# 2008 US Elections Thread......."The 1 and Only ;-)"



## SvK

Happy? 

ps: He who shall not be named just took VA...hehehehehe

SvK


----------



## Hans Adamson

Virginia!?! :shock: I guess there won't be any more talk about Jesse Jackson.... 8)


----------



## Hans Adamson

SvK,

I believe you can change the subject (title) of the thread when you enter a new subject in a posting.


----------



## almacg

What do people in the US think of Ron Paul? I've seen him in action so to speak and he seems like a decent guy, and I would so far be happy to see him in power. Are there any skeletons in his closet that I don't know about (I've only really come to know about him through watching some debates on youtube)


----------



## JonFairhurst

Ron Paul won the Republican caucuses in my county (Clark) in Washington State - despite the virtual media veto.

Ron Paul 224 25.9
Mike Huckabee 211 24.4
Mitt Romney 184 21.2
John McCain 151 17.4
Fred Thompson 4 0.5
Alan Keyes 2 0.2
Rudy Giuliani 1 0.1
Duncan Hunter 1 0.1
Uncommitted 88 10.2

Obama won handily here...
Barack Obama 1,088 65.9
Hillary Clinton 559 33.8
Uncommitted 4 0.2
Dennis Kucinich 1 0.1


----------



## tobyond

almacg @ Tue Feb 12 said:


> What do people in the US think of Ron Paul? I've seen him in action so to speak and he seems like a decent guy, and I would so far be happy to see him in power. Are there any skeletons in his closet that I don't know about (I've only really come to know about him through watching some debates on youtube)



His commitment to the constitution is impressive, but anyone who doesn't believe in evolution shouldn't have a leadership role in any country as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

No skeletons I know about, but Ron Paul is a libertarian ideologue. Libertarians believe that the government should do nothing beyond the very basics in order to preserve freedom. As such he isn't in favor of gun control , for example. The government should be as hands-off as possible.

What I like about his position is that the same applies to foreign policy - he's strictly noninterventionist, and he's the only candidate to understand the relationship between imperialism and blowback. Now, I don't agree with his reasons for not having the US involved in other countries, but I do agree with the end result if it means we'll close down all the military bases and pull back on the imperialistic behavior that is causing us to go broke.

(I fear that our economy's direction isn't because of real estate, it's a systemic problem caused by spending all our money on "defense.")


----------



## JonFairhurst

The central part of Ron Paul's view is that the Federal Government should do very, very little. In this worldview, the states would be responsible for whatever regulations and human services are necessary. (And Libertarians often feel that such services are not necessary at any level of government.)

Many corporations are strongly against a weak federal government policy - and for good reason. If there is a patchwork of regulations, you might need to make 50 versions of a product - one for each state. That's not efficient for producers or consumers.

There would be a lot of unintended consequences with a very weak central government. (Of course, there can also be many unintended consequences if the central government is too strong...)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

In other words, they're off their gourds.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ron Paul speaks the truth. I'm not crazy about his domestic policies but his stance on foreign politics is spot on. For the average American that is, not so much for big corporations and lobbys. I'm amaze he's allowed to talk about closing the federal reserves on national TV. Unfortunately people are not getting it. 

And what Jon said about the media veto.


----------



## SvK

Ron Paul......

is sincere, a good man, but very pro-life....I can't go there......Also he is at his core an isolationist.

I am not. 
But I do believe him to be honorable. 

SvK


----------



## SvK

Obama.... 

Just swept : 

Virginia (64-35) 
Maryland (60-40) 
D.C. (75-25) 
....those are BIG spreads 

Also.....they are the same spreads that happened in Washington, Nebrask and Maine. If we take Texas, this way it's over..... 

Nevertheless....gotta keep working like we are way behind.

ps: BRUCE RICHARDSON: so, as a fellow Obama supporter and a Texan, how does it feel that it all comes down to TX? What does your gut tell you?

SvK


----------



## Brian Ralston

SvK @ Tue Feb 12 said:


> ps: BRIAN RALSTON: so, as a fellow Obama supporter and a Texan, how does it feel that it all comes down to TX? What does your gut tell you?
> 
> SvK



Actually Stephen...I am not a fan of Obama's politics, although I can see why his positive message is inspirational to some. I just am not convinced he has the experience to handle the commander and chief position. One case in point...he made a statement last December where he said that congress has the power to control troop movement. Which is completely false. I will have to find that quote again. Congress has no control over troop movement or deployment. They can control funding though. But that was not what Obama was referring to. For him to be that...well frankley...ignorant over the powers of congress vs. the commander and chief...that scares me in this day and age. He is very bright eyed and idealistic and while that can be inspiring...I feel it is also dangerous in the world today where there is no room for error in dealing with terrorism and potential threats. 

He will probably win the Democratic nomination away from Hillary. But not without some of the Clinton machine pulling out some of their old tricks again before it is all over with. If he can stay out of the mud and be realatively clean...he will prevail the dem primary.

And for the record ...I am not from Texas nor have I ever lived there. Not sure where you got that from. I was born and raise in SoCal. Lived in AZ for 9 years during my undergrad college days...then back to L.A. for grad school and have been here since. I do have some cousins who are from Texas though. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What Clinton machine tricks would those be, Brian? Bill putting his foot in his mouth and trying to turn it into a racial thing? That wasn't great, but I think the other party is the one that should really be ashamed of itself.

For instance, I'm pretty appalled by Karl Rove's assault on John McCain last election, when he started the rumor that he had a black love child. 

Actually, McCain and his wife adopted a child from Mother Theresa's orphanage.

The swift boat attack on Kerry was pretty outrageous too.


----------



## Scott Rogers

..........


----------



## Hans Adamson

Scott,

I think your comment doesn't need any comment. It speaks by itself.


----------



## SvK

Scottie 

SvK


----------



## kid-surf

Brian Ralston @ Tue Feb 12 said:


> He is very bright eyed and idealistic and while that can be inspiring...I feel it is also dangerous in the world today where there is no room for error in dealing with terrorism and potential threats.



I hate to point out the obvious and I'm really trying to say out of the political threads, but...

Error -- like that which we are currently dealing with? The error has already occurred. It's hardly even disputed at this point.

It's dangerous to be partisan but that's exactly what politics are about at this point. It's never about logic.


Thus, my reason for apathy... Which means I vote, I just don't normally discuss.


----------



## kid-surf

Hans Adamson @ Tue Feb 12 said:


> Scott,
> 
> I think your comment doesn't need any comment. It speaks by itself.




Ditto... o-[][]-o 

I mean, why point out how paranoid someone is? It's totally unnecessary.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"It's dangerous to be partisan but that's exactly what politics are about at this point. It's never about logic."

I think it's dangerous and illogical not to be partisan! You only have to read Scott's post to see what will happen if the floodgates open just a little more.


----------



## kid-surf

Good point, Nick... Listen, everyone stay put! 


Thanks... I owe ya. o-[][]-o


----------



## artsoundz

Nice hate speech Scott! but you left out the jews, muslims and gays. I dont think your heart is in it...

I'd hate to live in this Mr. Roger's neighborhood.


----------



## JonFairhurst

artsoundz @ Tue Feb 12 said:


> Nice hate speech Scott! but you left out the jews, muslims and gays. I dont think your heart is in it...


Muslims? The extreme right wing doesn't speak the word. At best the term they use is "Islamists", though they prefer the full moniker, "Islamo-fascists".

"Muslim" is wholly inadequate as a fear-inducing propaganda tool.


----------



## artsoundz

JonFairhurst @ Wed Feb 13 said:


> artsoundz @ Tue Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice hate speech Scott! but you left out the jews, muslims and gays. I dont think your heart is in it...
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims? The extreme right wing doesn't speak the word. At best the term they use is "Islamists", though they prefer the full moniker, "Islamo-fascists".
> 
> "Muslim" is wholly inadequate as a fear-inducing propaganda tool.
Click to expand...


And it's effective. Why, I dont wear my bathrobe anymore for fear of being misunderstood.


----------



## José Herring

I had a long winded comment on Scott's post but eh....why bother.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Healthcare is pretty simple at one level: if we want it we have to pay for it. The one thing in Scott's catharsis that's true is that there's a danger that the overall level of care will decline with socialized medicine.

On the other hand, I certainly don't want to live in a society where children go without healthcare because their parents don't have insurance.


----------



## artsoundz

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 13 said:


> Healthcare is pretty simple at one level: if we want it we have to pay for it. The one thing in Scott's catharsis that's true is that there's a danger that the overall level of care will decline with socialized medicine.
> 
> On the other hand, I certainly don't want to live in a society where children go without healthcare because their parents don't have insurance.


Right. 
We are so rich. This country can afford it. And any healthcare inadequacies can be tempered by a healthier American society. We eat so poorly and are headed for a very expensive disaster if it doesn't change. Now there is a subject....


----------



## Scott Rogers

..........


----------



## SvK

PLEASE READ!!

Obama on Iraq in 2002

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.


-now THAT is good judgement.....

SvK


----------



## SvK

Let's re-post the impoortant bit.....

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. 
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. "

- Barack Obama (prior to IRAQ invasion in 2002)

ALL OF THIS HAS HAPPENED!

SvK


----------



## SvK

Scottie.....

What kind of music do you write?
No wait....lemme guess.....

Marches?

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"That's why you can't really discuss serious issues with the far left."

But you're making that a self-fulfilling point by saying that and leaving! Actually it's not at all true.

Sanctimony, etc. - not at all.


----------



## Fernando Warez

SvK @ Wed Feb 13 said:


> Let's re-post the impoortant bit.....
> 
> "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
> I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. "
> 
> - Barack Obama (prior to IRAQ invasion in 2002)
> 
> ALL OF THIS HAS HAPPENED!
> 
> SvK



The whole world knew that so... 

Beside he voted to fund and prolong that war didn't he? So what does that make him?

And i disagree Ron Paul is an isolationist. Not supporting nation building does not = isolationist. I think thats just an other way for the media/establishment to put the man down using words with a negative ring to it.


----------



## aeneas

Scott Rogers @ Wed 13 Feb said:


> Fact is, the exceedingly corrupt government of Mexico uses our border as a sort of steam release valve.


Man. I can almost picture that nasty government doing that... :roll: 

Anyways, one may say the same thing about the US of A using Iraq's border "as a sort of steam release valve". So your administration got angry about Al-Qaeda. But, alas! - no Al-Qaeda in sight... So GWB says: Doesn't matter! Dismiss UNO resolutions and send our bad boys over Iraq's border! So what if that is INTERNATIONALLY ILLEGAL?! The "steam" got to be released someplace. Somebody has to suffer because GBW got angry, right? I am sorry, but it's either that GWB is on Al-Qaeda payroll, or he is a complete moron. 9/11 attacks should have determined a total American military retreat from Arab territories. That would have been the end of your terror. Now, I hope to be wrong, but, the way your administration reacted, 9/11 was probably just the beginning of your terror. Which apparently served GWB quite well in his re-election. 

Your administration really seem to need enemies. Why Swiss, or Norway, or Austria, (Holland, Belgium, etc.) don't need enemies for getting along quite well, both internally and externally? Do you really enjoy being hated? Why everybody in this world do love peaceful, civilized people from peaceful, civilized countries? 

War brings war brings war brings war - endlessly. Maybe this Obama guy will put an end to this vicious circle. For your own sake and safety.


----------



## Moonchilde

SvK @ February 13th 2008 said:


> Scottie.....
> 
> What kind of music do you write?
> No wait....lemme guess.....
> 
> Marches?
> 
> SvK



Chill out. He is merely expression his view. He makes some really good points, especially about the secure border talk. You're attacking his character because he doesn't see eye to eye with your politics. 

Thats a little similar to what Bush did to Kerry, correct? You can be better than that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"And i disagree Ron Paul is an isolationist. Not supporting nation building does not = isolationist."

But supporting isolationism does.  It does go farther than not supporting nation building. He was opposed to our involvement in the Balkan war too for the same reason. And he always mentions CIA shenanigans in Iran as being responsible for a lot of grief, etc.

I agree with him, as I said, just for different reasons.


----------



## JonFairhurst

_> "The thing that some people can't seem to wrap their minds around is that there is a difference between legal and illegal.'_

Tell that to...
* President Bush (who admitted to breaking the FISA law - a felony).
* The wiretapping phone companies.
* All those who approved and perpetrated torture.
* Bush again, for invading Iraq, even though they had not attacked us, nor was attack imminent. (Starting a war against international law = war criminal.)

I could go on...

But back on illegal immigration... It's a mess. But you can't put all of the blame on the immigrants. Federal policy has been ambivalent. Enforcement has been spotty. Employers have looked the other way. Now that there are likely ten million or so people here illegally, can we say that only the immigrants were at fault?

The free market types should recognize that the current situation is due to a huge supply and demand imbalance. Many wanted to come here badly, and there were jobs to be had, but the quotas were much too low to come close to meeting demand. The imbalance has essentially caused a black market.

Now, imagine a reset back to the days when there were few illegal immigrants. What policies should we have set to avoid the current situation. Plan to set those policies. But before they get implemented, solve the immediate problem. 

A practical solution just might require some sort of so-called "amnesty" program for the victimless crime of coming here without the proper paperwork. Note that the crimes at the top of this post were far from victimless.

There are three problems to solve here:
* The immediate problem of so many illegal immigrants in this country.
* The long term policy to avoid this situation in the future, and
* How to make laws apply not just to the powerless, but to the powerful.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I've posted this before: the whole "problem" of illegal immigration is a trumped up issue. It costs us worst case $50 billion a year.

Meanwhile the star wars missile defense boondoggle is going to cost us a couple of generations of illegal immigration.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Here's an interesting thing about immigration law. Nowhere does it say that people who enter the country illegally cannot become citizens.

If you are found to have entered the country illegally, you get removed or deported after a hearing.

If you are removed or deported, and you are caught here again, the penalties are:

* A fine; or
* Imprisonment for not more than two years; or
* Both fine and imprisonment.

The "you can't become a citizen" thing doesn't exist in immigration law.

Amnesty would be to waive the fine or prison sentence for repeat offenders. Deportation is not a penalty. It's simply a matter of logic. ("You don't have the legal right to be here; therefore, you cannot stay."

A guest worker program would be a way to allow people into the country legally without citizenship. It is independent of the status of current illegal immigrants, and would not be amnesty in any way.

In fact, it would be a method of:
1) balancing supply and demand
2) documenting people who come here, and
3) doing so without increasing citizenship rates.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Feb 13 said:


> I've posted this before: the whole "problem" of illegal immigration is a trumped up issue. It costs us worst case $50 billion a year.
> 
> Meanwhile the star wars missile defense boondoggle is going to cost us a couple of generations of illegal immigration.



The money is the least of it Nick. It is the over-burdening of ERs & schools, the gang members, etc.

We need immigrants but we need them to enter legally or under a guest worker program. How we achieve that is problematic and I will readily admit I do not have the answers but it is a slap in the face to those who wait and come here legally to just ignore the fact that a person is here illegally.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Feh.

You get gangs wherever there's an underclass, and the slap in the face is the same untenable argument as gay marriage ruining the sanctity of someone else's heterosexual marriage. Furthermore, the "illegal vs. legal" line is also a smokescreen. Nobody is really concerned about that - it just sounds good.

But we agree that it's a complicated issue, since we can't afford to support the entire world (nor to destroy it, a different subject). Yet the entire nation-state system is man-made. I have a serious moral problem with the notion that this land "belongs to us." It does, of course, but for you and me it's purely an accident of birth. My parents both escaped from Nazi Germany and moved to England, where I was born; it's only pure chance that my mom married an American citizen so I was allowed to move here.

There's your slap in the face. Why am I any more desirable than some poor person from Mexico? I happen to come from what we consider a higher class background than some peasant from a village in Latin America, but that's not something I earned, it was - again - an accident of birth.

Not very long ago this area was populated by what we now call Latinos. In other words, we won this land fair and square. Might makes right.

Note that we've all been migrating to greener pastures since we were apes.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 14 said:


> Feh.
> 
> 1. Furthermore, the "illegal vs. legal" line is also a smokescreen. Nobody is really concerned about that - it just sounds good.
> 
> 2. My parents both escaped from Nazi German and moved to England, where I was born; it's only pure chance that my mom married an American citizen so I was allowed to move here.
> 
> 3. There's your slap in the face. Why am I any more desirable than some poor person from Mexico? I happen to come from what we consider a higher class background than some peasant from a village in Latin America, but that's not something I earned, it was - again - an accident of birth.
> 
> 4. Not very long ago this area was populated by what we now call Latinos. In other words, we won this land fair and square. Might makes right.



Well that is a torrent of illogic

1. Of course you're right, that is why there was so little outcry against the proposed immigration bill.

2. Legal status is indeed not necessarily an earned status but most times by birth. The same is true for wealth, health, intelligence, etc. Deal with it.

3. It has nothing to do with class. I actually consider you to be lower class than my gardener And I do not want rich immigrants coming here illegally either.

4. Right so let's give the land back to them. Oops, wait a minute they took it from the indigenous Indians so let's give it back to them. Oops, they came from Asia so let's give it back to the wild horses. Oops, they also came from Asia....

The bottom line is every country has a right to its borders being secure and insisting that those who come here come with some kind of legal status, either permanently, a Visa, a work permit, whatever, and we need to support that.

The devil is in the details.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Actually it's a torrent of philosophical musing that - at least in my warped mind - is completely logical.

1. So you have the blatant good taste to agree with me.

2. You savage brute! What an animal!

3. Rich immigrants generally don't have to come here illegally - they're able to hire lawyers and game the system. And just because I like pro wrestling, wipe my nose on ò+£   oŸ9+£   oŸ:+£   oŸ;+£   oŸ<+£   oŸ=+£   oŸ>+£   oŸ?+£   oŸ@+£   oŸA+£   oŸB+¤   oŸC+¤   oŸD+¤   oŸE+¤   oŸF+¤   oŸG+¤   oŸH+¤   oŸI+¤   oŸJ+¥   oŸK+¥   oŸL+¥   oŸM+¥   oŸN+¥   oŸO+¥   oŸP+¥   oŸQ+¥   oŸR+¥   oŸS+¥   oŸT+¥   oŸU+¥   oŸV+¥   oŸW+¥   oŸX+¥   oŸY+¥   oŸZ+¥   oŸ[+¥   oŸ\+¥   oŸ]+¥   oŸ^+¥   oŸ_+¥   oŸ`+¥   oŸa+¥   oŸb+¦   oŸc+¦   oŸd+¦   oŸe+¦   oŸf+¦   oŸg+¦   oŸh+¦   oŸi+¦   oŸj+¦   oŸk+¦   oŸl+§   oŸŸ+§   oŸ +§   oŸ¡+§   oŸ¢+§   oŸ£+§   oŸ¤+§   oŸ¥+§   oŸ¦+§   oŸ§+§   oŸ¨+§   oŸ©+§   oŸª+§   oŸ«+§   oŸ¬+§   oŸ­+§   oŸ®+§   oŸ¯+§   oŸ°+§   oŸ±+§   oŸ²+§   oŸ³+§   oŸ´+§   oŸµ+§   oŸ¶+§   oŸ·+§   oŸ¸+§   oŸ¹+§   oŸº+§   oŸ»+§   oŸ¼+§   oŸ½+§   oŸ¾+§   oŸ¿+§   oŸÀ+§   oŸÁ+§   oŸÂ+§   oŸÃ+§   oŸÄ+§   oŸÅ+§   oŸÆ+§   oŸÇ+§   oŸÈ+§   oŸÉ+§   oŸÊ+§   oŸË+§   oŸÌ+§   oŸÍ+§   oŸÎ+§   oŸÏ+§   oŸÐ+§   oŸÑ+§   oŸÒ+§   oŸÓ+§   oŸÔ+§   oŸÕ+§   oŸÖ+§   oŸ×+§   oŸØ+§   oŸÙ+§   oŸÚ              ò+§   oŸÜ+§   oŸÝ+§   oŸÞ+§   oŸß+§   oŸà+§   oŸ


----------



## Hans Adamson

It has been quiet in this thread for too long. Here's a McCain video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 86700.html

Waterboarding - it's the latest craze.


----------



## José Herring

If it wasn't so tragic I'd find it quite amusing that the only answer the conservatives ever gives for the problems of the world are death, war and torture. Have a problem, torture your prisoners. Don't like your neighbor, kill 'em. Immigration, wall of the Mexican boarder line it with military and shoot.

These solution don't work, never have worked and never will work. They're borne out of a craven desire for revenge.

It's time to call on all sensibly minded people to stamp out of existence the current Republican party. The Democratic party holds a majority at the local, state and congressional levels. Time to kick the party of warmongers out of the White House too. Maybe in the ashes the Reps will rebuild a party that isn't so destructive and go back to their base of sound economic principals. 

They blame the liberals for being communistic yet the party engages in the most brutal communistic tactics imaginable. Namely building a war machine to stamp out "undesirables" while in the meantime advocating torture while increasing the power of the federal government to invade the privacy of individual citizens. Yep we've seen it all before, USSR, China they all did the same thing we're doing now and they all failed. Now we're failing too.

Say no to Republicanism in 2008 =o


----------



## Hans Adamson

josejherring @ Fri Feb 15 said:


> Say no to Republicanism in 2008 =o


And watch the McCain video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs


----------



## Scott Rogers

..........


----------



## aeneas

Loved it, overall. A bit long, but IMO it is worth contemplating a vertebrate vertical position.

Just a tiny lil' small logical nitpicking won't hurt, I hope - 


Scott Rogers @ Sun 17 Feb said:


> life's too short to carry around animosity.


The longer ò-I   p'-I   p(-I   p)-I   p*-I   p+


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Speaking for myself:

"This binary notion of "one party bad, the other party, good", doesn't work for me anymore."

It works for me, or I should say "one party fairly bad but not within miles of being anywhere near as bad as the other one." That's not an irrational prejudice - it's based on a long history of having diametrically opposed opinions. And as I said, it's based on not wanting to see decades of hard-won social progress undermined with more conservative judicial appointments.

But I hope you don't feel that I was among the ones who attacked you for your opinions. I disagree with them, of course, but I don't think you're a monster for holding them. The only thing is, once again, that your post seemed more cathartic than anything else.

Also, I would never vote for a candidate because of his or her race or gender. To me both Hillary and Obama are just very impressive candidates. I'm really happy to see the Democrats finally putting up people of the calibre the position warrants.


----------



## Thonex

Scott Rogers @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> I haven't had the opportunity to come back to this fun fun thread until now
> 
> <snip>.....
> 
> 
> Carry on.



Scott, you certainly have a gift with words. Nicely done my friend. o-[][]-o 

Now... for those of us who need it taken down a notch.. or 5... here is a more urban shizzle version of Scott's very good post! 

Enjoy.  



Street level version of Scott's post said:


> I haven't had tha opportunity ta come back ta this fun fun thread until now . Wussup to all my niggaz in the house. I hope tha more fragile memba have had time ta recuperate from tha trauma of rhymin' come across an unapolizzles opinion wit whizzay they disagree . Snoop dogg is in this bitch. Oh, tha drama of it all . Freak y'all, into the beat y'all. You guys can B-to-tha-izzill me fo` tha smell'n salts if you wizzy.
> 
> I am not a professizzle internet dwella, so I looked in mah Big Bizzle O' Internety Protocol , n it tells me tizzle this is tha part where I am supposed ta go through all of tha horse [email protected]#t that's been pil'n up since I was hizzy last, quote trippin' which is brotha fallacious, obnoxious, presumptuous, or just downright stupid, n tizzle perform a tit fo` tat trad'n of insults. Wizzay I dizzon't see tha point in it, but since a playa of you were funky ass enough ta poser a lecture or two in mah direction, I guess it is not unfair that I return tha favor so show some love niggaz. (And thank you fo` tha intelligent personal attacks, by tha way. Those is always fun.)
> 
> First, a shawty perspective. On tha occasion thizzay I foolishly wanda in ta read a few bits of these politizzles discussions, witout exception, I come across many, many opinions I disagree wit - n a good percentage of those I find ta be woefully uninformed. Some is even pretty ridicizzles n some could be classified as offensive ta some people . Im crazy, you can't phase me. But I always jizzust rizzle mah eyes, shrug mah shoulda, n move on.
> 
> I could say plenty, but I don't. I could pounce, but I don't. I could H-to-tha-izzurl ad hominem attacks, but I D-to-tha-izzon't. I could demonizzle but I don't. I could berate, but I don't fo' sheezy. I could lecture, but I don't. I could presume ta assess people, look into they minds n hearts, size them up n pronounce judgement, but I don't yaba daba dizzle. Frankly, I am not of tha mind that anyone here is obliged ta pleaze me wit W-H-to-tha-izzat they may have ta say, nor do I believe I am obliged ta self-censor, so that I M-to-tha-izzight protect tha more delicate among us cuz its a pimp thang.
> 
> Now, I am not going ta mention any names, coz I am not gang bangin' ta git personal here, but there is a few thugz in this thread whiznich seem always ta hizzy plenty ta say `bout plenty of mackin' n' shit. And when they're say'n they thing , well, all is fine wit tha world. But wizzy someone else dares - dares- ta brotha an opinion which does not fall in line wit tha prevail'n politically correct orthodoxy, "well bizzy you've gots some explain'n ta do".
> 
> Shot Calla all, this forum is only fo` thugz who T-H-to-tha-izzink "the correct thoughts" n say "the right things". Barr'n thiznat, I guess you're supposed ta STFU. Poser simply mizzybe taken dizzy n S-H-to-tha-izzut dizzown. Maybe there is a reedizzles camp fo` thizzat, where all independent nigga can be S-to-tha-izzent ta "get they minds right". So much fo` that noble liberal tolerance n diversity I'm always hear'n such good steppin' `bout. George Orwell would hizzle a field day here . Slap your mutha fuckin self.
> 
> I have seen this pizzy of tha forum become practically co-opted ta serve one person's Obama obsession, n full-throated support in agreement is deemed commendable by tha illuminated ones . Put ya mutha fuckin choppers up if ya feel this.. But I committed tha unforgivable sin, didn't I? I addressed several principledobjections ta tha myth of Obama, n goodness it gots some of you hopp'n mad. Is there a secret committee somewhere tizzy in tha future I should submit all posts ta fo` approval? Was I a shawty "in-the-face" `bout it? Yes , ya feel me?. But no more so than tha cumulative effect of so much unabated Obama worship spread amongst a dozen or so threads. Although I kizzle full well whiznat I was walk'n into, I really wasn't clockin' ta derail all of tha high-fivin' n bizzay slappin' wit da big Bo$$ Dogg.
> 
> The hizzy of it is thiznat I pointed out some clearly racist overtones regard'n Obama's church (includ'n tha Farrakhan connection), n pointed out examples of unabashed hizzle speech committed by tha open brotha demonstrizzles n yet I am supposedly tha one wit tha problem dogg. Does tha term "cognitive dissonance" mean saggin' ta some of you? Or how `bout tha tizzle "double standard"? I dizzay T-H-to-tha-izzink a person can be against racism unless they can be against it in allits forms, cracka than just cherry P-to-tha-izzick - committ'n acts of selective outrage. And I think it could be useful ta examine tha dissonance between some of Obama's lofty "uniting" n "above tha rizzy fray" platitizzles as against tha decidedly racial tone of his church, n of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright . Hollaz to the East Side.
> 
> Look, I D-to-tha-izzon't baller F-R-to-tha-izzom liberal white guilt fo gettin yo pimp on. I hizzle nuttin' ta feel guilty `bout, n you're not going ta put tha onus on me ta prove otherwise . Ya fuck with us, we gots to fuck you up. People is going ta think whizzat they think, n since no one here is authorized as mah judge n jury, I'm not going ta lose any sleep over it. Frankly, I sometizzles wonda if those so thoroughly addled wit white guilt aren't blunt-rollin' ta overcompensate fo` sum-m sum-m. Some thugz seem a shawty too eaga ta prove sum-m sum-m ta themselves n ta drug deala n it also reminds me of what Freud called "projection". But this is all jizzay speculizzles on mah pizzart, coz I am not gifted wit tha sizzay of insight tizzle would enable me ta look into tha hearts n minds of otha people, n I am grateful fo` thiznat. Is there any doubt tizzle if tha black candidate in question happened ta be J.C. Watts, a conservative Republizzles thizzay those of you who're currently gassed up on tha idea of "making history" by elect'n tha fizzirst blizzack president wouldn't be quite so G-I-Double-Dizzy over tha prospect?
> 
> And then there is tha hypocrisy. I have seen plenty of anti-Amizzles statements in these politizzles discussions, some anti-Christian bigotry, n actual ho-slappin' of our troops as wiznell from tha streets of tha L-B-C. And these th'n pretty mizzay pass witout question or challenge. No "hate Speech" there, eh? Or, W-to-tha-izzell, maybe these is politically acceptable bigotries by local forum standards, so tizzy again it saggin' us ta tha subject of selective outrage . Bow wow wow yippee yo yipee yay. It jizzle seems tizzy anyone requir'n tha therapizzles benefits obtained by random acts of moral preen'n mizzight wizzle ta be a shawty mizzle consistent.
> 
> As I said before, there is this myopic mindset of some who thiznink thizzay they"solutions" is gold sputtered perpetratin' spiznun from tha wisdom of tha universe, n T-H-to-tha-izzat if you dizzon't agree wit theydefinizzle of compassion, wit theydefinizzle of "helping people", wit theyidea of fairness, or wit theyways of mak'n a betta society, thiznen you is simply beneath contempt. There is no way but theyway. But doesn't this betray a sizzort of insecurity of one's philosizzles n world vizzy?
> 
> Soona or gangsta I thiznink some of you fellas may need ta accept thizzat you're not actually tha General Gangsta of tha Universe paper'd up. You may have ta git over yoselves a bit n not look ta everyone else ta hizzle pizzy up yo opinions by agree'n wit them. You may hizzle ta admit thizzay you don't really git ta set tha terms fo` whiznat otha thugz say or how they say it. We're all big boys here, n if you're too intellectually fragile ta face a shawty substantive n more thiznan justified opposition, T-H-to-tha-izzen maybe you should stay out of politizzles threads... or even not start T-H-to-tha-izzem . Im a bad boy wit a lotta hos.
> 
> Okay, a shawty more perspectizzle but in a different direction. I am, n have been fo` some tizzy nizzow, a person witout a politizzle party. I diznon't anymore want ta see Hukabee in office thizzay I do McCain thizzay I do Hillary than I do Obama, n I don't have mizzay good ta say `bout President Bush. I don't agree across tha line wit eitha liberals or conservatizzles or libertizzle but jizzle partially in any one of those three camps - depend'n on tha issue in question. And I hizzle more than learned mah lesson `bout pinn'n any hopes on any of our politizzles so sit back relax new jacks get smacked. My party hopp'n is pusha . One, two three and to tha four. First, a Democrat, Then, a Republizzles fo all my homies in the pen. Then, a Libertizzle. I finally said, "Aww, ta hizzy wit it". They have, n W-to-tha-izzill continue ta sizzell us out. Big time! They are, in frontin' degrees, quite good whizzay it comes ta lip service. But more often tizzle not, they royally screw us ova.


----------



## Peter Alexander

Scott Rogers @ Wed Feb 13 said:


> artsoundz @ Tue Feb 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice hate speech Scott! but you left out the jews, muslims and gays. I dont think your heart is in it...
> 
> I'd hate to live in this Mr. Roger's neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, you all hate me.
Click to expand...



No Scott, I don't hate you. And thank you for sharing some of yourself, and your background, which I didn't know any of until tonight.

Peter Alexander


----------



## Peter Alexander

TO JAY ASHER:

Please learn to spell. It's Bezerklee referencing to those of us who actually went and got our degrees from Berklee College of Music in the City of Boston.

Please note the spelling.

it is a significant spelling because it's derived from the last name of the school's owner, Larry Berk, and either his wife's middle name (Lee) or their son, Lee, the school's past president. Hence Berk-lee or Berklee. 

Only those with some background in the Schillinger method will appreciate the derivation of this name.

The other spelling refers to people who attended a UC Berkeley in California.

1. entirely different spelling.
2. entirely different pizza.
3. entirely different girls (recalling when I was young and single)
4. entirely different weather.

For the sake of your career and the number of Berklee-ites in Los Angeles, I encourage you to repent of your mispelling.

And now back to DON'T MEET THE PRESS.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic

Peter Alexander @ Sun Feb 17 said:


> TO JAY ASHER:
> 
> Please learn to spell. It's Bezerklee referencing to those of us who actually went and got our degrees from Berklee College of Music in the City of Boston.
> 
> Please note the spelling.
> 
> it is a significant spelling because it's derived from the last name of the school's owner, Larry Berk, and either his wife's middle name (Lee) or their son, Lee, the school's past president. Hence Berk-lee or Berklee.
> 
> Only those with some background in the Schillinger method will appreciate the derivation of this name.
> 
> The other spelling refers to people who attended a UC Berkeley in California.
> 
> 1. entirely different spelling.
> 2. entirely different pizza.
> 3. entirely different girls (recalling when I was young and single)
> 4. entirely different weather.
> 
> For the sake of your career and the number of Berklee-ites in Los Angeles, I encourage you to repent of your mispelling.
> 
> And now back to DON'T MEET THE PRESS.
> 
> o-[][]-o



I am terribly embarassed and I grovel at your feet :oops: 

1. I am a native Bostonian who attended Boston Conservatory so I am the last one who should have committed this grievous error. I am well aware of the history of Berklee College of Music. Indeed at the age of 13 I studied piano with a teacher there.

2. I should also have known that Nick was not academically inclined enough to have ever been accepted to Berkeley whereas I knew people at Berklee of whom it might well have been said "if brains were dynamite, they could not blow their nose." :lol: 

Oh, oh am I in trouble again?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> 2. I should also have known that Nick was not academically inclined enough to have ever been accepted to Berkeley whereas I knew people at Berklee of whom it might well have been said "if brains were dynamite, they could not blow their nose."



I knew those guys too! They were still at Berklee when I went 25 years later.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone or anything, Tarzana, but the point is that I'm not going to stop loving my wife if someone marries a whole herd of cattle.


----------



## Thonex

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone or anything, Tarzana, but the point is that I'm not going to stop loving my wife if someone marries a whole herd of cattle.



Even if that person *was* your wife? :mrgreen:


----------



## tarzana

in response to anyone marrying anyone or anything....

