think that they lean right because no other station has any representation from the right. The world is only used to the left in the traditional media.
2. The costs rising all center around fuel costs. Something needs to be done about this and this does not involve the government adding addition taxes to out full. We tried that in the seventies and it was a disaster. The government currently makes more per gallon the oil companies and the government is not drilling, barreling or refining. Also a strong reduction in spending needs to happen. Over the last few years spending has continued to go up. This is a problem on both sides. The congress has been under democratic control and the spending is now out of control however, Bush is letting these bills through and is not vetoing.
3. Sarah Palin does have a record. As a person from Chicago, I will let you know Barack Obama does not have an equivalent record. Palin has stood up strong for her state cut spending, not just projected spending… she actually reduced the current spending. She cleaned up her own party. She is head of a state that has 1/5 of the nations energy. That is no small undertaking. It is also a sad sign that Barack Obama has to compare himself to the bottom of the McCain Palin ticket.”
mam2263 | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Well the only problem with your “Clinton did it too” (which btw he didn’t exactly, he didn’t leave his now physically altered spouse who was loyal during his capture for a hotsy beer heiress), is that Clinton is not running for president, but McCain is. Also, Clinton’s indiscretion (at least the Lewinsky one) did not occur before he ran, the other indiscretions were not widely known at that time. McCain’s wife dumping was common knowledge. At some point, Republicans are going to have to stop using Clinton as a moral compass for their own politician’s moral shortcomings.
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Ok, to the “twin” (I have no twin, and the liberal version is never good ;^))
You replied to almost everything in one post…that is going to take some time to break down in response, so I don’t know if I can do that all today, but you have several errors in your post, for sure.
First, you need to read Darren’s post to understand the truth about Fox News…the stuff you posted about Fox being exclusively “conservative” is ridiculous.
Yes, they have numerous conservative COMMENTATORS (as WELL as liberal ones), but the NEWSPEOPLE simply present the facts and let you decide what you believe.
The problem about all of NBC and MSNBC (and almost every other “news network” is that they ACT like they are presenting the news for you, but they are trying to persuade you by their COMMENTARY (and they often withhold the facts that might lead you to believe something that they don’t agree with).
You also need to read my post about the Electoral College and how THEY elect the US President…it seems you may not understand how it works.
TWIN, you wrote in your huge post the following:
“Go Science and Education! Last I checked they’d contributed more in the past couple hundred years than all these imaginary gods people are constantly deferring decisions to.”
TWIN, I must remind you that last I read, something like 80 or so percent of Americans believe in that God that you call “imaginary.” That is a HUGE number in ANY kind of democracy, anywhere.
(Also, America would not be ANYWHERE as good as it has been if it weren’t for the Christians who settled this country and designed it’s freedoms and government).
In addition, those of us who do believe in God ALSO believe that God CREATED science and education. (PLEASE remember, one of the FOUNDATIONAL assumptions of modern science is that NOTHING ever comes from nothing. So, either you have eternal hydrogen molecules or you have an eternal God who created the molecules and used them to create everything else. I think it is more foolish on the face value to believe that you are more educated because you believe that everything came from nothing or that molecular matter is eternal as compared to believing in a Creator God – BTW – MOST ALL modern science came STRAIGHT from Christians like Newton, Pascal, and MANY others who were seeking to know the Christian God better…Einstein even said that he believed in God more as time went on).
TWIN, then you wrote:
“is abortion really the biggest issue of our time?”
Well, I have to say that IF you believe abortion is murder, then you HAVE to believe it is the biggest issue of our time (unless you believe humans are not important, in that case, Hitler would be your hero, right?)
Millions of women have been lied to, having been told that a baby in utero is just a glob of tissue, so they have let their children be killed. Did you read that? MILLIONS of babies have been killed in ignorance…that MUST be very important. Many women who have done this are my friends and now wish they knew better beforehand. God has forgiven them and they are changed people today.
TWIN, you wrote that “McCain’s health and well-being are in question”
Are you not aware that McCain is YOUNGER than Ronald Reagan was during his second term? Health is NOT an issue with McCain…he HAS been given a clean bill of health from his doctors as has been reported again and again. This is a straw-man argument.
TWIN also wrote: “She does have more executive experience than Obama, but it’s like comparing the head coach of a High School football team with the Offensive Coordinator of an NFL team.”
You are right on the first point: Palin absolutely has more executive experience than Obama, but your comparison is wrong. It is like comparing the head coach of a High School football team with the lawyer who organizes people to sue the government for various issues. You see, no matter how you slice it, Obama has NO executive experience, but Palin does…Obama is a lawyer…he knows nothing of leading the military.
As for your assumptions about my “working for the campaign,” TWIN, I do not. I work full time as a teacher and I am taking classes to further my education…nobody pays my rent but me (believe it or not, a person…like Sarah Palin CAN do more things than one at the same time!) I do answer pretty quickly to the posts here, for the most part, though!
I will have to find another time to respond to the rest of your post.
Buh-Bye!
CR | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
I’d just like to note that those were not babies killed, but fetuses.
I’m not even sure if it’s right to say “killed”, since they were not alive to start with.
Abortion is in no way murder, and if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions will not stop. Women will just end up referring to back alley abortions, which are truly horrific. This can easily be prevented from occuring.
Ryan | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
To Jenna:
“In addition, those of us who do believe in God ALSO believe that God CREATED science and education.”
It is rather an enigma then that God created science and yet those who speak on His behalf have provided the largest barrier to scientific progress. Electing a VP who thinks that we existed alongside the dinosaurs hardly promotes rational inquiry or scientific thought. The universe is somewhere between 13.5 and 13.7 billion years old. This is verified by several independent experiments. To believe that it is ~6000 years old is about as stupid as believing the earth is flat and rests on the back of a giant turtle. To be that (willfully?) ignorant of science says a lot about ones regard for and understanding of TRUTH.
Einstein NEVER believed in any sort of God. He uses the word God as a metaphor for the laws of nature and this is crystal clear from the context of any quote where he uses the word. People like yourself like to deliberately take his comments out of context to claim this great thinker as one of your own. Sorry, he was a very philosophical man and the greatest physicist of this century, but he never for an instant believed in the existence of God.
mg | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
FLIRG = first lady is really gay
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
CR, I happened to leave my computer on and saw your post just now.
The things that you are saying are EXACTLY what I meant by the statement that we have been lied to. You have been lied to, so have I.
We have been LIED to when we are told the following as you wrote: “I’m not even sure if it’s right to say ‘killed’, since they were not alive to start with.”
Actually, if fetuses are not “alive,” then what are they prior to birth or abortion?
It goes against ALL science to hold that they are not alive…it is sheer foolishness to say that, but we tend to believe those we consider “authorities,” who feed us these lies…even when what they say is so obviously a lie. THEY have blood of millions of innocent babies all over their hands.
Abortion is a term created to hide the fact that a murder has occurred. It is very much like the term “affair,” which was created because it sounds soooo much better than admitting ones adultery or fornication, right?
You say abortion is not “killing.” Why not?
Honestly, what is the difference?
You are correct…there are those who will murder babies no matter what the law is, but the horror is not only “back alley abortions,” it is at the same time the fact that the most innocent of human beings has been murdered.
Sadly, some have so little respect for the innocent that they act as though what they have done is not murder when in reality they have murdered the ones we ought to fight hardest to protect.
It’s not a choice…it’s a baby.
MJ | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
I want the last 1/2 hour of my life back. I was just looking up “Flurge”. And I get sucked into this name calling Bull****! Aren’t we all on the same side here? You are ALL smug, and self-righteous.
BTW – OBAMA!
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Quick quiz…feel free to chime in:
Who Am I?
-I am under 45 year old
-I am a Republican reformer
-I love the outdoors
-I hunt
-I have taken on the Republican Party establishment
-I have many children
-I have a spot on a national ticket with less than 2 years in the governor’s office
Ok…WHO AM I?
Answer tomorrow
MJ | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
A pittbull with lipstick?
A token running mate, 24 years after it really mattered?
A splash of personality to keep people’s attention off the guy who’s really running for office?
A phenom that has Republicans jumping through hoops trying to explain how the 20 month governor of the 47th most populated state is ready to be a heartbeat away from the most powerful job in the world?
A womb with a rifle?
A Sunday School teacher with her finger one more melanoma away from the button?
The Antichrist with her hair in a bun?
Oohh, I know who it is!
It’s Britney Spears! Oh wait, you said H-U-N-T.
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist joining in on all the hate-fueled fun! Isn’t the nameless, faceless internet a grand place? All the porn and ignorance you can handle!
OBAMA!
Jenna | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
Thank you for your entry, Obama.
(Gee, I didn’t know he cared!)
Answer will be posted tomorrow get your entries in.
MD | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
First, YellowDogBill, what does my signature give away???? My signature is MD, my inititals. And my first decision was actually for Bob Barr! But with the polls so close, we need the lesser of two evils. However I want the best of the four POLITICIANS, which would be Sarah Palin.
Second, “CR | Sep 16, 2008 | Reply
I’d just like to note that those were not babies killed, but fetuses.” When my son while in my womb at 12 weeks of pregnancy was diagnosed with anencephaly, the worst birth defect there is. I heard so many times that he was an “unviable fetus”. He was a baby, my baby. When he was born at full-term, he was a beautful baby. Did he survive outside my womb, no. But that doesn’t mean that his life was not exceptional and did not bring amazing miracles to our lives. I can understand why some terminate an anencephalic pregnancy, it is very emotionally traumatic. However, if I had to do it again, I would. Where I gave him every chance to survive and held a perfect being in my arms. He is waiting for us in Heaven.
And Jenna, you rock! And the answer is Teddy Roosevelt.
I wish people would read American history and Economics. I’m not sure if the two president-elects have opened an economic book. Has anyone ever heard of the English economist Adam Smith who lived back in 1776? How about Karl Marx? Obama’s ideas on change or more in line with Marx, Socialism. Can we look at history in general and note that all the socialist countries have failed?
And I live in Louisiana, born and raised. We were destroyed by Rita and recently Ike, but you do not see the people in my community complaining. Rita hit in September and I was not able to go back to my place of work until mid-November. Now we flooded again in Ike and as we speak all the walls or cut out of our building and being heated to kill all bacteria. Hopefully we will be back sooner than we were with Rita. But out side of the state evacuated its people for both, and we had virtually no lives lost. Homes and cites destroyed, but we rebuilt silently without fanfare. And we will do so again this time. However, most of the responsibility of getting the people out and what took place during Katrina lies with the disgrace of a Mayor Nagin and our former governor Blanco. Two incompetent leaders, who shifted the blame onto the federal government. Granted, FEMA was a joke!!!! Newsflash, a state has to ask the federal government for help otherwise the federal government will be in violation of the law.
Everett | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
Love all the postings, totally fab.
One thing that really scares me is when Sarah Palin talked about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “have gotten too expensive to the taxpayers.” Hmm, a bit unnerving to have someone at the helm of the country who doesn’t understand the difference between public and private compaines.
Some interesting implications there …. please feel free to discuss.
Everett | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
Sorry, my bad ….. I actually meant “government-run” vs. private companies, not public vs. private.
anonymous | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
Well first of all, Jenna, you’d make a wonderful politician (and by wonderful, I mean you’d probably get all the ignorant people to believe the rubbish that comes from your mouth). Although I would agree that a small few of your arguments are spot on, I am amazed by your ability to disregard the issue and make comparisons that are completely irrelevant for most of them. It is obvious that you’ve spent some time getting educated. I just wish you had learned something during that time.
I’ll just chose a couple of points for no reason in particular (and I certainly am not going to waste my time on all of them as I doubt you’ll even think about it before finding some mind boggling reason for dismissing whatever I say here).
“You see, no matter how you slice it, Obama has NO executive experience, but Palin does…Obama is a lawyer…he knows nothing of leading the military.”
“Do you thnk we should have a president who understands economy? Especially after what happened yesterday?”
ks, if you understood our government, then you would know that the President oversees the Executive Branch (ie – the military and other services that protect us from harm).”
Seriously, do you understand checks and balance? Yes, the president is the executive branch. You seem to think this means he is the military leader of the US, period. Well, that does put him at the top of that ladder, but did you know he also appoints the secretaries of all the departments (eduaction, energy, transportation, commerce, state, defense, etc). He also appoints the supreme court justices, has veto power over anything congress submits, and serves as our representative to the rest of the world.
Defense is one of 15 cabinets that the president oversees. It is not his only job, it is a small part of it. If you think he has nothing to do with the economy, then you are an idiot who has very little understanding of the basic means by which this country runs. By your definition of what the president does, we should be looking for only the greatest military commanders for the Chief of state, because that’s really all they do. The president has nothing to do with the economy in your opinion.
Also, you laude that Palin has more executive experience (which you seem to equate with military command). Show me her military experience. She has control of the Alaska National Gaurd, and she has delegated pretty much all of what little duties she has concerning them to others, and you call that experience? Show me a decision that Palin had to make concerning the Alaskan military (and if you happen to actually find one, show me one that actually displays valuable experience).
I think the head coach of a high school football team, and NFL offensive coordinator is a pretty fitting comparison. Both are involved in government. Palin leads her small state and Obama helps others run the nation. I love how you choose to call him just a lawyer who wants to sue the government. I can use old jobs and random comments too. Obama is like an NFL offensive coordinator while Palin is just a small town mayor who wants to put us all into huge debt.
“oh, and John McCain’s marriage is great except for the time his wife Cindy stole drugs from the charity she worked for. But, she said it’s only because she was a drug addict at the time. And then there’s the time he called her the “C” word in front of reporters. So, besides that….”
When did these events happen, ks? (Do you even know?)
Or did they even happen at all? (You don’t know, of course).”
I love this type of rebuttal. These events happened in 1992. Whether he knows exactly when they happened or not is irrelevant. What a weak argument.
“America has been and is the superpower for around 200 years”
This isn’t about the campaign, but did have me laughing for a good while. How would you like to define superpower? Economy? The US had about 0.8% of the world manufacturing 200 years ago. An agrarian society is not a superpower, care to prove me wrong? Military? We barely won against the British 25 years before on our home turf, and there were plenty of countries that had a larger military than us for quite some time. In fact, the term superpower wasn’t even applied to the US until 1944. That’s barely over 60 years, not 200. I could go on, but this has nothing to do with the campaign, as I’m sure you’ll point out (though I do see similarities in your understanding of this and most of your other “facts”).
“Actually, people buy homes TO LIVE IN, NOT to resale, Anonymous…Doh!”
Yes, most people buy homes to live in, but not all of them. Fact? Hardly. Yet another example of you claiming the high road with something that is “fact” merely because you think it is. You advise people to verify information, yet you can’t even do it yourself. Just look at your comment concerning YellowDogBill’s comments. You stated:
“If you memorize the lies on the liberal blogs each day and spout it off everywhere you go as though it is truth and without being able to verify it, then you are a liberal hero (because, everything is relative…right?
You suggest that all of the information he provided are lies. Would you care to point out anything in particular he got wrong, or would you like to just dismiss it all as lies yet again without providing anything resembling an argument?
Anyway, have fun with this Jenna. I’m curious as to how you’ll twist my words into your own delusional promotions of McCain and Palin. Enjoy
Jenna | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
anonymous, I just opened my browser to see your rant.
I find it interesting that you claim to point out something wrong that I have said, then tell me whatever I reply will be nothing more than “delusional” twisting.
(In other words you haven’t got the ability to actually defend your position…just belittle other people and claim – IN ADVANCE – that NOTHING can contradict you.
If you actually have the brains to go at it, then lets do it…if not, then keep throwing your emotional partisan temper tantrums and I’ll simply ignore you for the childish twit you presented yourself to be in your above post.
Well, what will it be?
I’ll look for your reply.
anonymous | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
Sure, have at it. Dispute what you will of what I said.
Jenna | Sep 17, 2008 | Reply
Great post, MD (Everyone should read it)
I sure hope you all in Louisiana make it through the weather disasters as well as and even better than you have made it through in the past (you guys have a ton of pluck)
As for the “quiz” I posted earlier:
Who Am I?
-I am under 45 year old
-I am a Republican reformer
-I love the outdoors
-I hunt
-I have taken on the Republican Party establishment
-I have many children
-I have a spot on a national ticket with less than 2 years in the governor’s office
Ok…WHO AM I?
Obviously some THINK this is about Mrs Palin, but, as MD correctly posted, it actually describes Teddy Roosevelt (a VERY well-respected and venerated past President and Vice President).
This great man had much the same, if not LESS credentials than Mrs Palin to become VP, yet nobody whines about that…is that sexism?
Is that some other ism?
I can tell you this much, the arguments against Palin’s credentials and accomplishments just KEEP on being destroyed by the FACTS!
Good Grief | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Jenna, you seem inordinately passionate about defending McCain. (I’m especially fond of the defenses that use his “PTSD” as an excuse for his more irrational/indefensible missteps. That’s pretty funny.) I say, “inordinately passionate,” because it won’t make too much difference which of the two major-party candidates are elected, in the grand scheme of things—will it?
You speak of how the Iraq “war” is “all but over”; but there was no declaration of war—right?
You say that we’re not in a recession because the economy is not negatively “growing”; but isn’t the Federal Reserve simply inflating the currency, in large part to pay for the actions undertaken by our military-industrial complex in the Middle East [and throughout the rest of the world], so that while it would seem that the economy is maintaining the “status quo” insofar as joblessness and the GNP are concerned, the currency being passed around is worth a lot less lately?
Don’t you think this contest between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden is much ado about very little, when their policies, allegiences, and objectives are examined in contrast to the prescriptions of the U.S. Constitution?
No matter who is elected, we are in for a lot more [undeclared] war, and a lot more debt/inflation/devaluation of the dollar. Sound fun?
Ralh Wiggum | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Your caps lock is broken.
Trev | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
PaulV, you are incredibly narrow minded. You want palin to be president because shes hot? the mcain campaign is composed of lies and taking obamas sentences out of context to make it look bad for him. palin continually lies about the bridge to nowhere. she said she was against it, telling congress “thanks, but no thanks” and yet there are videos of her supporting it. she changed her mind AFTER congress pulled the funding for it.She didnt event know what the bush doctrine is. She may be able to learn, but i dont want a president, or vice-president for that matter, that lies to me.
Andrew | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Jenna
I’m going to have to agree with anonymous’ last post. All of your commentary does not have enough sources to convince me those are truths. Whether people are liberal or conservative, Americans deserve nothing but the facts from real sources. Even Karl Rove is appalled at how the two campaigns are throwing around their statements without fact checking them.
To another point in your earlier posts, America has been a mix of democracy and socialism. Wasn’t Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting socialist because government was regulating businesses? In fact, after FDR Republicans and Democrats have sought some socialist things. Even John McCain does not want to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid (as far as I know), although those are socialist ideas. The entire world is mixing socialism with capitalism because it is the best solution we’ve got.
We shouldn’t blame Congress instead of the President or vice versa because they are equally responsible. We did not declare war in Iraq, but under the War Powers Act President Bush sought Congressional approval, which he got.
And do NOT smear me as a liberal socialist hack. I am a registered independent voter and although I’m going with Obama/Biden because their values and policies that they have so far revealed align with mine better this time, I would have no problem with a McCain White House. In fact, I just love divided government!
TIG | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Andrew
Of course Jenna hasn’t given a reference for everything she writes (after reading her posts, I would bet almost anything she is well capable of doing that, given the time to post them).
If everything she wrote had documentary evidence attached, you probably wouldn’t even bother wading through that load of reading.
I have an idea – why not take the subjects one by one so there won’t be a book long post needed every time? That is how a debate is done correctly.
If so, then you will need to get more specific yourself, because so far, Jenna has given one heck of a lot more evidence already than you and anonymous have given all together.
As far as the “socialism” you wrote about: that is what the conservatives have been against for many, many years (but, I can tell you, that you sure don’t find it from the Founding Fathers of the USA! Nope, it was added on by those who wanted to take what some people own and give it to other people without the owners’ approval).
Most Americans realize there is something wrong with taking something that you earned and giving it to another person (without the gift being your choice. Usually that is considered theft). That is the road that socialism takes a country down as they make their way toward Communism (where no individual owns anything at all and everything you earn belongs to everybody else).
The problem with that pathway is that somebody is making a decision about how much of what would be yours should be given to others with or without your approval. (Remember, the income tax was only considered legal in the USA with the 16th Amendment, and that was in the early 1900’s, which is more than 100 years after we declared our independence from Great Britain).
Many of us do not believe the government is good at deciding how to correctly take from one person and give to others because they get it wrong one heck of a lot of the time, so what you call “socialism” is not the best thing to mix with our representative democracy.
Finally, Andrew, if you support Obama (if you actually are aware of his views, then you are definitely on the far-left side, because Obama is like the second most liberal person in the Senate (not even near the center). I hope you don’t think that is a smear, because it is just the truth.
As far as Jenna – keep it up because you are my favorite poster here so far (and you have provided more evidence than your opponents so far).
TIG | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Trev
You ought to double check your facts because the one who didn’t get the “Bush doctrine” correct was Charles Gibson (the one who interviewed Palin on ABC).
Actually, you ought to read the article by the syndicated columnist who first used the term.
Here is a short bit of the referenced article: “There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.”
After explaining the evolution of the 4 Bush doctrines, the writer concludes: “Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and ’sounding like an impatient teacher,’ as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.”
The rest can be found here and is well worth the read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
ks | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Why does Palin KEEP SAYING she said “thanks but no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere?
Does everyone KNOW that she wanted the bridge? Does everyone know that she took the money? Does everyone know that she built the road to the bridge (now it’s called the road to nowhere) and she kept the money. She didn’t build the bridge, but she kept the money.
Unbelievable.
TIG | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
To “Good Grief,” I would reply as follows
I know about PTSD, because I have diagnosed people with it before and it is not funny at all.
I didn’t diagnose McCain, but Jenna may very well be right about her post on the subject (I can guarantee you, virtually nobody goes through the incredible horrors that McCain endured without some emotional issues, but those who deal with their demons and make it through to the other side are some of the most respectable, honorable and sound people I have ever met).
I’m not sure why you then wrote about the Iraq War, as if it isn’t actually a war, because Congress agreed with Pres Bush before we went in, so it has been ratified by the vast majority of the House and the Senate.
Next, your assertion that the Fed Reserve is just “inflating” US currency is weak. There is no doubt at all that we have experienced a very strong dollar for most of Bush’s terms (and we have seen the lowest unemployment rate in decades and the highest homeowner rate in even longer).
There is no way to truthfully contend that Bush has not led this country during very good times financially (of course, you would never know that from listening to the false presentations and misquoting of the facts on NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS, though).
I also disagree with you, because there is a great deal of difference between how McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden would run the country, if elected.
ks | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Abortion:
We are still debating a law that was passed over 30 years ago.
I am a Christian woman – and so I am against abortion.
BUT… But, if I or my daughter or someone I love got pregnant – and it was unplanned (either by rape or insest or whatever…) I would not want Sarah Palin or George W. Bush or McCain or Barack Obama to tell ME what to do! I would want to make that choice. And I would make that decision between me and my God.
That’s how personal the choice is.
And women should have the choice.
I don’t understand how Republicans can say on one hand that there is TOO MUCH government and then on the other-hand want government to decide if we should have a baby or not???
ALSO: THIS ELECTION IS NOT ABOUT ABORTION.
The Republicans and throwing that into the mix to make the election emotional.
“Oh, you want to kill babies” “Oh, Hitler must be your hero” So illogical. Just stick to the point.
ks | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
This is How Racism Works
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said “I do” to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the Keating-5?
What if McCain were a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
- Kelvin LaFond, Fort Worth
PS: What if Barack Obama had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter….
Imagine you were a business owner and you were interviewing 2 people for a job
Our country needs to focus on the economy right now.
McCain has said he doesn’t know much about economy.