Ask yourself in your heart...

if you would have a problem with your son deciding as an adult he would choose to partake in a lifestyle of bestiality. 


You don't have to post an answer.


----------



## Thonex

tarzana @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> in response to anyone marrying anyone or anything....
> 
> Ask yourself in your heart...
> 
> if you would have a problem with your son deciding as an adult he would choose to partake in a lifestyle of bestiality.
> 
> 
> You don't have to post an answer.



We all want what "we" think is best for our kids. 

Now having said that... I bet there are some church going Klu Klux Klan members who would prefer that their kids engage in bestiality than marry a black person. Well... maybe not that far... but you get my point.

But I do feel that a guy who has 12 wives should pay more $$ for a Blue Cross "family plan" than a guy with 1 wife.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

So Thonex, are you going to accept her invitation to be best man?




You're right, Tarazana - those animals have a right not to be raped. Thank goodness I don't have a son.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Then again, Catherine the Great got along famously with horses until she suffered a crushing defeat...


----------



## Moonchilde

I was always under the impression that marriage was between people who loved each other. I think it is ridiculous to have a government figure tell us who we can and can't love and get married to. Marriage is a vow to the person we love that we will be committed to them.

Now, I'm all for having polygamy and gay marriages. To me, the more the merrier. Especially when it comes to females. Gimme gimme gimme!

Also, I think gay marriage would solve a TON of gay-straight marriage / divorce issues. Its totally not cool when a gay person marries a straight person deceitfully. Some do it to appear normal and not be discriminated against. I say, let them marry whoever and this is no longer would be an issue.

Who grows up believing marriage is between a man and a woman? How many times when you were kids did you hear the phrase "Well if you love him/her/it so much why don't you marry it?" Does that not speak volume? When you're a kid and you wanna go weeeeee but you ain't got drugs yet... I mean, when you're a kid and innocent, you're oblivious to race/gender issues until they're taught to you. 

I just think the whole argument and system is completely messed up.


----------



## Peter Alexander

Ashermusic @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> Peter Alexander @ Sun Feb 17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> TO JAY ASHER:
> 
> Please learn to spell. It's Bezerklee referencing to those of us who actually went and got our degrees from Berklee College of Music in the City of Boston.
> 
> Please note the spelling.
> 
> it is a significant spelling because it's derived from the last name of the school's owner, Larry Berk, and either his wife's middle name (Lee) or their son, Lee, the school's past president. Hence Berk-lee or Berklee.
> 
> Only those with some background in the Schillinger method will appreciate the derivation of this name.
> 
> The other spelling refers to people who attended a UC Berkeley in California.
> 
> 1. entirely different spelling.
> 2. entirely different pizza.
> 3. entirely different girls (recalling when I was young and single)
> 4. entirely different weather.
> 
> For the sake of your career and the number of Berklee-ites in Los Angeles, I encourage you to repent of your mispelling.
> 
> And now back to DON'T MEET THE PRESS.
> 
> o-[][]-o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am terribly embarassed and I grovel at your feet :oops:
> 
> 1. I am a native Bostonian who attended Boston Conservatory so I am the last one who should have committed this grievous error. I am well aware of the history of Berklee College of Music. Indeed at the age of 13 I studied piano with a teacher there.
> 
> 2. I should also have known that Nick was not academically inclined enough to have ever been accepted to Berkeley whereas I knew people at Berklee of whom it might well have been said "if brains were dynamite, they could not blow their nose." :lol:
> 
> Oh, oh am I in trouble again?
Click to expand...


Oh no. You're not in trouble again. We're successful publishers. So our brains ARE dynamite using a special blend that enables us to blow our noses and sneeze. But preferably, not simultaneously.

As regards academic inclination, we are above such folly since so many who are academically inclined wouldn't know the difference between a status symbol vs. a status byte, nor could they sequence their way out of a California Pizza Kitchen.

It is a burden we wear well since it is they who read us, and not vice versa.

Cheerio!

o/~


----------



## Peter Alexander

Ashermusic @ Mon Feb 18 said:


> LOL!



Don't laugh too hard. Just wait until _your_ book comes out. >8o


----------



## SvK

To all on this board who support Barack Obama..........

With our win in Wisconsin last night, we are at "match-point", to defeat Hillary Clinton.....

If we win Texas and tie or win in Ohio, it is over for her.

So please go to www.barackobama.com, and help- us out......I know it sounds goofy, but if we win, you'll be able to tell your grand-kids you were part of history in 2008...

Catch you over there!

thanx,

SvK

FIred UP!
Ready To Go!


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> To all on this board who support Barack Obama..........
> 
> With our win in Wisconsin last night, we are at "match-point", to defeat Hillary Clinton.....
> 
> If we win Texas and tie or win in Ohio, it is over for her.
> 
> So please go to www.barackobama.com, and help- us out......I know it sounds goofy, but if we wins, you'll be able to tell your grand-kids you were part of history in 2008...
> 
> Catch you over there!
> 
> thanx,
> 
> SvK
> 
> FIred UP!
> Ready To Go!



And if Hillary wins and becomes the first woman president, no history is made in 2008 to tell one's grandchildren about?


----------



## SvK

Asher.....

Not really....more like a blow to feminism, as she will have needed to be the wife of a male president to get there.........doesn't have a good ring to it.


Maggie Thatcher (whom I have nothing politically in common with), on the other hand got there all on her own.

NEPOTISM SUX!....

SvK


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Wed Feb 20 said:


> Asher.....
> 
> Not really....more like a blow to feminism, as she will have needed to be the wife of a male president to get there.........doesn't have a good ring to it.
> 
> 
> Maggie Thatcher (whom I have nothing politically in common with), on the other hand got there all on her own.
> 
> NEPOTISM SUX!....
> 
> SvK



I totally disagree.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's not nepotism at all, in fact if anything Bill Clinton seems to be hurting right now. But of course she wouldn't be as well known if she hadn't been the First Lady.


----------



## Mike Greene

Not nepotism?

So any intelligent and talented woman from Arkansas should expect to be able to move to New York for a couple years and then get elected to the Senate? Bypassing the usual state assembly, mayor, city council or even school board routes that most politicians go through?

And receive by far more national media attention during her Senate campaign than any of the other 30 Senate races? Including media attention already speculating whether she one day intends to run for president?

And in this Presidential Primary race, enjoy almost universal name recognition and the resulting donor advantages right from the get go?

I like Hillary as much as the next guy, but you have to concede she is where she is because of nepotism.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

As I said:

"But of course she wouldn't be as well known if she hadn't been the First Lady."

Nepotism means you're appointed to the position because of someone else. It did come into play in her role in the White House, and sure she was able to play the cards she was dealt by having been the First Lady. But right now she's fighting tooth and nail for the Democratic nomination, and she's doing it on her own strength - which is the context we're talking about here.

So it's just a matter of arguing about the definition of the word nepotism. Aeneas? Would you care to take over for Mike?


----------



## Mike Greene

:mrgreen: 

Well, since you can't be "appointed" president, the only workable definition of nepotism in this case would be mine.

Which means YOU get to have aeneas to argue YOUR side of things!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Indeed they would.


----------



## SvK

MUCH more accurate historically than polls..............Have fun......you can hit the categories on the left to see more....

Political Trading Markets (betting)

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tr ... red=false#

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ralph Nader is such a jackass...


----------



## Frederick Russ

I concur.


----------



## JonFairhurst

There was a good point made on CNN today.

3rd parties make sense when there is an issue that the majors aren't addressing that has a lot of passion behind it. For instance, illegal immigration. All three top candidates support comprehensive immigration polities. Lou Dobbs could run on that issue. He wouldn't win, but he could push anti-immigration on the candidates.

What exactly is Nader's burning issue? Sure he's against large corporate abuse. The Democrats already stand against corporate abuse. If they aren't effective, it's because of political realities. Like Nader will fix that. His specialty is political UNreality.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

His specialty is having a huge ego, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

By the way, is anyone else disturbed at the lack of outrage over the right wing machine turning the McCain-lobbyist story into an attack on the NY Times?


----------



## JonFairhurst

Well, the story is kinda weak.

How about Bill O'Reilly saying, _"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama *unless* there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels."_ Unless???

And then we get his "apology": _"I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything."_ 

Apparently, there is nothing wrong with his statement. The only problem here is that people were offended. So the whole thing is our fault, huh?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Bill O'Reilly is an entertainer who makes his living by being a provocative AH. Who cares what he says.

To me the NY X story isn't weak the way it was framed, it's perfectly legitimate. And you can bet that there's more behind it, or they wouldn't have run it.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> There were no charges, Jay!
> 
> This is what I mean about the Republican smear machine. You repeat lies enough times and even perfectly reasonable people believe them. (Not that you're in that category - except for when you agree with me.)
> 
> The headline was along the lines of McCain being so secure in his integrity that he has been unaware of the appearance of impropriety. That's how the story was framed. We get the NY Times and I read it.
> 
> McCain was quite chummy with a lobbyist who represented a company that had business in front of the Senate subcommittee he chaired. The story quoted former staff people of his who said they met with this woman and told her to stay away; they were concerned about the *appearance* of a conflict of interest and also suspected that he was having an affair with her.
> 
> My guess is that the unnamed sources said a lot more that they couldn't substantiate, but the story didn't make any charges at all; all it said is that he was friendly with this woman. Right away the Republican slime machine goes on a liberal media rampage. It's disgusting!



"repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity."

I call that a charge, and he denied it point blank so either he is lying *which I doubt), has forgotten (which is scary) , or the NYT is publishing lies from unnamed sources.

Whichever way, NYT would not have published this kind of story based on this amount of info 15 years ago. It is just another paper now.


----------



## Hans Adamson

This definitely removed any sympathy I have had for Hillary, losing to Obama:

After distributing a photo of Obama in Somali attire:
“Enough. If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely,” 

Hillary in foreign garmets is still Hillary from Arkansas (or wherever), but Obama in this outfit is a terrorist to many. And that is why Hillary's people are spreading the photo.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ial-photo/

It makes me want to donate more to Obama. What is the link again?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

""repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity." I call that a charge...."repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity." "

Okay, then let's call it a charge, Aenermusic. You win.

But what is the charge? That he gave the *appearance* of impropriety! And he is almost certainly "guilty" of that "charge," because you'd have to believe that he didn't have that lobbyist friend around at various events to believe otherwise.

That's questionable judgement, in my opinion. Is it a scandal? No, but then the NY X didn't say it was - they reported a story.

Second, by your logic Watergate wouldn't have been reported. After all, it was based on anonymous sources, right?

What you don't realize - and thankfully you have me to point out for you - is that you are an unwitting patsy to PR lies. Instead of talking about McCain's lack of judgement, which is a legitimate issue (and I do think we'll hear more about it as a result of this story, even though I have different reasons for feeling that McCain is leaving principle behind in order to "unite" the Republican party - this isn't a big deal to me), you're talking about how you think the NY X is a bad newspaper.

It's a good thing you now realize the folly of your desperate and flawed logic.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's so much fun beating up on Jay. He's just so easy...


----------



## JonFairhurst

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> That's questionable judgement, in my opinion. Is it a scandal? No, but then the NY X didn't say it was - they reported a story.


But was it worthy of the front page?

It was eight years ago.

Staffers accurately judged that they should be kept apart during the campaign, because it could look bad. Big deal. 

There's no "hard" evidence of there being an affair.

There's no hard evidence that she improperly influenced him.

It just looks... unseemly.

The bigger issue is the hypocrisy of McCain staffing his current campaign with lobbyists. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_defends_lobbyist_ties_Theyre_honorable_0222.html (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_de ... _0222.html) But there's no sex in that story, so it doesn't make the front page.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I think the reaction to it proves that it was worthy of the front page.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> It's so much fun beating up on Jay. He's just so easy...



Of course you are correct about the Times. After all, look at the Judith Miller stories, they were well researched and accurate, right?

You lefties are all the same, if it beats up on someone you don't like it doesn't matter if its fair or true. or reputably substantiated.

Jeff Foxworthy did a funny bit on switching between different political groups. He said, and I paraphrase, "Liberals are all in favor of tolerance. Unless you piss them off with your views and then they want to kill you."


----------



## JonFairhurst

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> I think the reaction to it proves that it was worthy of the front page.


The reaction is a measure of controversy, not a measure of newsworthiness.

If they published a photo of Janet Jackson's other breast, that would also get a big reaction, but that doesn't mean that it was worthy of the front page. Well, maybe on a glossy magazine (next month's VI Mag?  ), but not necessarily in the Times.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Ashermusic @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> You lefties are all the same...


Huh? 

I'm a lefty, but I think the McCain story was best left to the gossip columns. 

That the Straight-Talk campaign is staffed by lobbyists? Well, that's current, relevant and factual. But without sex, murder or controversy it's too wonky to get any media attention.


----------



## almacg

I don't really care whether McCain cheated on his wife! For all I care he could have slept with my wife! (I don't actually have a wife I'm just trying to be funny!)
I prefer to judge him not on his sexual activities, but on his pathetic disrespect for human life! I'm talking about the fact that he would love to bomb Iran off the planet, and fully supported (and still does) the Iraq War.


----------



## Mike Greene

almacg @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> . . . For all I care he could have slept with my wife! . . .


Amen brother! So long as he understands my "no returns" policy!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"I don't really care whether McCain cheated on his wife!"

Nobody does, and I'm not exactly hawkish myself. But the issue in the article isn't the possibility that he was shagging a nice looking lobbyist, it was that he was too chummy with her. Again, she represented a company that had business in front of a Senate subcommittee he chaired.


----------



## tarzana

Hey Asher,

It's hard to find a liberal liberal isn't it :lol: 

McCain 08 o=< 

Regards,
Tarzana

p.s. Bach was a conservative. :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Tarzana, that's just offensive. We've been having civil discussions here. When you bring Bach into it, you're offending my religion.


----------



## aeneas

tarzana @ Mon 25 Feb said:


> p.s. Bach was a conservative. :D


yeah but p.d.q. Bach wasn't.

he was rather 'conversative'...


----------



## SvK

Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch
(Washington Post Tues Feb, 16th 2008 by Dana Milbank)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502501_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01_pf.html)

"The Christian Science Monitor had assembled the Â¿minences grises of the Washington press corps -- among them David Broder of The Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and columnist Mark Shields -- for what turned out to be a fascinating tour of an alternate universe.

First came Harold Ickes, who gave a presentation about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects that severed all ties with reality. "We're on the way to locking this nomination down," he said of a candidate who appears, if anything, headed in the other direction."

wow

SvK


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 25 said:


> Spoken like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh combined, except with only one of their IQs.
> 
> Come on, Jay, you can do better than that!



I am a Centrist and am equally offended by left wing hypocrisy and right wing hypocrisy.

When The Times behaves like a Hearst paper, Centrist, Conservatives,and Liberals should have the integrity to say so. The proof of integrity is the willingness to condemn your own as well as those you are not allied with.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

A centrist is someone who is only wrong some of the time; a conservative is someone who's wrong all the time; a liberal (or at least this one) is someone who's right all the time. The more intelligent you are, the more liberal you are.

And you're wrong about the NY X. They were absolutely right to run that story, and it's shameful how the right wing has turned a legitimate concern about their candidate into an attack on the "liberal media" - itself a big myth.

You should have the integrity to agree with me.


----------



## tarzana

HI Nick,

did you see much coverage about Obama 'Backer' Rezko Ordered to Jail

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens. 

The letters appear to contradict a statement from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.'' :oops: 

you don't have any problem with the pass he is getting on this story?

Regards,
Tarzana 

p.s. on a sidenote... I 'm not sure how Bach being a conservative offends your religion.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Bach is my religion. Invoking his hallowed name to support vile conservative politics is sacrilege.

I hadn't heard that story about Obama, but are you really trying to argue that the reason the other one shouldn't have run is that this one didn't?


----------



## tarzana

Hi Nick,

Who did Bach worship?

 

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Not John effing McCain or any other politician.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Feb 26 said:


> A centrist is someone who is only wrong some of the time; a conservative is someone who's wrong all the time; a liberal (or at least this one) is someone who's right all the time. The more intelligent you are, the more liberal you are.
> 
> And you're wrong about the NY X. They were absolutely right to run that story, and it's shameful how the right wing has turned a legitimate concern about their candidate into an attack on the "liberal media" - itself a big myth.
> 
> You should have the integrity to agree with me.



How open minded of you. You are indeed a perfect example of a modern liberal.


----------



## Dave Connor

I'm with Nick on Bach.


----------



## tarzana

Hi Nick,

you believe associating Bach with conservative values is vile, yet you also say

"I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone or anything, Tarzana, but the point is that I'm not going to stop loving my wife if someone marries a whole herd of cattle"

someone marrying a cow is not vile to you. but conservative values are vile? :lol: 

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## midphase

Tarzana,

What makes conservative values 1000 times more vile than someone marrying a cow is that conservatives will attempt to shove their values down everybody else's throats....while the guy marrying the cow will live happily ever after never bothered by the fact that nobody else is marrying cows.


----------



## midphase

Can we also...once and for all stop bringing dead people whose affiliations we can only speculate on into political and religious discussions?

And yes...that goes for Jesus too and other semi-fictional characters.


----------



## aeneas

midphase @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> while the guy marrying the cow will live happily ever after never bothered by the fact that nobody else is marrying cows.


Yeah, but how about the poor cow, huh? Would the COW be happy? That's what a conservative would, rightfully, ask.



midphase @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> Can we also...once and for all stop bringing dead people whose affiliations we can only speculate on into political and religious discussions?
> 
> And yes...that goes for Jesus too and other semi-fictional characters.


... Like, say - Moses, Buddha, and Mohamed?


----------



## tarzana

Hi midphase,

"What makes conservative values 1000 times more vile than someone marrying a cow is that conservatives will attempt to shove their values down everybody else's throats"

why don't you check out this article and let me know who is shoving ideas down throats.. :oops: 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55429 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=55429)


Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## SvK

GWB sux
Intolerance sux
Border Fences suck
Opposing Gay marriage sux
The 2nd amendment sux
Most Republican Hair-cuts suck
Larry Craig sux
Evangelist ATM "Giving" machines suck
Chuck Norris sux
Loafers with tassles ala Sean Hannity suck
Sean Hannity sux
Christian Rock stinks

SvK


----------



## SvK

THE ULTIMATE IN G.O.P. FOOTWEAR


----------



## JB78

SvK @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> GWB sux
> Intolerance sux
> Border Fences suck
> Opposing Gay marriage sux
> The 2nd amendment sux
> Most Republican Hair-cuts suck
> Larry Craig sux
> Evangelist ATM "Giving" machines suck
> Chuck Norris sux
> Loafers with tassles ala Sean Hannity suck
> Sean Hannity sux
> Christian Rock stinks
> 
> SvK



+1

o-[][]-o 

Chuck Norris is hilarious though, he's just not doing it on purpose.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> GWB sux
> Intolerance sux
> Border Fences suck
> Opposing Gay marriage sux
> The 2nd amendment sux
> Most Republican Hair-cuts suck
> Larry Craig sux
> Evangelist ATM "Giving" machines suck
> Chuck Norris sux
> Loafers with tassles ala Sean Hannity suck
> Sean Hannity sux
> Christian Rock stinks
> 
> SvK



You write "intolerance sux" in a very intolerant post. So I can only conclude that you believe that tolerance is required for things that you thing should be tolerated but you are not willing to be tolerant in return.

I hope and trust that your candidate is not as shallow.


----------



## SvK

Asher

Shallow = "I am voting for Hillary because her husband was a great president!"
(Asher has actually posted this previously)

hehehe


SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Okay Jay, ignoring that SvK is kidding and you shouldn't be answering him seriously any more than I'm answering you seriously right now: do you honestly disagree with any of that list?

I mean, shouldn't wearing loafers with tassles carry a mandatory prison sentence?

And why is it a good thing to tolerate civil rights violations, which is what people who are opposed to gay marriage are guilty of advocating? Just because a lot of people are wrong collectively doesn't mean that there's anything the least bit respectable about their point of view. Some issues don't have two sides other than right and wrong.


----------



## aeneas

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed 27 Feb said:


> And what's wrong with marrying a cow?


I'll tell ya what's wrong with that! What's wrong with that is that you ignore that, in our democratic society, cows do have RIGHTS, alright? Cows may prefer bulls. Cows can be gay. You can't marry a cow without the cow's free expressed will. But if the cow takes the vow with you, then alright, I guess... 
~o)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

As long as it's mooootually consenting, I hoof no problem with it.


----------



## tarzana

Hello Obama supporters,

where is the logic to this answer....

"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.

"It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."


"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." :? 

"I said, 'Well, I would always reserve the right to go in and strike against al Qaeda if they were in Iraq,' so you know, this is how politics works," Obama said at a rally in Columbus. 

"I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets."

he sounds confused to me...

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> Asher
> 
> Shallow = "I am voting for Hillary because her husband was a great president!"
> (Asher has actually posted this previously)
> 
> hehehe
> 
> 
> SvK



Simply not true. What I said was that it was a nice plus that if you voted for Hillary you would know that she had as an advisor a husband that was a great president.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> Okay Jay, ignoring that SvK is kidding and you shouldn't be answering him seriously any more than I'm answering you seriously right now: do you honestly disagree with any of that list?
> 
> I mean, shouldn't wearing loafers with tassles carry a mandatory prison sentence?
> 
> And why is it a good thing to tolerate civil rights violations, which is what people who are opposed to gay marriage are guilty of advocating? Just because a lot of people are wrong collectively doesn't mean that there's anything the least bit respectable about their point of view. Some issues don't have two sides other than right and wrong.



Actually, to agree, I do.

1. I think gays are entitled to a civil union with all the legal rights a marriage has, I just don't think it should be called marriage because I believe that by definition it is not.

2. I believe people have the right to have firearms but I also believe that it should be licensed after demonstrated proficiency, much like a driver's license I draw the line at Uzis however.

3. i have not made up my mind about the loafers yet.


----------



## aeneas

Ashermusic @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> it was a nice plus that if you voted for Hillary you would know that she had as an advisor a husband that was a great president.


I honestly think that his father advices were a great plus for GWB. Imagine him having a different father...


----------



## SvK

Asher here is your quote:

"I still think Bill Clinton was one of the two best presidents in my lifetime and I would happily elect him again if I could. But since I cannot, Hillary will do. "

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... &start=105

Gotcha 

SvK


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> Asher here is your quote:
> 
> "I still think Bill Clinton was one of the two best presidents in my lifetime and I would happily elect him again if I could. But since I cannot, Hillary will do. "
> 
> http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... &start=105
> 
> Gotcha
> 
> SvK



Gotcha? How childish.

That was one quote that is part of a much longer discussion where I outlined my reasons for voting for Hillary.

Which is of course exactly the type of tactic your candidate's team is employing.

oh allright, so is mine


----------



## Ashermusic

aeneas @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu 28 Feb said:
> 
> 
> 
> it was a nice plus that if you voted for Hillary you would know that she had as an advisor a husband that was a great president.
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly think that his father advices were a great plus for GWB. Imagine him having a different father...
Click to expand...


W notoriously did not seek his father's advice as he wanted to be more conservative than his father. If he had listened more to his father and less to Cheney, Rumsfeld and Connie his presidency perhaps would have been more successful.

Or not.


----------



## JonFairhurst

In 2016 are we supposed to vote for Jeb, Laura or Barbara? And the following decade (after Chelsea), which of the twins are we supposed to elect? 

This is all so confusing. A single royal family with clear lines of succession would be so much simpler.


----------



## rgames

midphase @ Wed Feb 27 said:


> What makes conservative values 1000 times more vile than someone marrying a cow is that conservatives will attempt to shove their values down everybody else's throats



And how many overtly pro-conservative posts have come through on this forum? Ok - now - how many times have we seen "Go Obama!"?

Regarding health care: where is an example of socialized health care that works? I'm all for making health care universally available but I don't think it makes sense to do it via government sponsorship. That's just another layer of cost and red tape. I'm 100% open to the idea that it could work, I just don't see how.

Regarding war mongering: rest assured that nobody on this board has all the information about threats against the US. We should temper our accusations of war mongering against that knowledge.

Regarding pandering to special interests and earmarks: look up McCain's record as compared to that of Clinton or Obama. And Bush's defense spending and McCain's plans? Well, check the appropriations bills and have a look at those earmarks. The president relies on his advisors, the Joint Chiefs, etc. to come up with a budget for what the military really needs. Then congress trashes a bunch of those requests, throws in their earmarks, and hands them a bunch of expensive programs they never requested.

No president has ever spent a single dollar on defense. Congress spends the money, and a lot of it is spent on programs the DoD neither wants nor needs. Then congress goes and blames the president for spending so much money on defense (and, unfortunately, the unaware American public listens to them). What a racket!

rgames


----------



## SvK

Rgames.....

The reason you have more Obama threads or "Dem" leaning threads on this forum is due to the Conservatives on this board not starting any............feel free.

So we Dems are motivated this time, just as your peeps were in 2000.

Start a McCain thread..nothing stopping you.

SvK


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

rgames @ 28/2/2008 said:


> Regarding health care: where is an example of socialized health care that works? I'm all for making health care universally available but I don't think it makes sense to do it via government sponsorship.



It's funny, you know, but I often hear on tv some US talking heads who are against government-funded healthcare point to Canada as an example of how that doesn't work. They point to the waiting for operations and such. Well, I have been hospitalized a number of times. I have had two serious operations, and they were scheduled very quickly. Yes, I've waited for hours in emergency wards, but that seems to be universal. Man, if I had to pay directly for some of these interventions or haggle with an insurer... >8o 

I'd rather have higher taxes and bigger government. Sounds weird? Nah, it just depends where you live and what you're accustomed to (higher education fees at 20% of what they are in the US, for eg).


----------



## JB78

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> rgames @ 28/2/2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding health care: where is an example of socialized health care that works? I'm all for making health care universally available but I don't think it makes sense to do it via government sponsorship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, you know, but I often hear on tv some US talking heads who are against government-funded healthcare point to Canada as an example of how that doesn't work. They point to the waiting for operations and such. Well, I have been hospitalized a number of times. I have had two serious operations, and they were scheduled very quickly. Yes, I've waited for hours in emergency wards, but that seems to be universal. Man, if I had to pay directly for some of these interventions or haggle with an insurer... >8o
> 
> I'd rather have higher taxes and bigger government. Sounds weird? Nah, it just depends where you live and what you're accustomed to (higher education fees at 20% of what they are in the US, for eg).
Click to expand...


Works about the same way here in Sweden, I would certainly NOT want to go the American route regarding health care.

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

People who can afford it will continue to pay more than their insurance covers to get better care. The point is that we have millions of people in the US who have *no* care, and that's not good.

Of course there are going to be problems and compromises with socialized medicine. But it's better than nothing, and I don't like the alternative of too many people not getting healthcare.

We could have the same discussion about public education. It's socialized too, of course. Do we have problems with our public education system? Well, the answer to that for me is personal: we may be paying $25,000 a year (!) for my daughter to go to private high school; her public middle school is a fricking "standards-based" disaster that's leaving kids behind.

But I still believe in public education, and actually her elementary school was great.


----------



## David A

As an British citizen gazing through a clear window to America, I personally think fundamental flaws lie with the privatization of education and health care-with the latter being a significant reason SO MANY AMERICANS end up bankrupt, and the former contributing HUGELY to social tension and neglect of unfortunate groups who may be the most talented in the world, but simply cannot afford to go to university. I think in order for America to rise as the great country it claims to be-these two things need SERIOUS AMENDMENT. Education should be free-for ALL of you who are reading this. Yes-YOU too! When I look at the price tags on degrees in America, it sickens me-really. Capitalism gone wrong...the best colleges only for the select few who can afford it. 

But it doesnt stop there-this philosophy extends throughout US society, seemingly irrespective of hard work, and is a reason so many Americans love our country! (Im no socialist, I have a lot of American friends.)

Why these CRUCIAL aspects of your lives NOT free? Because the government you choose to elect would rather spend billions in nuclear defense and security programs....a RADICAL change needs to take place. 

Anyway-thats my 2 pence.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I basically agree with you, David, but it's worth pointing out that we do have free education. And if you find the right schools, it's very good - including college.

In England the meanings of "public" and "private" are reversed, but I went to a school with tuition (Haberdashers' Aske's in Hertfordshire) for a year, and I can tell you that at least in 1968 the tiered system of education was very much alive in England. Things have changed since then, I'm sure, but I'm not convinced that there's as much of a difference from the US system as you think.


----------



## midphase

"Regarding health care: where is an example of socialized health care that works? I'm all for making health care universally available but I don't think it makes sense to do it via government sponsorship. That's just another layer of cost and red tape. I'm 100% open to the idea that it could work, I just don't see how. "

Richard,

Just because in some other countries in the world, public health care doesn't function as efficiently as it should, why shouldn't the US set an example on how to do it right? If your opposition is coming primarily from reading articles on what is wrong with it overseas (since you really and truly don't know by personal experience...last time I checked, Virginia didn't have socialized health care), then by the same logic, the US should refrain from doing 99% of the things it does since they work so crappily in other countries (from Social Security, to a National Defense).

That to me makes no sense, I think there is an opportunity here for the US to show the rest of the world how it can be done, and done well.

As a self-employed freelance composer, I would think that you out of all people would be in favor of a government plan that would allow you to go to a doctor when you need to. The people who are primarily opposed to socialized health care, and the ones who have no problem affording privatized care, but the reality is that a huge portion of the population can not afford it, and for them even a crappy "euro-style" public health care plan is better than nothing.


----------



## midphase

Just to add.....

...It never ceases to amaze me how the people who are the most negatively impacted by the conservative/republican agendas are also some of the staunchest supporters of that party. The poor, the underprivileged and undereducated are primarily the ones who put Bush in power.

It just blows me away!!! And for a freelance composer....someone who generally pays less taxes than most (we can get away with murder when it comes to writeoffs), to be opposing some sort of government sponsored health care plan is absurd.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

midphase @ 28/2/2008 said:


> ...It never ceases to amaze me how the people who are the most negatively impacted by the conservative/republican agendas are also some of the staunchest supporters of that party. The poor, the underprivileged and undereducated are primarily the ones who put Bush in power.



It's really easy to understand, actually. You just have to be excellent at staying the course, and repeating the same thing over and over again, especially if it's the opposite of reality. Keep It Simple Stupid: no new taxes, no government intervention, guns equal freedom, Saddam equals Al Qaeda, Democrats are liberals (very bad word: our generation's analogy to the red scare of communism), pot leads to violent crime, we're turning a corner - good times ahead!


----------



## tarzana

Hi midphase,

to put things in perspective, here's something you might find interesting....

In what parts of the world is the life expectancy higher?

Japan is often cited as an example.

Interestingly, Japan spends a much lower percentage of its resources on health care than Americans do. Japan spends only 6.8 per cent of its gross domestic product on health care, compared to almost 7 in the US. 

Eat well, exercise, don't smoke, don't be anxious.... Preventative medicine...

forget this pill for every ill solution....

the answer is not in amazing new technology, but in commons sense ...

ask any honest health care provider...

the message is clear; good medical services may play a small part in improving
life expectancy but the 'lifestyle' of the population and a proactive approach
from the government in encouraging exercise, healthy nutrition and moderation 
in alcohol consumption are much more important'


Doctors can treat the sick and help the disabled, but there role in extending life
is limited compared to the potential of health education.

Regards,
Tarzana :D


----------



## midphase

Tarzana,

You'll get no argument from me as to the benefits of good healthy lifestyle....but could you please show me some examples on how our government is going about popularizing such health benefits as trying to stay off of medications, turn towards a vegetarian lifestyle and above all excercise regularly?

Last time I checked, Pharmaceutical lobbying groups are some of the most powerful ones, the government backs the meat industry with massive handouts and extremely loose FDA regulations, and if someone were to even mention the idea of lessening our 40-hour workweek to make some room for people to exercise they'd be run out of town.

I'm all for a multi-pronged approach, but I have too many friends (most of them actors) who can't afford any health insurance whatsoever and if they feel sick they end up sticking it out and hoping for the best. 

As long as we can not provide basic health care for the less fortunate ones in our society, we can not call ourselves civilized and certainly not act like we're the leading act that the rest of the world should follow!


----------



## midphase

To quote Spiderman

"With great power comes great responsibility"

If the US wants to be the world's leading power...it better start working on the responsibility part!


----------



## John DeBorde

midphase @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> To quote Spiderman
> 
> "With great power comes great responsibility"
> 
> If the US wants to be the world's leading power...it better start working on the responsibility part!



Technically, it was Spidey's Uncle Ben that said that, but we'll let you slide this time. Check your ubergeek card to make sure it hasn't lapsed, you wouldn't want to get in trouble in case you're stopped at a check point. >8o


----------



## aeneas

John DeBorde @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> midphase @ Thu Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Spiderman
> 
> "With great power comes great responsibility"
> 
> If the US wants to be the world's leading power...it better start working on the responsibility part!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, it was Spidey's Uncle Ben that said that,
Click to expand...

At his turn, Uncle Sam (pardon, Ben) most likely has been read it somewhere, maybe here: “Power without responsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages” — Rudyard Kipling
o


----------



## rgames

The problem with health care is that it's just so friggin' expensive. Whether you pay for it in taxes or via a private insurer won't matter: it's still going to cost way too much. All that taxation does is subsidize those enormous costs for those who don't currently pay for it. So why is it so expensive? Some has to do with the health care industry, for sure, but a lot also has to do with government regulations. I really believe that removing the government from the picture (as much as possible) is the best way to get those costs down. Then everybody can afford it.

And education: that's a local issue, not a federal one. Primary schools should reflect the communities they serve (mostly, they do). And secondary education: no way should we send everyone to college! I'm already unimpressed with 50% of college degrees; for those people, it's a total waste of time and they seldom use any of their education. And most of them paid for it out of their own pockets! If we could just get everyone to agree that not everybody needs a degree, then we'd all be much better off. Except for those schools that rely on those students, of course.

Hey - we could put all that money towards health care! Let's take all of the tax money that funds degrees for people who never use them and put it to health care! I'll be running in 2012 on that platform, unless Nader picks it up.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Some has to do with the health care industry, for sure, but a lot also has to do with government regulations. I really believe that removing the government from the picture (as much as possible) is the best way to get those costs down. Then everybody can afford it."