What if McCain provided you with a list of references to call about his ability and the first person on the list (Carly Fiorina, McCain’s aide) said “I don’t think McCain is qualified to run a corporation.” What if Sarah Palin said “I don’t know what the Vice President does.”
Sarah Palin’s husband calls himself “First Dude”
What if Barack’s wife, Michelle called herself by a street-slang name.
Sarah Palin called Michelle Obama unpatriotic.
Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd was a member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) a political party who wants Alaska to secede from the United States and become their own nation.
Our country needs change right now. Barack Obama has been saying all along that he will bring the change we need.
Barack Obama says he will give tax breaks to Americans who earn under $ 250,000.00 per year.
Barack Obama says he will quit giving tax breaks to big businesses that ship their jobs overseas.
He will raise taxes on American’s who earn over $ 250,000.00 per year
Barack Obama said he will go through the budget line-by-line and delete any program that is not working.
Now John McCain is saying he will change things. He says he is going to shake up Washington and go after the “good ole boys.” John McCain has been in Washington for 26 years.
Don’t be fooled, he is a good ole boy.
TIG | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
ks
After reading your posts, all I can say is wow!
(Do you really believe what you posted?) Those are the liberal talking points.
I won’t respond to it all here, but I will point out one point that is a good example of it all.
You wrote this: “McCain has said he doesn’t know much about economy.
What if McCain provided you with a list of references to call about his ability and the first person on the list (Carly Fiorina, McCain’s aide) said “I don’t think McCain is qualified to run a corporation.” What if Sarah Palin said “I don’t know what the Vice President does.”
Fiorina did not say that, but she did say that none of the candidates for Pres or VP this year was prepared to run a large company (you wrongly stated that she singled out McCain, when she said that about all of them). She did say they could probably learn, but they weren’t ready at this time.
Partial truth is rarely the truth, so you should get it right before you post.
Julie Lee | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Cathy,
Don’t be racist. It isn’t becoming. The majority of people on food stamps are white. True statistic…look it up.
Also…I am not for McCain, was wavering until Palin. She simply doesn’t have the experience needed to be Vice-President.I am now voting for Obama. But I do wish you guys would leave Cindy McCain alone. She admitted her addiction, got help and she does a lot of good work in the world. You can state your beliefs without hating. Hate gets you nowhere. “Always love, hate will get you everytime.” Nada Surf.
John | Sep 19, 2008 | Reply
Julie Lee,
Palin simply doesn’t have the experience needed to be VP? Is that how you justify a vote for Obama? Please provide me a list of Obama qualifications and experiences. My God, my foreign policy credentials are more vast than Obama’s. What’s frightening is that too much of the voting public will do no homework to learn something about the candidates. They simply listen to the far left leaning media, the misinformation posted on these comments boards (look at ks’ comments. A third grader could find the information to dispute what she says) and idiots on the radio and TV (Oprah). Take the time, do the research. It is that important.
andy blue | Sep 19, 2008 | Reply
cathy, your appalling racism stems from your appalling ignorance. i feel sorry for you and i feel sorry for this country. you of course don’t realize this because your so ignorant, but it’s people like you that have made this country the laughingstock of the world.
j | Sep 19, 2008 | Reply
MD and Jenna,
Please dont vote.
You both are way to hormonal to be voting.
TIG | Sep 19, 2008 | Reply
j
How nasty can you be? (Oh, I see, you just proved how nasty by your above post).
If you can, actually read MD’s and Jenna’s posts, then dispute something if you disagree with me or them.
Simply accusing others of not having the correct hormonal levels only proves you to be the fool (and you make us men – if that is what you are – seem like idiots).
You are an example of what the far left in the USA does because they have no idea how to distinguish truth from lie, let alone defend any truth against falsehood.
How incredibly sad for your ilk!
Peter Dow | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
Dump Sarah Palin Yahoo Group -
“Watch these videos and ask yourself if the Republican Party should now be insisting that McCain dumps Palin forthwith and selects someone with rather more experience?
Daily Show Governor Sarah Palin picked by John McCain for VP
Reckless Judgment Puts Nation at Risk (Watch in High Quality)
Is McCain Palin’s Bitch?
Sarah Palin’s journey of personal discovery. The GOPdin Line
Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton skit, Saturday Night Live, 9-13-08
A little light on experience, no? Not a position to learn on the fly. WHAT was he thinking?
The Republican Party needs to tell John McCain to dump his first pick for Vice President Governor Sarah Palin and choose another more experienced person, such as the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice or Senator Richard Lugar.
Obama has got an experienced VP nominee – Senator Joe Biden. Now McCain needs one too.”
groups.yahoo.com/group/dumppalin/
W | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
Dear Jenna,
You said,
“Well, I have to say that IF you believe abortion is murder, then you HAVE to believe it is the biggest issue of our time (unless you believe humans are not important, in that case, Hitler would be your hero, right?)”
Are you saying that if people believe in a women’s right to choose, that Hitler would be their hero?
While I don’t agree with abortion, I do think that is quite a stretch, and not helping with any kind of civil discourse. This is not the way to change anyone’s mind (i.e. influence others).
Jenna, why all of the hate? People have different views in life – that’s just the way it is and frankly what makes life so interesting. Tolerance and love are the Christian way in my opinion. That’s what I’ve always been taught and what I’ve shared with my family. Isn’t that what you’ve been taught? Where is all of this hate of yours coming from?
If you are a Christian, please show your love of God and Jesus by showing some love and compassion to others, instead of all of this hate. Don’t you see the value in spreading the love? It’s much more positive and important (and it’s uniting, which this country really needs).
In the most sincerest of ways, you will be in my prayers. I wish you all the best now and in the future.
Jonna | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
You’re ignorant and can’t spell and for that matter speak proper English…with the phrase “bubba vote”, making reference to black people you are a racist as well… people like you should not even have the right to vote .. got get an education before you make silly comments like McCain’s running mate who is an idiot as well referring to her lack of knowledge about the Bush Doctrine and her knowledge of foreign policy being that she can see Russia from where she lives…
TIG | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
Peter Dow
If you actually followed history, then you would be aware of what is appropriate and what is not regarding experience for a VP candidate.
For this, refer to the quiz that was posted above. I will copy it here for you to view once more (copied from Jenna’s post earlier):
“Who Am I?
-I am under 45 year old
-I am a Republican reformer
-I love the outdoors
-I hunt
-I have taken on the Republican Party establishment
-I have many children
-I have a spot on a national ticket with less than 2 years in the governor’s office
Ok…WHO AM I?
Obviously some THINK this is about Mrs Palin, but, as MD correctly posted, it actually describes Teddy Roosevelt (a VERY well-respected and venerated past President and Vice President).
This great man had much the same, if not LESS credentials than Mrs Palin to become VP, yet nobody whines about that…is that sexism?
Is that some other ism?”
Furthermore, Peter Dow, if you were honest, then you would admit that Mrs Palin has considerably more executive experience than Obama…in fact, BO has no executive experience at all (and he is running for Pres, not just VP.
It helps to find the facts instead of trying to create them as you did in your above post.
Being honest is something you need a great deal of practice with, apparently, Mr Dow.
Matt | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
Moreover, the main difference between Obama’s experience and Abraham Lincoln’s is that Lincoln only had 1 term in the house, while Obama is going on 4 years in the Senate (both were Illinois legislators for 8 years).
TIG | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
Matt
IF what you wrote is true (and I will look into it), it still provides proof that the whining about Mrs Palin’s experience is completely unfounded (AND she still has far more experience than B.O. does).
You see, the conservatives here have not been the ones whining endlessly about the candidate for the party they don’t like. No, that is what you liberals have been doing. All you have done is bolster my argument against you Palinophobes!
And, if memory serves me, Lincoln lost in his bid for the Whitehouse at first. He didn’t win the race when he first tried (I’ll have to double-check that, but I do believe it is true).
BTW – One thing I DO know, the one who set the slaves free, President Lincoln, well, he was a Republican, not a liberal and he also was an outspoken Christian, so you lefties ought to think about next time you gripe about Mrs Palin’s beliefs. On the other side, the Democrats were the ones who loved slavery so much that they fought to keep it going in the USA.
That is a very important contrast of political history.
TIG | Sep 20, 2008 | Reply
Oops! I need to correct something in my most recent post –
“BTW – One thing I DO know, the one who set the slaves free, President Lincoln, well, he was a Republican, not a liberal and he also was an outspoken Christian, so you lefties ought to think about that next time you gripe about Mrs Palin’s beliefs. On the other side, the Democrats were the ones who loved slavery so much that they fought to keep it going in the USA.”
Ann H | Sep 21, 2008 | Reply
Wow, people. I applaud most of you for your dedication and knowledge, but take a minute to review these postings.
I am neither right nor left. I sit in the middle. I know who I will vote for, but that is not the point. This election is making so many of you angry and hateful. Why sling personal insults at each other – it accomplishes nothing.
We live in a country where we decide our futures. We can choose who we want to lead us, and not go to bed afraid that those choices will be our last. We can become who we want regardless of where we came from. Maybe we should all be gratefull for that, and not use this election to ‘one up’ the person standing next to us.
shaun | Sep 21, 2008 | Reply
Gee. Yer real smart like.
EJ | Sep 22, 2008 | Reply
Among all the other reasons, I cannot and will not vote for a woman who believes that dinosaurs existed alongside humans 4,000 years ago.
Laura | Sep 22, 2008 | Reply
The portrayal by these two was right-on, no matter what side of the ticket you’re on.
Yes, I have to agree with the other liberals, as we’re called.
Sarah Palin will not make any changes for the mentally-retarded. My sister is 52 and mentally-retarded and things have gotten worse as far as staffing, etc. Of course, Sarah will be able to hire private staff when her child is older.
John McCain – about a year ago, I did watch him discussing issues and he really seemed smart. Now, he’s just reiterating the same joke of the past 8 years. Our country is losing men and women to the war; our economy is in shambles; I can barely afford anything (I’m going to borrow money from my son to make it to next Friday cause I’m being sucked dry in gasoline and groceries); I do own a house, but I’m house-poor; gasoline goes up, food goes up, and I spend my weekends at home, cause I can’t afford to go anywhere; my clothes are the same ones I wore last year; etc.; etc.
Anyone who wants to vote for the same party we’ve had is either delusional or a glutton for punishment!
TIG | Sep 22, 2008 | Reply
EJ
If, as you wrote, you truly “cannot and will not vote for a woman who believes that dinosaurs existed alongside humans 4,000 years ago,” then you disagree with a very large percentage of Americans (both today and throughout the history of the US. In fact, there are tons of people who are from other countries who agree with the young earth view).
Do you realize that a very high percentage of the founders of modern science believed the same thing (that the earth was not all that old)?
And modern “science” (I use quotes because so little of today’s so-called science regarding this issue is actually based upon the scientific method), well, modern science just keeps pushing the date of the earth back because of the problems they have with justifying their assumptions about evolution, etc. Whenever an unanswerable challenge to their assumptions about the age of the earth or the beginning of the world is raised, they just add on more years (it used to be millions, but now it’s billions). They hope that this will allow enough time for that proverbial “monkey” to type “To be or not to be, that is the question” by accident (a proverb used as an example of the possibility of macro-evolutionary change ever having happened).
The problem is in our public schools, we have been brainwashed into believing there is no scientific dissent on this issue, but there are many dissenters from the old earth view.
The “Big Bang” (where everything either came from nothing) is 100% anti-scientific. The other view of what happened prior to the “Big Bang” (where we have eternal hydrogen atoms) is also not scientific (and it is absolutely no more “scientific” than believing in an eternal God).
Tony | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
Laura, sorry you’re having a tough time. A wise man once said, “Sometimes life isn’t fair”. You’ve blamed President Bush for your problems. I suspect the real problems aer a lot closer to home. In any event, one of your major gripes is the price of a barrel of oil.
I would suggest the reason for THIS is the fact that our Democrat “friends” in the Congress have been so adamant in not allowing us to drill HERE.
The “Earth First”-ers and the Sierra Club have been nearly completely successful in closing our nuclear industry. This is unfortunate, because I think a solution to a lot of our problems would be lots of cheap nuclear power and lots of local oil wells.
Senator Obama will give you neither of those, I think it’s safe to say.
Stop blaming others and start looking at problems more objectively.
And God bless.
TIG | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
Tony is completely correct, Laura.
And it is in agreement with your statement that: “Anyone who wants to vote for the same party we’ve had is either delusional or a glutton for punishment!”
You see, as Tony stated, the undeniable fact is that the Democrat party (which anybody would assume you have been voting for since you wrote that you are “liberal”) is the party that has consistently voted against our being able to drill here in the USA for decades.
As time goes on, it has been discovered that we presently have more than three times the oil in Saudi Arabia, yet we haven’t been able to drill here because the Democrats (who, by the way have been in control of both the House and the Senate for 2 or three years now AND having the lowest approval rating in the history of the USA – that, hovering around 1/2 the approval rating of President Bush)…well, those Dems controlling the Congress will not allow us to drill in the USA.
(For some reason, they are watching as Cuba and China make plans to drill off the coast of the USA…do they think China gives a rip about polluting the USA?)
You are right, Laura, we ought not vote for the Dems because your gas WILL get more expensive if they are allowed to control Congress as they have for some time now.
As for your sister, I have worked for some time in the field of clinical psychology (helping those with a myriad of different emotional and mental issues) and I sympathize with her plight. You stated that Mrs Palin would not help the handicapped…would you please fill us in as to how you know that she won’t, even though she said she would? So far, you presented nothing to support your claim.
Thanks!
TIG | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
excellent source for info about the drilling debate
TIG | Sep 25, 2008 | Reply
I guess they don’t allow web addresses.
Look up “Drill Here Drill Now”
Tony | Sep 25, 2008 | Reply
TIG wrote: “…the Democrats were the ones who loved slavery so much that they fought to keep it going in the USA.”
To which I’d add that in this they have been more than somewhat successful. Only now, instead of the “plantation” being a geographical place, it is now more a state of mind. And welfare payments, affirmative action and housing projects are the “chains”.
kwb | Sep 26, 2008 | Reply
What is all of this talk about Racism. Obama is HALF WHITE! Everyone seems to forget this minor detail and calls him our first black presidental canidate. He is not Black he is Half Black. Everyone needs to stop playing the race card!!!!
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Why does everyone keep referring to Obama’s similarities and differences to President Lincoln? How is this relevent to NOW?
Ironically, whenever comparing Lincoln to modern day presidents, I’m reminded of the bizarre coincidental similarities between he and JFK. I first read bout it in a book over 30 years ago. Here’s a link:
school-for-champions.com/history/lincolnjfk.htm
Other than that, my two cents: I’ve read through this whole blog and I’m even more disgusted with politics as a whole than I was before. From both sides, I’ve not read the full range of opinions from bone-head to well thought out, but little to not statistical facts to back up the majority of statements.
The other thing I find intriguing is when one person states a fact about one of the candidate’s background experience (ie., education, job experience), the other calls it a lie and claims it to be propaganda. The thing is, even if I don’t like a candidate and plan to not vote for him/her, how is the fact that they have a certain degree from a certain college a lie simply because I don’t like it?
I’m almost afraid to mention my views but I can tell you this: When we lived in NC for 6 years (we were there for two major elections in 1992 and 1996), I spent a great deal of time researching every candidate for every office and measure and law, etc., that would be on the ticket. Although the state of NC is a staunchly Republican state, the Greensboro newspaper did an excellent job of presenting the facts about each candidate in as objectively as possible, and that was a great tool for me, because as I said, I hate politics. I found that I actually found myself voting down the line almost 50/50 for both Democrats and Republicans — based on each candidates experience and records, rather than on biased straight ticketing. We live in another state now and there aren’t as many good resources to help us research the candidates, but we still try to make informed decisions (my husband and I) when we send in our Voter ballots.
In the end, I think it’s important for EVERYONE to educate themselves on the facts, not only of the current candidates and their records, but the true facts of the last FOUR terms, both Clinton’s and W’s, and look at the facts. There are going to be some stuff democrats are going to be vindicated by and some they are going to have a hard time swallowing. Likewise, for republicans, they will find that a lot of the propaganda they believed is false and other things will make them feel vindicated. Regardless, it’s human nature to downplay our faults and brag about our accomplishments, so there will always be this distorted point of view from both sides.
My thought on politicians in general? They don’t give a effing sheet about the mass majority of the people in this country that do most of the working and paying and living and dying. By time they get to the level of senetor and governor and representative and congressmen and president, they are so frigging rich and have been so far removed from REAL LIFE that they have no real concept. By time you can have a staff that does your cleaning and cooking and childcare and it becomes normal to you, you have lost touch with the reality of what life is like for about 95% of our country. Agree or disagree — I don’t care, because I know it to be true. It’s the same for ANY politician in any country anywhere around the world.
The other thing about Politics is this: I’ve come to the conclusion that it must be an inborn trait, or a natural “talent” to manipulate, pull strings, schmooze, talk out your ass to get whatever you want in any given situation. It doesn’t have anything to do with being rich or affluent, although that helps, but how you can spin people to get what you want. Some people are just good at it. I know a few soccer moms on my daughter’s team that are masters at it. Same background as Sarah Palin, maybe even more impressive, with their PTO involvement and bunko groups, their networking and their parties, their “volunteer” work, their “close personal friendships” with coaches and administrators for here and there to get their kids ahead of everyone else even if they didn’t earn it themselves. They offer their home baked goods and weekends at their beach houses as bribes, lol. It’s just a matter of time before they work their way up. One mom I know is a school teacher but she has that killer instinct, she’s a liar but comes off sweet as sugar and she’s good at it: She’d be a phenomenal politician.
Man I can’t wait until this election is over and all those effing ads stop running — from both parties:
I’m sljh and I approve this message.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
TIG | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
Tony is completely correct, Laura.
Here is an example of an absolute statement about someone else’s statements that in and of itself is inaccurate. By inaccurate, I mean not completely accurate, (ie., not entirely based in facts and reality). In other words, saying something is “completely correct” when it is not is what both sides are doing in this little debate that’s going on here. You all are both claiming very generalized, inaccurate, fudged “facts” to be absolute truth. Nothing is that black and white (and I’m not talking about race).
Both sides need to do their research, REAL research through unbiased and objective sources (if possible), and get your “facts” straight — and then realize that nothing in life is absolute.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
“I know only a VERY small percentage of liberals (out of the hundreds in Congress) voted against the Iraq War, so your assertion that Bush did something against all of those libs you love, just so he could “divide” Americans is a bad joke, at best and a lie at worst (I’m sure you read that lie on some liberal lie-filled website).”
————
I remember 9/11 and President Bush’s speech after, and I cried. I respected him, as did the whole country, I think. We were as close to being bi-partisan in those times as you can get. When the decision to go to “war” was made, we were ALL led to believe that Iraq had something to do with it, that Bin Laden was there somewhere, that there were weapons of mass destruction, etc.. I, like many, weren’t comfortable launching into a full scale attack, some were gung-ho for it, some were against it all together, many were somewhere in between — but one thing was for sure: the majority of the country was behind it’s President and it’s government.
As the “war” dragged on, more and more people (voters and politicians from both parties) were souring on the idea and pushing for it’s end. Yes, they initially supported it, but yes, they changed their minds. That’s the wonderful thing about the human brain — we are able to learn from our mistakes and form new ideas and make new decisions. In other words, we can change our minds and change our votes.
Now, finding out later that no, they didn’t have any proof for weapons of mass destruction, and no, they found none, and no, they didn’t come remotely close to finding Bin-Laden, the push to end the “war” stepped up. So, indeed, many politicians, both republican and democrat, that initially supported the war changed their minds and started voting against it.
I don’t necessarily think this is Bush’s fault, entirely. He does, afterall, rely on his “advisors” for information and intelligence, etc.. He seems to have been misled with a lot of information as well, although not as much as the American people.
Despite all of this, our troops are still there and it seems to be getting us nowhere but a bunch of dead young soldiers sent home in caskets. Young men and women with families who mourn their loss, but nothing more than statistics to the federal government. Pawns.
A huge amount of our budget goes to the military and war effort. Go ahead and spout off a bunch of useless fact-less “statistics” at me, it matters little.
Now I’ve always liked McCain. Was originally happy he won the GOP candidacy and always said that if there was to be a Republican pres, I’d like him to be it. But then I started paying attention to his stand on the war and a few other very important issues and I was dismayed.
But the nail in the coffin? His choice for VP? Why? Initally, without knowing anything about her (or maybe because of that: who is that??), I was a little insulted that the GOP would pick a woman for the sake of mollifying women voters: “oh she’s a woman so she must be as smart and experienced as women like Clinton or Rice.” We’re not THAT gullible but just have been treated as such. Or the she’s a mom with kids ploy. So what? So am I, so are a lot of people. It doesn’t make someone an automatic qualifier to be second in command to run the most powerful country in the world.
Don’t even get me started on diplomacy — because it’s not that a person can’t learn on the job but whether or not they have the personality, finesse and basic skills to be able to be diplomatic. Everything about her screams of someone always on the defensive, backed into a corner, come out screaming, relying on pithy little comeback sayings that aren’t going to fly with foreign dignitaries. Going around pissing everyone off isn’t diplomacy. Sheesh.
If McCain were to pick a better, more qualified, more intelligent VP, I may even vote for him.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Palin is the Dan Quayle of this decade. Smarten up and learn from history and stop being a sheep.
_________________
I suppose that is an interesting way to look at it.
But there are a few major differences.
George Bush (elder) was/is extremely intelligent and charismatic himself. HE was the main draw on that ticket, especially having (just to name one example) 8 years experience as VP to Reagan. He was also, not old-ish and sickly looking, so people weren’t fretting over him keeling over while in office. I was young when he took office, but my perception of him was that the country had a lot of confidence in him. I think that I voted for him, despite being a registered democrat. (At the end of his first term, I helped vote him out.)
BUT, why he picked Quayle, I cannot remember. Most likely for strategy and not qualifications — note to self: read history about that since I can’t remember. I just remember the guy being utterly pathetic. I kind of felt sorry for him sometimes. But he was unimportant and there seemed to be little threat to him ever getting a chance to be the “First Dude.” LOL
With the McCain/Palin thing, it’s a two part ploy to draw in middle class and women votes (and less face it, racists votes), as well as drawing attention away from him. Why do you want to draw attention away from his intelligence and experience to focus on her lack of both? Because meat and bones of his platform has not been having much of an impact vote-wise.
So we’ll use a little bit of that good old-fashioned hollywood glam to get the country all starry-eyed with pretty little Sarah-the-bulldog-with-lipstick (her words) and divert the attention from the real important issues. Let’s write speeches for her and have her study them like a college student wold cram for a test, let’s tutor her, and dress her and get her through this so we can fool people into thinking that she can pull this off.
And what IF McCain gets sick or passes away, God forbid, while in office, and Palin takes over as Commander and Chief? I guess the good news is that SHE really won’t actually be running the country, will she? No, no, no, no. Silly people. Little Sarah will be a cute little puppet on strings, just like W. The real power are the advisors and the other unseens and behind-the scenes. Honestly, she’d do less damage as President than she would as VP, where she’ll be expected to be a diplomat. I’m thinking that might actually scare me more.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Jenna | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
Believe it or not, I don’t agree with everything McCain believes, but Obama would virtually DESTROY our wonderful country (unless somebody controlled him and taught him a few million things)
————————-
“DESTROY our wonderful country…”
Wow. That’s a pretty dramatic and absolute statement.
“unless someone controlled him…”
Explain. The guy has alway seemed pretty even keel and calm to me, pretty much the antithesis of someone out of control, actually. What exactly is uncontrollable that needs to be controlled? Is this a racist statement or does it just sound that way?
“and taught him a few million things…”
Just a few million, huh? Who’s going to do that? You? Because you so clearly know all these millions of things? Does Sarah Palin know these millions of things?
Everyone who reads this paper knows on the order of 50,000 words of his primary language. Let’s say that someone who has a more advanced vocabulary is a bit more than that. Let’s even pretend that these highly “intelligent” politicians have double the average person, about 100,000. That’s 1/10 of one million.