What basis could you possibly have to make that specious claim, Richard? Tell me one way government regulation has raised the cost of healthcare unnecessarily.

From my perspective I think about the research the NIH funds, the FDA drug approval process that protect us, the money the government spends on public health issues such as inoculations and anti-smoking campaigns (the number of deaths and new smokers went way up a soon as they were stopped)...and on and on.

Healthcare is expensive because it simply is. But for heaven's sake, what could be more worth spending money on! Nothing means anything without your health.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And may I suggest you read "The Elephant and the Dragon" by Robin Meredith. It's all about the rise of India and China, who both turn out several times as many college graduates as we do every year, most of whom are competing with us for the same jobs.

The idea that most people don't need degrees couldn't be farther from the reality of what's going on in the world. Our population is going to have to be better and better educated...starting right now!


----------



## midphase

"I really believe that removing the government from the picture (as much as possible) is the best way to get those costs down. Then everybody can afford it. "

Oh boy....you mean like right now? Yeah....private health care is soooo cheap! Because we all know that when you let big businesses self-regulate themselves, the first thing they do is drop their prices!


----------



## aeneas

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu 28 Feb said:


> And may I suggest you read "The Elephant and the Dragon" by Robin Meredith. It's all about the rise of India and China, who both turn out several times as many college graduates as we do every year, most of whom are competing with us for the same jobs.


So, that guy thinks in terms of "them" vs. "us". Do you subscribe to that way of seeing things? But first, why are ethnic origins important for jobs? Then, second - what does prevent "Whites and Blacks" from having several times as many college graduates as "Hindu and Chinese" do every year? Third - is there some sort of a competition going on, like: "The race of the most _graduated_ race"? 

Elephants and Dragons, huh? How about talking of blacks and whites in terms of Crocodiles and Vipers? (o)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Robin Meredith is a woman - a totally impressive one - and that post is your typical argumentative bullshit that has nothing to do with anything. Nobody is taking an "us vs. them" attitude; the point is that all of a sudden there are several times as many college graduates competing for the same jobs. And most of those graduates work for much less than we do in the West.

Spin that however you want. It's reality. If you think the world isn't changing due to the rise of India and China, you've got another thing coming.


----------



## aeneas

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri 29 Feb said:


> that post is your typical argumentative [email protected]#t that has nothing to do with anything.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. So you refuse to address ethnicity, although that title seems to imply that ethnicity is rather important. Tell me though: do you feel threatened by those ALIENS graduates? Are they a problem? For what? For the progress of the humanity? Is the problem: those graduates being Indians and Chinese? What is dangerous about that, in your opinion? Perhaps their race? Perhaps, their qualities? Are you afraid that some of your fellow Americans will prove unable to keep pace with those ALIENS? Are you afraid that some of your fellow Americans will have to go south to babysit in Mexico? :o

Also, the world is changing, of course - it ever has been. But, how do you see this "rise of the Elephant and the Dragon" - do you see it as a good change or as a bad change? Good (or bad) for what? For the progress of the humanity? Judging upon those two metaphors, they might look sort of threatening to the average American reader... I mean - compared to an Elephant, or a Dragon, poor dear Eagle will look more like a sparrow, or like a robin...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Aeneas, this is why people get frustrated with you. You're a smart guy, but you always insist on picking over everything until you find something to argue about. In this case you've created a whole non-issue and won't stop until you've goaded me into addressing it.

The title of the book implies nothing ethnocentric, nor does that have anything to do with anything I mentioned. Elephants and dragons are symbols of those countries that have been around for ages, and you know it - you're just being argumentative for sport.

At my expense, which is really irritating.

Is the rise - really re-rise - of India China good or bad? Well, it's good for the people who are being lifted out of abject poverty, it's good for companies that are able to save money by sending jobs to them, it's good for consumers who get lower priced goods and services. It's bad for people who lose their jobs here, and it's especially bad for everyone that China (but not only China) is doing this as cheaply as possible and therefore creating an ecological disaster that doesn't only affect their environment, it affects the whole world.

Am I afraid that mah fellow Amahricans won't be able to keep pace? Well, it's a concern for everyone in this country and the West - not so much "keeping pace," but adapting. We need job training, etc. India and China will also need to create jobs, by the way - things are changing there too.

Now go read the book and come back when you're done.


----------



## rgames

midphase said:


> Oh boy....you mean like right now? Yeah....private health care is soooo cheap! Because we all know that when you let big businesses self-regulate themselves, the first thing they do is drop their prices!



That's precisely the point: healthcare is too expensive. By turning it over to the government, we won't be replacing the infrastructure that already exists. We will simply be adding to it and making it more expensive...



midphase said:


> The idea that most people don't need degrees couldn't be farther from the reality of what's going on in the world. Our population is going to have to be better and better educated...starting right now!



Degree and Education: you can get one and not the other. You can also get both. You can also get neither. I agree with you on education. I disagree with you on degrees because there are many people for whom a degree is detracting from their education.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Richard, the idea is to replace some of the existing infrastructure, but mainly to provide healthcare to people who can't afford it right now.

And while I was the one who wrote the second quote, not Midphase, we agree. Congratulations for having such an excellent opinion.


----------



## aeneas

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri 29 Feb said:


> Aeneas, this is why people get frustrated with you.


"People"? Well, I feel sorry for the nice "people" who might get frustrated with "me". If "they" get frustrated with "me", then methinks these "people" you are talking about would benefit more from getting frustrated with "their" own perception of what "they" understand from "my" posts. The former is a negative frustration, the latter would be a positive one. 

From your response, I still sense that those two stereotyped metaphors are used in a negative way, to scare the "we-the-West" people about those numerous, intelligent, educated, skilled, committed, ALIENS. Yet I'd say: So what if one individual is Indian (or Chinese)? So what if two individuals, one hundred individuals, ten million individuals are Indian (or Chinese)? People should always be evaluated as individuals, and one's ethnicity should never be a problem, IMHO.

_"Now go read the book and come back when you're done."_
First, I would never read a book with that title and based on that racist/nationalist presumption and obsolete paradigm - it offends my belief that race and ethnicity do not matter in a civilized world. Second, I could as well send you to some places (to read, to learn, to educate yourself, etc.), along with the indication to "come back when you're done". That would be easy, impolite, and low - way under my standards of addressing a person. I could hardly imagine an Indian graduated individual (or a Chinese one) making that remark. Maybe the only real problem is that some arrogant "Westerners" do ignore the fact that they have a lot to learn from Indian and Chinese people.


----------



## SvK

TO ALL OBAMA SUPPORTERS ON THIS BLOG!!!

Ohio, Texas,

vote this Tuesday!

We need all the help we can get to make calls to Ohio this week-end!
Making calls is dead-easy as a script is provided........It's hard to get out of one's comfort zone, but look at it this way, this is the FINAL push......and it feels so rewarding....

Anyway, log on to:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

set up a profile and call away!

thanx so much,

SvK


----------



## Bruce Richardson

rgames @ Thu Feb 28 said:


> And secondary education: no way should we send everyone to college! I'm already unimpressed with 50% of college degrees; for those people, it's a total waste of time and they seldom use any of their education.



I am appalled to hear you say this. Regardless of whether a person "uses" an education, education uplifts all of society by celebrating and spreading knowledge.

Even if I weren't using my eductation (which I do, and for which I am thankful every day of my life), I would speak better, write better, relate my daily experience to history better, and hopefully, spread what I have been given to others.

The problem with our society was well predicted by a Republican of impeccable character and vision. Or didn't they teach you that in college?

B.


----------



## Fernando Warez

WOW! America needs moreò4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ	4Ï   qæ
4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ 4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæ4Ï   qæI4Ï   qæJ4Ï   qæK4Ï   qæL4Ï   qæM4Ï   qæN4Ï   qæO4Ï   qæP4Ï   qæQ4Ï   qæR4Ï   qæS4Ï   qæT4Ï   qæU4Ï   qæV4Ï   qæW4Ï   qæX4Ï   qæY4Ï   qæZ4Ï   qæ[4Ï   qæ\4Ï   qæ]4Ï   qæ^4Ï   qæ_4Ï   qæ`4Ï   qæa4Ï   qæb4Ï   qæc4Ï   qæd4Ï   qæe4Ï   qæf4Ï   qæg4Ï   qæh4Ï


----------



## tarzana

To all pro choice ....

does not the baby have a choice.....

There are approximately 1.3 million little people (not "fertilized eggs") murdered every year. Times that by how many years it's been since Roe v. Wade and you have a lot of slaughtered children. More American babies are killed every single year than American soldiers in all the wars put together . 

you were crying alligator tears over the American casualties... but oddly enough the 
daily counting has been dropped from the media cycle ... 


Regards,
Tarzana :( 

p.s. I read on this forum somewhere "don't like your neighbour...kill 'em...."
but i bet that same mentality of mocking republilcans have no problem with
killing babies... :oops:


----------



## JonFairhurst

tarzana,

I think that you would agree that Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned this year. So how can we minimize the number of abortions in 2008?

The answer is to provide easy access to free birth control and sex education. The message should be abstinence first, and when all else fails, use birth control - and use it properly.

Unfortunately, the same groups who are against abortion also tend to be against birth control access programs and sex education that promotes birth control. 

Preventing unwanted pregnancies prevents abortions more effectively than criminal law ever could.


----------



## aeneas

_«Preventing unwanted pregnancies»_
That doesn't smell very good to me... Have you consider that there are very high chances that DaVinci, Martin Luther, Bach, Newton, Einstein, Obama, Hillary, etc. are 'results' of "unwanted pregnancies"? What would make "wanted pregnancies" more desirable than "unwanted pregnancies"? Also, how one can tell wanted from unwanted? Wanted/unwanted by whom? Do humans need to be 'wanted' in order to be born? Says who? Who has the right to decide that a human being must not be born? Decision right coming from where?


----------



## tarzana

Hello,

Christian you said,

"There is no pradox in being pro-choice and yet still cry over the deaths of US soldiers. For instance it's intuitive to most people to equate conciousness and the value of life. Most would agree killing an ant is less of a problem than killing a goldfish, and rather a goldfish than a dog etc. Add to this the real-world effects of the death of a soldier and the severe impact it has on family, friends and collegues."

a fetus is a human life .... more valuable than any animal... and you are saying it is perfectly ok to kill a defenseless life... 

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Christian Marcussen

tarzana @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Christian you said,
> 
> "There is no pradox in being pro-choice and yet still cry over the deaths of US soldiers. For instance it's intuitive to most people to equate conciousness and the value of life. Most would agree killing an ant is less of a problem than killing a goldfish, and rather a goldfish than a dog etc. Add to this the real-world effects of the death of a soldier and the severe impact it has on family, friends and collegues."
> 
> a fetus is a human life .... more valuable than any animal... and you are saying it is perfectly ok to kill a defenseless life...
> 
> Regards,
> Tarzana



No - There are many good reasons why killing defenseless life is not ok. But being of the human species is _in itself_ not one of them. Instead things like the ability to feel pain, social relations, conciousness and survivability are more important factors in my view. And this is to say nothing of the wishes, aspirations and circumstances of the parents. 

I guess my point is that there is a difference between a _person_ and a being a fetus. And for that reason I object to equating abortions with the deaths of persons.


----------



## JonFairhurst

aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:


> _«Preventing unwanted pregnancies»_
> That doesn't smell very good to me... Have you consider that there are very high chances that DaVinci, Martin Luther, Bach, Newton, Einstein, Obama, Hillary, etc. are 'results' of "unwanted pregnancies"? What would make "wanted pregnancies" more desirable than "unwanted pregnancies"? Also, how one can tell wanted from unwanted? Wanted/unwanted by whom? Do humans need to be 'wanted' in order to be born? Says who? Who has the right to decide that a human being must not be born? Decision right coming from where?



aeneas, are you seriously arguing against birth control, vasectomies, etc? That adults should not have the ability or right to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

My suggestion: do not debate abortion with Aeneas or Tarzana.


----------



## tarzana

Hi Christian,

you said 
"No - There are many good reasons why killing defenseless life is not ok. But being of the human species is in itself not one of them. Instead things like the ability to feel pain, social relations, conciousness and survivability are more important factors in my view. And this is to say nothing of the wishes, aspirations and circumstances of the parents. "

Are we to then consider which lives are of greater value...

should we consider killing babies that are disabled ?

there was a book titlled Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life. 
Its authors were two of the most respected academics in their respective fields: Karl Binding was a renowned law professor, and Alfred Hoche a physician and humanitarian.The authors accepted wholeheartedly that people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life." They promoted euthanasia in these circumstances as "purely a healing treatment" and a "healing work"--justified as a splendid way to relieve suffering while saving money spent on caring for the disabled.

Dutch doctors have engaged in infanticide for more than 15 years. 
IN 2004, Groningen University Medical Center made international headlines when it admitted to permitting pediatric euthanasia and published the "Groningen Protocol," infanticide guidelines the hospital followed when killing 22 disabled newborns between 1997 and 2004. 

The "livableness" of a newborn's life is determined by a combination of factors, including the following:


* The expected measure of suffering (not only bodily but also emotional--the level of hopelessness)

* The expected potential for communication and human relationships, independence (ability to move, to care for oneself, to live independently), self-realization (being able to hear, read, write, labor), and the like.

* The child's life expectancy.


If the infant's "prospects" didn't measure up, the child could be euthanized. 


if we don't respect all life then we continue down this slippery slope ...

pro choice? again does not the fetus have a choice?

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## aeneas

JonFairhurst @ Sun 02 Mar said:


> aeneas @ Sun Mar 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _«Preventing unwanted pregnancies»_
> That doesn't smell very good to me... Have you consider that there are very high chances that DaVinci, Martin Luther, Bach, Newton, Einstein, Obama, Hillary, etc. are 'results' of "unwanted pregnancies"? What would make "wanted pregnancies" more desirable than "unwanted pregnancies"? Also, how one can tell wanted from unwanted? Wanted/unwanted by whom? Do humans need to be 'wanted' in order to be born? Says who? Who has the right to decide that a human being must not be born? Decision right coming from where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aeneas, are you seriously arguing against birth control, vasectomies, etc?
Click to expand...

No, I am not arguing, I'm only asking those questions above. 




> That adults should not have the ability or right to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?


I was questioning the expression "unwanted pregnancy". My questions were addressing mainly that expression. "Unwanted pregnancy" is a confusing expression to me. My questions are in bona fide, I would really like to learn from the answers.


----------



## JonFairhurst

My understanding of "unwanted pregnancy" always refers to the wishes of the potential parents, and typically the female. Technically, it could include the "wants" of other family members, employers or even the state, but I've never heard it used as such.

In the context of birth control, "unwanted pregnancy" would always refer to the plans of those using (or not using) the birth control. 

Unwanted pregnancies can be avoided before the fact as in: "let's use birth control, since we don't want to get pregnant." My point is that this is preferable to 1) people having babies that they don't want, or 2) having an abortion after the fact.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Tarzana... yes some life is worth more than others. And put to the test in the real world you would likely come to the same conclusion.

:twisted:


----------



## Ashermusic

Tarzana, this is perhaps the most morally difficult issue on the planet and I greatly respect the sincere beliefs of "pro-life" people like yourself.

But in my mind, a fetus in the early stages is a blueprint for a life, not a life and therefore does not have the full rights of the woman who will have to raise it. 

That said, I think abortion as merely a form of birth control is callous and reprehensible and should be condemned, as even a blueprint for life deserves more respect than that.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Ashermusic @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> That said, I think abortion as merely a form of birth control is callous and reprehensible and should be condemned, as even a blueprint for life deserves more respect than that.



Well said - I agree 100%.


----------



## Moonchilde

Ashermusic @ March 3rd 2008 said:


> Tarzana, this is perhaps the most morally difficult issue on the planet and I greatly respect the sincere beliefs of "pro-life" people like yourself.
> 
> But in my mind, a fetus in the early stages is a blueprint for a life, not a life and therefore does not have the full rights of the woman who will have to raise it.
> 
> That said, I think abortion as merely a form of birth control is callous and reprehensible and should be condemned, as even a blueprint for life deserves more respect than that.



This is coming from someone pro-choice. I have to disagree. A fetus is still a life. When aborting, you are still killing something living. However, there are degrees of living things and of course, this topic is usually a choice between lesser evils. To kill something still in the pre-developed stage or to bring an unwanted child into the world who will probably grow up with mountains of social issues heaped on top of it? I'd take the former, but not everyone will. At least right now, we have that choice.

To put things into perspective, life goes all the way down to the microscopic level, so even the "blueprints" are living cells.

Agree 100% on abortion as birth control. Thats a pretty poor excuse, and a slap in the face to those women who really do need it for legitimate reasons.


----------



## almacg

Bruce Richardson @ Sat 01 Mar said:


> rgames @ Thu Feb 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And secondary education: no way should we send everyone to college! I'm already unimpressed with 50% of college degrees; for those people, it's a total waste of time and they seldom use any of their education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am appalled to hear you say this. Regardless of whether a person "uses" an education, education uplifts all of society by celebrating and spreading knowledge.
> 
> Even if I weren't using my eductation (which I do, and for which I am thankful every day of my life), I would speak better, write better, relate my daily experience to history better, and hopefully, spread what I have been given to others.
> 
> The problem with our society was well predicted by a Republican of impeccable character and vision. Or didn't they teach you that in college?
> 
> B.
Click to expand...


I believe in equal oppurtunities, but if everyone goes to college/university, no-one will learn trades: eg, building, plumbing, decoration etc. College and university most certainly is NOT for everyone. A lot of degrees are being dumbed down just so that the government can reach the 50% target. A lot of newfangled degrees are being added to the curriculum, which are a complete waste of time. Again the only reason they are added is so that the government can reach their 50% target. Sending everyone to college/university is the worst idea in the world.


----------



## tarzana

Hello ,

Christian you said 
"some life is worth more than others. "

are you in agreement with this viewpoint....

people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life." 


Regards,
Tarzana :cry:


----------



## Moonchilde

tarzana @ March 3rd 2008 said:


> Hello ,
> 
> Christian you said
> "some life is worth more than others. "
> 
> are you in agreement with this viewpoint....
> 
> people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Tarzana :cry:



Do you eat meat? This is the problem I have with you folks. You're suposedly Pro-life and pull that all life is sacred BS out of your ass, but then turn around and eat meat. If all life is truly equal, then surely you do not eat meat. Or are you going to contradict yourself here? If you eat plants, then you're contradicting yourself as well, since plants are truly living things. But I bet you put plants below animals, and animals below humans, correct?

Are animals life unworthy of life? Are plants life unworthy of life? Life is life, correct? So it should all be equal, correct? Ideally, this would be wonderful. Unfortunately, in reality, not all life is equal.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> Hello ,
> 
> Christian you said
> "some life is worth more than others. "
> 
> are you in agreement with this viewpoint....
> 
> people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Tarzana



No I don't agree as a general statement. 

However I do support voluntary euthanasia under some circumstances. 

I don't think we should pass judgement whether or not a _persons_ life is "worth living" (where do we stop - right after Britney Spears fans?) . However I do think there are cases where you _could_ pass such judgement - namely when a human being loses all the characteristics which make it a person. But no, I don't think we should be making such distinctions. My main reason for that is "what if we are wrong?"... the same reason you ought to be against the death penalty.  



> Do you eat meat? This is the problem I have with you folks. You're suposedly Pro-life and pull that all life is sacred BS out of your ass, but then turn around and eat meat. If all life is truly equal, then surely you do not eat meat. Or are you going to contradict yourself here? If you eat plants, then you're contradicting yourself as well, since plants are truly living things. But I bet you put plants below animals, and animals below humans, correct?



It's because pro-life is mostly founded religiously, and as such has a human focus. _Human life_ is sacred because we are Gods favorites - we are made in his image. But to bring back death penalty - I find it strange how you can be pro-life, and beleive that judgement is passed bu God - and yet still have no problem with the death penalty. That I find a bit odd...


----------



## Moonchilde

Christian Marcussen @ March 3rd 2008 said:


> It's because pro-life is mostly founded religiously, and as such has a human focus. _Human life_ is sacred because we are Gods favorites - we are made in his image. But to bring back death penalty - I find it strange how you can be pro-life, and beleive that judgement is passed bu God - and yet still have no problem with the death penalty. That I find a bit odd...



Is this in reference to me? Or "you" as in pro-lifers in general? If so, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty, just to clear that up.

My problem with "pro-lifers" is that they'll say life is sacred. Whenever I point out that animals and plants are living, and other microscopic organisms, it changes to human life. That bugs me! Why is a small little cluster of human cells more worthy of life than a living animal like a cow? Oh because the cow is tasty and god said we're special :roll: 

In the real world, life lives off life and that is how it is. Some life is below others, its how nature works. Pro-lifers live off other's lives every single day, and don't think a second about it.


----------



## tarzana

Hello,

I can turn the arguement around and say...

you are concerned for the man being executed for crimes commited...

but are ok with killing innocent,defenseless life...

you are concerned with the humane treatment of animals...

but have no problem with piercing the back of the neck of a baby and sucking out its brains as an acceptable medical practice ... 

how sad....

Regards,
Tarzana

p.s. Christian you speak
as a true darwinist....

eliminating the unfit. :(


----------



## tarzana

Hello,

Embryos are living human beings with eternal souls and spirits. You just have to refrain from killing one to see what a precious child it is." 

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## tarzana

Christian,

Why you need to obscure the abhorrence of abortion with indictments of religious intolerance, I’m not quite sure. All a person needs is a brain, a conscience, and a sliver of heart to view abortion not as a “procedure”, but as the ending of a baby’s life. Pro-abortionists argue “mother’s health” to legitimize horrific 2nd/3rd term abortions. Face facts, the vast majority of abortions are performed out of convenience, not to save a woman’s life. I have multiple adopted friends who have tracked down their biological mother to say “thank you” for giving them life instead of discarding them as trash. 

Regards,
Tarzana


----------



## Moonchilde

tarzana @ March 3rd 2008 said:


> Christian,
> 
> Why you need to obscure the abhorrence of abortion with indictments of religious intolerance, I’m not quite sure. All a person needs is a brain, a conscience, and a sliver of heart to view abortion not as a “procedure”, but as the ending of a baby’s life. Pro-abortionists argue “mother’s health” to legitimize horrific 2nd/3rd term abortions. Face facts, the vast majority of abortions are performed out of convenience, not to save a woman’s life. I have multiple adopted friends who have tracked down their biological mother to say “thank you” for giving them life instead of discarding them as trash.
> 
> Regards,
> Tarzana



This is a GROSS exaggeration of abortion practices! 92% are done medically via drugs in the first tri-mester! 

Stop spreading fear marketing tactics!


----------



## Moonchilde

tarzana @ March 3rd 2008 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Embryos are living human beings with eternal souls and spirits. You just have to refrain from killing one to see what a precious child it is."
> 
> Regards,
> Tarzana



Hey, do you ever scratch your balls when they itch? Because lawd awmighty, you're destroying mass amounts of ball sack skin cells! Man, every time I scratch, I'm going on a sack skin cell holocaust!

Embryos are just microscopic cells, just like the rest of the cells that make up your body. Hope you can live with the knowledge that you are committing mass murder every day of your life.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

tarzana @ Mon Mar 03 said:


> Christian,
> 
> Why you need to obscure the abhorrence of abortion with indictments of religious intolerance, I’m not quite sure. *All a person needs is a brain, a conscience, and a sliver of heart to view abortion not as a “procedure”, but as the ending of a baby’s life. Pro-abortionists argue “mother’s health” to legitimize horrific 2nd/3rd term abortions. Face facts, the vast majority of abortions are performed out of convenience, not to save a woman’s life*. I have multiple adopted friends who have tracked down their biological mother to say “thank you” for giving them life instead of discarding them as trash.
> 
> Regards,
> Tarzana



Face the facts? Perhaps you should look up what the hell your talking about because they clearly aren't the facts. You are either misinformed or lying. 

And I dont know where you get the religious intolerance from. I was meerly explaining why you pro-lifers hold especially human life sacred and not animal life. I think I did so in a pretty accurate way. You on the other hand talk about "all you need is a brain"... hmm... 



> Embryos are living human beings with eternal souls and spirits.



Do they? You may _beleive_ that all you will... Just like you may beleive in resurrections, virgin births, and pending judgement day. But when you ask us to "face the facts" you may want to stick to them yourself.


----------



## tarzana

Moonchilde,

who decides when life begins?

who decides what lives are worthless?

Regards,
Tarzana

you can call it a fertilized cell.. I believe it is a human life...

we can agree to disagree.... unfortunately one of us is wrong....


----------



## JB78

Women using it as some sort of deranged birth-control obviously have issues running farò6A   rRÂ6A   rRÃ6A   rRÄ6A   rRÅ6A   rRÆ6A   rRÇ6A   rRÈ6A   rRÉ6A   rRÊ6A   rRË6A   rRÌ6A   rRÍ6A   rRÎ6A   rRÏ6A   rRÐ6A   rRÑ6A   rRÒ6A   rRÓ6A   rRÔ6A   rRÕ6A   rRÖ6A   rR×6A   rRØ6A   rRÙ6A   rRÚ6A   rRÛ6A   rRÜ6A   rRÝ6A   rRÞ6A   rRß6A   rRà6A   rRá6A   rRâ6A   rRã6A   rRä6A   rRå6A   rRæ6A   rRç6A   rRè6A   rRé6A   rRê6A   rRë6A   rRì6A   rRí6A


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> Is this in reference to me? Or "you" as in pro-lifers in general? If so, I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty, just to clear that up.



Sorry for not being clear. No I was refering to Pro-Lifers in general - just trying to answer the question you posed which is why I quoted you ("why they dont mind killing animals") - they aren't opposed to it the same way because their opinions are often founded in Christian teachings where "human life" is sacred - not all life.


----------



## Moonchilde

Thanks for clearing that up. Most of them are religious yes, but some of them aren't and are still against it because they say its murder and murder is wrong. Well, we kill a ton of things every day, why are humans any more special than any other living creature? We're all made of the same stuff. From a non-god related standpoint, obviously.


----------



## Dan Selby

I heard Samantha Power on Radio 4's, "Start The Week" yesterday. I gather, amongst other things, she's a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama...

boy, is she an impressive and articulate woman.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Who is she, Dan? I haven't heard of her.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

There you go, Batzdorf.


----------



## Dan Selby

I hadn't either but googled her after I listened to the podcast:

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/samantha-power (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/facult ... ntha-power)

She was on ostensibly to talk about her book, "Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World", but Start The Week is a round table discussion where all the guests discuss each others' works:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/starttheweek.shtml

You can listen to the programme there... actually I cannot guarantee that - some BBC ò6ý   r‚À6ý   r‚Á6ý   r‚Â6ý   r‚Ã6ý   r‚Ä6ý   r„³6ý   r„´6ý   r„µ6ý   r„¶6ý   r„·6ý   r„¸6þ   r‚Å6þ   r‚Æ6þ   r‚Ç6


----------



## SvK

To all the Hillary Supporters on this thread:

Congratulations on your 3 victories last night. You fought hard and won. Congrats.


SvK


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> To all the Hillary Supporters on this thread:
> 
> Congratulations on your 3 victories last night. You fought hard and won. Congrats.
> 
> 
> SvK



personally I feel that regardless who eventually wins, a tough fight is good for the candidates, especially Obama who has not had to do that so much. It is NOTHING compared to what the Republicans will throw at him/her and they need the experience of having to go toe to toe with a tough opponent to deal with that.


----------



## José Herring

Yes I think Barak is surrounding himself with some really good advisers. His economic adviser is also really sharp.

Though too early to tell I've had the feeling that Obama could potentially be the best pres. we've seen in a long time. I think that's why I'm so willing to give him a shot. He's a true intellectual.

On the other hand, though Barak still has the delegate lead, it was actually not disappointing to see Hilary win some. She was so happy. I could tell that this was a real heartfelt victory for her. After being clobbered 12 in a row, she hung in there strong and didn't give up. That's real leadership material.

What's amazing about this is the different approaches of the two candidates. Hilary is doing the old fashion thing of banking on winning the large delegate rich states and pretty much not spending any time on the smaller states. Obama is running a real grass roots campaign via internet and phone calls. It's remarkable but he's got a lot of others doing his campaigning for him and he's reaching out to people on the newer communication lines as well.

I think Barak can take the presidency because he's hot in states that normally are neglected by candidates. He's the opposite of Al Gore and Kerry. He's really got the mainstream midwest and south in his pocket. I think that will translate to the general election and he could take this whole thing. 

Also, the Republican party who usually wins by being an undivided united front. Is really divided over John McCain. He's not getting much of the Bible baggin' or gun toter votes. They don't like him. He's too liberal for them. He's dividing his party, which is a good thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"personally I feel that regardless who eventually wins, a tough fight is good for the candidates, especially Obama who has ò8¸   rÚ_8¸   rÚ`8¸   rÚa8¸   rÚb8¸   rÚc8¸   rÚd8¸   rÚe8¸   rÚf8¸   rÚg8¸   rÚh8¸   rÚi8¸   rÚj8¸   rÚk8¸   rÚl8¹   rÚm8¹   rÚn8¹   rÚo8¹   rÚp8¹   rÚq8¹   rÚr8¹   rÚs8¹   rÚt8¹   rÚu8¹   rÚv8¹   rÚw8¹   rÚx8¹   rÚy8¹   rÚz8¹   rÚ{8¹   rÚ|8¹   rÚ}8¹   rÚ~8¹   rÚ8¹   rÚ€8¹   rÚ8¹   rÚ‚8¹   rÚƒ8¹   rÚ„8¹   rÚ…8¹   rÚ†8¹   rÚ‡8¹   rÚˆ8¹   rÚ‰8¹   rÚŠ8¹   rÚ‹8¹   rÚŒ8¹   rÚ8¹   rÚŽ8¹   rÚ8¹   rÚ8¹   rÚ‘8¹   rÚ’8¹   rÚ“8¹   rÚ”8¹   rÚ•8¹   rÚ–8¹   rÚ—8¹   rÚ˜8¹   rÚ™8¹   rÚš8¹


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> Slate Delegate calculator......
> 
> GO HERE NOW:
> http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
> 
> 
> Ok...at the bottom is the current tally of ALL the pledged delegates......MAR4th primaries are greyed out as they have been counted.....
> 
> NOW,
> 
> Slide ALL the faders over to the right (Clinton) and give her 60 .........
> 
> Now look at the bottom
> 
> ps: Mind you, this will NOT happen....She will not win ALL the rest by 60/40......so every time it doesn't happen, it gets worse for her. So her chances of gaining on him actually went DOWN on MAR 4th.
> 
> SvK



Not necessarily. The super delegates will go with who seems the most electable and now that he is the front runner there will continue to be increased scrutiny and criticism of him, which he is not used to. 

If his campaign continues to do as poor a job handling this as it did the last 4 or 5 days and she is perceived as having momentum and the stronger candidate, if he is only ahead by i.e. 150 delegates or less, then anything could happen with the super delegates.

And also, there could be surprises yet in store about him as he simply has not been vetted to the degree she has.

He is still the likely winner but he certainly looks far more vulnerable than he did a week ago.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What did they do wrong in the past 4 or 5 days, Jay? I'm not saying they didn't do anything wrong, just asking what you mean.

Also, I suspect that there are no more surprises with any of the candidates by this point. What could happen is that different things get focused on in the mainstream media, for example nobody talks about McCain's complicity in the savings and loan debacle in the 80s, and that could become a topic.


----------



## José Herring

I agree,

Bama is getting a little cocky. It's by far not over and he's posturing like he's got it in the bag. He better be careful of that as that kind of arrogance really rubs people the wrong way.

He's still got a tough fight ahead. McCain doesn't want to run against him he wants to run against Hilary. So they're going to step up the attacks on Obama and if he doesn't know how to respond, which he hasn't so far, it could all end up going down the drain for him.

The Tony Resko thing is a ticking time bomb. When asked about it you can tell he's not totally being upfront about what he knew and what he didn't know. All that has to happen is that Resko gets some sort of deal to turn on Obama and it's lights out. He ain't totally clean on this. Don't get me wrong, he's no Hilary with her savings and loan scandals and her hiding info from the FBI scandals, but if this thing blows it's good bye 'bama.

If Hilary gets the nomination though, McCain and the Reps will have a field day because she's got skeletons in the closet like nobody else and they know exactly where and what they are. He'll pound the negative ads repeatedly and she won't survive especially since there are 40% of democrats that have said they'd never vote for her.

So the pounding on Obama is going to get fierce in the next few weeks. The reps definitely don't want him to get the nomination. He's much harder to defeat with republican negative attack ads while Hilary is just a sitting target.

imo,

Jose


----------



## JB78

josejherring @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> I agree,
> 
> Bama is getting a little cocky. It's by far not over and he's posturing like he's got it in the bag. He better be careful of that as that kind of arrogance really rubs people the wrong way.
> 
> He's still got a tough fight ahead. McCain doesn't want to run against him he wants to run against Hilary. So they're going to step up the attacks on Obama and if he doesn't know how to respond, which he hasn't so far, it could all end up going down the drain for him.
> 
> The Tony Resko thing is a ticking time bomb. When asked about it you can tell he's not totally being upfront about what he knew and what he didn't know. All that has to happen is that Resko gets some sort of deal to turn on Obama and it's lights out. He ain't totally clean on this. Don't get me wrong, he's no Hilary with her savings and loan scandals and her hiding info from the FBI scandals, but if this thing blows it's good bye 'bama.
> 
> If Hilary gets the nomination though, McCain and the Reps will have a field day because she's got skeletons in the closet like nobody else and they know exactly where and what they are. He'll pound the negative ads repeatedly and she won't survive especially since there are 40% of democrats that have said they'd never vote for her.
> 
> So the pounding on Obama is going to get fierce in the next few weeks. The reps definitely don't want him to get the nomination. He's much harder to defeat with republican negative attack ads while Hilary is just a sitting target.
> 
> imo,
> 
> Jose



That's interesting to read José, but it would be freaking mindboggling to me if you guys elected another republican warhawk after Bush.