Yes, I realize your comment was meant to be facetious, but really it was just stupid.
And your assumption that the whole entire country is going to go to complete ruin under Obama is stupid and ridiculous. He cannot possibly do any worse than W did in his first 4 and then 8 years. Where are we now?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
ks | Sep 18, 2008 | Reply
Why does Palin KEEP SAYING she said “thanks but no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere?
Does everyone KNOW that she wanted the bridge? Does everyone know that she took the money? Does everyone know that she built the road to the bridge (now it’s called the road to nowhere) and she kept the money. She didn’t build the bridge, but she kept the money.
Unbelievable.
—————–
Yeah, that speech was used to death, wasn’t it? Too bad it was a lie, then maybe the redundancy wouldn’t have seemed so repugnant. Hm, I haven’t noticed used lately…
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Jenna | Sep 14, 2008 | Reply
You wrote of Bush’s “8 years.” Well, this is his 8 years:
1) Enter the White House after Clinton left us with the Clinton/Gore RECESSION.
————————–
Sorry, you got your information skewed here. There was, in reality, a surplus. How much is being debated ’til this day. I found a very interesting article that seems to be unbiased for either party, written by the BBC news, business section, back in 2001. In it, it blatantly shows Clinton’s positive AND negative impacts on the economy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1110165.stm
Of course, I could have just highlighted only the positive comments and ommitted the negative, as you may do the opposite. But the reality is that there are pros and cons to every administration, some have more pros and some have more cons.
Perhaps it was simply good timing and Clinton was lucky enough to serve his terms at a time when the country was on an upswing anyway, but it’s not that simple. He can and does take credit for a lot of positive legislation and programs. He also made some unwise choices and was unable to make a positive impact in areas he promised to/wanted to/intended to. That is no different from any other president. But the reality is that he succeeded where W failed spectacularly.
Perhaps W could have made some good choices for the economy, education and healthcare if he had not focussed almost all of his attention on war. That is something we’ll never know.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, quoting TIG wrote:
“TIG | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
Tony is completely correct, Laura.
sljh wrote:
Here is an example of an absolute statement about someone else’s statements that in and of itself is inaccurate. By inaccurate, I mean not completely accurate, (ie., not entirely based in facts and reality). In other words, saying something is ‘completely correct’ when it is not is what both sides are doing in this little debate that’s going on here. You all are both claiming very generalized, inaccurate, fudged ‘facts’ to be absolute truth. Nothing is that black and white (and I’m not talking about race).
Both sides need to do their research, REAL research through unbiased and objective sources (if possible), and get your ‘facts’ straight — and then realize that nothing in life is absolute.”
OK, sljh, I quoted your post where you quoted me at the top, then you wrote your little ditty about how I was completely wrong and writing in generalized terms.
The PROBLEM is that is EXACTLY what you did in your attempt at showing me to be wrong.
You (sljh) wrote at the end: “then realize that nothing in life is absolute.”
…sljh, are you really that foolish?
What you just wrote is the textbook example of self contradiction (”nothing in life is absolute” is a fallacy that is in EVERY philosophy 101 textbook because “nothing” is an “absolute” generalization.
This is one of the most BASIC of all flaws when castigating other peoples philosophy. You really ought to study before you prove yourself to be so completely incompetent at this enterprise…Oops, that warning is apparently far too late.
If you actually understand your error and you really want to debate the facts then try again, but don’t accuse another person of having done exactly what you did in the same post.
Geez!
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
OK, sljh, I quoted your post where you quoted me at the top, then you wrote your little ditty about how I was completely wrong and writing in generalized terms.
The PROBLEM is that is EXACTLY what you did in your attempt at showing me to be wrong.
————-
When it is pointed out that you are not entirely correct, that is not the same as being told that you are completely wrong.
Not entirely correct
Completely wrong
Hm, nope. Those two statements do not mean the same thing. One indicates a level or degree of error and the other is a statement of absolute, all or none.
Think of it in terms of basic math, for example.
If someone were to work out an algebraic equation and came to an answer of 3.3278 but the correct answer was actually 3.34 even though your work showed that, for the most part, you did most of the calculations accurately, you would not be entirely correct. You would get partial credit. That would not necessarily mean that were completely wrong, simply that you were not entirely correct.
I suppose, though, this is too hard of a concept for some people who see the world in black and white, and in terms of absolutes.
Also, if a person has a different opinion or point of view and points out that the information presented isn’t entirely based in fact, it doesn’t automatically mean that they are telling you that you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
Please learn how to read thoroughly.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
This is one of the most BASIC of all flaws when castigating other peoples philosophy. You really ought to study before you prove yourself to be so completely incompetent at this enterprise…Oops, that warning is apparently far too late.
—————-
You are stereotyping yourself with your insults and attacks on me, personally, rather than sticking to the subject.
Look, go back and re-read every single post on this blog. Read all of the absolute statements from each side.
It would be one thing if people would say … “I think this because” or “In my personal opinion” or “I feel that” or some other statement that qualifies their own persnal viewpoint without making claims with bogus or IN-ACCURATE “facts” as “proof” for their absolute, all-or-none, black-or-white statements. On both sides.
You think me incompetent because I am not agreeing with everything you say, or because I challenged something you said. Of course, how many times in my life have I dealt with people who want to denigrate me for being honest about my own opinions, because they oppose theirs? Too many to count. Being called names by some virtual stranger online is a drop in the bucket, lol.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Ok, sljh, obviously you didn’t comprehend my explanation, so I will use a basic syllogism for such a very, shall I say “basic” person like yourself:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
THAT, hon, is philosophy 101 and EVERYBODY who has the most rudimentary understanding of it KNOWS that you contradicted yourself.
It helps to do your research, as you wrote in an earlier post (you might heed your own words next time, sweetie).
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
And, for you, sljh to accuse me of insulting you after what you did in your whole string of posts to myself and Jenna, et al is ludicrous.
You began your posting here with very little more than insult to us, so it would do you well to actually realize that you get what you give, hon!
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
And when exactly did I call you names as you did me?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
You began your posting here with very little more than insult to us, so it would do you well to actually realize that you get what you give, hon!
—————–
Again, go back and re-read. You must be pretty self-centered if you think that I spent my time voicing my opinions as a means to insult you, personally. I think I may have replied to one small section of just one of your posts.
And I’m not your hon.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, I earned my doctorate, having come from a family with very little education and having worked full time pay for it by myself, so, I am QUITE capable of discerning whether or not I have been insulted.
If you REALLY think you didn’t insult me or Jenna, for that matter, then you need a refresher in basic English (let alone manners).
There you go, hon.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, I notice you never even bothered with my first or second posts about your self-contradiction.
No, instead you jump to the most unimportant things and attack me again.
Perhaps you ought to respond to the issues at hand that you raised from your first post.
You have proven that you are illogical and self-contradictory and I showed that by quoting you…apparently you can’t even respond to that fact, let alone refute it since the logical is overwhelmingly obvious.
How sad!
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, I earned my doctorate, having come from a family with very little education and having worked full time pay for it by myself, so, I am QUITE capable of discerning whether or not I have been insulted.
——-
I grew up in a small mining town, poor as dirt, put myself through college, paid off all of my own student loans, too.
One has nothing to do with the other. You went to college and you’re book smart. Pat yourself on the back, again.
I’m sorry you think that someone disagreeing with you is an insult. As an intelligent adult, I’m assuming you understand that different people have different points of view.
——————
“If you REALLY think you didn’t insult me or Jenna, for that matter, then you need a refresher in basic English (let alone manners).”
——–
Pot, meet kettle.
——————
Perhaps you ought to respond to the issues at hand that you raised from your first post.
You have proven that you are illogical and self-contradictory and I showed that by quoting you…apparently you can’t even respond to that fact, let alone refute it since the logical is overwhelmingly obvious.
——–
Again, pot calling the kettle black.
In your very first response to me, it was also not regarding the subject matter of politics and Sarah Palin, but rather to accuse me of telling you that you were “completely wrong” and insulting me by name-calling.
Doctorate or not, you are still stereotyping yourself here as hypocrite. Why? Because I disagree with you.
And you, because of your apparent arrogance (you “claim” to have a PhD but you could be cyber-stalker for all I know — so I’ll just believe you for the sake of argument), make all sorts of assumptions based on what? A few posts in a blog about politics? Okay, oh guru of politics and oh let’s see, supreme authority of EVERYTHING, should I bow down and kiss your ass and suck up to your opinions just because of your claims of superiority? (Insert eye roll and exaggerated sarcasm.) No, I don’t think so.
————————
I still stand on my opinion that nothing is absolute. There are a lot of school of thoughts, not just freshman level philosophy 101. Making absolute statements like “that is completely correct” or “that is completely false” is like saying “always” and “never.” Nothing is that black and white — there are many shades of grey in between.
Likewise, calling me “basic” and “incompetent” and “illogical” and the ever condescending “hon” as well as your weird rant about your doctorate that had nothing to do with what we are discussing. Never did I call YOUR intelligence or education in to question. I did not call you names either. I could think of plenty, but I’ll keep them to myself, thanks.
——-
Back to the topic at hand.
Do I like John McCain? Yeah.
Do I think Sarah Palin is qualified for the office of Vice President? No.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “And when exactly did I call you names as you did me?”
1) Example of sljh calling people like me racist: “With the McCain/Palin thing, it’s a two part ploy to draw in middle class and women votes (and less face it, racists votes”
***NOTE TO sljh: This speaks for itself
2) Example of sljh calling Jenna stupid: “Yes, I realize your comment was meant to be facetious, but really it was just stupid…stupid and ridiculous.”
***NOTE TO sljh: Jenna’s statement is coming from her best thoughts, so don’t even act like you weren’t including her in the realm of stupidity with that line.
3) Example of sljh calling me a liar (before I EVER wrote anything to her): “fudged ‘facts’”
***NOTE TO sljh: “fudged” me false and I don’t appreciate it
4) Example of sljh calling me foolish/stupid: “stop being a sheep.”
***NOTE TO sljh: That IS THE meaning of “sheep” in the context sljh used it
These are just a few of your attacks upon people in this forum before ANYBODY even replied to ANY of your posts, sljh.
Time to buck up and get off your high-horse.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Now, sljh, will you ever deal with your having been proven to be self-contradictory.
Oh, that is right, it isn’t possible because the syllogism still stands as I wrote earlier:
1) YOU (sljh) wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU (sljh) wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
Now, all of the extra tripe that you have posted (off on your little bunny trails in order to ignore the above) will be ignored by me until you deal with the #1 issue: you attacked me for generalizing, then you came out with the biggest whopper of generality available.
This will prove that you are either a simple hack for the liberals (as your posts give evidence of) or whether you actually have something behind that hack-like presentation.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
1) Example of sljh calling people like me racist: “With the McCain/Palin thing, it’s a two part ploy to draw in middle class and women votes (and less face it, racists votes”
——–
Funny, I thought you were a woman and/or middle class.
Are YOU saying that you are a racist?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
2) Example of sljh calling Jenna stupid: “Yes, I realize your comment was meant to be facetious, but really it was just stupid…stupid and ridiculous.”
————
The IT I am referring to is the comment itself.
Smart people have been known to make stupid comments. Case in point with her “taught a few million things” comment.
I don’t know if Jenna is stupid or not, being as I don’t know her personally, but I did think that comment was stupid. And it was.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
3) Example of sljh calling me a liar (before I EVER wrote anything to her): “fudged ‘facts’”
————-
Again, arrogance on your part by assuming that every thing I said was directed only at you. This whole blog is full of false and fudged facts being thrown around from both sides. I haven’t seen a whole lot of real proof of anything from anybody. It’s like watching those silly campaign ads on TV.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
4) Example of sljh calling me foolish/stupid: “stop being a sheep.”
————–
You are confusing me with someone else because I didn’t write the above quote in any of my posts. WTF?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
1) YOU (sljh) wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU (sljh) wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
————
Hmm, I’ll go back and look but I do not remember using the word “generalizing.” Again, probably someone else’s post that you are attributing to me. Either that or you are putting words in my mouth.