Best regards
Jon


----------



## José Herring

JB78 @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Mar 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree,
> 
> Bama is getting a little cocky. It's by far not over and he's posturing like he's got it in the bag. He better be careful of that as that kind of arrogance really rubs people the wrong way.
> 
> He's still got a tough fight ahead. McCain doesn't want to run against him he wants to run against Hilary. So they're going to step up the attacks on Obama and if he doesn't know how to respond, which he hasn't so far, it could all end up going down the drain for him.
> 
> The Tony Resko thing is a ticking time bomb. When asked about it you can tell he's not totally being upfront about what he knew and what he didn't know. All that has to happen is that Resko gets some sort of deal to turn on Obama and it's lights out. He ain't totally clean on this. Don't get me wrong, he's no Hilary with her savings and loan scandals and her hiding info from the FBI scandals, but if this thing blows it's good bye 'bama.
> 
> If Hilary gets the nomination though, McCain and the Reps will have a field day because she's got skeletons in the closet like nobody else and they know exactly where and what they are. He'll pound the negative ads repeatedly and she won't survive especially since there are 40% of democrats that have said they'd never vote for her.
> 
> So the pounding on Obama is going to get fierce in the next few weeks. The reps definitely don't want him to get the nomination. He's much harder to defeat with republican negative attack ads while Hilary is just a sitting target.
> 
> imo,
> 
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting to read José, but it would be freaking mindboggling to me if you guys elected another republican warhawk after Bush.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Jon
Click to expand...


Never underestimate the power of fear over Americans. These negative attack ads are very effective in America. Americans are very easily controlled by fear. Fear of losing jobs, fear of losing their house, fear of immigrants, fear of foreigners. All a Rep has to do is run enough negative attack ads and create enough fear and distrust against their opponent and people will just fall into line and vote out of fear.

They might be able to stir up enough racial fear against Obama but that also may backfire big in this age. But scaring people over the stuff that Hilary's done will be a piece of cake! Even I could do that. 

Jose


----------



## SvK

the majority of superdelegates are working, elected politicians. Their lives are controlled by fear also....The fear of not being re-elected by the constituents they represent. They have mortgages to pay, kids to put through school. It's allready happening. Look at John Lewis for example. The superdels that currently hold elected offices will vote the way their voters did.

SvK


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 05 said:


> What did they do wrong in the past 4 or 5 days, Jay? I'm not saying they didn't do anything wrong, just asking what you mean.
> 
> Also, I suspect that there are no more surprises with any of the candidates by this point. What could happen is that different things get focused on in the mainstream media, for example nobody talks about McCain's complicity in the savings and loan debacle in the 80s, and that could become a topic.



Actually Jose mostly answers this in his response, but the Obama team tried to dismiss all the issues that arose over the last 4-5 days vaguely and remain above the fray. It is fine for the candidate to do that, but not the campaign. The Clinton people understand that a political campaign is a street fight, and if the Obama people do not have the stomach for it, they will lose.

John Kerry says his biggest mistake was answering the Swiftboat charges once and believing it was over. He says every time it was raised he should have hit them back, HARD.

Obama may indeed be pure as the driven snow but Chicago politics is some of the dirtiest in the nation and he will now be looked at under the microscope and the whole Resko affair is not passing the smell test. He says it was a "bonehead move" but he is far too smart not to realize that he was getting a big bargain from "a friend" whose integrity was, err, questionable. 

Anyway, rightly or wrongly, he is now on the media's radar, big time, and his campaign, frankly looked rattled.

I suspect they will recover, get tougher, and regain their footing and that will be good for them, if he goes on to get the nomination and has to engage the Republicans.

IMHO we have had 2 better qualified Democratic candidates in a row lose elections to a guy whose team was simply tougher. I would hate to see that again. No one can deny that the Clinton campaign will be tough if it comes to that. I am not yet sure, nor are the Super Delegates I think, if the Obama campaign is there yet.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"IMHO"

Man, you're way out there, Jay! Nobody else feels that way.




"we have had 2 better qualified Democratic candidates in a row lose elections to a guy whose team was simply tougher. I would hate to see that again."

My favorite Karl Rove move is when he started the rumor that John McCain had a black love child. in fact he and his wife adopted a child from Mother Theresa's orphanage!

Yeah, I'd hate to see that happen again too, but I'd also hate to see Democrats swift boating. When that happens we may as well abandon all hope - it will mean the dark side has taken over. Fait accomplit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

By the way, Hillary's ad about waking up at 3:00 a.m. is dangerously close to the fear politics the dark side has been using.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> By the way, Hillary's ad about waking up at 3:00 a.m. is dangerously close to the fear politics the dark side has been using.



I don't think so; no mushrooms clouds, etc.

Whether or not he is experienced enough to handle at crisis is a legitimate issue. I do "fear" that he may not be. Or he may. But after 8 years of this last joker's incompetent administration, I am not in a mood to take risks.

I have some reservations about Hillary. None of them have to do with her competence.


----------



## José Herring

Ashermusic @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> Whether or not he is experienced enough to handle at crisis is a legitimate issue. I do "fear" that he may not be. Or he may....



When asked if he had what it took to lead the country in a crisis, Obama answered yes, " ....he doesn't get rattled when other people are losing their heads." I mean c'mon Jay... What more could you want from a leader?...haha


As much as I like Obama for his ability to inspire confidence and hope even I feel that sometimes he just needs to dig a little deeper if he's going to lead this country at all much less in a crisis.

If he's going to win you're right. He and his people are just going to have to get tougher. McCain and the reps are certainly tough enough. I hope that Obama has the depth to dig deep and it's not all just smiles. Because if it is all just smiles then he'll get kicked to pieces like Kerry was.

What's worse is I can already see the negative ads in my head.......World trade center bombings with hard edits to "yes we can" speeches from Obama cut to McCain talking about staying th course and sticking to the war in Iraq for the "protection of all Americans". If done right they could make Obama out to look like the fool of the century.

I think Hilary is actually going a lot easier on him than McCain would. 

It's gonna be bloody for sure.

Jose


----------



## José Herring

Hans Adamson @ Thu Mar 06 said:


> A phone rings at 3am in the White House. A sleepy Hillary picks up:
> "What??? Listen - I just want to say this: You ALWAYS call me first. Not that mind it. But I just think it is a little...come on... gimme a break... "
> /\~O



Or she answers with a little Gwen Stephany

_Uh huh, this my shit
All the girls stomp your feet like this

A few times I've been around that track
So it's not just gonna happen like that
*Cause I ain't no hollaback girl
I ain't no hollaback girl*_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What I want is a President who won't hang up the phone, call in the Air Force, and go back to sleep.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I mean, can you imagine 9/11? Some lunatics fly planes into the WTC, and Rumsfeld says "Let's go get Iraq!"

It's beyond Dr. Strangelove.


----------



## tobyond

This is awesome. What an inspiration.


----------



## Hans Adamson

tobyond @ Tue Mar 18 said:


> This is awesome. What an inspiration.


I couldn't agree more. Read it. Listen to it. If you hope for hope:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords


----------



## SvK

Soooo

What did all of you think of the Philadelphia Obama speech on race and religion?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hisownwords/

SvK


----------



## artsoundz

His speech was,for me, the most inspiring, heartfelt, message of unity I have ever heard. This man can talk to people.It should be noted that he wrote this speech himself.


----------



## SvK

For many generations, we have been served up an army of pseudo presidents and would be leaders , who do everything in their power to avoid saying anything that could jeopardize their standing with the public. 

If you, like myself are ready for a dose of real leadership than you need not look much further than this speech by Barack Obama.

Fired UP!
Ready To GO!

SvK


----------



## José Herring

Brilliant....simply brilliant.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It kinda puts the past 7+ years in perspective, doesn't it.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Fantastic speech. Makes me wan't to become an American. 8) 

Now make us proud and elect the man president. Show your worth.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And then I hear Hillary's command of the issues and I like her.

Two excellent candidates.


----------



## SvK

GOBAMA

Take PA.......(it's a long shot)

WE can do this


THIS THREAD WILL NEVER DIE 

SVK


----------



## JonFairhurst

On Saturday I attended our Democratic County Convention as an Obama delegate and tech team volunteer. We've had a paid Obama staffer working the area, since we're on the knife's edge of delivering one more Obama delegate to Denver.

The way the caucus system works is that each voting precinct is allotted a maximum number of delegates. Depending on the caucus tally, each candidate gets allocated delegates - but only if people run and are elected at the caucus.

At the next (state) level, my legislative district gets to send two delegates and an alternate to state. 27 LD delegates showed up at the convention: 20 for Obama; 7 for Clinton. With 74.1% of the vote, the delegates to state would have been split.

However... one Clinton person changed sides. That gave Obama 77.8% and both delegates. Yay!

According to the staffer from Obama's office, this little win required every Obama delegate to show up, some Clinton delegates to stay home and at least one vote to flip. He said that in every close situation he's seen, Obama has won the additional delegate. It continued here.

I was elected to be the alternate, so I'll go to the Congressional District Convention and the State Convention. It should be interesting!

I won't run to go to Denver though. I figure that honor should go to those who have donated a lot more hours to the campaign than I have been able to donate.

Go Obama!!!


----------



## madbulk

SvK @ Tue Apr 22 said:


> GOBAMA
> Take PA.......(it's a long shot)
> WE can do this
> THIS THREAD WILL NEVER DIE
> SVK



That would be great, if only because it might actually end this matter finally. I'm sure there's an argument for continuing Hillary v. Hope being productive on some level, but there's no way it's a net good.


----------



## SvK

John....you rock...MODEL CITIZEN!!

SvK


----------



## SvK

"Too Close To Call!"

well, looks like it will not be a blow-out!

SvK


----------



## JonFairhurst

10 points for (and congratulations to) Hilary. The race goes on...


----------



## Christian Marcussen

It looks like the "bitter" thing took it's toll. 

It was such a low blow and twist of Obama's intents and words that I'm suprised it actually did not back fire on Clinton.


----------



## tobyond

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> It looks like the "bitter" thing took it's toll.
> 
> It was such a low blow and twist of Obama's intents and words that I'm suprised it actually did not back fire on Clinton.



Not necessarily, considering Clinton had a 20 point lead in early polling.

I'm not sure why she is still in the race considering the math. There's something quite desperate about her.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Yeah. But the he narrowed the gap to 5% difference for four days, and then the last few days after the bitter thing took it's impact the gap widened again.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

5% is within any poll's margin for error. They can't poll every voter, so it's an estimate.


----------



## Ashermusic

I'm not sure why she is still in the race considering the math. There's something quite desperate about her.[/quote]

I will explain it. There are a lot of us life-long Democrats who believe that there are still a lot of things that may come out about Obama and mistakes he might make that could make him easy prey for the Republicans. Rev. Wright and Ayres are two already and I am sorry to say it but Michelle is a big negative for him, because she is clearly an angry person. They have been hiding her away but they can only do that for so long.

So the longer Hillary stays in and of she wins more of the remaining races, then if Obama continues to have these kind of things come out, the better they can make an argument for her to the super delegates. If i.e. she is 150 or less delegates behind, even or nearly even in the popular vote, and has won all the big states that Democrats must carry, like Pennsylvania, then the super delegates may swing to her and take the heat.

People seem to forget that the reason Democrats created super delegates was for just this reason. We saw that the non-regular party members could get excited about a candidate who was too much to the left for the general public and get him nominated, leading to a disastrous defeat, which is what happened with McGovern. Democrats decided they needed a methodology where when they saw that happening, the party regulars could step in and prevent that, so they created the super delegates. 

Obama is swinging more and more to the left and is starting to be ideologically identical to Ted Kennedy, and therefore losing his ability to project himself as a "different" kind of Democrat. The Republicans are going to attampt to portray him as a classic liberal/leftist who wants to tax and spend, and that is not a winning Democratic formula.

When Democrats nominate Centrists like Bill Clinton, we win. When we nominate liberals like McGovern and Dukakis, we lose.

If he is to have the support of rank and file Democrats, he must:

1. Focus on blue collar workers who are hurting economically. "It's the economy, stupid" still applies. If he is seen as the Starbuck's candidate by the blue collar Dems he is in trouble in the general election.

2. He needs to be willing to strongly condemn friends and allies, however strong or tenuous the connections, like Wright and Ayres, far more unequivocally that he has been doing.

3. He needs to speak more specifically and realistically about just what "change" a president can make. There is another branch of Congress that actually makes laws, not the president. A president cannot single handedly change the capital gains taxes (and he is wrong on that issue, IMHO) when there are lot of congressmen who are not going to warm to that idea. The last time we elected a president who talked a lot in vague terms about his ability to reach across the aisle and bring people together, we got Bush.

So until he starts to do those things and prove to folks like me that he is not another McGovern, I say, fight on, Hillary, fight on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"When Democrats nominate Centrists like Bill Clinton, we win."

Nonsense. Faulty logic (Clinton won because he was a good candidate who had a good sense for what was possible politically at the time). The past two disastrous elections have proven once and for all that candidates who don't take a firm stand for what's right - which is what centrists are - only push the right farther to the right into insane territory.

Gore and Kerry ran centrist campaigns and were limp-wristed candidates (the "flip-flop" nonsense certainly worked on Kerry, right?). Yeah the Supreme Court had something to do with that, and I fear there was some voting fraud too (3000 elderly Jews voting for Buchanan?!), but those two should have beaten Bush by a landslide.

Having said that, I agree that Hillary shouldn't be pressured to drop out. She won the major states in the country, for heaven's sake. But the strategy of waiting for Obama to screw up in some trivial way is extremely distasteful - almost as distasteful as a lying PR campaign about his wife. Who f-ing cares?!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And I hope Obama turns out to be incredibly liberal.


----------



## SvK

No 2 ways about it:

WE GOT CREAMED!!

i don't want to narrow the gap. I want to win ! DAMMIT.

SvK


----------



## José Herring

SvK @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> No 2 ways about it:
> 
> WE GOT CREAMED!!
> 
> i don't want to narrow the gap. I want to win ! DAMMIT.
> 
> SvK



I wouldn't say creamed. Penn is a very hard state for him to win. In spite of that he got 45% of the vote. That's pretty significant.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> And I hope Obama turns out to be incredibly liberal.



So you like losing to Republicans?


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Apr 23 said:


> "When Democrats nominate Centrists like Bill Clinton, we win."
> 
> Nonsense. Faulty logic (Clinton won because he was a good candidate who had a good sense for what was possible politically at the time). The past two disastrous elections have proven once and for all that candidates who don't take a firm stand for what's right - which is what centrists are - only push the right farther to the right into insane territory.
> 
> Gore and Kerry ran centrist campaigns and were limp-wristed candidates (the "flip-flop" nonsense certainly worked on Kerry, right?). Yeah the Supreme Court had something to do with that, and I fear there was some voting fraud too (3000 elderly Jews voting for Buchanan?!), but those two should have beaten Bush by a landslide.
> 
> Having said that, I agree that Hillary shouldn't be pressured to drop out. She won the major states in the country, for heaven's sake. But the strategy of waiting for Obama to screw up in some trivial way is extremely distasteful - almost as distasteful as a lying PR campaign about his wife. Who f-ing cares?!



Sorry, not true. The last 3 Democrats who won, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, were all Southerners who campaigned as Centrists, although Johnson and Carter turned out to be far more liberal than they ran as. Is that simply a coincidence?

Gore and Kerry may have been Centrists but they allowed the Republicans to portray them as liberal/leftists. Hillary has learned that lesson and will not let that happen so easily. I am not sure Barak has, but if he gets the nomination, I certainly hope he has.

And I am sorry, when you watch Michelle Obama, her anger is palpable, and it is not an attractive quality in a first lady, as Hillary eventually figured out. And there are a lot of voters, especially women, who factor in the spouse, correctly or incorrectly. I believe Laura Bush has been a huge asset for W.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Well, there's been a concerted conspiracy over the past 30 years by people who think Jesus commanded them to get involved in right-wing politics to make the word "liberal" bad. And it worked, because no candidate wants any part of it, even though it's something to aspire to. It means free, noble, generous - that kind of thing.

But in this country, candidates on either side who seem too far out there don't win no matter what and no matter how much sense they make or don't make. It's true that Bush is the most radical president in US history, but he was sold as the Bubba you want to have a beer with. He won because a heavily manipulated media manipulated the public, who didn't look closely at how these people are actually Dr. Evil characters out of a B movie.

But the past two elections have proven that simply pandering to the dark side doesn't work. People are waiting for someone to come along and show them the way (not in a messianic sense, I mean a leader). They want a vision for the future. A centrist is neither fish nor foul.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Laura Bush is a dumpling.


----------



## SvK

OBAMA


----------



## Hans Adamson

SvK @ Tue May 06 said:


> OBAMA


+1

(but more forceful)


----------



## midphase

Why do we live in such a dumb ass place where people are more concerned about what type of food Obama is eating than what he's actually about?

And why are people so dumb to fall for a BS ploy as a gax tax "relief" for a month when we all know the gas companies will just raise the price anyway?

WTF is wrong with people (and the press)???


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I hope that you American democrats make the right choice: Hillary! After all, only she truly understands the working class. She relates in a way that few other multi, multi-millionaires can. And she can shoot a gun, sling back a beer and eat a burger better than elite-o-bama.

This is the part that I find completely insane: it would seem that many voters want a candidate who share their working-class values, who is a 'normal' joe. And yet only multi-millionaires can run for office. So basically, though most won't admit it, they want to elect the best bullshit artist. :roll: ~o)

I'm surprised that shockandhillary hasn't linked Obama to gang violence in Chicago.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I have absolutely no problem admitting it: I want a president who is at the very top of the elite, who's impeccably well educated, and whose IQ is off the top of the charts. Note that I didn't say elitIST - a snob - I said elite, meaning the best of the best.

There's absolutely nothing admirable about being low-class like George Bush is (not lowER class, I mean lacking class; crude in every way).

And George Bush is the last person on earth I want to have a beer with.

Conversely, Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. I'll have a beer with him any day.


----------



## SvK

I know I am elitist because:

I LIKE INDIAN FOOD 

SvK


----------



## Hans Adamson

When Bill Clinton was impeached, I had bumper stickers printed in his support and handed them out outside the Federal Building in West LA. I would not do this again after his display of lack of integrity in this campaign. (sorry to have to say it so bluntly). I would not endorse him by sharing a beer either.

Seeing the CNN biography about Hillary, which included information about her past as a chairwoman for the Republican Club under the Nixon years during college, explains a lot about where she comes from. At least to me.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## rJames

Sorry to burst your bubble Steven. I like Indian food too.


----------



## SvK

RJames...

HEHEHE

SvK


----------



## midphase

Looks like Indiana is going to Clinton.....dumb mf-ers!

I don't fucking get it....these people have learned nothing from the past 8 years!

Can we please get California to secede from the union already?


----------



## José Herring

Doesn't matter if she wins Indiana. There's no way she can catch up to Obama. It's just sheer arrogance on her part that she's stayed in this long. I wouldn't be surprised if she decided to run as an independent and split the dems ticket.


----------



## SvK

Jose....

NONE of Barack's strong areas in IN have come in yet!


We could hold her to single digits.....or we could

Don't want o jinx it 

SvK


----------



## José Herring

There's no doubt in my mind that he can hold her to single digits. Also, there's no doubt in my mind that he'll get at least half if not more of the remaining super delegates. She's got to know this. It boggles the mind why she's staying in so long. My only guess is that she's waiting for Obama to utter the words "kill whitey" or something. But, he isn't going to do anything near that stupid. So it boggles the mind that she's stuck it out. 

My point is so she takes a few delegates in Indiana. She's smart enough to know that she can't catch up at this point.

I mean it beats me why states like Cali and Indiana and Texas chose Hilary. 

I use to like living here. Now I look at all your faces and see only Hilary lovers!!



Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I like Indian food with beer at the bowling alley.


----------



## artsoundz

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue May 06 said:


> I like Indian food with beer at the bowling alley.



that would be a good first lyric line in "Barack; The musical"


----------



## JonFairhurst

I finally came up with a reason to vote for Hillary... 

If she wins the nomination, and McCain tries to steal the election, she will fight back until the last vote has been counted. Gore and Kerry folded their tents fairly quickly. I'm not sure about Obama. But we can count on Senator Clinton to keep fighting to the end.

Too bad she's fighting against the other Democrat right now...


----------



## SvK

Indiana is now a 6 point spread!!!

GOBAMA

woooottttttttt


SvK


----------



## SvK

INDIANA is now "Too Close To Call" 

GO AA!!!

Go GARY
Go Bloomington!

SvK


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

You know all this talk about Obama's 'electability'? Isn't it just another way of saying that white middle-class America is still not ready to elect a black man? (not that Canada is any closer to ever voting for a visible minority PM, btw). There's such a double standard when it comes to the whole Wright issue. Why isn't there more focus on what some of Clinton's or McCain's spiritual leaders say behind closed doors?

I'll be so sad if he doesn't get the nod, because I think that the world needs a US prez who can inspire people to deal with the difficult issues that others just want to sweep under the grand carpet. And, IMHO, the US needs someone who can increase by-partisanship not fuel more division (hello Calamity Jane and Buffalo Bill).


----------



## SvK

4 point spread!!!

SvK


----------



## SvK

ps:

Barack is on CNN, MSNBC NOW

SvK


----------



## José Herring

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue May 06 said:


> You know all this talk about Obama's 'electability'? Isn't it just another way of saying that white middle-class America is still not ready to elect a black man?




It is. But many people don't realize that the white middle classes are shrinking in Numbers everyday. Being one who grew up with the white middle class, I can tell you that it's a lot smaller than it use to be in the 80ies. The truth of the matter is more and more white people are feeling the economic hammer. And unless you're a white person making more that 80 thousand a year on a job, you're under such crushing bank debt in order to keep up with the American standard of middle class, that at the end of the month there probably isn't much money left. Most of my middle class friends are gripping on tight hoping that they don't miss a payment on a credit card, because if they do then their fragile house of debit cards comes crumbling down.

For at least 40% of the white race, being white middle class is the new black--working retail jobs, working in government jobs that pay less than $40,000 per year, ect. The only reason why we see a black man or a white woman anywhere near the presidency is that times have changed a lot in the last 20 years. And, that white middle class Reagan ideal has alienated so many people. 

Also, Just take the buss or the subway in Los Angeles during the day and you'll see exactly why Obama is electable. Nearly 60% of our population might as well mark "other" in the race box of the next census.


----------



## SvK

The difference in vote between them in IN is 35.000!

There are still 350.000 outsanding votes

MOST of them in Gary area (obama land)....they will report in 1 HOUR!!!

SvK


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Thanks for that enlightening post, Jose!

I'll be asleep in one hour, but in the meantime: go obama, go!!! =o


----------



## SvK

INDIANA down to a 2 point spread!!!

19.000 votes between them...

To Close To Call!!

SvK


----------



## midphase

My favorite movie is Barak(a)!


----------



## SvK

5 % to go

16000 votes between them.

SvK


----------



## tobyond

Close race, well done Obama, I really hope she gets the hint and leaves the race. There was polling to suggest she would run away with Indiana tonight, but he clawed back. The people have spoken.


----------



## Fernando Warez

JonFairhurst @ Tue May 06 said:


> I finally came up with a reason to vote for Hillary...
> 
> If she wins the nomination, and McCain tries to steal the election, she will fight back until the last vote has been counted. Gore and Kerry folded their tents fairly quickly. I'm not sure about Obama. But we can count on Senator Clinton to keep fighting to the end.



ha ha! I get a clear sense she is ambitious. And not in a good way... That women scares me and i sincerely hope she doesn't get elected.


----------



## JonFairhurst

One opinion on MSNBC was interesting tonight. I forget who said it...

Hillary Clinton will win a couple of the remaining states without even trying. If she withdraws, and Obama loses them, it would be embarrassing. She should stay in the race, but withdraw any negative ads and attacks. That way everybody can save face.

Also, the campaign is in debt to her. She can continue to raise sòQ¢   x¬ËQ¢   x¬ÌQ¢   x¬ÍQ¢   x¬ÎQ¢   x¬ÏQ¢   x¬ÐQ¢   x¬ÑQ¢   x¬ÒQ¢   x¬ÓQ¢   x¬ÔQ¢   x¬ÕQ¢   x¬ÖQ¢   x¬×Q¢   x¬ØQ¢   x¬ÙQ¢   x¬ÚQ¢   x¬ÛQ¢   x¬ÜQ¢   x¬ÝQ¢   x¬ÞQ¢   x¬ßQ¢   x¬àQ¢   x¬áQ¢   x¬âQ¢   x¬ãQ¢   x¬äQ¢   x¬åQ¢   x¬æQ£   x¬çQ£   x¬èQ£


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Clintons classy? Hmmmmm. :roll:


----------



## Ashermusic

It isn't over for her until he has the required number of delegates, which will not happen, if it does happen, until a sufficient number of the uncommitted super delegates commit to him. 

They are reluctant to do so because:

1. They are afraid there are more Wrights and Ayres type things that will surface.

2. Michelle's palpable anger at White America and her propensity for inserting her foot firmly in her mouth.

3. Obama's very liberal voting record because the Republicans are very good at painting Democrats as away from the center and America is a country where the majority of voters (people who ACTUALLY vote) self-describe as centrist-leaning right.

4. They understand that their candidate is not running for "Nice Guy in Chief" and they fear he does not have a taste for administering a swift knee to the groin when necessary, which is a requirement to win the presidency.

5. Presently, most Obama voters say they would vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination while a fair amount of Hillary voters say they either will or might vote for McCain.

6. The nagging fear that although they will not say so in a poll, there are a number of people who simply will not vote for a Black when push comes to shove. Personally, I don't believe that is a significant number.

People seem to forget why Super Delegates were created, which is to prevent another McGovern debacle.; For those of you who are either too young or not familiar enough with U.S. history, let me summarize that.

Young idealistic voters, largely fueled by anti-war fever, get excited and secure the nomination for McGovern, an extraordinarily decent liberal, who promptly helps the Republicans paint him as Mao's ideological twin. He loses every state but Massachusetts in a landslide, and those poor disillusioned idealists by and large pick up their bat and ball and do nothing for the party until another white knight arrives.

So the longer Hillary stays in, the longer we have to hopefully answer some of these questions about Obama and when he gets the nomination, as is likely, all Democrats will be reassured enough to rally around him and carry him to the White House.

So I say, "Soldier on, Hillary, soldier on!"


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I say get Hillary to ride off into the sunset with Buffalo Bill ASAP. The longer they keep hammering at each other, the longer the Republicans' 'gotcha' list grows. Isn't likely that they're going to throw everything at the Dem nominee that these two have been throwing at each other so far?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I don't think Hillary should quit, Jay - she won lots of major states and deserves to be there. But most of your "centrist" arguments are starting to piss me off. Don't make me drive over there now...








Does it occur to you that this isn't a game, that the right wing are *killing people*?! That's why we need to get rid of these despicable people. Politics is the art of the possible rather than the ideal, but at the same time we need a candidate who stands up for what's right!

And I can't tell you how little the $#!+ is that I don't give about Rev. Wright. Who fricking cares. The only reason it's still an issue is that swill like that gives the talking heads something to go on and on and on about...and then you get pollsters asking leading questions about it, which fuels the talking heads even more, followed by ridiculous banter about it on VI-Control...


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed May 07 said:


> I don't think Hillary should quit, Jay - she won lots of major states and deserves to be there. But most of your "centrist" arguments are starting to piss me off. Don't make me drive over there now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does it occur to you that this isn't a game, that the right wing are *killing people*?! That's why we need to get rid of these despicable people. Politics is the art of the possible rather than the ideal, but at the same time we need a candidate who stands up for what's right!
> 
> And I can't tell you how little the $#!+ is that I don't give about Rev. Wright. Who fricking cares. The only reason it's still an issue is that swill like that gives the talking heads something to go on and on and on about...and then you get pollsters asking leading questions about it, which fuels the talking heads even more, followed by ridiculous banter about it on VI-Control...



1. Too bad, America is a Centrist country, so deal with it.

2. Obama has made a big point about how his judgement is superior so his long time association with guys like Wright and Ayres DOES matter, and even if ti doesn't, it will be perceived by many to matter. Have you forgotten Swiftboat?

3. It doesn't matter what a candidate "stands up for" if he can't get elected. And let me say it bluntly, aside form minor policy differences and the cult of personality and this total b.s. that Obama can get people whose views are diametrically opposed to magically unite, there is absolutely NOTHING that Obama "stands up for" that Hillary does not also. NOTHING.

So if we care about the things you correctly but rather hyperbolically express that you care about (have you thought of hiring an editor we Democrats damn well better nominate someone who can win.

I am not convinced that it is Obama but I truly hope that I am wrong.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Jay,

FWIW, from my vantage point up North, the US is not centrist. It's right of centre. I believe that many members from Europe/UK would agree with me.


----------



## Ashermusic

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed May 07 said:


> Jay,
> 
> FWIW, from my vantage point up North, the US is not centrist. It's right of centre. I believe that many members from Europe/UK would agree with me.



When you are that far to the left, everything else looks to be on the right

Most Americans self-describe as center, slightly to the right. I am as close to the center as one can get IMO. The left and the right equally appall me.


----------



## Dan Selby

Of course, Jay, if you are from, well, most other western countries one would assume that you've accidentally mixed up left and right in that sentence.  



Ashermusic @ Wed May 07 said:


> When you are that far to the left, everything else looks to be on the right


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Too bad, America is a Centrist country, so deal with it"

I disagree. Most Americans vote for the candidate with the best sales pitch without caring what party he or she comes from.

As I said before, the Democrats have lost two successive elections by putting up a candidate who tried to be "centrist." All that did was enable the right to move from merely wrong all the way over to reckless, murderous, and corrupt. People want a leader, not a wimp.

There's a lot of talk about "unifying the parties," but we have had seven years of unadulterated evil. I think a lot of people are starting to realize that the present economic situation didn't just float in like the weather.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

She was a Reagan apologist and it's weird that she's changed, but she's not ultra left at all. Nothing she says is irrationally extreme.

More importantly, if I turned around and said that Dr. Phil looks like an asshole with that stupid moustache and that pop psychology is about as shallow as you can get - both of which are somewhat true  - would it have anything to do with the politics we're discussing?

Ariana Huffington is a good talking head. I agree with her a good part of the time, and in this particular case she's saying exactly what I've been posting here.


----------



## Bruce Richardson

The problem is that America's "center" is not the halfway point between lucid opinions about governing. You don't find too many uneducated liberals. So, the "freak liberal" wing, if there is such a thing at all, is miniscule.

But on the far-right, you have an entire population center of people who should arguably have no say in the process at all...people who cannot even discern truth from fiction. There are people who actually believe what Rush Limbaugh says. There are people who think Fox News is news.

So, America's "center" is skewed far, FAR to the right.

This is presumably why we have the electoral college, to filter an otherwise dangerous "freedom" for any fucking idiot to go to the ballot box.


----------



## Bruce Richardson

Really, how bad is it when someone basically says, "Hey, I can get the neardead and cracker vote, so I'm the better candidate."

How bad is it when appealing to the better educated gets painted as "Out of touch with American values."


----------



## SvK

"Yes She Klan!"

SvK


----------



## SvK

If Hillary were a racist (she's not)....AT LEAST she'd possess an ideology! Se's worse than a racist.......Because she panders racist code for the sole purpose of furthering her quest for power...

BOTTOMFEEDER


SvK


----------



## SvK

EXAMPLES:

"Barack is not a muslim.....as far as I know"
-HRC

"Jesse Jacskson won here twice....."
-BC

"MLK had a dream but it took LBJ to make it happen."
-HRC

"Whites, hard-working whites are voting for me.."
-HRC

ugghhhhh...i need to take a shower.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"You don't find too many uneducated liberals"


Although that was probably less true in the 70s, it's absolutely true today. Or at least unsophisticated liberals. And the right-wing slime machine knows it full well, hence the "liberal elitist" crap that gets spewed around. They're banking on people not understanding the difference between "elite" and "elitist." And on people wanting to feel good about being uneducated, and of course on it being easy to sell simplistic solutions to the complicated problems of the world.

This is also the reason Air America - liberal talk radio - never had a chance of counterbalancing right-wing moronic talk radio. There is no liberal parallel to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Bill O'Reilly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

SvK, those out-of-context quasi-quotes are ludicrous, and they demonstrate why conservatives accuse Obama of having disciples rather than supporters.

Come on. That's no better than "Al Gore invented the Internet" bullshit or swift boating.


----------



## Bruce Richardson

How out of context are those quotes, really?

They were stated by liberals. One should hope that a true liberal would not venture that kind of statement, period, slip of the tongue, or not.

And the story about landing under sniper fire? Running and ducking?

Come on. No one forgets their life experiences, especially situations like those. They're photographic.

Hillary has pandered with absolutely no shame. Can we at least be real about that?


----------



## Hans Adamson

SvK @ Wed May 14 said:


> EXAMPLES:
> 
> "Barack is not a muslim.....as far as I know"
> -HRC
> 
> "Jesse Jacskson won here twice....."
> -BC
> 
> "MLK had a dream but it took LBJ to make it happen."
> -HRC
> 
> "Whites, hard-working whites are voting for me.."
> -HRC
> 
> ugghhhhh...i need to take a shower.
> 
> SvK


Hillary and Bill has been working hard to characterize Obama as "the black candidate". They have done it with innuendos. Hillary often uses "code" that is easily picked up in the demographic layers she knows are vulnerable to this kind of talk.
The reality is that Obama is a candidate with enormous universal appeal. Born by a white woman. Raised in a white family. Married to a black woman. Member of a black church. It is his scattered roots that make him particularly suitable as an American President. His life seems to have been one long preparation to be a long needed unifier of this country.

The Clintons' attempt to reduce Obama to being "the Black candidate" is petty, and I would never have thought Bill would stoop so low. Then he has the nerve to say Obama has played the "race card" on him!?!? 

While I was a Bill Clinton fan, I never understood the derogatory name "Slick Willy". It does get a different ring when you hear it from the other perspective, though.


----------



## José Herring

SvK @ Wed May 14 said:


> EXAMPLES:
> 
> 
> "Whites, hard-working whites are voting for me.."
> -HRC
> 
> 
> 
> SvK



That's the won that got to me.

Hillary and Bill as far as I know both grew up in a segregated south. Even to this day the south is pretty segregated. Having been there a few times I know there is this Black--White issue. Blacks by whites are see as others. It may not be that Bill and Hilary are racist. But imo it's a different kind of racism. The idea that it's a group. A kind of "those people" mentality. Bill's always had it. Even though "some of his best friends were black".

But to be fair Obama is playing the race card too. It's not perceived as such because he's Black. Be he as much panders to the black community as Bill Clinton did in his days.