…. went back and looked and nope, didn’t say the word generalizing. Again, you confused someone else’s post with me.
LOL
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, you REALLY shouldn’t lie now…ALL of the quotes I used and attributed to you were written by you herein.
If you don’t remember your own words, then perhaps that is the personal issue that led to post so foolishly here (maybe you ought to read your posts again remind yourself of what you wrote)
Now, how about getting to the fact that you have been PROVEN to be self-contradictory?
I see you STILL haven’t answered that to show me the error of my ways.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Now, all of the extra tripe that you have posted (off on your little bunny trails in order to ignore the above) will be ignored by me until you deal with the #1 issue: you attacked me for generalizing, then you came out with the biggest whopper of generality available.
This will prove that you are either a simple hack for the liberals (as your posts give evidence of) or whether you actually have something behind that hack-like presentation.
————–
Again, pot meet kettle. OMG, you are still off on this effing tangent about the following (I’ll quote myself to simplify):
Here is an example of an absolute statement about someone else’s statements that in and of itself is inaccurate. By inaccurate, I mean not completely accurate, (ie., not entirely based in facts and reality). In other words, saying something is “completely correct” when it is not is what both sides are doing in this little debate that’s going on here. You all are both claiming very generalized, inaccurate, fudged “facts” to be absolute truth. Nothing is that black and white (and I’m not talking about race).
Both sides need to do their research, REAL research through unbiased and objective sources (if possible), and get your “facts” straight — and then realize that nothing in life is absolute.
——-
To begin with, I stand corrected on the generalize word because yes, I did say it. *gasp*
Now that that is out of the way, re-read.
Now go back to the posts I was referring to and re-read those. A guy(?) named Tony stated his OPINION on something:
(”The “Earth First”-ers and the Sierra Club have been nearly completely successful in closing our nuclear industry. This is unfortunate, because I think a solution to a lot of our problems would be lots of cheap nuclear power and lots of local oil wells.
Senator Obama will give you neither of those, I think it’s safe to say.”)
Then you stated that Tony was “completely correct, Laura.”
Really? And you know that for a fact, how? Real facts, please. But that’s my point, you see. There never was any facts. Only OPINIONS. It starts off with Tony’s opinions and thoughts. You agreed with Tony, which is fine. But instead of saying “I completely agree with Tony, Laura,” you say that he is “completely correct.”
There is a difference. And the burden of proof lies with you. So yes, I said that was inaccurate in that it was not entirely based on facts and reality. You cannot claim personal opinions and viewpoints as absolute facts simply at face value.
So yes, both sides DO need to do research. I’m not going to say Tony’s opinions are “completely correct” or “completely false” because I don’t know without researching. And I have no doubt that there are many ways to spin the numbers from both points of views. But I would be willing to bet you don’t know if Tony’s opinions are correct or false either, without researching.
As a supposed PhD, you would have had to do A LOT of research, yes? Were you always right about everything before you ever even looked thing up, or were you like the rest of us mere mortals and did the whole learn as you go thing?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, you REALLY shouldn’t lie now…ALL of the quotes I used and attributed to you were written by you herein.
——
As I said, I found that I did say the word generalize and said “I stand corrected.” I have no problem admitting when I’ve made a mistake.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
I see you STILL haven’t answered that to show me the error of my ways.
——–
And you are still under the impression that two people cannot have opposing opinions.
In this moment in time, you are really having a hard time with the fact that I don’t accept your OPINIONS as law. If you want to claim something as the absolute truth, however, then the burden of proof lies with you. By doing real research and getting real facts, and not just spouting off propaganda and rhetoric.
And one other thing to address from one of your most recent posts is yet another name you called me: hack. Why? Because I am stating my opinion and standing up for myself. You can’t scare me off with insults and name calling so then you go on to accuse me of hacking. Whatever. This election and it’s results for the next four years is going to affect EVERYONE, not just political activists. I have a mortgage, in less than four years I’ll have one kid in college and in less than six years, I’ll have two in college, among other things.
I have a right to my opinions and this is a public blog. If you want to participate in a private, Republican only blog where you don’t have to have your opinions challenged, be my guest.
Oh and the “get off your high horse” comment? Pot meet kettle again.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh, what Tony wrote is true and the difference between you and me is that I HAVE done my research (yes, that is where the doctorate comes into play – I am WELL accustomed to doing research BEFORE I spout off on issues, but I know you aren’t…as your posts have proven since most of them are taken from the Democrat talking points you hold so tightly to).
You wrote again in your distinction about “completely agreeing” as compared to my saying Tony is completely correct.”
Now, on that line: you have made it known that you don’t believe in absolute truth. That’s fine for you.
Remember, that is also where YOU were Proven to be self-contradictory in your OPINION regarding the issue.
Most Americans DO believe they can indeed KNOW some things and that truth does exist, regardless of your extreme liberal view that it does not.
If you want your epistemology to be one of guessing and never knowing, then have at it. Mine is not of that sloppy of a nature.
I DO believe that truth is available to be discovered AND known and NOTHING you can’t posit can refute that.
Regardless, I’m glad you actually admitted that you were wrong and that I quoted you accurately…maybe there is hope in this dialogue…maybe.
Now, you need to refute my PROOF that you have contradicted yourself about generalizing and “absolute truth” or accept the fact that you are wrong.
Here it is again:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
ljh, what Tony wrote is true and the difference between you and me is that I HAVE done my research (yes, that is where the doctorate comes into play – I am WELL accustomed to doing research BEFORE I spout off on issues, but I know you aren’t…as your posts have proven since most of them are taken from the Democrat talking points you hold so tightly to).
————-
Prove it. Show me the facts, “hon.”
And *I* am not the one spouting off propaganda and internet rumors, and then claiming it as absolute truth. I have stated my opinions and said that it was opinion. You have a tough time with that concept, considering you are supposed to be so brilliant.
You are labeling me again, which is just another type of prejudice.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “Prove it. Show me the facts, ‘hon.’
And *I* am not the one spouting off propaganda and internet rumors, and then claiming it as absolute truth. I have stated my opinions and said that it was opinion.”
Ok, sljh, I’ll be your Huckleberry (a quote from Tombstone). Here is your biggest blunder ONCE AGAIN proving that you have NOT presented your views as opinion only, but you HAVE presented the following (along with numerous other assorted and foolish statements) as fact.
And I will quote you once more to provide the PROOF –
slhj wrote: “Nothing is that black and white…realize that nothing in life is absolute.”
Well, checkmate, sljh. Once again, it is proven that you can’t even get your own posts into your memory deep enough to quote yourself accurately.
And you STILL have not answered the fact that you have contradicted yourself as follows:
In your posts, sljh, you have contradicted yourself as follows:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
Time to answer or refute me…OR fess up that you HAVE been self-contradictory.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Most Americans DO believe they can indeed KNOW some things and that truth does exist, regardless of your extreme liberal view that it does not.
If you want your epistemology to be one of guessing and never knowing, then have at it. Mine is not of that sloppy of a nature.
I DO believe that truth is available to be discovered AND known and NOTHING you can’t posit can refute that.
——–
You ARE tiresome with your insults. Twist my words all you want, but it doesn’t change that nobody has actually provided any proof with real hard facts on this blog, including you. It’s a forum where people have stated their opinions and thoughts and argued, like we are. Some very general facts have been presented like:
Obama is married to same woman and has two kids.
McCain remarried younger woman after dumping first wife.
Palin went to several colleges before finishing degree.
Clinton got a BJ while in office.
blah blah blah
Okay, but these, while facts, are still pretty generalized. There’s a lot of crucial information missing to explain each. Like if I were to make a general statement about Palin trying to ban books, for example, that would raise your hackles because, while the statement basically is true, it’s missing alot of information. It’s too black and white. All the shades of grey are missing.
Now you seem to be getting off on a tangent that smacks of religion, as in “the Truth.” If I’m wrong, fine. BTW, I’m not an “extreme liberal” and if you’d read ALL my earlier posts, especially my first one, you would see that I often vote about 50/50 which makes me pretty damn conservative as liberals go.
No, I don’t “study of knowledge” to be one of “guessing and never knowing.” I’m stopping right there for a second to point out that you’ve spent all evening accusing me of being contradictory only to contradict yourself with an oxymoronic statement. Oh but you are so smart, so there must be an important point, so I’ll move on.
I do, indeed, like to know facts and real truths; I respect honesty and have little tolerance for liars and manipulators. This is why I don’t like those political ads and only half trust news reports. General catch phrases are propaganda don’t count as facts or truths to me — I want to know the real deal. Having a debate with someone over opinions, like here, is all well and good, but when it comes to making a final decision, I want to know all the information I can get that is as unbiased and objective as possible.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
slhj wrote: “Nothing is that black and white…realize that nothing in life is absolute.”
Well, checkmate, sljh. Once again, it is proven that you can’t even get your own posts into your memory deep enough to quote yourself accurately.
———-
Again, my opinion vs. your opinion.
One school of thought vs. another.
You are still thinking in terms of right and wrong, with no varying degree between.
PROVE to me that EVERYTHING in life is ABSOLUTE and EVERYTHING in life is BLACK and WHITE.
Tell me this, do you ever rate stuff on a scale of 1 to 10? Or do you just rate everything as 1 OR 10?
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
In your posts, sljh, you have contradicted yourself as follows in this syllogism:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
Time to answer or refute me…OR fess up that you HAVE been self-contradictory.
After I (TIG) posted the above PROOF that sljh contradicted herself, she wrote this: “Again, my opinion vs. your opinion.
One school of thought vs. another.
You are still thinking in terms of right and wrong, with no varying degree between.
PROVE to me that EVERYTHING in life is ABSOLUTE and EVERYTHING in life is BLACK and WHITE.”
You are wrong, the info at the top of this post is NOT opinion; it is NOT one opinion vs another…it is FACT and you, sjlh are trying to ignore that proof by throwing up all of these smokescreens. I have indeed presented a checkmate against you.
And, BTW – I NEVER said “everything in life is black and white” (and I challenge you to find me having posted that at all). Nope, those are YOUR words, not mine, so stop your lies about me.
Now, admit that you have contradicted yourself or prove my syllogism (above) to be wrong.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
TIG, that is like the third or fourth time you’ve posted that response, which I’ve addressed repeatedly. Do you have OCD?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Now, admit that you have contradicted yourself or prove my syllogism (above) to be wrong.
——–
Sorry, luv. Throw your silly little tantrums with and all the word twisting to your heart’s content, but I’m not going to admit your theories or opinions just because you stomp your feet and demand me to.
1) This blog is full of people stating opinions and thoughts and partial truths, untruths, inaccurate facts, incomplete facts, but I have yet to see anybody post any real hard cold facts to back up their claims.
2) Everyone is entitled to their opinions and can say whatever they like, but it is not completely accurate, or it is inaccurate, if they claim their opinions are absolutes such as “completely true” and “completely false.” Unless, of course, their statement is backed up with cold, hard undeniable facts, which I have yet to see here on this blog.
3) TIG believes there is Absolutes, All-or-Nones, Black-or-Whites with no varying degrees between. I believe that nothing in life is absolute. We have a fundamental difference of opinion. Because of TIG’s belief in absolutes, he/she feels I am required to admit defeat by telling her that she is a supreme being, supreme intelligence, knower of all things, always right and never wrong, etc., and that by not doing so I am “contradicting myself in my syllogism.” At this point, I am beginning to wonder if TIG is a little whack and, even if I may have conflicting opinions, which I don’t believe I do, It’s better than being a possible crazy person with delusions of grandeur.
4) TIG keeps completely ignoring EVERYTHING else but this one sticking point of “nothing in life is absolute” because it is direct conflict with her basic philosophy of existence, apparently. I keep wondering how the Feck this little debate has anything to do with the purpose for this blog and wonder how much bandwidth it’s wasted…
5) TIG is REP and I’m DEM. TIG calls me extreme despite my history of voting for republicans almost as much as I do for democrats. I can’t help but wonder what that makes her. ??