If Obama stands a chance in February he needs to reach out to the "hard working whites" who by and large really do have a problem with blacks in the North Eastern part of this country. Having been to places like Penn and even as far west as Detriot you'll know the true meaning of racism. On both sides. The hate you could cut with a knife.

What's really got me is in places that are all white like the mid western states and north west 'Bama is kicking ass! That shocked me. I never expected that he would sweep in states like Iowa, ect... If he can hold on to these republican states then he stands a good chance.

best,

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> "Barack is not a muslim.....as far as I know"
> -HRC



Oh come on, that's just out of context. She's not saying "but maybe he is."



> "Jesse Jacskson won here twice....."
> -BC



And?



> "MLK had a dream but it took LBJ to make it happen."
> -HRC



Is that not true? MLK was a civil rights leader, LBJ was President. She's running for President. Why is that racist?



> "Whites, hard-working whites are voting for me.."


-HRC 

Her whole pitch is that she has a better chance of beating McCain. She was talking about working-class whites as a demographic, nothing more.

Look, I think that pitch is pretty tenuous at this point, I think Obama will make a great president, and I'm certainly going to vote for him. But there's no reason to think either Clinton is racist. That's just silly.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Hillary has pandered with absolutely no shame. Can we at least be real about that?"

Yes, and I don't like it either.

Our whole political system is horribly corrupt. We need to take the money out of campaigning, and actually McCain - the old McCain, not the one running today - had the right idea about that.

Unfortunately he's also pandering, and it wouldn't happen even if he won...a thought that I don't find appealing at all. But at least he has the right idea about combating climate change, and that's the most important issue facing civilization right now.


----------



## Ashermusic

Bruce Richardson @ Wed May 14 said:


> So, America's "center" is skewed far, FAR to the right.
> 
> quote]
> 
> So if Obama DOES get elected or even comes close, how are you going to reconcile that opinion?


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed May 14 said:


> She was a Reagan apologist and it's weird that she's changed, but she's not ultra left at all. Nothing she says is irrationally extreme.
> 
> More importantly, if I turned around and said that Dr. Phil looks like an asshole with that stupid moustache and that pop psychology is about as shallow as you can get - both of which are somewhat true  - would it have anything to do with the politics we're discussing?
> 
> Ariana Huffington is a good talking head. I agree with her a good part of the time, and in this particular case she's saying exactly what I've been posting here.



1, She may give good head but she is not a good talking head  Sorry I could not resist. Her change is due to the fact that she is an ambitious amoral political whore.

2. Dr. Phil did not invent that statement, he just repeats it. The statement is wise either way.


----------



## Ashermusic

josejherring @ Wed May 14 said:


> SvK @ Wed May 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXAMPLES:
> 
> 
> "Whites, hard-working whites are voting for me.."
> -HRC
> 
> 
> 
> SvK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the won that got to me.
> 
> Hillary and Bill as far as I know both grew up in a segregated south. Even to this day the south is pretty segregated. Having been there a few times I know there is this Black--White issue. Blacks by whites are see as others. It may not be that Bill and Hilary are racist. But imo it's a different kind of racism. The idea that it's a group. A kind of "those people" mentality. Bill's always had it. Even though "some of his best friends were black".
> 
> But to be fair Obama is playing the race card too. It's not perceived as such because he's Black. Be he as much panders to the black community as Bill Clinton did in his days.
> 
> If Obama stands a chance in February he needs to reach out to the "hard working whites" who by and large really do have a problem with blacks in the North Eastern part of this country. Having been to places like Penn and even as far west as Detriot you'll know the true meaning of racism. On both sides. The hate you could cut with a knife.
> 
> What's really got me is in places that are all white like the mid western states and north west 'Bama is kicking ass! That shocked me. I never expected that he would sweep in states like Iowa, ect... If he can hold on to these republican states then he stands a good chance.
> 
> best,
> 
> Jose
Click to expand...


Are you equally offended by the obvious racial discrimination that is leading blacks to vote for Obama by well over 90%?

There are numerous reports of blacks who are pro- Hillary being threatened by pro-Obama blacks. And many blacks are angry at Obama for denouncing Rev. Wright because, oh, let me see...oh yeah, because he is black.

It is sad, by we truly have not yet reached the point where we vote based only on character, experience, and ideas, on either side.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Bruce:

"So, America's "center" is skewed far, FAR to the right." 

Jay:

"So if Obama DOES get elected or even comes close, how are you going to reconcile that opinion?"

Voters are impossible to figure (how could half the country have voted for Bush a second time, let alone the first time?) but do you honestly think the "center" among both houses hasn't been forced way over to the right by the neo-cons and theo-cons? That could hardly be called an opinion.

If Obama does get in it'll be simply because people are unhappy about not having any money and they want someone else. And partly because it's humiliating not being able to have shocked and awed Iraq into a US-compliant oil-pumping state.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 15 said:


> Bruce:
> 
> "So, America's "center" is skewed far, FAR to the right."
> 
> Jay:
> 
> "So if Obama DOES get elected or even comes close, how are you going to reconcile that opinion?"
> 
> Voters are impossible to figure (how could half the country have voted for Bush a second time, let alone the first time?) but do you honestly think the "center" among both houses hasn't been forced way over to the right by the neo-cons and theo-cons? That could hardly be called an opinion.
> 
> If Obama does get in it'll be simply because people are unhappy about not having any money and they want someone else. And partly because it's humiliating not being able to have shocked and awed Iraq into a US-compliant oil-pumping state.



C'mon, Nick, if a guy who is as liberal as Obama is gets elected, America's voters will have proved that they are not FAR to the right. The two are irreconcilable. Most self-describe as leaning to the right. If they were FAR to the right, McCain would not get the nomination nor would Obama or Hillary. None of them can be described as FAR to the right, which is why Limbaugh, Coulter, and all the right wing wack jobs were so against Mc Cain.

But frankly, I still fear Obama is not electable.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I suspect you're giving Republican voters credit for being way more sophisticated than they are, Jay. After all, if they were sophisticated then they wouldn't be voting Republican in the first place.

I'm quite serious about that, by the way - the Republicans in power today are totally irrational and reckless. You have to construct a parallel reality to agree with their positions on almost every issue - not that most Democrats are in step with Mainstream Moi either.

McCain won the Republican nomination simply because of his maverick persona. People are finally starting to sense that the toilet we've been led into by previous administrations has been flushed over the past seven disastrous years. They may not understand the extent of it, but they think that McCain is a departure from the insecurity they feel right now.

And I don't know why you think Obama is so liberal. Someone who "leans to the right" by today's standards is far to the right by objective standards.

Beyond right/left/center, what we need right now is to restore sanity in general. A spineless wimp ineffectual sap - aka "centrist" - is not going to do that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And I think that Obama has more than enough votes all across the country to prove that he certainly is electable. Just wait until you see him on stage next to McCain in a debate. He has a much bigger personality; he'll blow him off the stage.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

A friend emailed this to me. Sorry for the length.


talkingpointsmemo.com:


Obama's Is an Appalachia Problem, Not a Whites Problem

By JONATHAN TILOVE
c.2008 Newhouse News Service

WASHINGTON _ According to exit polls, Hillary Clinton won 67 percent of the
white vote in West Virginia, America's third whitest state. Yet in early
March, Barack Obama won 60 percent of the white vote in Vermont, the
nation's second-whitest state.

What gives?

America is learning a lot about race this year, most recently that not all
white voters are alike. There are enormous regional differences in how
whites vote, differences with deep historical roots.

Clinton's romp in West Virginia, and in all likelihood another in
neighboring Kentucky next week, do not prove that Obama has a problem with
white voters generally or that whites have turned on him in recent weeks. He
is expected to win in Oregon on Tuesday _ it's 21st on the list of whitest
states. His campaign noted Wednesday that he is doing better right now with
white voters in national match-ups with John McCain than either Al Gore or
John Kerry did in their campaigns against George W. Bush.

But Clinton's West Virginia landslide does mean that Obama, for reasons that
go beyond race, has a problem with Appalachia's whites and the Scots-Irish
who settled there and forever branded its culture.

As Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., argues in his 2004 book, ``Born Fighting: How the
Scots-Irish Shaped America,'' the Scots-Irish are a particularly pugnacious
people, self-reliant and hyper-individualistic, who place honor above
profit.

These are the people whose ancestors lived and fought along the brutal
borderlands between England and Scotland, and later in Northern Ireland
(they are the Protestants of Ulster). Unlike other British settlers, the
Scots-Irish, Webb writes, migrated ``directly to the wilderness of the
Appalachian Mountains, bypassing even the rudiments of colonial
civilization.''

Frequently occupying the lower rungs socially and economically, they have
always been the most likely to fight and die for their country, Webb writes.
They don't cling to guns; they proudly pass them on to their young sons as a
rite of passage Webb likens to a ``Redneck Bar Mitzvah.'' Webb's father gave
him his first rifle when he was 8 and his first pair of boxing gloves when
he was 6.

Around the same time, his father laid out ``the eternal ground rules for
street fighting,'' which now find their echoes in the last days of the
Clinton campaign: ``Never start a fight, but never run away, even if you
know you are going to lose. ... And whomever you fight, you must make them
pay. You must always mark them, so that the next day they have to face the
world with a black eye or a cut lip or a bruised cheek, and remember where
they got it.''

Enter the silky, smooth-faced and super-smart Obama. With his Harvard
pedigree, mellifluous voice and high-minded talk of moving beyond the
politics of confrontation, he is totally out of place in Appalachia.

It's like casting Hugh Grant instead of Mel Gibson as William Wallace in
``Braveheart.''

``What people don't understand about Appalachia is that we've heard all this
`hope' and `change' stuff since the English kicked the Scotch-Irish out in
the 1700s. We're `hoped' out. Nothing ever changes out here,'' Dave
``Mudcat'' Saunders, a Virginia political strategist who worked on John
Edwards' campaign, told The Politico on the eve of the West Virginia vote.

For those keeping score, seven of the 10 whitest states in the nation have
held their primaries or caucuses. The Illinois senator has won five and the
New York senator two _ New Hampshire by an inch and now West Virginia by a
country mile.

Stretch it to the 20 whitest states and the tally is 12 for Obama and five
for Clinton, with three to go. If you limit it to primary and not caucus
states, of the 20 whitest states, Obama has won four _ Vermont, Wisconsin,
Utah and Missouri _ and Clinton has won five _ New Hampshire, West Virginia,
Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Appalachia reaches from western New York and Pennsylvania down through
eastern Ohio, all of West Virginia, stretches of western Virginia and the
Carolinas, eastern Kentucky and Tennessee and on into north Georgia and
Alabama and northeastern Mississippi. As Josh Marshall noted in posting on
Talking Points Memo after the West Virginia results were in, the map of
Appalachia lines up pretty well with a map of counties where Clinton has won
more than 60 percent of the vote.

``She's won the Appalachian region of every state contested,'' wrote Dana
Houle, who in his postings on Daily Kos has dissected how Obama's difficulty
in Appalachia does not necessarily translate into a broader or more
permanent problem with white voters.

``No, Obama doesn't have a racial problem,'' Houle concluded. ``It appears
that Appalachia has an Obama problem.''

Unlike John Kennedy who, with loads of charm and money won an unexpected and
decisive victory in the West Virginia primary in 1960, Obama barely
contested West Virginia and seems to be taking a pass on Kentucky as well.

While his being black, or biracial, didn't help Obama there and elsewhere in
Appalachia, ascribing racist motivations to Clinton supporters ignores the
obvious, according to Michael Lind, a senior fellow at the New American
Foundation. They could go with the newcomer Obama, who in April explained to
some wealthy San Franciscans _ their cultural arch-enemies _ that small-town
folks like them weren't with him because they were ``bitter'' about their
lot. Or they could stick with a Clinton.

``Bill Clinton won Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia in 1992
and again four years later,'' Lind wrote on Salon. ``Is it at all surprising
that these very same voters, facing a recession, would choose another
Democrat with the last name Clinton?''

In his classic work, ``Albion's Seed,'' Brandeis University historian David
Hackett Fischer described the four distinctly different British migrations
that made America.

Obama is a much more appealing candidate to whites like those in New England
(though he lost Massachusetts and Rhode Island decisively), who inhabit the
lands first settled by the more intellectual and moralistic Puritans, and
the places from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Northwest where those New
Englanders migrated.

In other words, Obama is more in the John Adams or John Qunicy Adams mold,
and voters in Appalachia are Andrew Jackson Democrats, for whom John McCain,
with his Scots-Irish heritage and temperament, may appear to be the real
McCoy.

``John McCain is very true to his Southern Highlands Mississippi origins,''
said Fischer, the historian.

Or as Patrick Ruffini, a Republican strategist, wrote on his blog back in
February, ``I've heard more than one guy mention McCain's volcanic temper as
a positive. They equate this with toughness against our enemies.''

Once Democrats, Webb says the Scots-Irish created the ``core culture around
which Red State America has gathered and thrived.'' But he does not believe
they are irrevocably lost to the Democrats.

``In fact,'' Webb wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2004, ``the greatest
realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right
national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African-Americans
to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set
them apart for the past two centuries.''

It's an intriguing statement from a man who two years later was elected to
the Senate and is now frequently mentioned as a potential running-mate for
Obama.

(Jonathan Tilove can be contacted at jonathan.tilove(at)newhouse.com)


----------



## José Herring

Ashermusic @ Wed May 14 said:


> Are you equally offended by the obvious racial discrimination that is leading blacks to vote for Obama by well over 90%?




You must of missed the fact that I said that Obama is playing the race card too.




Ashermusic @ Wed May 14 said:


> There are numerous reports of blacks who are pro- Hillary being threatened by pro-Obama blacks. And many blacks are angry at Obama for denouncing Rev. Wright because, oh, let me see...oh yeah, because he is black.



You watch too much news. No "blacks" that I know have "threatened" other "blacks" into voting for Obama. You talk as if Obama is getting votes by holding a gun to voters heads. If you're talking about other "black" officials that are afraid to stick with the Clintons for fear of not getting re-elected. Then that's politics as usual I'm afraid.


Ashermusic @ Wed May 14 said:


> It is sad, by we truly have not yet reached the point where we vote based only on character, experience, and ideas, on either side.



Depends on how you look at it. Hilary's character imo sucks. Have we all forgotten the unethical practices she's been involved in. During her husbands presidency she engaged in hiding evidence from the FBI. The whitewater land deals. While in Arkansas she was involved in insider trading on the Chicago commodities market. Also, in Arkansas she was involved in the Savings and loans scandals that cased them to collapse. Also, accepting illegal campaign contributions from the communist Chinese is a bit of a red flag for me. 

She has no experience that I would consider adequate enough to be president. Not that Obama is doing much better but I consider them quite equal experience wise unless you count "scorned woman" as presidential experience.

But aside from experience the list of this woman's crimes are just horrendous. Being the wife of a govenor and then the presidents wife has it's perks. Others (like Martha Stuart) have gone to jail for things far, far less sever than this woman has done. Girl has no shame. Thinks she can get away with anything, and has sever problems telling right from wrong.



Jose


----------



## JonFairhurst

According to SNL,
1) She's a sore loser,
2) Her supporters are racist, and
3) She has no moral principles.

Maybe it's more correct to say that
1) She is achievement-oriented and wants to win,
2) Her supporters are "Appalachian", and
3) She has "limited" moral principles.

Yeah, that's it!


----------



## Ashermusic

Jose, most of what you listed was investigated every which way but sideways and the Clintons were not charged with do anything illegal. 

But believe what you want to believe. It makes little difference because barring a miracle, she has lost. And I think we have lost a potentially fine president.

And its Martha Stewart, not Stuart, like Mary, Queen of Scots.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 15 said:


> And I think that Obama has more than enough votes all across the country to prove that he certainly is electable. Just wait until you see him on stage next to McCain in a debate. He has a much bigger personality; he'll blow him off the stage.



I hope you're right, but I am skeptical because even her detractors generally conceded that Hillary blew Barak off the stage nearly every time they debated. He makes great speeches but he is not so great off the cuff.


----------



## Hans Adamson

*Edwards for VP*

I can't help but feel excited by Edwards' endorsement of Obama. Edwards' willingness to take on corporations on behalf of our common interests would make him a wonderful choice as Vice President. Obama/Edwards.... fels like a "Kennedy" team...

So here to Edwards for Vice President: o-[][]-o


----------



## midphase

I'd love to see Edwards in the White House in some way shape or form....but if the Democrats really want a shot at winning this race, I'm not sure that would be such a great idea.

Obama already does well in the South, so Edwards would be no big help with that, and they're both populists, so Edwards really wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table that Obama already doesn't have.

To complicate things further, Edwards didn't do so well against Hillary which would worry me that Hillary supporters would like this bill even less.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

midphase @ Fri May 16 said:


> I'd love to see Edwards in the White House in some way shape or form....but if the Democrats really want a shot at winning this race, I'm not sure that would be such a great idea.
> 
> Obama already does well in the South, so Edwards would be no big help with that, and they're both populists, so Edwards really wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table that Obama already doesn't have.
> 
> To complicate things further, Edwards didn't do so well against Hillary which would worry me that Hillary supporters would like this bill even less.



Edwards appeals far more to the "blue collar" worker than Obama, and is far from the "elitist" label. I think he would be a better asset than what you just outlined.


----------



## midphase

I dunno....didn't help Kerry (which was fighting the elitist label as well).


----------



## Ashermusic

I am going to ask one last question and if someone answers it to my satisfaction I will concede, stop worrying, and and drop this whole thing.

Obama is the candidate of change, he has said over and over and over.We need to change politics and the way Washington does business, etc.

Will someone please list just 3 issues where Barak strongly disagrees with 76 year old very liberal Ted Kennedy, who has been in the Senate for almost 40 years?

Because, believe me, THAT is what the Republicans are going to be asking the American voters and Obama damn well better be able to answer it or he will lose.


----------



## Ashermusic

*Re: Edwards for VP*



Hans Adamson @ Thu May 15 said:


> I can't help but feel excited by Edwards' endorsement of Obama. Edwards' willingness to take on corporations on behalf of our common interests would make him a wonderful choice as Vice President. Obama/Edwards.... fels like a "Kennedy" team...
> 
> So here to Edwards for Vice President: o-[][]-o



Oh yes, the multi-millionaire populist who has channeled Huey Long. Another great way for Democrats to lose what should be an un-losable election.

Someone like Evan Bayh would be a much better choice IMHO.


----------



## JonFairhurst

How 'bout Murtha?

He's from Pennsylvania, has a wealth of experience - especially related to the military, can play the attack dog role, and is 100% against the Iraq war.

He's also seen as a man of conscience - he was the first Democratic leader to break from the herd on the war.

There are two downsides: 1) Murtha sometimes speaks before he thinks, - all it takes is one bad phrase to put the 24-hour news in a tizzy, and 2) Obama-Murtha isn't very sonorous. 

If not Murtha, then somebody with similar positive qualities.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Will someone please list just 3 issues where Barak strongly disagrees with 76 year old very liberal Ted Kennedy, who has been in the Senate for almost 40 years?"

Gay marriage?



The truth is that Ted Kennedy is on the appropriate side of every issue (which I consider simply being rational, not "very liberal"), but you're not asking the right question. That tack won't mean a lot to a public that doesn't have any money and doesn't like what's been going on over the past seven years - any more than saying McCain is four more years of Bush will help the Democrats.

It's the specific ideas Obama has, his leadership qualities and ability to sell hopes (Napoleon's line: a leader is a seller of hopes), his charismatic personality, obviously his ability to convince people he's on their side...that's what's going to get him over.

By the way, I don't doubt that the Presidential election is going to be a tough battle. What I disagree with heart and soul is your idea that we need a [fighting off nausea] "centrist" to beat McCain. Voters want a leader, not someone whose limp psyche is in need of Viagra.

That condition was the reason both Gore (as a candidate, not since then) and Kerry lost to a caricature dufus.* It had nothing to do with them being "liberal."

You know, in a way centrists are worse than neo-cons. Neo-cons are delusional idiots; centrists are liberal enough to know better.


* Assuming they really did lose. As I've said before, I'd like to feel better about the integrity of our elections.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I think Edwards would be an excellent running mate for Obama. So would Hillary, but I don't see that happening.

...although my money would be on one of the two.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 16 said:


> "Will someone please list just 3 issues where Barak strongly disagrees with 76 year old very liberal Ted Kennedy, who has been in the Senate for almost 40 years?"
> 
> Gay marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Ted Kennedy is on the appropriate side of every issue (which I consider simply being rational, not "very liberal"), but you're not asking the right question. That tack won't mean a lot to a public that doesn't have any money and doesn't like what's been going on over the past seven years - any more than saying McCain is four more years of Bush will help the Democrats.
> 
> It's the specific ideas Obama has, his leadership qualities and ability to sell hopes (Napoleon's line: a leader is a seller of hopes), his charismatic personality, obviously his ability to convince people he's on their side...that's what's going to get him over.
> 
> By the way, I don't doubt that the Presidential election is going to be a tough battle. What I disagree with heart and soul is your idea that we need a [fighting off nausea] "centrist" to beat McCain. Voters want a leader, not someone whose limp psyche is in need of Viagra.
> 
> That condition was the reason both Gore (as a candidate, not since then) and Kerry lost to a caricature dufus.* It had nothing to do with them being "liberal."
> 
> You know, in a way centrists are worse than neo-cons. Neo-cons are delusional idiots; centrists are liberal enough to know better.
> 
> 
> * Assuming they really did lose. As I've said before, I'd like to feel better about the integrity of our elections.



You somehow seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans have won most of the last elections by successfully painting the democratic candidate as too liberal. If they lost  that IS why they lost and you are in denial if you do not believe it. Clinton won because they simply were not successful in painting him as too liberal and that is also why IMHO Hillary would have been the better candidate and Edwards even worse than Obama.

If "Change" = old liberal ideas, he will lose. You may agree with those ideas and deem them "appropriate" and I also agree with many of them, but it is simply not where most Americans who actually vote are at.

And it is unfortunate that you cannot respect other's views. I teach 3 doctors, all conservative Republicans, and 2 of them (I am not as convinced about the other) are at least as smart and well-informed as you and I are, nor are they selfish or evil, and they are going to hold their nose and vote for McCain because they sincerely believe in smaller government and conservative principles, and he reflects their beliefs more than the Democrats.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Well, I disagree with your assessment of the last elections (repeating what I just said to you on the phone  ). Their liberal politics had something to do with it, sure, but it was because they were both pathetic as candidates.

As to respecting Republicans, well, of course I'm overstating my point. I'm just focusing on how monstrous our present government is; the fact that they're Republican is almost a coincidence, because they're simply lunatics and there's a wide range of opinion among Republicans - as there is among Democrats.

But when it comes to "small government," the step from laissez faire to letting them eat cake is very, very short - and our country hasn't just stepped over the line, it's pole vaulted over it. What services would they do without?

Bottom line, the problem is that what's posing as Republican leadership right now makes one associate all conservative points of view with it. These people are short-sighted, horribly corrupt, and evil. And yes, I really do mean EVIL - that's absolutely not an overstatement.

So I do respect rational yet different points of view, but I have absolutely no respect for murder and corruption.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 16 said:


> As to respecting Republicans, well, of course I'm overstating my point.



A pro editor should know better than to write hyperbole


----------



## midphase

Does anyone care to speculate what is going on with the Republican's new strategy about admitting that they're in really bad shape and that they will probably loose big in November?

What are they trying to accomplish? I'm seeing it all over the news, and I think there's gotta be some reason as to why they're doing this now. Are they hoping for a sympathy vote? Maybe they think that by admitting that they're in bad shape, people will feel sorry for them?


----------



## JonFairhurst

It's called managing expectations. If expectations are low, even a narrow loss is seen as a win.

Remember when everybody said that Gore was a great debater, and that he would pummel Bush in a debate? When the pundits split (predictably) on who won, we got this headline: "Gore fails to win debate."

Just recently Hillary was expected to win Indiana - and she did by two points. But because she was expected to win by more, it was framed as a win for Obama.

But you've got to keep from framing expectations too low. The Republicans risk people staying home in November, if no one thinks McCain has a shot at the win.


----------



## SvK

Sometimes.....

Pictures speak louder than words!
Obama in Portland Oregon today.......75.000+++++

SvK


----------



## SvK

One more.....

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Does anyone care to speculate what is going on with the Republican's new strategy about admitting that they're in really bad shape and that they will probably loose big in November?"

It could be managing expectations, or it could simply be taken at face value: they realize they're going to lose big in November. The country isn't in such great shape, you know...


----------



## SvK

Hi Nick,

The fact that McCain is the nominee of the Republican party is irrefutable proof that there is no Republican party.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

In what way do you mean that?

Actually the old McCain was a good candidate if you're Republican. I didn't agree with him on most things then either, but I did agree with him about some things.

This time I'm not so sure - it looks like he's saying what he's being advised to say to get elected. He's certainly not a neo-con, and at least he wants to do something to combat climate change (in fact I think cap and trade is the right idea). And I do believe that unlike the present administration, which has an evil agenda, he wants to do good for the country.

But the candidate who was so outspoken about important issues like campaign finance reform seems to have been put on the back burner. Too bad.

So I sure hope he and his right-wing judicial appointments don't get in. And I find it surprising that someone who's been through what he's been through would be such a hawk. You'd think it would have the opposite effect. Nope. He thinks invading Iraq was a terrific idea - except to differentiate himself from unpopular Bush he says he thinks the war was mismanaged.

Well gee, 'dja think?! That sure takes powers of insight.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

One issue I'd like to see as part of the discussion is how our armed forces have become so privatized. Hillary said it was time to "show Blackwater the door," and she's beyond 100% right. That whole situation is *frightening.* I haven't heard what Obama or McCain think about it.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Great photos, SvK! My daughter, who will be old enough to cast her first presidential vote in November, attended the Portland rally and said that it was absolutely inspiring. 

Yesterday, I attended our Congressional District Caucus as an Obama Alternate in Washington State's 3rd district. The range of people who are Obama state delegates here are amazing in terms of ages, races, styles, life stories and so on. We voted for delegates to go to the national convention in Denver. Our national male delegate is a young black man with long dreadlocks, deep passion and endless energy. Also running were WWII vets, a rancher who looks like the Marlboro Man, an oyster farmer, and almost fifty other unique and inspiring men.

Some of the female delegate speeches brought us to tears. The top vote getter set up the first Obama office in the state. After recovering from cancer she dedicated her life to making a difference for her kids. Our 2nd female national delegate has a son who has been called back for his fifth tour of duty in Iraq. Another candidate spoke of avoiding wars for the sake of her teenage sons who are now fatherless because of the Iraq war.

For our national elector, we chose a WWII vet who spoke so passionately, he just about had to be pulled from the stage after his time was up.

It's been an amazing and inspiring weekend. I can hardly wait for the State Convention in Spokane...


----------



## JonFairhurst

I just got two e-mails from two friends who shook hands with Obama today. One is his female delegate from my neck of the woods, the other is the wife of a local filmmaker/musician. 

My filmmaking buddy makes original political buttons. He made one for Bill Clinton who spoke on Saturday at the high school three blocks from my friends' house, and another for Obama. Both buttons made it to handlers who promised to deliver the buttons to their new owners.


----------



## SvK

Nick,

Without war there is no McCain. His entire psychological make-up and personality have been shaped by it. How could they not have. Don't get me wrong he is a hero. No doubt about that. 

Did you know that both his grand-father and his father were four-star admirals? His grand-dad was in charge of the pacific fleet while battling the Japanese during WWII. His father was in charge of the fleet in Vietnam. On some level McCain is probably still "competing" and trying to measure up to them, though they are long gone. 

To make matters worse McCain was never involved in a war that the United States has won. Remember that Republican debate where he was talking about the 100 years and someone brought up Vietnam. McCain got all angry and said: "We could have won that war too had we not withdrawn." My point is McCain would probably start a war just to win it! I don't want his fingers anywhere near that red button.

SvK


----------



## Brian Ralston

http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/483138956804a328
:wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I wrote:

"Hillary said it was time to 'show Blackwater the door,' and she's beyond 100% right."

And I should add that John Edwards said something about that too. It was when he announced his withdrawal, if I remember right.


----------



## SvK

In less than 24 hours Barack Obama will make history for America AND all of Europe to be the first minority member to ever be nominated by a major party for president.....

That makes me very proud.

SvK


----------



## Fernando Warez

SvK @ Mon Jun 02 said:


> In less than 24 hours Barack Obama will make history for America AND all of Europe to be the first minority member to ever be nominated by a major party for president.....
> 
> That makes me very proud.
> 
> SvK



Yea! Vote for the black guy. And don't vote for the girl with the big booty.

Vote smart. :roll:


----------



## artsoundz

Fernando- what does that mean?


----------



## Christian Marcussen

SvK @ Mon Jun 02 said:


> In less than 24 hours Barack Obama will make history for America AND all of Europe to be the first minority member to ever be nominated by a major party for president.....
> 
> That makes me very proud.
> 
> SvK



Although he is as white as he is black


----------



## midphase

I hope today it's over! I mean seriously....I think this has been dragged on too long....it's time for Obama to get a few days of R&R and then get back on track to utterly demolish McCain.


----------



## Ed

midphase @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> I hope today it's over! I mean seriously....I think this has been dragged on too long....it's time for Obama to get a few days of R&R and then get back on track to utterly demolish McCain.



Isnt hard to demolish McCain just quote him.


----------



## Abe

Hi Obama fans,

speaking of just having to quote someone ....

Obama's wife is gonna have her greatest hits video released pretty soon...

have you heard ?

apparently,
she was at her church going standing at the pulpit going off on 
racist rant saying whitey this and 
whitey that...

seems like Obama will have to distance himself from her...

He can't be held responsible for what she says..

this guy was a member of that church for 20 years...
the parish was cheering on Wright and so I ask
how can you be part of that environment for so long
and claim you didn't know the man...
clearly if Rev.Wright was unabashedly preaching in
front of thousands ... would he only then clam up while 
alone with Barak...


Wake up folks ..

This guy is a racist 

enough with the white liberal guilt 
ie:Michael Pfleger :oops: 

Abe


----------



## Abe

on a side note... how can you harmonize a quatertone melody...
ie:the second of the scale is tuned down 50 cents... and the problem of having a chord harmonize against that would clearly cause a clash...
any suggestions are appreciated


----------



## Bruce Richardson

Your "reverse racism" is noted and appreciated. Given the history of white/black relations in this country, any black person who wants to say anything about "white America" is more than justified.

It's a little suspect that your first post on this forum be a race-baiting attack on a man who has very clearly demonstrated leadership in confronting racial attitudes.

Regarding your questions about microtonality, "harmonizing" a microtonal melody in a traditional sense seems odd. Don Ellis did it from a jazz perspective, but his use of a quartertone-enabled trumpet utlilized the microtonality primarily as a transitional/rhythmic device, essentially breaking up motion into more discrete steps against an otherwise standard twelve-tone harmonic language.

If one were approaching microtonality in the sense of the Balinese, et. al., then the harmonies are based upon the microtonality inherent in the scales themselves, many of which are actually MORE consonant than western scales...given that they are generally using perfect intervals from the perspective of adherance to the overtone series.


----------



## Ashermusic

Bruce Richardson @ Tue Jun 03 said:


> Given the history of white/black relations in this country, any black person who wants to say anything about "white America" is more than justified.



I am sorry, Bruce, but that is a crock. Racists of any color should be treated the same. I am just as offended when I hear my fellow Jews make bad jokes about goyim (gentiles.)

It is time to stop using history as a way to justify bad behavior.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What?!

Then what should I use to justify mine?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

P.S. I don't choose who to vote for because of their race, religion, crazy ministers, flag pin, or spouse (unless it's Kucinich's spouse and I get to have an affair with her).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Yeah, I took that video - it was on the deck of a swift boat.


----------



## SvK

We did it!!!

Now let's go after McCain........

SvK


----------



## SvK

HRC's most used phrase in her speech:

"I Want..."

Barack's most used phrase in his speech:

"We"


SvK


----------



## Bruce Richardson

Clearly our new friend Abe's interest in discussing microtonality was fleeting...


----------



## SvK

Abe's "tone" was certainly "micro"

wa, wa, wa, waaaaaaaaa

SvK


----------



## artsoundz

and his name is incredibly ironic.....

BTW, SVK_ way to go. your involvement on behalf of Obama's campaign was very cool and inspiring.


----------



## SvK

artsoundz 

.....thanx

SvK


----------



## SvK

Concerning Hillary's speech.....

....Hillary missed a great opportunity to redeem her and Bill's standing amongst the AA community. She could have talked about it, the way Obama just can't........
She could have said that many AA's gave their lives for a day like today.

.....She didn't. That, more than anything, broke my heart.

SvK


----------



## artsoundz

That was just the tip of the iceberg-or the bottom depending on ones perspective. However- you watch- she will rise to the occasion. Whether it's heartfelt or politically motivated remains to be seen. But she will...


----------



## Abe

Hey Obama fans,

check out this link 
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=106583

meanwhile you can google for 
Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis,
which the university was not willing to release 
to the public until after the election.... :oops: 


Abe :lol: 

hey svk can you sing an a to b followed by an a to b quatertone(halfway between 
a b flat and a b) 
back to back ....

well i can ... my ears are more refined 
than yours :lol:


----------



## Ashermusic

Abe @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Hey Obama fans,
> 
> check out this link
> http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=106583
> 
> meanwhile you can google for
> Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis,
> which the university was not willing to release
> to the public until after the election.... :oops:
> 
> 
> Abe :lol:



I am not an Obama supporter but a Clinton supporter. Nonetheless, I find this kind of rumor mongering shameful, Abe. It does not reflect well on you as a human being.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Abe,

It's not the ears that count, it's what between them. Have you come here only for political trolling? If so, there are much more dynamic places than this one to visit: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/


----------



## Brian Ralston

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Abe,
> 
> It's not the ears that count, it's what between them. Have you come here only for political trolling? If so, there are much more dynamic places than this one to visit: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/



I do tend to agree with Ned here that...

1. To come here to post only political posts is kind of....well...not good form. In the words of Captain Hook, "Bad form." 

and 

2. This forum in general has a much better atmosphere and is a much better place to hang out when we are all supporting and helping each other out with our music endeavors rather than bickering about political opinions.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's not prejudice, it's unbridled disdain based on my judgement of reality.

Sorry Brian, even if I'm wrong this time, Faux News is positively evil. I watched it briefly a few of times several ago and thought that it was really low-brow and had nothing to do with journalism; with those idiotic commentatotrs it was certainly nothing I'd want to watch.

But then I saw "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" - which had clips from the network, so you can't use the typical anti-Michael Moore argument people use to discredit everything he has to say - and I realized just how insidious these people are. It is pure, unadulterated propaganda. They flow seamlessly between news and editorials (always idiotic right-wing editorials), they choose their stories and slant them way to the right (for example "Kerry's French connection" right in the middle of the anti-French embarrassment)...they're totally unfair and imbalanced. It takes more than having Combes (is that they guy's name?) to act as a foil for Hannity to be down the middle.

They really should be shut down, and of course I'm not only for free speech that agrees with me. TV news is, as John Williams said in the late 70s, a national embarrassment as it is. This is way over the top.

Porno is fine; Faux News is filth and it's banned from my television.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"MSNBC news (or even NBC News) which has in the last few years clearly become nothing but a liberal political network"

Are you fricking kidding?!

I don't find either one very good, but to say they're liberal political networks and Faux News is down the middle is just absurd.

And yet even if it weren't absurd - and it certainly is - there's a huge difference between rightist and liberal propaganda. Liberal propaganda is at worst misguided. Right-wing propaganda advocates killing, imperialism, and murder.

I don't like propaganda on either side, but they're not equal.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> It takes more than having Combes (is that they guy's name?) to act as a foil for Hannity to be down the middle.
> 
> They really should be shut down, and of course I'm not only for free speech that agrees with me.


 ò\a   {Ó\a   {Ô\a   {Õ\a   {Ö\a   {×\a   {Ø\a   {Ù\a   {Ú\a   {Û\a   {Ü\a   {Ý\a   {Þ\a   {ß\a   {à\a   {á\a   {â\a   {ã\a   {ä\a   {å\a   {æ\a   {ç\a   {è\a   {é\a   {ê\a   {ë\a   {ì\a   {í\a   {î\a   {ï\a   {ð\a   {ñ\a   {ò\a   {ó\a   {ô\a   {õ\a   {ö\a   {÷\a   {ø\a   {ù\a   {ú\a   {û\a   {ü\a   {ý\a   {þ\a   {ÿ\a   { \a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {	\a   {
\a   {\a   {\a   { \a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   {\a   { \a   {!\a   {"\a   {#\a   {$\a   {%\a   {&\a   {'\a   {(\a   {)\a   {*\a   {+\a   {,\a   {-\a   {.\a   {/\a   {0\a   {1\a   {2\a   {3\a   {4\a   {5\a   {6\a   {7\a   {8\a   {9\a   {:\a   {;\a   {<\a   {=\a   {>\a   {?\a   {@\a   {A\a   {B              ò\a   {D\a   {E\a   {F\a   {G\a   {H\a   {I\a   {J\a   {K\a   {L\a   {M\a   {N\a   {O\a   {P\a   {Q\a   {R\a   {S\a   {T\a   {U\a   {V\a   {W\a   {X\a   {Y\a   {Z\a   {[\a   {\\a   {]\a   {^\a   {_\a   {`\a   {a\a   {b\a   {c\a   {d\a   {e\a   {f\a   {g\a   {h\a   {i\a   {j\a   {k\a   {l\a   {m\a   {n\a   {o\a   {p\a   {q\a   {r\a   {s\a   {t\b   {u\b   {v\b   {w\b   {x\b   {y\b   {z\b   {{\b   {|\b   {}\b   {~\b   {\b   {€\b   {\b   {


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"And yet, there is no call from you to shut those guys down for presenting news and OPINION in the same way...why??"

Because they don't present vile propaganda as news!

But bitching about Apple computer design or something sounds good. Kool Aid...well, if you actually call William Kristol, founder of the PNAC, the group of certifiably insane ideologues responsible for the mess in Iraq and other problems - if you call him on the left side...well, then it's not surprising you'd think I've been drinking Kool Aid. I see him as being one of the lunatics responsible for the unnecessary deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, as well as an immeasurable loss of potential in this country due to all the money we've wasted accomplishing absolutely nothing.

But a good glass of wine sounds good. Maybe even two.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Because they don't present vile propaganda as news!



No...those others just make up stuff when the story they want to tell has no basis in reality...like CBS...or they re-edit video footage to craft a story they want to tell instead of the one that is actually true...NBC...or present negative portraits of progress made in Iraq over the last year by a large factor...and then all of a sudden when they can't get away with it any more because there is not that much bad stuff coming out of the area any more...they just stop talking about Iraq every night because they are afraid to say that the change of strategy over the last year is actually working, etc...etc...

You mean...propaganda like that? Completely made up stories and realities like that?



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> But bitching about Apple computer design or something sounds good. Kool Aid...well, if you actually call William Kristol, founder of the PNAC, the group of certifiably insane ideologues responsible for the mess in Iraq and other problems - if you call him on the left side...


 You didn't read carefully enough Nick...I said he was one of the frequent commentators on the right. But...thanks for taking that opportunity to say what you want about him anyway. :wink: I see what you did there. 

Now...back to Apple design...
 

There is a good Pinot Noir out of Oregon called A to Z. Heather and I had it at Ruth's Chris Steak House one night.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> It's not prejudice, it's unbridled disdain based on my judgement of reality.
> 
> Sorry Brian, even if I'm wrong this time, Faux News is positively evil. I watched it briefly a few of times several ago and thought that it was really low-brow and had nothing to do with journalism; with those idiotic commentatotrs it was certainly nothing I'd want to watch.
> 
> But then I saw "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" - which had clips from the network, so you can't use the typical anti-Michael Moore argument people use to discredit everything he has to say - and I realized just how insidious these people are. It is pure, unadulterated propaganda. They flow seamlessly between news and editorials (always idiotic right-wing editorials), they choose their stories and slant them way to the right (for example "Kerry's French connection" right in the middle of the anti-French embarrassment)...they're totally unfair and imbalanced. It takes more than having Combes (is that they guy's name?) to act as a foil for Hannity to be down the middle.
> 
> They really should be shut down, and of course I'm not only for free speech that agrees with me. TV news is, as John Williams said in the late 70s, a national embarrassment as it is. This is way over the top.
> 
> Porno is fine; Faux News is filth and it's banned from my television.



I never watch Fox news and still I am anti-Moore. He is a big, fat, lying, sack of excrement.
(You knew that was coming, right?)


----------



## Brian Ralston

It is best to really watch a mixture of things...and more importantly to do a lot of reading and researching outside of the TV...etc...

None of the news outlets have a monopoly on the truth. Not any more in the USA. It is usually somewhere in the middle. (Not saying the middle of a political opinion...just the middle of what is reported on any given story). There is almost always someone's side of the story left out or not given its proper due. And it is also important for people to be able to see the difference between an opinion/commentary show and a news report show. There is a difference. In the Fox News case...most of the news shows with talking heads are in the morning and afternoon and the evening is packed with commentary and opinion shows (usually opining about the days events).


----------



## Brian Ralston

To get off the Fox News tired old tread...I just had an observation I found interesting. 

5 friends/colleagues of mine who are pretty hard core democrats (2 women, 3 men, a couple of them gay)...have said they will bite their tongue but vote for McCain in november because they do not like Obama and feel he is just a whole lot of fancy packaging with a big steaming pile underneath. I found that interesting. They all were Clinton supporters...still are...but say they will NOT under any circumstances vote for Obama. Not even if Hillary is on the ticket because they do not want him as president and feel he will damage future Democratic chances at the white house because of the damage they believe he will do. One woman said a big factor for her was not liking Michelle Obama. Again...these are all pretty hard core democrats and I have been shocked that they would have that opinion. I found it very interesting. 

I don't personally know any Republicans who had a similar reaction when McCain won the Rep nomination away from other stronger conservative candidates. 

People have a passion for politics...that is for sure. Better than people not caring at all I suppose.


----------



## wonshu

I'm not American, so I have no say in who shapes the world more than anyone else for the past decades. Due to global development this will change soon and I'm not so sure (actually I'm pretty scared) that that's a good thing. 

But as a grown up cosmopolitan I watch as much as I can from as many places as possible. BTW: BBC radio is a pretty good source of information, albeit a little biased on some topics (islamism comes to mind...)

Anyway, I predict Obama will loose this election and the reason for that is explained by a very bright American expat-lawyer living in Düsseldorf who writes a sometimes pretty funny blog:

http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_joys/2008/01/the-lee-marvin.html (http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/german_ ... arvin.html)


----------



## Abe

Hey Ned,

can you play 9 over 4... 
how about 7 over 4...

well i can 

for that matter i can play a pattern in 4 with my left hand
while improvising in 7 or 9 in my right hand...

my brain is just fine thanks....

P.s. Obama lovers have you heard 
the latest...

Rezko was convicted of money laundering, fraud and extortion...
Obama claims he is a friend ... now he will probably say 
despite having a 15+ year relationship with this crook...
uhm I did not know him as well as I thought I did...
what a disgrace ... and you guys have no problem 
with that 

oh dear if he is elected president, we will be relying on
his poor judgement to pick advisors....

his track record speaks for itself :( 

we still have 4 months
to find out who else he has ties to....

We knew Hillary well...

Abe


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Brian Ralston @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> To get off the Fox News tired old tread...I just had an observation I found interesting.
> 
> 5 friends/colleagues of mine who are pretty hard core democrats (2 women, 3 men, a couple of them gay)...have said they will bite their tongue but vote for McCain in november because they do not like Obama and feel he is just a whole lot of fancy packaging with a big steaming pile underneath. I found that interesting. They all were Clinton supporters...still are...but say they will NOT under any circumstances vote for Obama. Not even if Hillary is on the ticket because they do not want him as president and feel he will damage future Democratic chances at the white house because of the damage they believe he will do. One woman said a big factor for her was not liking Michelle Obama. Again...these are all pretty hard core democrats and I have been shocked that they would have that opinion. I found it very interesting.
> 
> I don't personally know any Republicans who had a similar reaction when McCain won the Rep nomination away from other stronger conservative candidates.
> 
> People have a passion for politics...that is for sure. Better than people not caring at all I suppose.


"


Brian, if you flipped the channel away from Fox once in a while you'd have found out that a whole bunch of Republicans have the same reaction about McCain: they just won't vote for him...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Brian Ralston @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> To get off the Fox News tired old tread...I just had an observation I found interesting.
> 
> 5 friends/colleagues of mine who are pretty hard core democrats (2 women, 3 men, a couple of them gay)...have said they will bite their tongue but vote for McCain in november because they do not like Obama and feel he is just a whole lot of fancy packaging with a big steaming pile underneath. I found that interesting. They all were Clinton supporters...still are...but say they will NOT under any circumstances vote for Obama. Not even if Hillary is on the ticket because they do not want him as president and feel he will damage future Democratic chances at the white house because of the damage they believe he will do. One woman said a big factor for her was not liking Michelle Obama. Again...these are all pretty hard core democrats and I have been shocked that they would have that opinion. I found it very interesting.
> 
> I don't personally know any Republicans who had a similar reaction when McCain won the Rep nomination away from other stronger conservative candidates.
> 
> People have a passion for politics...that is for sure. Better than people not caring at all I suppose.


"


Brian, if you flipped the channel away from Fox once in a while you'd have found out that a whole bunch of Republicans have the same reaction about McCain: they just won't vote for him...
and what does that tell you?
...that are way too many racists and facists in this country >8o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Your friends don't sound like they're very well informed, Brian, and they're hopelessly misguided to vote for McCain. Never mind anything else, do the gay ones realize he's going to pack the Supreme Court with more right-wing bananas?

While I voted for Hillary, there's absolutely no reason to think that about Obama. Charisma and incredible speaking skills combined with an ability to motivate people are way more than just fancy packaging. They're great qualities for a leader. He's obviously very bright, and I think he'll make a great President. Hopefully he'll pick Hillary for his running mate.

And voting for McCain because you don't like Michelle Obama is positively retarded. Who freaking cares.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe, just out of interest, what's your opinion of the current administration? Do you feel they're benevolent public servants out for the public good?

How about Reagan's advisors? Great guys too?

How about Nixon's?


----------



## Fernando Warez

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Brian, if you flipped the channel away from Fox once in a while you'd have found out that a whole bunch of Republicans have the same reaction about McCain: they just won't vote for him...
> and what does that tell you?
> ...that are way too many racists and facists in this country >8o




What makes them even more dangerous is they don't know they are fascist!


How can anyone defend Fox news?!!! >8o It is a propaganda channel. I was watching some old Nazi propaganda the other day and it's pretty much the same thing really.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Patrick de Caumette @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Brian, if you flipped the channel away from Fox once in a while you'd have found out that a whole bunch of Republicans have the same reaction about McCain: they just won't vote for him...
> and what does that tell you?
> ...that are way too many racists and facists in this country >8o



1. When I have time to watch TV, I actually watch more CNN lately (for the last year or so) simply because it looks better in Hi-Def and DirecTV does not yet carry the new FoxNews HD feed. There are some shows on Fox news I record on the TiVo. Nice try though.

2. Oh please. Talk about propaganda. This is not about race. It is about people not liking a candidates politics. America is not a racist country. Are there racists in America...sure, you bet. As there are in most any country on this planet. But there is no way anyone today, June 4, 2008 can say that the USA is predominantly racist. Never. Go ask Larry Elder (a conservative African American) what he thinks of America being a racist country. This is about politics plain and simple. Political opinion and opinion on what direction the country should go in the next 4 years...and that is it. 

So...I guess this is the time where I have to invite more people to join Nick and I for some cheese, wine and an Apple computer design bitch session?


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Your friends don't sound like they're very well informed, Brian, and they're hopelessly misguided to vote for McCain. Never mind anything else, do the gay ones realize he's going to pack the Supreme Court with more right-wing bananas?


 Yep...I don't think they come to that decision lightly. But also...one even works in Hillary's LA campaign office. Everyone has their reasons for who they vote for. Everyone has their issue. Your reasons are unique to you. Theirs are unique to them.



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> While I voted for Hillary, there's absolutely no reason to think that about Obama. Charisma and incredible speaking skills combined with an ability to motivate people are way more than just fancy packaging. They're great qualities for a leader. He's obviously very bright, and I think he'll make a great President. Hopefully he'll pick Hillary for his running mate.



I honestly don't think he will pick her. But maybe I am wrong. I think Hillary brings with her a lot of baggage that he will not want to deal with...the biggest one being a guy named Bill. And...if Hillary wants to have any chance at running for president again...she should not take the VP spot...because if Obama wins...he will for sure run for a second term. And she will not oppose him on that in 4 years, not successfully any way. So...her earliest chance would be in 2016 and then she would be really too old in my analysis to make a successful bid as the first female president. She would be older than McCain then wouldn't she?...I need to do that math. But, if she wants another chance in 2012...she should not take the VP spot now. I think the next president will be a one term president anyway, regardless of party...so that is a whole other political thread. 



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> And voting for McCain because you don't like Michelle Obama is positively retarded. Who freaking cares.



A lot of people care 1. who the first lady is. They did when Kerry's wife started coming into the political light and they did not like what they saw. It matters to some people. 

And 2. 

A lot of people have questioned Obama's choices in life of who he associates with and who he builds relationships with. People read into those things...and a lot of people will make judgements on people associations. You have done it yourself with McCain's associations with lobbyists and people have done it with his wife and her business as well. Only McCain's wife has not jumped onto the political stump like Michelle Obama has. So...one would have to assume that Michelle Obama will have a strong influence on her husband's political choices and that is why she matters to a lot of people. Michelle Obama has already shown herself to be a pretty...well...polarizing, negative and jaded individual...all qualities, America in general, does not like to see in a First Lady. An individual they did not elect...but kind of get in a package deal. 

Same goes with Hillary and her bundled package of Bill coming along. Some see him hanging around the White House again as a negative. Some don't. I think Obama will see Bill hanging around with Hillary as VP as a negative. It all matters to some degree. And in a climate where a degree or two can sway a fairly evenly split general electorate...that may be all that matters at the end of the day in November. General election voters are MUCH different in their trends than the fired up primary voters. 

Time will tell. It will be exciting.


----------



## midphase

"So...her earliest chance would be in 2016 and then she would be really too old in my analysis to make a successful bid as the first female president. She would be older than McCain then wouldn't she?...I need to do that math."

She will be 68 in 2016....John McCain is 72 (almost)


----------



## Christian Marcussen

midphase @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> "So...her earliest chance would be in 2016 and then she would be really too old in my analysis to make a successful bid as the first female president. She would be older than McCain then wouldn't she?...I need to do that math."
> 
> She will be 68 in 2016....John McCain is 72 (almost)



Yup. Although I agree that this will likely be too old for the first female president.


----------



## blue

Brian Ralston @ Wed Jun 04 said:


> Then you are not for free speech…



What does free speech have to do with it? Once upon a time, journalists pursued neutrality and let their subjects from "both sides" of the story do battle against each other. They were not part of the story, so the idea of free speech was moot. These days, the opposite is true. Anchors are encouraged to take a side, and balance is now measured by having equal numbers of left and right "anchor personalities." It's anti-journalism and it's happening all over, but I credit Fox News for spearheading it. Claiming free-speech as a justification for this kind of reporting only illustrates what it really is: political advocacy.

And the idea Fox News has successfully managed this new kind of "balance" is ludicrous. I turn it on from time to time in the interest of social anthropology -and, quite frankly, for a masochistic laugh- and it never fails to disappoint in solidifying its agenda. You say the core news shows are during the day and the commentary at night. Well, guess what time slot constitutes prime time?

Also, I wouldn't award too much credit for being the most watched 24 hours news network. It's much easier to follow prejudice than true intellectual curiosity when deciding which channel to watch.


----------



## Brian Ralston

blue @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> What does free speech have to do with it? Once upon a time, journalists pursued neutrality and let their subjects from "both sides" of the story do battle against each other. They were not part of the story, so the idea of free speech was moot. These days, the opposite is true. Anchors are encouraged to take a side, and balance is now measured by having equal numbers of left and right "anchor personalities."



You are mixing up two different and distinct types of programming. So...what are you referring to, a talking head news show...or an opinion/commentary show? I don't know how one can have an opinion/commentary show without stating...umm...opinions. For news anchors and talking heads...I agree with you about neutrality in presenting both sides. Which is why when it comes to political stories, after the story is reported, they always try to have guests on from both US political parties opining on what it all means to them. Yeah...neutrality for talking heads. You know, kind of how NBC presents both sides of....oh wait...no they don't, they re-edit out footage or presidential comments which contradict the point of their story. Or like when CBS just flat out makes shit up with the intent (timing) of influencing an election. :roll: 




blue @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> It's anti-journalism and it's happening all over, but I credit Fox News for spearheading it.


 Interesting...I credit NPR. Which being a government funded entity...makes it even more wonderful. 



blue @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Claiming free-speech as a justification for this kind of reporting only illustrates what it really is: political advocacy.



Again...are you referring to commentary shows or news shows? I am referring to the political commentary shows. Where commentators have the freedom to opine their OPINIONS on the subject being debated. One should not be afraid of those who argue a differing opinion on an issue. There is usually some merit on both sides and most people are passionate about these issues because they care about their future and the future of their families, regardless of the political side they are supporting. 



blue @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> And the idea Fox News has successfully managed this new kind of "balance" is ludicrous. I turn it on from time to time in the interest of social anthropology -and, quite frankly, for a masochistic laugh- and it never fails to disappoint in solidifying its agenda. You say the core news shows are during the day and the commentary at night. Well, guess what time slot constitutes prime time?



Ummm...the shows which attract the greatest number of viewers? The ones which present various opinions from hosts and a variety guests and make people think...thus further forming their own opinions in either the affirmative or negative?

People get their news from a variety of sources today...especially with the internet being so prevalent in people's lives. People get the "news" almost instantly any more. It makes sense to me that during the day when the stories happen, the talking heads talk about it. All the channels rush to be the first to report. Then at the end of the day when people get home...they have already heard about all the big events that day. This is why the Nightly news shows are suffering. When people get home, they then want to know what it all means and debate its implications. They want to see people debate the implications and see guests analyze the meaning. Thereby challenging their own opinion on what it means. The Fox News programming lineup, in my opinion, just reflects that trend.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Brian... out of curiosity... Have you seen Outfoxed?


----------



## blue

Brian Ralston @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> You are mixing up two different and distinct types of programming. So...what are you referring to, a talking head news show...or an opinion/commentary show? I don't know how one can have an opinion/commentary show without stating...umm...opinions.



I'm not confusing the types of programming. I'm questioning the reversal of priorities that puts opinion ahead of fact. We all know that Fox makes its money at night, when political opinions are espoused not by talking heads but by semi-celebrity "news personalities." If it was clearly stated -and understood- that Fox prime-time was not a news network but a conservative talk-show channel I would have a far easier time accepting its existence. But the attention given to opinion -not by guests but by employees- that is then spliced with the tagline "fair and balanced" is at the very least misleading. 



Brian Ralston @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Yeah...neutrality for talking heads. You know, kind of how NBC presents both sides of....oh wait...no they don't, they re-edit out footage or presidential comments which contradict the point of their story. Or like when CBS just flat out makes [email protected]#t up with the intent (timing) of influencing an election. :roll:



First, I never said Fox was the only network to quit on journalistic integrity. Second, the uproar over the editing of Bush's recent speech seems a bit disingenuous. Our president has a long tradition of politicizing the "war on terror." It's how he won re-election, and it's the last card the republicans have towards winning the next one. For his administration to call out NBC for altering the context of his speech is interesting in and of itself. Having read the real excerpt and the edited one, I come away with pretty much the same meaning.



Brian Ralston @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> blue @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's anti-journalism and it's happening all over, but I credit Fox News for spearheading it.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting...I credit NPR. Which being a government funded entity...makes it even more wonderful.
Click to expand...


Really? I don't see that. I hear anchors that stay out of the way and "heads" that are much less bombastic and more coherent in stating their respective cases. I feel much more respect is give to ideas rather than party, something that is long gone on the 24 news networks.


----------



## Ashermusic

As a Democrat who backed Hillary, I am here to tell you that you do not have to be a racist or a fascist to have serious concerns for Obama and consider McCain.

Obama pros:
1. He is bright and articulate and high minded.
2. He appears to be honest, or at least what passes for as honest in politics.

Obama cons:
1. He has said some seriously stupid things IMHO in his campaign.
2. He still has not been very precise on any plans of how he will accomplish what he hopes to accomplish, just keeps selling "change" and "hope." He talks about reaching beyond partisan politics to make things happen but has actually done this successfully very little in his time in the Senate.
3. He has been associated for a long time to varying degrees with people who seem to be very angry and say intemperate things, including his wife.

McCain pros:
1. He talks about reaching beyond partisan politics to make things happen and has actually done this successfully a lot in his time in the Senate.
2. He appears to be honest, or at least what passes for as honest in politics.
3. He had the guts to criticize the Rumsfeld approach to the war when it was not smiled upon in Republican circles.

McCain cons:
1. He appears to have drank the Republican kool aid on tax cuts.
2. He is committed to the surge, although this may yet turn out to be a pro, not a con.
3. He has said some seriously stupid things IMHO in his campaign.

In the end, barring some stunning revelations, I will vote for Obama and Nick put his finger on what for me is the critical point. the Supreme Court. Mc Cain has committed to appointing strict constructionists to the court, who will be there possibly long after he is gone. This is a deal breaker for me, as I consider strict construction of a document that while brilliant, was written by men over 200 years, forced to compromise, who could not have envisioned the future needs of the country, roughly equivalent to literal interpretation of the Bible.

But Obama supporters would be well served to realize that not everyone who is leery of Obama is racially motivated. Barak himself, seems to.

And frankly it rankles me how much many European posters on forums are the first to throw that particular stone at Americans, which is more than a little ironic considering their long history of virulent anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, making war upon each other, etc.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.


----------



## Thonex

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> 3. [McCain] had the guts to criticize the Rumsfeld approach to the war when it was not smiled upon in Republican circles.



If you're going to give that as a positive, then by comparison, you have omitted perhaps one of the biggest Obmam positives... which is: 3) Obama had the foresight to vote *against* the war in Iraq when *EVERYONE* was lined up behind Bush voting in support of the war.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Jay. Are you really going to say that being against the Rumsfeld approach to the war is courageous?! That's like saying water is wet!

Please read "Blackwater: the rise of the world's most powerful mercenary army" by Jeremy Scahill.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> And frankly it rankles me how much many European posters on forums are the first to throw that particular stone at Americans, which is more than a little ironic considering their long history of virulent anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, making war upon each other, etc.
> 
> People in glass houses should not throw stones.



Too bad, 'cause I am an european that lives in the US, with an american wife and two american children and as such, I have just as much right to speak my mind as you do.
You may not like to hear it but I still think the US if lagging far behind in terms of human rights, social equality, violence, distribution of wealth ...etc when compared to Europe.
That statement may offend your nationalistic pride but I tell it the way I see it.
True, racism and exploitation of minorities is everywhere, but as with everything else, it is super sized in the US.

Regarding old Europe: one good thing about being at the top of the world and then getting your butt kicked is that you learn humility and with it a bit of wisdom.
The US has yet to go through that phase (it was defeated in Vietnam but it hasn't been entered in the US records as such) even though I'd say that if you let morons such as G.W. claim the presidency it won't be long until this become a reality.
Not being the top superpower on the world may do the US some good.

That is, if you manage to release the grip on power that the very small minority that actually rules this country has claimed for itself for as long as we can remember (I think the US were truly a democracy/republic for about 20 years and died the day John Adams died).


----------



## Ashermusic

Thonex @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. [McCain] had the guts to criticize the Rumsfeld approach to the war when it was not smiled upon in Republican circles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to give that as a positive, then by comparison, you have omitted perhaps one of the biggest Obmam positives... which is: 3) Obama had the foresight to vote *against* the war in Iraq when *EVERYONE* was lined up behind Bush voting in support of the war.
Click to expand...


Well, for me, my problem is that I am not so sure the war was a bad idea, we were just sold the wrong reasons and there was no plan for the aftermath.

For me, the mistakes were less conceptual than prosecutorial.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Jay. Are you really going to say that being against the Rumsfeld approach to the war is courageous?! That's like saying water is wet!
> 
> Please read "Blackwater: the rise of the world's most powerful mercenary army" by Jeremy Scahill.



It was courageous for a Republican, because it put him at odds with most of his party at that time.

I will check out that book.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Abe @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Spoken like a true liberal.
> Abe



Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Well, for me, my problem is that I am not so sure the war was a bad idea, we were just sold the wrong reasons and there was no plan for the aftermath. 

For me, the mistakes were less conceptual than prosecutorial."

Okay, guys, he's over here.

Be calm, Jay, we're just going to put this fashionable white jacket on you, and you're going to take a nice vacation in a bouncy little room where you can't hurt yourself....


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thonex @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. [McCain] had the guts to criticize the Rumsfeld approach to the war when it was not smiled upon in Republican circles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to give that as a positive, then by comparison, you have omitted perhaps one of the biggest Obmam positives... which is: 3) Obama had the foresight to vote *against* the war in Iraq when *EVERYONE* was lined up behind Bush voting in support of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for me, my problem is that I am not so sure the war was a bad idea, we were just sold the wrong reasons and there was no plan for the aftermath.
> 
> For me, the mistakes were less conceptual than prosecutorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Are you sure you are a democrat?!
> Aside from the oil, what makes you think this war was conceptually a good idea?!
> The world is filled with tyrans. Why remove Saddam and not continue?
> Why not wipe the whole world of its evil leaders?
> I can imagine an "evil leaders commitee" that decides who to take on next...
> You know what happens next... >8o
> 
> Seriously, a good idea!
> I see oil as a reason and possibly the interests of Israel, surrounded by arab countries that don't exhibit friendly behavior, and that would benefit from the division that we've seen at play since we invaded Irak.
> 
> But is that in the US interest? (well, the oil is) (o)
Click to expand...


OK, you are going to hate this

After 9/11, I think there was an argument to be made that a clear message needed to be sent to Syria and Iran that if you give terrorists safe harbor to train in, use as a base of operations, and financially support them, then in our eyes you are the same as the terrorists, and we are coming after you. Since Hussein was a terrible despot, ignored U.N resolutions, was believed to have some weapons of mass destruction (and yes, most of the free world's of the major secret services believed this at that time, as did Hussein's generals) taking him down was an obvious choice as a way to send that message.

Unfortunately, that was not how the Bush administration sold the invasion, and they had absolutely no plan or clue how to proceed after they had accomplished it.

But I am still not sure that if we had a Marshall Plan in place,so that young Muslim men could have said i.e, "We hate it that the Americans are here, but gee, the power grid is up, we have jobs and are making money, and we are not afraid to speak freely without Sadaam's thugs coming after us." that it would not have worked out for the best. It possibly still could, despite all the blundering, although I do not think it likely.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"The fò\á   {1ò\á   {1ó\á   {1ô\á   {1õ\á   {1ö\á   {1÷\á   {1ø\á   {1ù\á   {1ú\á   {1û\á   {1ü\á   {1ý\á   {1þ\á   {1ÿ\á   {2 \á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2	\á   {2
\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2 \á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2\á   {2 \á   {2!\á   {2"\á   {2#\á   {2$\á   {2%\á   {2&\á   {2'\á   {2(\á   {2)\á   {2*\á   {2+\á   {2,\á   {2-\á   {2.\á   {2/\á   {20\á   {21\á   {22\á   {23\á   {24\á   {25\á   {26\á   {2


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"After 9/11, I think there was an argument to be made that a clear message needed to be sent to Syria and Iran that if you give terrorists safe harbor to train in, use as a base of operations, and financially support them, then in our eyes you are the same as the terrorists, and we are coming after you. Since Hussein was a terrible despot, ignored U.N resolutions, was believed to have some weapons of mass destruction (and yes, most of the free world's of the major secret services believed this at that time, as did Hussein's generals) taking him down was an obvious choice as a way to send that message."

Except that all of that is total bullshit. So is the rest of the story about Iraq.

Jay, this region has a long history of conflict between various groups. I hesitate to say it's a religious conflict, because that's never the real issue. And it's way more labyrinthine than just Sunnis and Shia; the point is that the whole idea of nation/states we take for granted in the West never really meant much there. They have a colonial past, of course, and this is part of the aftermath. Remember, Iraq was glued together by people who'd never even been there.

And I can't believe you'd actually think it's rational to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis to flex our muscles with Syria and Iran. Why not bomb Italy and Spain to show them we're tough?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'm afraid Patrick is right about your rhetoric, Jay. And you'd better give me back my blocks or I'll break your lollipop.


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And frankly it rankles me how much many European posters on forums are the first to throw that particular stone at Americans, which is more than a little ironic considering their long history of virulent anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, making war upon each other, etc.
> 
> People in glass houses should not throw stones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. You have a rather incomplete understanding of American democracy and its history. We are and have always been a Representative democracy, which means precisely that. We elect representatives, who then vote. In John Adams day, only male, white land owners could vote, so by any objective measurement, we are far more, not less, democratic than in Adams' time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on your past statements, I think you quite miss the mark yourself at understanding what a democracy is supposed to constitute...
> 
> You may have forgotten Florida 2000. Talk about objective measurement :roll:
> Yes, we can pretend that we are now able to exercise an objective jugement and vote. But based on the opinions of posters here, that vote is based on the info that is made available to them from totally biased sources.
> The mass control is still there but it has shifted, and is way more subversive in the way it attempts to keep control.
> 
> To go beyond the US, I just can't understand why the only choices given to us in a general election are usually millionaire candidates (or at least very wealthy)?
> How can you expect somebody that had a sheltered life to relate to the problems of the general (poor-middle class) population?
> 
> Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The fact that a 200 year old system did indeed misfire in 2000 does not invalidate the system. Are you really going to hold up European elections as a model of orderly process? Puh-leeze,

Yes, we need public financing. Also though, many of the millionaire candidates did not grow up wealthy so they can relate. Certainly Bill Clinton and Barak did not.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"I say the ultimate design was to fraction the Muslim world and in that respect it may have been successful for now."

That's an interesting idea, but I believe the theory behind this was far more simplistic.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

One more point:

THIS NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM!!!!!

NEVER!!!

That's the fundamental flaw with your reasoning, Jay. It's easy to fall into that trap when you get into arguments about this horrible war, but that's always the first point.

This is about hedgemony. Period.

Afghanistan had something to do with terrorism, but even there it wasn't the whole story.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> "After 9/11, I think there was an argument to be made that a clear message needed to be sent to Syria and Iran that if you give terrorists safe harbor to train in, use as a base of operations, and financially support them, then in our eyes you are the same as the terrorists, and we are coming after you. Since Hussein was a terrible despot, ignored U.N resolutions, was believed to have some weapons of mass destruction (and yes, most of the free world's of the major secret services believed this at that time, as did Hussein's generals) taking him down was an obvious choice as a way to send that message."
> 
> Except that all of that is total [email protected]#t. So is the rest of the story about Iraq.
> 
> Jay, this region has a long history of conflict between various groups. I hesitate to say it's a religious conflict, because that's never the real issue. And it's way more labyrinthine than just Sunnis and Shia; the point is that the whole idea of nation/states we take for granted in the West never really meant much there. They have a colonial past, of course, and this is part of the aftermath. Remember, Iraq was glued together by people who'd never even been there.
> 
> And I can't believe you'd actually think it's rational to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis to flex our muscles with Syria and Iran. Why not bomb Italy and Spain to show them we're tough?



Saying something is total b.s. does not make it so. I agree with your analysis of the Middle East, disagree with your lack of solution. Sometimes fear is a powerful motivator.

Italy and Spain are not a threat to us and Brown Shirt and Basque terrorists there only blow up each other, not us,

I have to say I am really pleased with the change of attitude in France these days under their new P.M.