6) Back to topic: Is Palin really qualified to be VP? In my OPINION, no.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Well, congrats, sljh, you have PROVEN that you don’t care one bit about finding truth or research or anything being accurate.
My PROOF that you have contradicted yourself stands and the fact that you CAN’T answer or refute and have NEVER refuted my 3-step syllogism has let the air out of your balloon.
Again, the thing you are trying to avoid because you are decimated by it is as follows:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
Time to answer or refute me…OR fess up that you HAVE been self-contradictory.
Now, a few summary points that add to your proven folly:
1) Your posts about what is true and accurate are based upon your mere feelings. You came here ripping people new ones for not researching and presenting evidence, yet you have done virtually NONE of that yourself here.
2) You have LIED in stating that you have not presented “absolute” truth, only your opinions (which I PROVED to be false and you haven’t been able to dispute, let alone refute it)
3) YOUR #3 in YOUR post above this one is a LIE and you have no way of proving your lies about me to be true.
4) I have indeed stuck by my posts and I keep bringing the PROVEN fact home that you contradicted yourself and you can’t get out of this one, hon.
5) The ONLY reason this has continued is because YOU have been cornered and proven false, so you keep changing the subject, but I again raise the FACT that you CAN’T refute in my syllogism at the top of this post.
ergo, you have been roundly defeated and shown to be a charleton.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
You are wrong, the info at the top of this post is NOT opinion; it is NOT one opinion vs another…it is FACT and you, sjlh are trying to ignore that proof by throwing up all of these smokescreens. I have indeed presented a checkmate against you.
And, BTW – I NEVER said “everything in life is black and white” (and I challenge you to find me having posted that at all). Nope, those are YOUR words, not mine, so stop your lies about me.
———–
Um, because you keep telling me I’m wrong when I say that there is no absolutes, no black or whites, no all or none, etc., then go on to tell me that is contradictory. Then you ignore my examples of and explanations of what I mean, that any first grader could understand, let alone a super intelligent PhD.
Now it would seem that YOU are doing a little back-peddling.
What, are you now saying that you agree with me that there are varying degrees and levels to things, exceptions to rules, special circumstances, etc.? So, in other words, no absolutes, or rather for the sake of compromise, not everything is absolute.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Well, congrats, sljh, you have PROVEN that you don’t care one bit about finding truth or research or anything being accurate.
—-
No, I have shown that I don’t care one bit about backing down to your tempermental demands. Congrats to me, indeed.
TIG | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “…I say that there is no absolutes…”
The problem with your statement is that the one quoted above IS an absolute, but you apparently either don’t grasp that OR, since you CAN’T disprove it, you simply try to ignore it (as you have done now in almost every post you made since I asserted that fact).
Nope, I’m doing NO back-peddling AT ALL…I CAN stand by what I’ve written (not like yourself, because YOU have been proven to contradict yourself more than once here and since you never even try – let alone succeed – in refuting my assertions about your self-contradictions, then they stand and you are proven wrong again.
Again, the thing you are trying to avoid because you are decimated by it is as follows:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
Time to answer or refute me…OR fess up that you HAVE been self-contradictory.
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
TIG wrote:
1) Your posts about what is true and accurate are based upon your mere feelings. You came here ripping people new ones for not researching and presenting evidence, yet you have done virtually NONE of that yourself here.
—-
As I have pointed out, I have stated my thoughts and opinions. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.
I did not “rip people new ones” for not researching — I POINTED out that nobody on this blog has backed up their absolute statements with cold hard facts based on real research. If they did, it wasn’t posted here. You do like to exaggerate, don’t you?
—
2) You have LIED in stating that you have not presented “absolute” truth, only your opinions (which I PROVED to be false and you haven’t been able to dispute, let alone refute it)
—
You keep coming back to the same topic we’ve been debating all evening. It boils down to a fundamental difference of opinion. Opinions, by definition, oh wise one, is a “personal view, attitude, or appraisal.” I’m not the one claiming my opinions as absolute truths. If you feel they are false, that is YOUR opinion. You have also failed to provide any proof, other than your own opposing opinion, to prove me wrong.
I get the feeling you’re not used to people disagreeing with you. Get your way all the time, yeah?
—
3) YOUR #3 in YOUR post above this one is a LIE and you have no way of proving your lies about me to be true.
—
You keep telling me I’m wrong when I state that there are no absolutes, no all black or white, no all or none, etc, You can’t have it both ways TIG. You’ve spent all effing evening trying to prove my viewpoint on this fundamental issue as false and wrong, which strongly led me to the conclusion that you did not hold those beliefs. Who’s the one being contradictory now? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds (Tombstone again).
—
4) I have indeed stuck by my posts and I keep bringing the PROVEN fact home that you contradicted yourself and you can’t get out of this one, hon.
—
When did you provide proof? Where is your quotes from viable resources? Where are there links to reliable websites? Give me one real example of your proof other than your own personal opinions. You are arrogant in the extreme if you think I’m just going to gobble up your words as law just because you say your a PhD and therefore the ultimate authority on this subject. Whatever.
—
5) The ONLY reason this has continued is because YOU have been cornered and proven false, so you keep changing the subject, but I again raise the FACT that you CAN’T refute in my syllogism at the top of this post.
—
WHEN has the subject changed in the last 5 hours, TIG? Your “fact” in your “syllogism” is your own opinions with nothing else to back it up. I can and will disagree with your OPINIONS if I want to.
THIS is the REAL sticking point. You CANNOT accept that I will not do as you say. As little kids on the playground say to eachother: You’re not the boss of me! LOL. Seriously, give up and agree to disagree. You have your opinions and I have mine. Learn to live with the fact that you aren’t going to get your way every single time.
—
ergo, you have been roundly defeated and shown to be a charleton.
—
You spelled charlaton wrong, oh super brain, and the use of this word is completely out of context. LOL
andrew191 | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
Who ever claims that there are no absolutes, is an absolute idiot!
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
andrew, really?
got proof?
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
oh wait
death and taxes
i stand corrected
lol
sljh | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply
looky crazy TIG, you got your way:
death and taxes
do a happy dance now “hon”
no more temper tantrums
andrew191 | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Consider some fundamental dichotomies, black/white, yes/no, and so on. While many of the dichotomies we have could be on scales that extend infinitely in both directions like right/wrong, left/right, good/evil, up/down, and so on, it could be argued that there is no ultimate absolute that could be applied to them. With that I agree. However, there is a dichotomy that rules over all others, and that is existence/non-existence. Were non-existence the case, then we’re not having this dialogue. Since we are, (I think therefore I am) it is obvious that existence rules, always has, and always will. There can be no middle ground, no sort-of exists, or kind of doesn’t exist. It is quite literally all or none. Thus, existence is an absolute. Enough proof?
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “You’ve spent all effing evening trying…”
That’s mighty lady like of you, but why worry about that, because you deny everything that you post when backed into a corner, right? …Of course, you do, as I have proven.
andrew191 | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Tig and sljh,
You remind me of two bald men fighting over a comb. Give it up for Christ’ sake.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “As I have pointed out, I have stated my thoughts and opinions.”
Most of the time you have (and you have virtually NEVER provided any evidence for your rather weak views).
However, when you ASSERTED that: “nothing in life is absolute” and “…I say that there is no absolutes…”, then you are NOT putting forth opinion.
ANY honest person knows and will admit that those assertions that you made allow for NO opposing view, hence you have not only offered opinion; you have stated that nobody can be right who disagrees with you.
Sadly, you are wrong and the logical syllogism that was proposed many generations before (you know, the one I have repeatedly challenged your foolish assertions with) PROVES you are wrong.
Time for you to grow up and buck up.
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Consider some fundamental dichotomies, black/white, yes/no, and so on. While many of the dichotomies we have could be on scales that extend infinitely in both directions like right/wrong, left/right, good/evil, up/down, and so on, it could be argued that there is no ultimate absolute that could be applied to them. With that I agree. However, there is a dichotomy that rules over all others, and that is existence/non-existence. Were non-existence the case, then we’re not having this dialogue. Since we are, (I think therefore I am) it is obvious that existence rules, always has, and always will. There can be no middle ground, no sort-of exists, or kind of doesn’t exist. It is quite literally all or none. Thus, existence is an absolute. Enough proof?
—
I think I’m in love.;) Yes, indeed! Thank you for your post, Andrew.
You see, the first half of your post is what I’ve been trying to say over and over. I’m not arguing with TIG in the absolute of life itself as in life/death. I don’t think I even presented it that way. If I did, it was not intended. Again, in life, nothing is certain. Just about the time you decide to make a rule for a certain behavior, for example, there ends up needing to be amendments to the rule and then exceptions to the rule, there is always this case by case way to look at things.
So we can make general comparisons and make general statements of opinions that may even be loosely based on facts, but we shouldn’t go around touting them as “completely” or “absolutely” factual unless we actually have real facts to back them up.
VERY general example: In a court of law, proof is required and juries have to agree with or without reasonable doubt based on all the evidence presented. Lawyers can’t just sweep in and make general statements, spout out hearsay, claim they are telling the complete and absolute truth, and then demand judgement in their favor. Then there’s the judge. He/she has to make their final sentence based on the guidelines and all of the extenuating circumstances and decide on the severity of punishment. Notice how those vary quite drastically for the same crime, depending on each case by case situation, too.
Anyway, with regards to current politics, and also this blog, what I see is a lot of statements being made (like TV ads, for example) that are general, vague, misleading, false, not entirely true, etc., but I have not seen any facts or stats or whatever to back up those statements. If people want to state their viewpoints and opinions, fine. That’s what blogs are for. Claim something as an absolute truth or fact? Back it up with cold hard data. That’s all. JMO.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Andrew, while I agree that Descartes proposed an ultimate based upon the cogito statement (even though the British Empiricist Hume, et al have provided arguments against it which I disagree with), it is not the only truth we can know that we know (BTW – NOBODY EVER lived in this world while truly acting upon any view that there is no way to discover truth of many kinds. In other words, nobody who argues against truth can ever survive if they actually live as though there are no knowables in this world.)
Hence of practicality, there is born the necessary assumption that EVERYBODY has to live by whether they like it or not: we can know some truths (more than one).
I DO agree with and definitely like your assertion, andrew: “Who ever claims that there are no absolutes, is an absolute idiot!”
However, I am in NO fight over a “comb.” I have proven that the chick I am debating is wrong and contradictory. Anybody who can read and comprehend knows this…except for her.
Wait, no, she knows it too, but she wants to keep her lies going (and she has created some about me…how enamored she must be with me), so now I have refuted more than the original.
Simple…basic…factual…checkmate.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “When did you provide proof? Where is your quotes from viable resources? Where are there links to reliable websites? Give me one real example of your proof other than your own personal opinions.”
Proof follows:
Again, the thing you are trying to avoid because you are decimated by it is as follows:
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
Time to answer or refute me…OR fess up that you HAVE been self-contradictory.
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
andrew191 | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Tig and sljh,
You remind me of two bald men fighting over a comb. Give it up for Christ’ sake.
—
Andrew,
I’m washing my bedding and it’s still not dry, otherwise I would have been asleep hours ago. Meh, since I’ve got nothing better to do, I’m having fun annoying Ms. TooBigForHerBritches.
Sincerely,
The “Charlaton”
LOL
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “WHEN has the subject changed in the last 5 hours, TIG? Your “fact” in your “syllogism” is your own opinions with nothing else to back it up. I can and will disagree with your OPINIONS if I want to.”
You change the subject and have NEVER answered the syllogism (which, BTW was created and agreed to by virtually every person of intellect for many decades).
This syllogism is NONE of my own “opinion,” it is a logical fact.
Go ahead, DO disagree with my opinions, but the syllogism is NOT my opinion, it IS in virtually EVERY philosophical work around and is agreed upon universally (at least by those who understand it and aren’t psychotic or liars).
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sl, wrote: “You spelled charlaton wrong, oh super brain, and the use of this word is completely out of context.”