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thonex @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. [McCain] had the guts to criticize the Rumsfeld approach to the war when it was not smiled upon in Republican circles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to give that as a positive, then by comparison, you have omitted perhaps one of the biggest Obmam positives... which is: 3) Obama had the foresight to vote *against* the war in Iraq when *EVERYONE* was lined up behind Bush voting in support of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, for me, my problem is that I am not so sure the war was a bad idea, we were just sold the wrong reasons and there was no plan for the aftermath.
> 
> For me, the mistakes were less conceptual than prosecutorial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> Are you sure you are a democrat?!
> Aside from the oil, what makes you think this war was conceptually a good idea?!
> The world is filled with tyrans. Why remove Saddam and not continue?
> Why not wipe the whole world of its evil leaders?
> I can imagine an "evil leaders commitee" that decides who to take on next...
> You know what happens next... >8o
> 
> Seriously, a good idea!
> I see oil as a reason and possibly the interests of Israel, surrounded by arab countries that don't exhibit friendly behavior, and that would benefit from the division that we've seen at play since we invaded Irak.
> 
> But is that in the US interest? (well, the oil is) (o)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you are going to hate this
> 
> After 9/11, I think there was an argument to be made that a clear message needed to be sent to Syria and Iran that if you give terrorists safe harbor to train in, use as a base of operations, and financially support them, then in our eyes you are the same as the terrorists, and we are coming after you. Since Hussein was a terrible despot, ignored U.N resolutions, was believed to have some weapons of mass destruction (and yes, most of the free world's of the major secret services believed this at that time, as did Hussein's generals) taking him down was an obvious choice as a way to send that message.
> 
> Unfortunately, that was not how the Bush administration sold the invasion, and they had absolutely no plan or clue how to proceed after they had accomplished it.
> 
> But I am still not sure that if we had a Marshall Plan in place,so that young Muslim men could have said i.e, "We hate it that the Americans are here, but gee, the power grid is up, we have jobs and are making money, and we are not afraid to speak freely without Sadaam's thugs coming after us." that it would not have worked out for the best. It possibly still could, despite all the blundering, although I do not think it likely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Jay, but you have the rethoric of a 5 year old....and no understanding of the way the muslim world perceives the US.
> No way in the world can you invade a country that is made up of two main ethnies (leaving the Kurds aside) and think that by removing a known tyran-dictator and instoring a Marshall-type plan things would just go peachy from there on :roll:
> I say the ultimate design was to fraction the Muslim world and in that respect it may have been successful for now.
> Only, lighting up a keg of power can ultimately blow-up in your face...
Click to expand...


Interesting how often you choose to attack the arguer rather than the argument.

No things would not go peachy, but when it is done properly, thò\û   {8‘\û   {8’\û   {8“\û   {8”\û   {8•\û   {8–\û   {8—\û   {8˜\ü   {8™\ü   {8š\ü   {8›\ü   {8œ\ü   {8\ü   {8ž\ü


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not unbridled capitalism is the enemy of democracy :twisted:
Click to expand...


Like it or not unbridled socialism is also an enemy of democracy :twisted

180 degrees from sick brings you to sick.

Once again, I have no problem with Europeans having a different point of view than mine, or even horribly irrational albeit well-intentioned Americans like Nick (who is, btw, one of my favorite people on the planet.)

But when they express their disagreement as if their views are morally superior, which they are most definitely not IMHO , then I get irritated.


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abe @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> I have traveled all over Europe for the better part of
> a decade....
> 
> You can't be serious in suggesting that Europeans
> are not by far more racist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you live in Hiltons during your stay?
> 
> Why do you think US blacks that came to Europe during the second world war or jazz musicians touring there decided to stay rather than return to their country?
> 
> Do you think that the right to vote for blacks in 1959 (less than 50 years ago) is something to be proud of?
> 
> How about segregation in public places, schools, businesses, busses ...etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly the U.S, has been more racist than some i.e. France, not so sure about Britian and some others.
> 
> But Europe has been far more violently anti-Semitic than the U.S. and believe it or not folks, anti-Semitism is not morally superior to racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may have to do with the fact that Europe is closer than the US to Africa and that Africa was the easiest prey for colonialists. As a result Europe has great numbers of muslim citizens and since there is no love between muslims and Israel, anti-semiticism is rampant...
> Such would be the case in the US if we had the same proportion of muslims...
> 
> And from a stand point of legal rights, there is no anti-semiticism in Europe.
Click to expand...


That may explain the anti-Semitism of Muslims, but it does not explain the at least 600 year old history of it among Europeans who are not Muslim. The fact that it is not institutionalized makes it no less pernicious.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not unbridled capitalism is the enemy of democracy :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not unbridled socialism is also an enemy of democracy :twisted
> 
> 180 degrees from sick brings you to sick.
> 
> Once again, I have no problem with Europeans having a different point of view than mine, or even horribly irrational albeit well-intentioned Americans like Nick (who is, btw, one of my favorite people on the planet.)
> 
> But when they express their disagreement as if their views are morally superior, which they are most definitely not IMHO , then I get irritated.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We live in the US, not Russia...

It has nothing to do with morals, everything to do with the relevance of your points.
A stronger rethoric, backed with actual facts would go a long way...

See you...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abe @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> I have traveled all over Europe for the better part of
> a decade....
> 
> You can't be serious in suggesting that Europeans
> are not by far more racist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you live in Hiltons during your stay?
> 
> Why do you think US blacks that came to Europe during the second world war or jazz musicians touring there decided to stay rather than return to their country?
> 
> Do you think that the right to vote for blacks in 1959 (less than 50 years ago) is something to be proud of?
> 
> How about segregation in public places, schools, businesses, busses ...etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly the U.S, has been more racist than some i.e. France, not so sure about Britian and some others.
> 
> But Europe has been far more violently anti-Semitic than the U.S. and believe it or not folks, anti-Semitism is not morally superior to racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may have to do with the fact that Europe is closer than the US to Africa and that Africa was the easiest prey for colonialists. As a result Europe has great numbers of muslim citizens and since there is no love between muslims and Israel, anti-semiticism is rampant...
> Such would be the case in the US if we had the same proportion of muslims...
> 
> And from a stand point of legal rights, there is no anti-semiticism in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may explain the anti-Semitism of Muslims, but it does not explain the at least 600 year old history of it among Europeans who are not Muslim. The fact that it is not institutionalized makes it no less pernicious.
Click to expand...


This sounds like paranoia to me...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Saying something is total b.s. does not make it so."

Saying B.S. does not make it not so either. 

"I agree with your analysis of the Middle East,"

You're a wise man.

"disagree with your lack of solution."

Oh. You should have stopped there.



"Sometimes fear is a powerful motivator. 

Italy and Spain are not a threat to us and Brown Shirt and Basque terrorists there only blow up each other, not us, "

Saddam wasn't a threat to us either. And think how scared everyone would be if we bombed Italy and Spain - they'd think we're really crazy macho and not f with us at all.

Sometimes you have to get out there and kill a few thousand people just to show you know how to kick ass. It's good military Keynsianism - puts some money in some peoples' pockets.


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abe @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> I have traveled all over Europe for the better part of
> a decade....
> 
> You can't be serious in suggesting that Europeans
> are not by far more racist...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you live in Hiltons during your stay?
> 
> Why do you think US blacks that came to Europe during the second world war or jazz musicians touring there decided to stay rather than return to their country?
> 
> Do you think that the right to vote for blacks in 1959 (less than 50 years ago) is something to be proud of?
> 
> How about segregation in public places, schools, businesses, busses ...etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly the U.S, has been more racist than some i.e. France, not so sure about Britian and some others.
> 
> But Europe has been far more violently anti-Semitic than the U.S. and believe it or not folks, anti-Semitism is not morally superior to racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may have to do with the fact that Europe is closer than the US to Africa and that Africa was the easiest prey for colonialists. As a result Europe has great numbers of muslim citizens and since there is no love between muslims and Israel, anti-semiticism is rampant...
> Such would be the case in the US if we had the same proportion of muslims...
> 
> And from a stand point of legal rights, there is no anti-semiticism in Europe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may explain the anti-Semitism of Muslims, but it does not explain the at least 600 year old history of it among Europeans who are not Muslim. The fact that it is not institutionalized makes it no less pernicious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like paranoia to me...
Click to expand...


Paranoia is unreasonable fear. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe, and since Europeans are so afraid of their Muslim populations that they bend over backwards to appease them, it can hardly be construed as paranoia.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> And think how scared everyone would be if we bombed Italy and Spain - they'd think we're really crazy macho and not f with us at all.



Well, that would definitely work with the Italians. THe 2 shortest books in the world are "Great Jewish Sports Figures" and "Italian War Heroes."

Just joking, guys 

Although come to think of it, Spain changed its views on Iraq almost overnight after being attacked by Muslim terrorists so maybe that would work.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Sorry Jay, but you have the rethoric of a 5 year old....and no understanding of the way the muslim world perceives the US.



Now...Jay can take care of his own just fine. But in my opinion Patrick, this personal insult...

1. only serves to demean an individual with whom you simply disagree politically 

and

2. discredits, in my opinion, anything you have to say. Sorry, but it does.

One can tell Jay takes time and care with his choice of words and never lets them get personal. He has always demonstrated his ability to keep his comments on the issue at hand and not formulate insults at his political opponent. I myself take a lot of time to make sure what I write is not focused at the individual, but at the issue at hand. If I write something that could even be taken as a personal insult, I will self edit my choice of words to make sure that is not what is stated. I do not see that same respectful disagreement from you posts and I would have to say that it is disappointing and unfortunate because you very much have passion for your beliefs. But I believe they fall on deaf ears more often than not due to the way those words are expressed time and time again.
:|


----------



## Abe

Hello Obama supporters, 

Obama said Wednesday. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew" :oops: 

Obama said regarding Rev.Wright "I may not know him as well as I thought." 

Senator James Meeks who said "We don't have slave masters, we got mayors, but they still the same white people who are presiding over systems...." he stands by those statements. if you haven't seen here's a clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvtNeeFG81E 

Michael Pfleger an admirer of Louse Farrakhan

Another fine example of a man Obama called a spiritual counselor.

are we really supposed to look the other way ....
3 spiritual counselors and mentors according to Obama himself....

Do you guys truly think that the people who have
"counseled" Obama have not influenced his thinking...

This guy is running a campaign on judgement.... :lol: 

Abe


----------



## tobyond

This is why I just can't understand why McCain gets such an easy ride from the Media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Brian Ralston @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jay, but you have the rethoric of a 5 year old....and no understanding of the way the muslim world perceives the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now...Jay can take care of his own just fine. But in my opinion Patrick, this personal insult...
> 
> 1. only serves to demean an individual with whom you simply disagree politically
> 
> and
> 
> 2. discredits, in my opinion, anything you have to say. Sorry, but it does.
> 
> One can tell Jay takes time and care with his choice of words and never lets them get personal. He has always demonstrated his ability to keep his comments on the issue at hand and not formulate insults at his political opponent. I myself take a lot of time to make sure what I write is not focused at the individual, but at the issue at hand. If I write something that could even be taken as a personal insult, I will self edit my choice of words to make sure that is not what is stated. I do not see that same respectful disagreement from you posts and I would have to say that it is disappointing and unfortunate because you very much have passion for your beliefs. But I believe they fall on deaf ears more often than not due to the way those words are expressed time and time again.
> :|
Click to expand...


Ok Brian & Jay, let me fix it:

Sorry Jay, your rethoric is falling short in a big way....and you fail to understand the way the muslim world perceives the US. 

Feel better?

If I was one of the talk show hosts that you seem to very much enjoy, the verbal abuse would be at a much higher threshold. It doesn't seem to bother you then


I am sure that you are a nice guy but in my view, you support the policies of an administration that has blood on its hands and I have a hard time reading the bunch of non-sense that you post over and over.
Sorry if I sound harsh but this is actually very mild compare to the damage inflicted by hard-core right wingers...


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Thu Jun 05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jay, but you have the rethoric of a 5 year old....and no understanding of the way the muslim world perceives the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now...Jay can take care of his own just fine. But in my opinion Patrick, this personal insult...
> 
> 1. only serves to demean an individual with whom you simply disagree politically
> 
> and
> 
> 2. discredits, in my opinion, anything you have to say. Sorry, but it does.
> 
> One can tell Jay takes time and care with his choice of words and never lets them get personal. He has always demonstrated his ability to keep his comments on the issue at hand and not formulate insults at his political opponent. I myself take a lot of time to make sure what I write is not focused at the individual, but at the issue at hand. If I write something that could even be taken as a personal insult, I will self edit my choice of words to make sure that is not what is stated. I do not see that same respectful disagreement from you posts and I would have to say that it is disappointing and unfortunate because you very much have passion for your beliefs. But I believe they fall on deaf ears more often than not due to the way those words are expressed time and time again.
> :|
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Brian & Jay, let me fix it:
> 
> Sorry Jay, your rethoric is falling short in a big way....and you fail to understand the way the muslim world perceives the US.
> 
> Feel better?
> 
> If I was one of the talk show hosts that you seem to very much enjoy, the verbal abuse would be at a much higher threshold. It doesn't seem to bother you then
> 
> 
> I am sure that you are a nice guy but in my view, you support the policies of an administration that has blood on its hands and I have a hard time reading the bunch of non-sense that you post over and over.
> Sorry if I sound harsh but this is actually very mild compare to the damage inflicted by hard-core right wingers...
Click to expand...


I am not sure who you are addressing here, Brian or me.

If it is me, know that:

1. I indeed spend most of my time reading or listening to those who disagree with me. One learns NOTHING by listening/reading those who agree with them, although it may make them feel good about themselves.

2. Historically, the most damage has been done to the world by those on the far left and far right. To me, there is simply no real difference between hard-core right wingers and hard-core left wingers. They are equally pernicious.

3. I am fully aware of how the Muslim world perceives us. But by and large, given their druthers, they would impose theocracies that would have severe penalties for non-believers and I am neither afraid or ashamed to declare that immoral.

4. Personal attacks generally are the refuge of those who cannot support their arguments well enough without them. You can decide for yourself of that describes you, I will not.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"One learns NOTHING by listening/reading those who agree with them, although it may make them feel good about themselves."

Well, hopefully if you read 'Blackwater' you'll agree that it's a bad idea to privatize our armed forces, allow mercenary companies to recruit soldiers from countries whose governments are inexorably opposed to the wars they're fighting, let mecenary companies hire soldiers who used to terrorize their own citizens (such as Pinochet's people), give mercenary armies free reign with disastrous results for the way our wars have turned out, live with all the incredible corruption that goes along with this much money being thrown around, and on and on.

It's an extraordinarily well researched book that contains information you should agree with. In other words, you can learn a lot from books you agree with too.

Same with Al Gore's book, by the way. I agree with him, and he has a lot of really interesting things to say even though the book isn't well written. It doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me feel despair over what's going on in this country.


----------



## Ashermusic

[quote:5bb990cc0c="Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:47 pm"]"One learns NOTHING by listening/reading those who agree with them, although it may make them feel good ò]h   {R&]h   {R']h   {R(]h   {R)]h   {R*]h   {R+]h   {R,]h   {R-]h   {R.]h   {R/]h   {R0]h   {R1]h   {R2]h   {R3]h   {R4]h   {R5]h   {R6]h   {R7]h   {R8]h   {R9]h   {R:]h   {R;]h   {R<]h   {R=]h   {R>]h   {R?]h   {[email protected]]h   {RA]h   {RB]h   {RC]h   {RD]h   {RE]h   {RF]h   {RG]h   {RH]h   {RI]h   {RJ]h   {RK]h   {RL]h   {RM]h   {RN]h   {RO]h   {RP]h   {RQ]h   {RR]h   {RS]h   {RT]h   {RU]h   {RV]h   {RW]h   {RX]h   {RY]h   {RZ]h   {R[]h   {R\]h   {R]]h   {R^]h   {R_]h   {R`]h   {Ra]h   {Rb]h   {Rc]h   {Rd]h   {Re]h   {Rf]h   {Rg]h   {Rh]h   {Ri]h   {Rj]h   {Rk]h   {Rl]h   {Rm]h   {Rn]h   {Ro]h   {Rp]h   {Rq]h   {Rr]h   {Rs]h   {Rt]h   {Ru]h   {Rv]h   {Rw]h   {Rx]h   {Ry]h   {Rz]h   {R{]h   {R|]h   {R}]h   {R~]h   {R]h   {R€]h   {R]h   {R‚]h   {Rƒ]h   {R„]h   {R…]h   {R†]h   {R‡]h   {Rˆ]h   {R‰]h   {RŠ]h   {R‹]h   {RŒ]h   {R]h   {RŽ]h   {R]h   {R]h   {R‘]h   {R’]h   {R“]h   {R”]h   {R•              ò]h   {R—]h   {R˜]h   {R™]h   {Rš]h   {R›]h   {Rœ]h   {R]h   {Rž]h   {RŸ]h   {R ]h   {R¡]h   {R¢]h   {R£]h   {R¤]h   {R¥]h   {R¦]h   {R§]h   {R¨]h   {R©]h   {Rª]h   {R«]h   {R¬]h   {R­]h   {R®]h   {R¯]h   {R°]h   {R±]h   {R²]h   {R³]h   {R´]h   {Rµ]h   {R¶]h   {R·]h   {R¸]i   {R¹]i   {Rº]i   {R»]i   {R¼]i   {R½]i   {R¾]i   {R¿]i   {RÀ]i   {RÁ]i   {RÂ]i   {RÃ]i   {RÄ]i   {RÅ]i   {RÆ]i   {RÇ]i   {RÈ]i   {RÉ]i   {RÊ]i   {RË]i   {RÌ]i   {RÍ]i   {RÎ]i   {RÏ]i   {RÐ]i   {RÑ]i   {RÒ]i   {RÓ]i   {RÔ]i   {RÕ]i   {RÖ]j   {R×


----------



## Abe

Hi guys, 

since it seems you need it spelled out...

the point being
birds of the same feather flock together...
read the previous post if it still is not registering.

and when the video of Michelle Obama saying whitey this and that is 
released ...please remain consistent and repeat like a good 
Obama bot "what's your point"

:lol: 

Abe


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> since it seems you need it spelled out...
> 
> the point being
> birds of the same feather flock together...
> read the previous post if it still is not registering.
> 
> and when the video of Michelle Obama saying whitey this and that is
> released ...please remain consistent and repeat like a good
> Obama bot "what's your point"
> 
> :lol:
> 
> Abe



and... therefore...what???


----------



## rJames

Welcome back, Scott. (humor)



Abe @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Obama supporters,
> 
> here is a preview of the transparency
> your candidate promises...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... .angry.cnn
> 
> oh and btw , my previous posts
> to Obama's 3 spirtual mentor's went
> silent...
> 
> you can count on the 527's making it an issue...
> 
> this notion of a campaign being run on
> good judgement
> 
> when it is clearly his lack thereof, will pose a serious
> problem for Obama in the GE
> 
> so far we have on the list of Obama's close friends...
> 
> 1. corrupt syrian businessman
> 
> 2. three racist minister's preaching hatred and black supremacy
> (a member of this radical church for 20 years and claims he wasn't aware of it's
> teachings or ties to Louis Farrakhan...even Oprah left this church...everyone
> in Chicago knew about what this church taught...
> 
> 3.a 60's radical and terrorist unapolegtic for his action's
> 
> Abe
> 
> and you guys believe that this nation of moderate
> to conservative leaning people would come out and vote
> for a liberal left of Kennedy and Boxer...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Hey Abe, how about humoring me and pretending for just a minute that Obama isn't a heinous radical Muslim extremist terrorist who hangs out with Al Queda and is married to a woman who hates all white people and rides a broomstick.

What is it you object to about his policies?

Because frankly all these character assassination attempts are just assassinine.

So is that link to the edited one about McCain, by the way, but I haven't seen as concerted an effort to slander him.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Welcome back, Scott. (humor)"

Huge difference (humor understood).

Scott has a little bit of an edge to his posts, but his opinions are well reasoned - not that I agree most of them. Abe is just spouting ridiculous crap about Obama.


----------



## Abe

rJames,

It's Abe not Scott...

are you trying to compose a new song....
I can call u rJames, and rJames when you
call me, you can call me Abe...

seriously, you liberals are trying to 
avoid the obvious ....
but saying so what and what's the point
ain't gonna cut it, when these ad's
are running all over the airwaves...

Obama camp has got it's followers
saying Mrs.Obama was saying why'd he at the 
conference seated next to Louis Farrakhan...
hehe... what a hoot...

As if their associations don't speak volumes
for themselves...

btw... rJames isn't beautiful OC Republican land...

your tracks are really nice at your site

Abe


----------



## Fernando Warez

rJames @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Welcome back, Scott. (humor)
> 
> 
> 
> Abe @ Fri Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama supporters,
> 
> here is a preview of the transparency
> your candidate promises...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... .angry.cnn
> 
> oh and btw , my previous posts
> to Obama's 3 spirtual mentor's went
> silent...
> 
> you can count on the 527's making it an issue...
> 
> this notion of a campaign being run on
> good judgement
> 
> when it is clearly his lack thereof, will pose a serious
> problem for Obama in the GE
> 
> so far we have on the list of Obama's close friends...
> 
> 1. corrupt syrian businessman
> 
> 2. three racist minister's preaching hatred and black supremacy
> (a member of this radical church for 20 years and claims he wasn't aware of it's
> teachings or ties to Louis Farrakhan...even Oprah left this church...everyone
> in Chicago knew about what this church taught...
> 
> 3.a 60's radical and terrorist unapolegtic for his action's
> 
> Abe
> 
> and you guys believe that this nation of moderate
> to conservative leaning people would come out and vote
> for a liberal left of Kennedy and Boxer...
Click to expand...


:lol: ...I was dying to say that!


----------



## Fernando Warez

............My mistake.


----------



## Abe

Fernando,

My friend here is a nice waffle for you...

CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08

Crowley: "You have said you want to go back to Iraq."
Obama: "Yeah." 
Crowley: "See what the situation is on the ground. Is there nothing that they could show you or that General Petraeus could tell you that would move you from wanting to immediately begin removing U.S. troops?" 
Obama: "Well, you know, I never say there's nothing or never or no way in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen si gnificant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq."

Obama said it best "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

Abe :lol:


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Abe :lol:




Pace yourself... you're gonna be doing this for the next 8 years :lol:


----------



## Abe

Hi Thonex,

to be fair you get a waffle as well...

MSNBC's "Morning Joe," 6/6/08
Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs said
"Well, there's no doubt that the security situation has improved, much as everybody admitted it would if we put more troops on the ground." 

MSNBC's "Reaction To The State Of The Union Address," 1/23/07
Obama: "But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq. We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum -- military and civilian, conservative and liberal -- expressed great skepticism about it."

here a little extra waffle syrup...
MSNBC's "Response To The President's Speech On Iraq," 1/10/07
Obama: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." 


Abe


----------



## Scott Rogers

..........


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

True, I'm just putting everyone on.

But I hope you get healthy again soon. Partial kidney failure can't be as much fun as arguing about politics.


----------



## Thonex

Scott Rogers @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> ...I am instead dealing with partial kidney failure and other fun life and death issues.



You take care of yourself Scott... and I know everyone here would agree (in perfect unison) that we all hope you get better soon and we send you our thoughts and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Andrew K


----------



## rJames

Scott, okay, it was in bad taste. But it was just humor. Sorry.

Sorry to you too Abe. Didn't mean to offend either of you.

I haven't been following the thread. I just read a two of Abe's posts and thought of Scott. And missed him. (the musical part)

Sincere wishes for a speedy recovery my friend.

I guess I didn't analyze the argument but was just hit with the stark opposites that can be apparent in the beliefs of intelligent people.

Man you do have a radar for your name in a thread! I think our first meeting in a thread was of a similar nature.

Anyway...back to my corner.


----------



## rJames

Abe, don't you ever wonder why Obama appeals to highly educated Americans both democratic, independent and Republican?



> GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
> 
> PRINCETON, NJ -- Illinois Sen. and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has a much greater appeal to highly educated Americans than to those with less education. Obama's favorable rating goes from 39% among those with high school educations or less to 68% among those with postgraduate educations. A part of the explanation for this phenomenon is that Obama is better known among those with higher levels of education. An additional causal factor is that highly educated Americans are more likely to be Democrats.





> But Gallup analysis shows that Obama has a particularly strong appeal to independents and Republicans with higher levels of education...



When I heard that, I immediately switched to support Obama!!! (tribute to Leo on the triples)


----------



## Thonex

rJames @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Sorry to you too Abe. Didn't mean to offend either of you.



You should take it easy on poor Abe. The poor guy will be totally depressed when Obama gets elected in Nov. Plus, he's too worried about McCains lack of funding, a party in utter disarray and the pivotal question (that will be asked at the right time):

"McCain, do you support the decision to have over 100,000 defense jobs placed overseas and as such, depend on a foreign country for the next 30 years for parts and service for tankers that refuel our jets?"

McCain: "ummmmmm......."

McCain supported the unprecedented outsourcing of defense jet re-fuelers to Airbus as opposed to Boing. Not smart. Not smart at all. Would you want to depend on a foreign country for the spare parts of your jet re-fuelers??? For the next 30 Years???


So... let's be nice to Abe. :wink:


----------



## artsoundz

Scott- sorry to hear about your health. I hope you change your mind and stick around or visit on occasion. I think you probably have more friends here than you realize. 

Politics cant be good for the kidney so let's talk tunes once on a while.

BTW- Kidney for sale. Inquire within.....: )uy


----------



## Ashermusic

I think Scott was indeed owed an apology and congrats to rJames for stepping up. I do NOT think Abe was owed one however as what he posted was despicable.

THe Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape is apparently a hoax perpetrated by the notorious Larry Johnson.

Scott, I hope your health improves.

Abe, I hope you go away.

My fellow Democrats, you wanted Obama, you got him. I sincerely hope that my fears regarding his electability turn out not to be valid and further, I hope if he does get elected, he will not turn out to be another lousy president like Cater, setting our party back for another 20 years.

Spock (and I paraphrase): "Sometimes having a thing is not as desirable as wanting it. It is not logical, but frequently it is so."


----------



## Abe

Good Day,

Scott, I'll be praying for your health.

Asher here is a waffle for you my friend...

Sen. Barack Obama, remarks at the AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Following day on CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08
Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" 

Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." 

Abe 
Hillary 08


----------



## rJames

Abe, thnx for the compliment. OC is not as red as it used to be after 8 years of Bush.

You seem to be searching desperately for ways to show us that Obama is two-faced. I know that I can't convince you otherwise because I know some people see it as a sign of weakness to allow someone to instigate a change in their mind. I do not see it as a weakness. I'm in the middle. Like Jay, I search out opposing opinions.

It isn't two-faced to say that Israel shall remain undivided to a Jewish audience and that the Palestinians and Jews still have to negotiate how to share the region. (I believe this is the stance of all the candidates, including past candidates)

It is also not two-faced to admit that with a buildup of troops, we have seen less violence and at the same time realize that a disaster is unfolding in Iraq. And at the same time that the buildup may very well not quell sectarian violence or even inflame it.

Is it two-faced to say that while he means to withdraw troops immediately, he would consider all facts that were brought to his attention?

This mindset is exactly why I believe we need someone like Obama as our president.

He is not afraid to be candid. He is not afraid to admit association with people that some of us deem radical. He is not afraid to trust that America is finally ready to vote for a candidate that has faults. He is not afraid to shun short term bandaid fixes like a summer gas tax rebate (that Republican and Democratic opponents alike thought would help to garner votes) and look at the longer term issue.

He is not afraid.

Aren't we ready for a president who is not afraid?

He is the only candidate that has created a grass roots campaign, coming from virtually nowhere on the national scene. 

Hillary's husband is a former president. Obama beat the two of them! they are both extremely formidable and they both have a legacy of political friends and connections. That says a lot about his electability.


----------



## Dan Selby

Sorry to hear of your kidney problems, Scott - hope your health improves quickly.

Best wishes,

Dan


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

OMG Abe is right.

Obama porno tape!

I just read about this on Faux News. Apparently Barack Obama made a porno movie before he ran for the senate. And it's really kinky.

Here's the link:

http://www.foodsubs.com/Photos/cheese-tetedemoin.jpg


----------



## artsoundz

well that stinks...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Scott,
so sorry to hear about your health issues, please take care of yourself my friend and hopefully this will only be a scare...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Abe, can you possibly come up with one idea of your own?
You sound like a parrot that's been left hanging in front of Fox News for too long...

Your music must be really boring, considering the time you spend posting worthless crap. I can hear a US army commercial in the background with full orchestra tutti playing the "Eye of the Tiger" =o


----------



## SvK

I went to McCain's website and his blog is getting invaded by mad HRC supporters. The REAL Republicans are getting mad because the HRC supporters keep going on and on about how they still love HRC but will settle for McCain. 

One of the HRC supporters suggested that McCain should pick HRC for VP, or if not VP, the some other important position because she will bring all her 18 million over to him. 

The Republican Supporters are telling them that they are crazy, and to stop talking about HRC because they all HATE the Clintons.

Then they all started calling each other trolls!!!!



SvK


----------



## Brian Ralston

Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Jun 07 said:


> Abe, can you possibly come up with one idea of your own?
> You sound like a parrot that's been left hanging in front of Fox News for too long...
> 
> Your music must be really boring, considering the time you spend posting worthless crap. I can hear a US army commercial in the background with full orchestra tutti playing the "Eye of the Tiger" =o



Again Patrick. I am highly disappointed that you have continued to prove time and time again that your modus operandi is to insult and attack the individual with whom you disagree. That was not called for on any level in my opinion. This is the type of stuff that unfortunately brings this forum down from where it deserves to be.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

But in all fairness, Brian, Abe is trolling with that crap.


----------



## artsoundz

I dont have a problem w/ Patrick's comments-the last one's kinda funny actually. Fair game considering Abe's sole purpose is to antagonize V.I members w/ cheap rumors and innuendo. Not one of his posts are well thought out or contribute anything of value.

After all- it's very suspicious that Abe hasn't contributed anything in the music related topics. He should work for Faux News. A good fit... 

OT-Patrick- LOVE 'La Luna Loca" on the Yellow Tools site. I've been meaning to mention this for a couple of years. It sounds like a real band influenced by Weather Report etc. It's one of my favorite demo tracks.Very nice.

http://www.yellowtools.us/cp21/cms/index.php?id=329


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> But in all fairness, Brian, Abe is trolling with that crap.



Yes, he's clearly provocative and and Patrick response was called for.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Brian Ralston @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe, can you possibly come up with one idea of your own?
> You sound like a parrot that's been left hanging in front of Fox News for too long...
> 
> Your music must be really boring, considering the time you spend posting worthless crap. I can hear a US army commercial in the background with full orchestra tutti playing the "Eye of the Tiger" =o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again Patrick. I am highly disappointed that you have continued to prove time and time again that your modus operandi is to insult and attack the individual with whom you disagree. That was not called for on any level in my opinion. This is the type of stuff that unfortunately brings this forum down from where it deserves to be.
Click to expand...


To be honest Brian, I couldn't care less about what you think of me.
You are a right-winger and contribute in the propagation of lies, deceipt and on-going oppression of the poor and the middle class in the US (and world wide)

You may be a nice guy outside of politics but don't count on me to play nice when it comes time to comment on your spreading of oppressive propaganda.

It's about time you get a taste of the medicine right wingers use all over the media (and you don't seem to like...) :roll:


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

artsoundz @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> OT-Patrick- LOVE 'La Luna Loca" on the Yellow Tools site. I've been meaning to mention this for a couple of years. It sounds like a real band influenced by Weather Report etc. It's one of my favorite demo tracks.Very nice.
> http://www.yellowtools.us/cp21/cms/index.php?id=329



Thanks man, I appreciate it (and sorry for hijiacking this thread)
This is an old track!
You can hear the bass pumping like crazy in the bridge but my mixing chops were pretty light at the time :mrgreen: 

OK, back to the slug fest now:
Down with hard core concervatives !! :twisted:


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Sun Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Jun 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe, can you possibly come up with one idea of your own?
> You sound like a parrot that's been left hanging in front of Fox News for too long...
> 
> Your music must be really boring, considering the time you spend posting worthless crap. I can hear a US army commercial in the background with full orchestra tutti playing the "Eye of the Tiger" =o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again Patrick. I am highly disappointed that you have continued to prove time and time again that your modus operandi is to insult and attack the individual with whom you disagree. That was not called for on any level in my opinion. This is the type of stuff that unfortunately brings this forum down from where it deserves to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest Brian, I couldn't care less about what you think of me.
> You are a right-winger and contribute in the propagation of lies, deceipt and on-going oppression of the poor and the middle class in the US (and world wide)
> 
> You may be a nice guy outside of politics but don't count on me to play nice when it comes time to comment on your spreading of oppressive propaganda.
> 
> It's about time you get a taste of the medicine right wingers use all over the media (and you don't seem to like...) :roll:
Click to expand...


Patrick, it does not reflect well on you that you cannot simply acknowledge that intelligent, well-meaning people can arrive at different conclusions.

No matter who is in power. left or right, the world is not going to improve significantly until more of us can do that.

BTW, it is very ironic to me that the present darling of the Left, Obama, says EXACTLY that, that this mutually respectful attitude is required for "change" and yet so many of his admirers, as you apparently are, will not embrace that. So much for "change."


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

I am not an Obama admirer.
I just give him the benefit of the doubt for being possibly the less evil of the choices that we can pick from in this election.
If he gets elected, we'll have a chance to see what he's about...

I believe that politics corrupt people and the higher your ambition leads you, the more corrupt you become.
Those that manage to stay clean and access power get taken out when they threaten the status quo of the people that run this world.

Intelligent, maybe. Well meaning? Towards who?
Those that belong to the same income bracket?
Get out of here!

In order to be well-meaning you first have to take the blinds off your eyes and take a hard look at reality for what it is.
Leave the Hummer in the garage and go mingle with those that have nothing... 

Then we can talk...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Patrick, it does not reflect well on you that you cannot simply acknowledge that intelligent, well-meaning people can arrive at different conclusions."

It's not over yet, but so far we've lived through an incredibly corrupt and cynical administration that has both led us into disaster and failed to lead us out of it. Yet how is it that even intelligent, well-meaning people - dare one say like Brian - can possibly continue to say that they're just great?

Answers:

1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

2. It's very easy to justify absolutely anything.

3. Intelligence has many facets, and the ability to reason is only one of them.

4. You're under the mistaken assumption that an opinion's validity only has to do with the intentions and intelligence of its holders; reality is irrelevant.

Debate is very important. That's been the fundamental principle behind Western democracies since the Age of Enlightenment. But that doesn't mean it's right to rah rah rah an administration that lies to the public it serves and is *killing people* as a result of its cynical misdeeds.


----------



## rJames

Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> No matter who is in power. left or right, the world is not going to improve significantly until more of us can do that.
> 
> ... Obama, says EXACTLY that, that this mutually respectful attitude is required for "change" ...