Hmmm…must be because of typing fast and copying and pasting…
Now, you spelled “omitted” wrong, as I recall…stick that in your pipe…what a fool you are, as I have proven.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
And you still have been proven to have asserted an absolute by me and you are disproven by every philosophy professor and others far smarter than you by the syllogism presented repeatedly.
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
TIG,
LMAO
I’m starting to be amused by how you end all of your posts – maybe I’m just rummy from lack of sleep…
Let’s see:
“ergo, you have been roundly defeated and shown to be a charleton.”
“Time for you to grow up and buck up.”
“Simple…basic…factual…checkmate.”
“Time to answer or refute me…OR fess up that you HAVE been self-contradictory.”
Hmm… I think you may have used a couple of those lines more than once or twice. I’m pretty sure the “buck up” phrase was used before and I know that you’ve used the “checkmate” one at least a few times and yes, the “refute me” one has been used at least once before….
Was “fess up” used before too or is that a new one?
When my blankets are dry, I’m going to sleep, then you can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on to your heart’s content.
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Hmmm…must be because of typing fast and copying and pasting…
—-
Yes, of course, that must be it. (where is that eye rolly emoticon when I need it?)
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Now, you spelled “omitted” wrong, as I recall…stick that in your pipe…what a fool you are, as I have proven.
—–
I’m not going to claim fast copy pasting, LOL.
*I* do, indeed, type-O a lot. Shit happens.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Yes, as I have stated I have copied and pasted (if your comprehension wasn’t SO LOW you would’ve caught that already).
Until you deal with the syllogistic proof against you (which you have not because you can not) I will continue posting it so all will never forget it.
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
And you still have been proven to have asserted an absolute by me and you are disproven by every philosophy professor and others far smarter than you by the syllogism presented repeatedly.
—–
Every professor, huh? So you actually MAJORED in philosophy? That would explain a lot.
Wow. I’m so unimpressed now.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
My doctorate is not in philosophy, but one of my undergrad degrees is.
Obviously, you have no grasp on logic whether practically or theoretical.
Still you have been proven to have lied and contradicted yourself and the fact that you don’t answer/refute that proves that you can’t, sljh.
sljh | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Until you deal with the syllogistic proof against you (which you have not because you can not) I will continue posting it so all will never forget it.
———
You are very redundant and obsessive. You have a set of favorite catch phrases and words that use repeatedly ad nauseam.
I noticed that, once again, you posted the same thing AGAIN. I was just joking the first time but I am convinced you have some form of OCD or other psychological problem. Seriously, take your meds.
I’m also convinced that you either have no friends and are an introverted recluse, or the people you associate with are possibly as weird as you are.
Keep your PhD, sweetheart, I’ve got a hot hubby of 17 years, two beautiful, smart and talented kids, I’m healthy, happy and well adjusted. You? You’re just sad.
Shades of Gray, Yin and Yang, and all that baby!
andrew191 | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sljh,
Jeeze you must type really fast. I can’t because of the injuries I sustained while being tortured in N. Viet Nam. Just kidding.
I could have ignored your challenge to “prove it”, but I really was tortured by reading the back and forth between you and Tig.
Political choices fall on a multidimensional scale. It can be as simple as voting strictly along party lines, or as complicated as factoring every single scrap of information about the candidates into your equation. It is up to each individual to determine what is fact, rumor, spin, false, important, or not important. If one candidate did drugs, and the other cheated on his wife,(and both are admitted to) then you need to choose which is most relative to YOU. Unfortunately, most of the media are scued in one direction and are doing thier best to cover up for one candidate, and ridicule the other. Don’t rely on the mainstream media to give you an objective or accurate picture. Instead do your own research, be skeptical, but not closed minded, don’t decide based upon what your friends are saying, or what’s popular and in vogue, and listen to your gut. It’s worked pretty well for more than 200 years, all things considered. Don’t squander all the blood and sacrifice paid as the price for freedom by choosing someone based upon frivolous or superficial slogans and promises.
Use your head damn it!
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
sljh wrote: “You are very redundant and obsessive.”
Uh, yeah…and you aren’t either when you keep replying in order to skirt the issue at hand about your lies and self-contradiction…right!
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
And the witch who has been typing many times as many posts as I have tonight is well-adjusted….OMG, what a crock!
You are likely a very old maid who wishes she had a life (at least that is what my wife just told me as she read your last post).
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Until you deal with the syllogistic proof against you (which you have not because you can not) I will continue posting it so all will never forget it.
1) YOU wrote that I was “generalizing,” THEN
2) YOU wrote that: “nothing in life is absolute.”
The problem is that YOU were generalizing to the highest degree in your words that I quoted in #2 above, therefore:
3) YOUR statement is the greatest degree possible of a generality, ergo, YOU are completely contradicting yourself by what you wrote.
andrew191 | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
Tig and sljh,
My God, do I have to referee?
(soundtrack from “Rocky” playing)
LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!
In the red corner, with a cranial circumferance of 48″, with a record of…well a record that just skips, the professor of punch, the brawling braniac, the King of cerebral sting….Tig (cheers)
In the blue corner,(or perhaps the other corners, who can really know) the Queen of question, the nebulous noncommit, the middle of the road potential hood ornament, the chigger of chat (gets under your skin)….sljh (more cheers). You guys write the rest. Love as always.
andrew191 | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
And by the way, you’re both right, and you’re both wrong. It’s as if you’re using two similar languages. An example in mathmatics might be that one of you are using “base ten”, while the other is using “base twelve”. I’ll expand on that if you’ld like, but I’ve got to go.
TIG | Oct 4, 2008 | Reply
andrew
Even though some of your comments have been sound, this “both right and wrong” idea you put forth cannot apply to the main issue I have been pressing sljh on.
She came into this forum attacking anybody that she thought was even slightly in her way and then told us there are no ultimates.
That very statement is agreed upon by ALL who have any grasp of knowledge as being self-contradictory.
Look at that statement: if anybody says “there are no absolutes/ultimates,” then that person is by that very statement asserting an ultimate, and in doing so, she is proving that she hasn’t even begun to use the gray matter that the good Lord gave her.
Regardless of agreeing upon anything else with myself or sljh, surely you don’t believe she is correct in her self-contradictory assertion, do you?
andrew191 | Oct 5, 2008 | Reply
Tig,
You are partially correct about the statement “there are no absolutes/ultimates”, when you call it self-contradictory, but to be more accurate it is a paradox. The use of the word “no” in the statement implies zero, none, nothing, the ultimate opposites of “something” for lack of a better word. Refer back to my statement about existence/non-existence, it’s the same thing. So, to state “there are no (whatever)” describes the “absolute” absence of that (whatever). That makes that part of the sentence describe the absolute absence of anything that follows. When it is followed by the word “absolute” the paradox is created.
It’s very similar to the old “lie/truth” paradox. I’m sure you know it. I tell you that everything (an absolute) I say is a lie. Then I tell you that I’m lying. Birth to another paradox.
When I was a child my dad said that something, I forget what, was the exception that proves the rule. I struggled for a couple of days on that one.
sljh is correct on her main theme of requiring solid or valid proof to back up the claims and statements people make, but she takes it too far. I think she raises the bar too high for what could be accepted as legitimate proof or evidence.She approaches reductio ad absurdum by eliminating evidence that can’t be proven to EVERONE’S satisfaction. You are correct in your claim that without accepted truths or constants, all would collapse and we’ld all go insane. Constants that we unconsciencely accept are things like gravity, the earth rotating, fire is hot, water is wet, and so on. When pilots are on trial for incompetence, there is no need to bring in a physicist to describe how the earth’s gravitational pull caused the 747 to plummet to the earth when it ran out of fuel at 30,000 feet.
sljh is correct to warn that everthing we read or hear may not be true, but she comes close to implying that everything we read or hear is NOT true, or cannot ever be proven as such. I have no way to proove that tomorrow my hammer will not turn to gelatin, I won’t be able to convince a “flat earther” that the world is round, and there are still people that believe that we’ve never been to the moon.
Tig, you are correct in your arguments. You are wrong to dismiss outright sljh. Her basic point is that valid evidence be supplied to back up any claims. That is correct on her part. She is wrong to set the standard for accepted truths far to high to ever be satisfied. The proper way to have settled the dispute would have been to establish mutually agreed upon standards for proof and evidence. That is what courts attempt to do. I wish we could hold our media to similar standards. Lately, the left wing media would make Goebbels proud.
Descartes walks into a MacDonalds and orders a Big Mac and a Coke. When asked if he wants fries with his order he says “I think not”, and he disappeares.
TIG | Oct 5, 2008 | Reply
andrew
Of course I agree with the need for evidence being necessary to prove one’s point or convert another to one’s point of view. I’m really not sure why the question of providing evidence was brought up with me since I don’t recall ever questioning that anywhere…is there something that makes you think I did? If so, please let me know and I will retract that immediately.
I never disputed the need for evidence and I do definitely agree with you that sljh requires a very high level of “evidence” (and I would submit, even evidence of some kind that at times seems to change with her mood).
Of course this leads us to the question of what should be considered valid evidence (e.g. is it seeing something first-hand and/or deductive or inductive logic and/or expert testimony and/or….?)
As to the proof of her contradicting herself, I do not at all agree with you that it is a paradox (again, any university logic class whether taught by a liberal or conservative teaches students that the very thing sljh did is “absolutely” – HA HA – contradictory).
I believe that provides me all the evidence I need to logically as well as by the authority of those great minds to state emphatically that she is definitely committing to a self-contradiction on her main point.
BTW – I do like your Descartes/McDonald’s quip…I’ll need to remember that one!
Sarah | Oct 7, 2008 | Reply
You are an idiot, and clearly a racist.
andrew191 | Oct 10, 2008 | Reply
Sarah,
Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that?
Kevin | Oct 13, 2008 | Reply
Stupid comment by an apparent stupid person…
you're all idiots | Oct 13, 2008 | Reply
Alright I’ve had enough. Why cant republicans and democrats just lay OFF! Both parties lie. Thats just how it is and insulting each other does NOTHING! Liberals and conservatives need to chill the hell out. Vote for who you believe in and don’t insult people of the opposite party. It isn’t going to do anything but piss everybody off. (like me)
Jeff | Oct 14, 2008 | Reply
its great to have NBC campaigning for Obama.
Ann | Oct 18, 2008 | Reply
It is embarrassing that a major news network like Fox allows one of their anchorpersons (i.e., Hannity) to resort to obvious, butt-kissing leading questions and extreme negative propaganda for the opposition in order to accommodate the basest anti-American ultra right-wing conservative crazies. While, on the other hand, if a network is unbiased, it is accused of bias until it starts favoring the dictatorship of the conservatives (i.e., CNN = sell-outs).
yoyo | Oct 20, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, Ann, Fox has about 1/10 as many outspoken partisans as the other networks (aren’t they horrible?)
Let me see, there is Chris Matthews who gets a tingle up his leg every time he hears Obama(man crush…or is it more?)
Then, there is Olberman who is Obama’s little whore.
Then all of the news personalities that were so ridiculously biased that even Saturday Night Live did skits about their bias towards B.O.
You see, the difference about Hannity is that he is a commentator NOT a “news” person and Fox makes a clear distinction about doing news as compared to commentary as ALL true journalists were taught to do in Journalism 101 (the other news agencies USED to do this, but they gave it up to become Dem party hacks)
De | Oct 21, 2008 | Reply
Reading this blog makes me think there is a lot of people out there with blinders. No matter what political side you support, your side is slinging mud. “McCain cheated on his wife in the distant past”, cries a donkey. “Obama associated with terrorists”, recalls an elephant. My favorite is the lack of experience. Palin or Obama don’t have enough experience according to the opposite party.
Oh and back to the reason for this article- Flurge- (in reference to a person) a person who believes they are superior to others by wealth, social status, or narcissism(a flush) who makes others want to vomit or defecate(purge).
Stop eating the feces the media is feeding you(even if it is disguised with sprinkles by CNN), it is bad for you. There are a lot of bad diseases in feces.
People should vote for who they think will do the best for the country. For me that is McCain and Palin.
Oh and to the other “D” just because someone misspells their words does not negate their argument. eEleeTist jURck.