I'm glad you are beginning to see the light, Jay!

And I'm not trying to incite anything here. This is exactly what I see in Obama.

@ Patrick, you see Obama as the lesser of evils? I see him as a breath of fresh air. Honesty at last.


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> I am not an Obama admirer.
> I just give him the benefit of the doubt for being possibly the less evil of the choices that we can pick from in this election.
> If he gets elected, we'll have a chance to see what he's about...
> 
> I believe that politics corrupt people and the higher your ambition leads you, the more corrupt you become.
> Those that manage to stay clean and access power get taken out when they threaten the status quo of the people that run this world.
> 
> Intelligent, maybe. Well meaning? Towards who?
> Those that belong to the same income bracket?
> Get out of here!
> 
> In order to be well-meaning you first have to take the blinds off your eyes and take a hard look at reality for what it is.
> Leave the Hummer in the garage and go mingle with those that have nothing...
> 
> Then we can talk...



First of all you have absolutely no idea what the income bracket is or life experience is of everyone who disagrees with you. To assume that they are all rich and have always been is just stereotyping, and frankly, silly.

And you define taking the blinds off your eyes and taking a hard look at reality apparently as coming to your conclusions. There are many who have done this and do not and they are neither venal nor stupid.

Yours is a very narrow point of view.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> "Patrick, it does not reflect well on you that you cannot simply acknowledge that intelligent, well-meaning people can arrive at different conclusions."
> 
> It's not over yet, but so far we've lived through an incredibly corrupt and cynical administration that has both led us into disaster and failed to lead us out of it. Yet how is it that even intelligent, well-meaning people - dare one say like Brian - can possibly continue to say that they're just great?
> 
> Answers:
> 
> 1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> 2. It's very easy to justify absolutely anything.
> 
> 3. Intelligence has many facets, and the ability to reason is only one of them.
> 
> 4. You're under the mistaken assumption that an opinion's validity only has to do with the intentions and intelligence of its holders; reality is irrelevant.
> 
> Debate is very important. That's been the fundamental principle behind Western democracies since the Age of Enlightenment. But that doesn't mean it's right to rah rah rah an administration that lies to the public it serves and is *killing people* as a result of its cynical misdeeds.



1. Correct, which is why you may be going to hell.

2. Agreed, but those on the left do it as much as those on the right.

3. Who decides what is real and what is not real?

4. RESPECTFUL debate is important. Name pointing, hyperbole, and casting aspersions on your opponent's intentions gets us nowhere.

And I certainly am no supporter of this administration. What I am trying to champion here is exactly what Obama says he believes is necessary:respectful coming together of people with different points of view to reach compromises.

And on this forum, we are seeing a microcosm of why by and large he probably will not be able to make that happen: too many people who are too sure that they are the repositories of all that is wise and noble.


----------



## Scott Rogers

..........


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> First of all you have absolutely no idea what the income bracket is or life experience is of everyone who disagrees with you. To assume that they are all rich and have always been is just stereotyping, and frankly, silly.
> And you define taking the blinds off your eyes and taking a hard look at reality apparently as coming to your conclusions. There are many who have done this and do not and they are neither venal nor stupid.
> Yours is a very narrow point of view.



Who is profiting the most from this administration's policies?
Have you taken a look at stats that show how income has evolved in this country in all levels of society?
Are you gonna deny the rich have been served by this conservative administration?

If so, I'll have to question your integrity or capacity to discern...

Am I crazy or did I read somewhere that you are a liberal?
Time to come out of the closet my friend...


----------



## Fernando Warez

Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I crazy or did I read somewhere that you are a liberal?
> Time to come out of the closet my friend...
Click to expand...


I agree.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Scott, I'll support you for VP.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"1. Correct, which is why you may be going to hell."

MAY be going to hell?!

"2. Agreed, but those on the left do it as much as those on the right."

Historically, sure - the Nazis and communists are two pretty good examples of people who have used propaganda to justify killing. But in US politics?! Come on. The right-wing propaganda smear machine has been carefully orchestrated since at least the 70s. And the lies we're seeing out of our current right-wing administration are unprecedented in this country. Plus there's Faux News.

But I also have to say that it's no accident that Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal, and "extraordinary renditions" - to name three in modern history - are all crimes committed by the Republican party and not the Democratics. Sure there have been corrupt Democrats, but the corruption has never been organized. 

"3. Who decides what is real and what is not real?"

(I think you meant my #4.) Is it necessary to decide who decides? Isn't it enough to see things like hundreds of thousands of lives lost unnecessarily, a quagmire in Iraq, a devastated economy, a Constitution in crisis, total erosion of our international prestige...and so on? Oh, and a world seven inactive years closer to ecological collapse?

"4. RESPECTFUL debate is important. Name pointing, hyperbole, and casting aspersions on your opponent's intentions gets us nowhere."

Name pointing - is that a centrist thing? 

But this isn't hyperbole, unfortunately.


----------



## Fernando Warez

> Whoever the next president happens to be, I hope he can figure out a way to keep the jihadists from getting their hands on a nuke or two. God help us all.



Pfff! Why would the jihadist do the only thing that would bring more troops in their country? More foreigners is exactly what they don't want. Why would they do that? You think they are stupid? Terrorist organization have a political agenda and they are not stupid. They know if they do that the allies will come in and make WW2 look like a picnic. 

If a nuke make its way in the US it will most likely be an other false flag operation like 911. And we can count on right wing idiots to fall right onto this trap.

There are 2 groups who want a larger US military presence in the region, and it's the neocons and the Israeli lobby. Funny how a nuke going off in America would help do just that? 

Use your brain a little and you will see that terrorist don't stand to gain anything by doing this, but stand to loose everything. But the neocon will have exactly what they want, which is an excuses to go to war with Iran, Syria, etc..


----------



## Ashermusic

Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 08 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all you have absolutely no idea what the income bracket is or life experience is of everyone who disagrees with you. To assume that they are all rich and have always been is just stereotyping, and frankly, silly.
> And you define taking the blinds off your eyes and taking a hard look at reality apparently as coming to your conclusions. There are many who have done this and do not and they are neither venal nor stupid.
> Yours is a very narrow point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is profiting the most from this administration's policies?
> Have you taken a look at stats that show how income has evolved in this country in all levels of society?
> Are you gonna deny the rich have been served by this conservative administration?
> 
> If so, I'll have to question your integrity or capacity to discern...
> 
> Am I crazy or did I read somewhere that you are a liberal?
> Time to come out of the closet my friend...
Click to expand...


You are talking about 1 administration over 7 1/2 years. I am talking post WW2. The rich have been "served" by every Republican (and several Democrat) administrations since Roosevelt. And the poor/lower middle class have been pandered to by most Democratic administrations with little substantial improvement to their lot, with the exception of Bill Clinton.

No, I am not a Liberal, I am a Centrist as I have said here about 100 times. Do I believe a Democratic administration with a Democratic Congress will look out for the middle class and poor more? Of course, I do, which is why I will swallow my doubts about Obama and vote for him.

Do I believe that my beliefs give me the right to impugn the motives and conclusions of bright, well-educated on the issues, well-intentioned people, and make condescending remarks about them as if clearly they are selfish, stupid, or blind?

I most certainly do not.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Except that many of them absolutely are selfish, stupid, and blind. That's exactly what they are.


----------



## Ashermusic

Fernando Warez @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Whoever the next president happens to be, I hope he can figure out a way to keep the jihadists from getting their hands on a nuke or two. God help us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a nuke make its way in the US it will most likely be an other false flag operation like 911. And we can count on right wing idiots to fall right onto this trap.
> 
> There are 2 groups who want a larger US military presence in the region, and it's the neocons and the Israeli lobby. Funny how a nuke going off in America would help do just that?
> 
> Use your brain a little and you will see that terrorist don't stand to gain anything by doing this, but stand to loose everything. But the neocon will have exactly what they want, which is an excuses to go to war with Iran, Syria, etc..
Click to expand...


According to Bin Laden and others is NOT what the terrorists believe, They believe that the American public is soft, has no stomach for casualties and economic costs, and the more they inflict on us, the sooner we will leave. After all, it has worked well with Spain and France.

They have said this over and over, I for one, take them at their word.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> Except that many of them absolutely are selfish, stupid, and blind. That's exactly what they are.



And many of those that think that of them are more so.

I would never call you selfish or stupid.....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"They have said this over and over, I for one, take them at their word."

Not that I agree with most of what Fernando says, frankly I don't care what those brutal morons say. The question is how and on what scale to deal with the threat they pose. They don't have countries, so invading countries is clearly not the thing to do.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> "They have said this over and over, I for one, take them at their word."
> 
> Not that I agree with most of what Fernando says, frankly I don't care what those brutal morons say. The question is how and on what scale to deal with the threat they pose. They don't have countries, so invading countries is clearly not the thing to do.



Those "brutal morons" were smarty enough to find a way to fly 2 planes into the WTC and 1 into the Pentagon, spreading fear, doing our economy great harm, and contributing to the re-election of W.

They are a very serious threat and we need to treat them as such.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"And many of those that think that of them are more so."

I'm quite serious when I say that, Jay - it's not just rhetorical banter with no thought behind it. Our current administration really is shockingly corrupt, and they really should be impeached on multiple counts. Of course not all conservatives are stupid, blind, or selfish, but a good number of people who continue to support this administration are at least one of the three.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"They are a very serious threat and we need to treat them as such."

Okay.

And what's the way to deal with that threat?


----------



## Ashermusic

[quote:d1c37d9978="Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:06 pm"]"And many of those that think that of them are more so."

I'm quite serious whenò^Î   {ž,^Î   {ž-^Î   {ž.^Î   {ž/^Î   {ž0^Î   {ž1^Î   {ž2^Î   {ž3^Î   {ž4^Î   {ž5^Î   {ž6^Î   {ž7^Î   {ž8^Î   {ž9^Î   {ž:^Î   {ž;^Î   {ž<^Î   {ž=^Î   {ž>^Î   {ž?^Î   {ž@^Î   {žA^Î   {žB^Î   {žC^Î   {žD^Î   {žE^Î   {žF^Î   {žG^Î   {žH^Î   {žI^Î   {žJ^Î   {žK^Î   {žL^Î   {žM^Î   {žN^Î   {žO^Î   {žP^Î   {žQ^Î   {žR^Î   {žS^Î   {žT^Î   {žU^Î   {žV^Î   {žW^Î   {žX^Î   {žY^Î   {žZ^Î   {ž[^Î   {ž\^Î   {ž]^Î   {ž^^Î   {ž_^Î   {ž`^Î   {ža^Î   {žb^Ï   {žc^Ï   {žd^Ï   {že^Ï   {žf^Ï   {žg^Ï   {žh^Ï   {ži^Ï   {žj^Ï   {žk^Ï   {žl^Ï   {žm^Ï   {žn^Ï   {žo^Ï   {žp^Ï   {žq^Ï   {žr^Ï   {žs^Ï   {žt^Ï   {žu^Ï   {žv^Ï   {žw^Ï   {žx^Ï   {žy^Ï   {žz^Ï   {ž{^Ï   {ž|^Ï   {ž}^Ï   {ž~^Ï   {ž^Ï   {ž€^Ï   {ž^Ï   {ž‚^Ï   {žƒ^Ï   {ž„^Ï   {ž…^Ï   {ž†^Ï   {ž‡^Ï   {žˆ^Ï   {ž‰^Ï   {žŠ^Ï   {ž‹^Ï   {žŒ^Ï   {ž^Ï   {žŽ^Ï   {ž^Ï   {ž^Ï   {ž‘^Ï   {ž’^Ï   {ž“^Ï   {ž”^Ï   {ž•^Ï   {ž–^Ð   {ž—^Ð   {ž˜^Ð   {ž™^Ð   {žš^Ð   {ž›              ò^Ð   {ž^Ð   {žž^Ð   {žŸ^Ð   {ž ^Ð   {ž¡^Ð   {ž¢^Ð   {ž£^Ð   {ž¤^Ñ   {ž¥^Ñ   {ž¦^Ñ   {ž§^Ñ   {ž¨^Ñ   {ž©^Ñ   {žª^Ñ   {ž«^Ñ   {ž¬^Ñ   {ž­^Ñ   {ž®^Ñ   {ž¯^Ñ   {ž°^Ñ   {ž±^Ñ   {ž²^Ñ   {ž³^Ñ   {ž´^Ñ   {žµ^Ñ   {ž¶^Ñ   {ž·^Ñ   {ž¸^Ñ   {ž¹^Ñ   {žº^Ñ   {ž»^Ñ   {ž¼^Ñ   {ž½^Ñ   {ž¾^Ñ   {ž¿^Ñ   {žÀ^Ñ   {žÁ^Ñ   {žÂ^Ñ   {žÃ


----------



## rJames

Fernando Warez @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> But hitting you at home with a nuke will have the opposite effect and they and everybody else knows this...
> 
> ...And BTW, i don't believe any of these attacks were perpetrated by terrorist but were in fact done by secret services to facilitate a political agenda in the region.



I think we've pretty much all figured out where you're coming from Fernando.

Why would a terrorist organization without a home country be afraid of striking with a nuclear weapon? In the past, we have threatened to retaliate against the country who strikes us.

Who would we attack if terrorists attacked?

The world would be watching...who would be nuke? Saudi Arabia? Iraq? Afganistan? pakistan?

If you've followed current events in the US, you will know that the "powers that be," whoever they are at any particular moment, don't need a catastrophe. They can just make one up as the US has done in Iraq.

I don't think even Bush said that Iraq was behind 911. Maybe terrorists that he's helped. But the impetus to charge into Iraq was WMD that they were developing. And a "future" threat.

IMHO your conspiracy theory doesn't hold water. Its a convenient way to pretend that terrorists are not really hurting people but then we can see the aftermath of human bombs throughout the middle east.

Just like many of the posts in this thread, when someone posts something really extreme, it lowers their credibility.

Regarding who struck the world trade center on 911...You just have to realize that in many cases, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...its a duck.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"They try to win the day with personal attacks, rather than superior arguments"

Aw Jay, come on. Since I've already won the day with superior insults, why bother with personal arguments?

"But thinking that extricating ourselves from Iraq and also selling Israel down the river will do it is incorrect IMHO. "

Two separate issues. No US administration, left or right, is ever going to sell Israel down the river. It's simply not going to happen; Israel is our only real ally in the region. As a matter of fact we shouldn't have been supporting them unconditionally all along. But every administration will support Israel. That's why I get so frustrated with Jews who voted for Bush thinking that he would support Israel more than Kerry. How ludicrous.

Iraq. Well, we have to extricate ourselves from there sometime, but regardless of what any Democrats say, we're not going to leave overnight. Obama may say that, but it's not going to happen.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> That's why I get so frustrated with Jews who voted for Bush thinking that he would support Israel more than Kerry. How ludicrous.



Keep in mind though that God speaks to Bush, who sees the Jews as his chosen people. Dont tell me God speaks to Kerry?


----------



## Abe

Hi Christian,

this is a blog post from the official Obama site...

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:URodhaDcfJgJ:my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/juancarloscruz/gG5BSr+Barack+Obama+Socialists+Juan+Carlos&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:URo ... ent=safari)

one can only come to two conclusions...

either the Senator's campaign staff agree with these 
sentiments or...

this is posted as a dirty trick by an Obama hater...

i don't know which is worse.... :oops: 

if they can't manage a web site how will he and his 
appointed staff run this country...

Abe

p.s.
a president believing Jews are a chosen people vs.
potential an anti semite is really no comparison...


----------



## blue

Abe @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> this is a blog post from the official Obama site...



Not that anyone is taking you seriously at this point, but one look at the URL for that link tells me this is bogus. I think the people here are generally too savvy to fall for this sh•t. You're wasting your time.


----------



## Abe

Hi Blue,

the url looks strange , because the Obama site scrubbed out the 
blog...

therefore it's only available through Google cache...

check it out for yourself

Abe


----------



## artsoundz

Moderators- This has gone too far. Abe's last post is just blatant hate speech. 

I've been threatened with banning for swearing and you let THIS through? This isnt free speech- it's hate filled racist propaganda. disgusting....


----------



## Abe

Hi ,

I will not make any more political posts..

If that is going to jeopordize my permission to visit this
forum.. 

I find many talented musicians here...

and that is more valuable to me than debating politics..

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'm glad you posted that link, Abe, because it puts everything else you've posted in clearer focus. That link leads to a blatantly anti-Semitic site, and I think not making any more political posts here is a great idea for you.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> To be honest Brian, I couldn't care less about what you think of me.
> You are a right-winger and contribute in the propagation of lies, deceipt and on-going oppression of the poor and the middle class in the US (and world wide)



Actually Patrick...I did not say and have never said what I think of you. I would not do that. And that is the point. I commented that your personal insult to an individual on this forum...no matter who it is or what the circumstances was disappointing and unacceptable and only degrades this forum for which you are a contributing member. 



Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> You may be a nice guy outside of politics but don't count on me to play nice when it comes time to comment on your spreading of oppressive propaganda.



I would submit that anyone here can go back and read anything I have posted in this thread and see that I do not come here and start threads or posts that insult others or try to claim that my way is the way for everyone. I do not promote propaganda. You just define it as such so it can continue to support your beliefs. When was the last time I spread oppressive propaganda? Please...quote me the propaganda and when I posted it and I will address it and correct what I wrote. 
I believe what I believe...and occasionally I explain my beliefs in counter to those displayed here. You believe what you believe. 

I would also submit to you that I am not only a nice guy under certain circumstances...I am honest and true to my word in all aspects of my life and if you can not see that and feel the need to insult...that is ok. That would not be any different than what we have seen here time and time again. You have never met me. And I have never met you. And perhaps that is where I should apologize to you in that my participation on this forum is usually limited...so I do not give others (and you) a bigger opportunity to get to know me and see me participate in areas other than the off-topic forum and politics.



Patrick de Caumette @ Sun Jun 08 said:


> It's about time you get a taste of the medicine right wingers use all over the media (and you don't seem to like...) :roll:



You give what you see in life the meaning and interpretation you want to. It is "corrupt" because you define it as such. It is the "right" way because you say so for your life. But that is your life...and not the life of others. Whether you continue to show an angry disdain for those with which you simply disagree on politics is only for you to decide. When one shows anger or aggression, it is almost always because they are afraid. A defense/survival mechanism. 

Fear of others and their opinions in this world (_and on this forum_) is the very thing that keeps us all fighting with each other. I choose not to contribute to the 'fighting.' I encourage you to do the same.

Have a nice day Patrick.
o-[][]-o :wink:


----------



## Thonex

*Group Hug:*


----------



## artsoundz

it looks more like everyone's trying to get a closer look at whatever he's covering up w/his hands....which, in a way. works better considering some of the recent posts...

edit- the guy in the back....don't go there...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

Brian Ralston @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Actually Patrick...I did not say and have never said what I think of you. I would not do that. And that is the point. I commented that your personal insult to an individual on this forum...no matter who it is or what the circumstances was disappointing and unacceptable and only degrades this forum for which you are a contributing member.



I may have gone to far in my words but assessing someone's argument as being worthy of a 5 year old is not the worst insult that I have heard today...
Unacceptable?
I guess that also is a matter of personal opinion...
Again, don't you find unacceptable the way Fox show hosts treat the guests with different political opinions that they invite regularly and trample systematically?
I personally find it totally revolting and lacking in the most basic code of respect...
If you are gonna claim foul play you should apply it across the board and level the playing field here...




Brian Ralston @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> I do not promote propaganda. When was the last time I spread oppressive propaganda? Please...quote me the propaganda and when I posted it and I will address it and correct what I wrote.
> I believe what I believe...and occasionally I explain my beliefs in counter to those displayed here. You believe what you believe.



Oh, but you do, time and time again. Anytime that you quote Fox, you push your propaganda forward. To you, it isn't propaganda and that is the sad part.
You may say that it is just a matter of perception but I have to disagree.
Sure, history is written by the winner...but it is still possible to assess an historical event objectivò_[   {À	_[   {À
_[   {À_[   {À_\   {À%_\   {À&_\   {À'_\   {À(_\   {À)_\   {À*_\   {À+_\   {À,_]   {À-_]   {À._]   {À/_]   {À0_]   {À1_]   {À2_]   {À3_]   {À4_]   {À5_]   {À6_]   {À7_]   {À8_]   {À9_]   {À:_]   {À;_]   {À<_]   {À=_]   {À>_]   {À?_]   {À@_]   {ÀA_]   {ÀB_]   {ÀC_]   {ÀD_]   {ÀE_]   {ÀF_]   {ÀG_]   {ÀH_]   {ÀI_]   {ÀJ_]   {ÀK_]   {ÀL_]   {ÀM_]   {ÀN_]   {ÀO_]   {ÀP_]   {ÀQ_]   {ÀR_]   {ÀS_]   {ÀT_]   {ÀU_]   {ÀV_]   {ÀW_]   {ÀX_]   {ÀY_]   {ÀZ_]   {À[_]   {À\_]   {À]_]   {À^_]   {À__]   {À`_]   {Àa_]   {Àb_]   {Àc_]   {Àd_]   {Àe_]   {Àf_]   {Àg_]   {Àh_]   {Ài_]   {Àj_]   {Àk_]   {Àl_]   {Àm_]   {Àn_]   {Ào_]   {Àp_]   {Àq_]   {Àr_]   {Às_]   {Àt_]   {Àu_]   {Àv_]   {Àw_]   {Àx_]   {Ày_]   {Àz_]   {À{_]   {À|_]   {À}_]   {À~_]   {À_]   {À€_]   {À_]   {À‚_]   {Àƒ_]   {À„_]   {À…_]   {À†_^   {À‡_^   {Àˆ_^   {À‰_^   {ÀŠ_^   {À‹_^   {ÀŒ_^   {À_^   {ÀŽ_^   {À_^   {À              ò_^   {À’_^   {À“_^   {À”_^   {À•_^   {À–_^   {À—_^   {À˜_^   {À™_^   {Àš_^   {À›_^   {Àœ_^   {À_^   {Àž_^   {ÀŸ_^   {À _^   {À¡_^   {À¢_^   {À£_^   {À¤_^   {À¥_^   {À¦_^   {À§_^   {À¨_^   {À©_^   {Àª_^   {À«_^   {À¬_^   {À­_^   {À®_^   {À¯_^   {À°_^   {À±_^   {À²_^   {À³_^   {À´_^   {Àµ_^   {À¶_^   {À·_^   {À¸_^   {À¹_^   {Àº_^   {À»_^   {À¼_^   {À½_^   {À¾_^   {À¿_^   {ÀÀ_^   {ÀÁ_^   {ÀÂ_^   {ÀÃ_^   {ÀÄ_^   {ÀÅ_^   {ÀÆ_^   {ÀÇ_^   {ÀÈ_^   {ÀÉ_^   {ÀÊ__   {ÀË__   {ÀÌ__   {ÀÍ__   {ÀÎ__   {ÀÏ__   {ÀÐ__   {ÀÑ__   {ÀÒ__   {ÀÓ__   {ÀÔ__   {ÀÕ__   {ÀÖ__   {À×__   {ÀØ__   {ÀÙ__   {ÀÚ__   {ÀÛ__   {ÀÜ__   {ÀÝ__   {ÀÞ__   {Àß__   {Àà__   {Àá__   {Àâ__   {Àã__   {Àä__   {Àå__   {Àæ__   {Àç__   {Àè__   {Àé__   {Àê__   {Àë__   {Àì__   {Àí__   {Àî__   {Àï__   {Àð__   {Àñ__   {Àò__   {Àó__   {Àô__   {Àõ__   {Àö__   {À÷__   {Àø__   {Àù__   {Àú__   {Àû__   {Àü__   {Àý__   {Àþ__   {Àÿ__   {Á __   {Á              ò__   {Á__   {Á__   {Á__   {Á__   {Á__   {Á__   {Á	__   {Á
__   {Á__   {Á_`   {Á _`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á_`   {Á _a   {Á!_a   {Á"_a   {Á#_a   {Á$_a   {Á%_a   {Á&_a   {Á'_a   {Á(_a   {Á)_a   {Á*_a   {Á+_a   {Á,_a   {Á-_a   {Á._a   {Á/_a   {Á0_a   {Á1_a   {Á2_a   {Á3_a   {Á4_a   {Á5_a   {Á6_a   {Á7_a   {Á8_b   {Á9_b   {Á:_b   {Á;_b   {Á<_b   {Á=_b   {Á>_b   {Á?_b   {Á@_b   {ÁA_b   {ÁB_b   {ÁC_b   {ÁD_b   {ÁE_b   {ÁF_b   {ÁG_b   {ÁH_b   {ÁI_b   {ÁJ_b   {ÁK_b   {ÁL_b   {ÁM_b   {ÁN_b   {ÁO_b   {ÁP_b   {ÁQ_b   {ÁR_b   {ÁS_b   {ÁT_b   {ÁU_b   {ÁV_b   {ÁW_b   {ÁX_b   {ÁY_b   {ÁZ_b   {Á[_b   {Á\_b   {Á]_b   {Á^_b   {Á__b   {Á`_b   {Áa_b   {Áb_b   {Ác_b   {Ád_b   {Áe_b   {Áf_b   {Ág_b   {Áh_b   {Ái_b   {Áj_b   {Ák_b   {Ál_b   {Ám_b   {Án_b   {Áo_b   {Áp_b   {Áq_b   {Ár              ò_b   {Át_b   {Áu_b   {Áv_b   {Áw_b   {Áx_b   {Áy_b   {Áz_b   {Á{_b   {Á|_b   {Á}_b   {Á~_b   {Á_b   {Á€_b   {Á_b   {Á‚_b   {Áƒ_b   {Á„_b   {Á…_b   {Á†_b   {Á‡_b   {Áˆ_b   {Á‰_b   {ÁŠ_b   {Á‹_b   {ÁŒ_b   {Á_b   {ÁŽ_b   {Á_b   {Á_b   {Á‘_b   {Á’_b


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Brian, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I way Faux News should be shut down. What they do is an outrage.


----------



## Fernando Warez

What's their slogan again? Unfair and bias? :lol:


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Brian, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I way Faux News should be shut down. What they do is an outrage.



And???

...yet Nick, you don't post in outrage at this when it happened...which is far more biased in its 'reporting' and 'commentary?'



Consistency there?? No...because you most likely agree with what is being said, you do not call for MSNBC to be shut down for allowing this on its airwaves _without rebuttle or discussion_. If one even watched the entire segment with E.D Hill (which I found on YouTube)....there was no discussion of a "terrorist jab" in their segment and the analysis was not done by a Fox News anchor, but rather a body language guest analyst. They also analyzed Bush doing a chest bump at a graduation ceremony with an academy graduate. 

Seriously...it all outrages you because _you give it_ a context and meaning with which you disagree and can be outraged. Instead of dismissing the comment as nonsense. I recommend to you to stop looking for a fight in politics and stop allowing such a thing to get to you. It can't be healthy and does take a toll on the body after a while. I speak from experience on this one and I mean that in a sincere way and not a patronizing one. 
:wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I haven't seen that clip yet, but Keith Olberman is a *commentator.* You can even see "special comment" written on the screen. That's totally different, and of course I have no problem with commentators on all sides.

What Faux News does is disguise propaganda as news. People think they're being informed when they're being disinformed. *That's* why it should be shut down. The fact that they're morons has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Seriously...it all outrages you because you give it a context and meaning with which you disagree and can be outraged. Instead of dismissing the comment as nonsense."

I love the Zen approach, but unfortunately the world is not an illusion created in my mind.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> "Seriously...it all outrages you because you give it a context and meaning with which you disagree and can be outraged. Instead of dismissing the comment as nonsense."
> 
> I love the Zen approach, but unfortunately the world is not an illusion created in my mind.



ehhh...there is a little zen in there for sure, even if unintentional. But that is not really what I am saying in the end.


----------



## rJames

Bad analogy, Brian. To compare Bill OReilly to Olberman is better.

The "terrorist jab" comment is subtle innuendo and meant to feed the backyard patriots that are ready and willing to find terrorists under the neighbors beds. (fear mongering?)

Bring an example of high profile liberal media using innuendo within a newscast to compare with this "terrorist jab" and you may swing some votes.

Thanks for the Olberman clip. I'm glad someone is finally describing the details of the emperors new clothes.


----------



## JonFairhurst

FOX NEWS BROADCAST RECEIVED FROM ALTERNATE UNIVERSE

_A Chest Bump? A Thump? A Nazi Man-on-Man Chest Proposition? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently..._






Only in Murdoch-land would this be considered "hard news."


----------



## JonFairhurst

Bias is a rotten book. Keep in mind that it was published before the media "rah, rah-ed " us into war.

A major part of the book looks at the media's view of race. It asserts that affirmative action is a liberal cause. It then equates the way that the media deals with race to being liberal.

The fact is, we have a corporate media. It wants everybody's eyeballs regardless of race. It's the same as McDonalds wanting to sell hamburgers to everybody. That's not liberal. It's good business.

Bias is just another example of the right wing trying to play the refs.

Considering how the media behaved in the run up the the war, calling the media "liberal" is ludicrous.

The 700 club is big media. Limbaugh is big media. Fox News is big media. 

The media liberal? That's only true for those who think Fox is fair, balanced and in the center.


----------



## Brian Ralston

JonFairhurst @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Bias is just another example of the right wing trying to play the refs.



Perhaps you would like to call up and add some information to the UCLA led (along with University of Missouri) political science study findings?



JonFairhurst @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> Bias is a rotten book. Keep in mind that it was published before the media "rah, rah-ed " us into war.
> 
> ...Considering how the media behaved in the run up the the war, calling the media "liberal" is ludicrous.
> 
> The 700 club is big media. Limbaugh is big media. Fox News is big media.
> 
> The media liberal? That's only true for those who think Fox is fair, balanced and in the center.



Which shows exactly what I was talking about Jon. Two people can read the exact same thing and each have it mean something totally different. 

The problems comes in when people start believing that their meaning or interpretation is the "right" one. As on display here and in so many societies throughout the world. 
o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"And yet individuals have expressed outrage over the years and threads here at Bill O'Reilly too. And No Outrage at Olberman???"

I don't express outrage over Bill O'Reilly, because I couldn't care less what he says. He's a low-brow jackass who's wrong about every single issue, and his job is to provoke and get people to watch him. And I don't express outrage over Olberman because he's usually right, even if he is usually over the top.

"Two people can read the exact same thing and each have it mean something totally different."

And one of them can be totally wrong every time. As I said to Jay, the fact that there are two equally loud and popular opinions doesn't mean that they're both equally valid. 

That's one important distinction between someone like O'Reilly and Keith Olberman, even if Olberman is also a showman.

There's a huge difference between opinion and fact. I and most liberals deal with facts; by and large the American right deals with a fabricated reality and simplistic - usually mean and violent - answers to the complicated problems of the world.

Obviously you're going to roll your eyes at that, but how else do you explain that, for example, only conservatives poo-poo global warming and think environmental concerns are stupid? Not all of them, of course, but in almost all cases it's right wing people who are in that category! And there are many other examples of the right wing having a monopoly on ridiculous opinion.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Brian Ralston @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Tue Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bias is a rotten book. Keep in mind that it was published before the media "rah, rah-ed " us into war.
> 
> ...Considering how the media behaved in the run up the the war, calling the media "liberal" is ludicrous.
> 
> The 700 club is big media. Limbaugh is big media. Fox News is big media.
> 
> The media liberal? That's only true for those who think Fox is fair, balanced and in the center.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which shows exactly what I was talking about Jon. Two people can read the exact same thing and each have it mean something totally different.
> 
> The problems comes in when people start believing that their meaning or interpretation is the "right" one. As on display here and in so many societies throughout the world.
> o-[][]-o
Click to expand...

I've got the solution for the FOX NEWS believers... Don't call the mainstream media "liberal." Simply say that "the mainstream media, aside from FOX NEWS, Limbaugh and certain evangelical shows, is not part of the right-wing propaganda machine (aside from when there is a war to be waged, of course.)"

On that, most would agree...


----------



## Abe

EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06092008/po ... htm?page=0

the corrupt left leaning media so desperate to skew opinion...

ie: cnn, now desperately wants to change the subject...

with their focus on "Issue #1" the Econony....

no longer do you hear these empty suits cry over US casualties...

do you forget the daily mantra death toll count...

Iraq news coverage dropped 92% over one year...

the numbers speak for themselves....

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... erage.html

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe, do you really believe that editorial? Seriously?


----------



## Fernando Warez

> Considering how the media behaved in the run up the the war, calling the media "liberal" is ludicrous.



EXACTLY! How hard is it to understand?! Obviously, some never will! 



> I don't express outrage over Olberman because he's usually right, even if he is usually over the top.



That's the difference with Olberman is that he says what a LARGE majority of people in the western world think. As for O'Reilly he's just spewing war & fear mongering coming right from a some right wing think tanks who's looking to manipulate the masses. 

Let's compare the Olberman video posted earlier with some typical comment from O'reilly..

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjwTNuxFU#6t3fGtGa_SU

Let's see here. Olberman bashes Bush... And of course the rest of the world agrees with him. And Americans who don't realize that need to get out more..

And on the other side you have Bill saying the far left are Nazi. :lol: You're against war so you're a nazi according to Fox news commentator. :lol: How can anyone take Fox news seriously! >8o


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Tue Jun 10 said:


> EAT CROW, IRAQ WAR SKEPTICS
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/06092008/po ... htm?page=0
> 
> the corrupt left leaning media so desperate to skew opinion...
> 
> ie: cnn, now desperately wants to change the subject...
> 
> with their focus on "Issue #1" the Econony....
> 
> no longer do you hear these empty suits cry over US casualties...
> 
> do you forget the daily mantra death toll count...
> 
> Iraq news coverage dropped 92% over one year...
> 
> the numbers speak for themselves....
> 
> http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... erage.html
> 
> Abe



Can somebody cut off his mic? :roll: That's what you would get on Fox news and you have the balls to say this?



> the corrupt left leaning media so desperate to skew opinion...


----------



## JonFairhurst

The drop in war coverage can be interpreted differently. 

The war is vastly unpopular. Only Obama has consistently opposed it. Make it the top news story every day, and Obama beats Hillary easily and McCain is dust. 

You want big military spenders in the Oval Office? Sweep the war under the carpet during election year. And campaign on innuendo.


----------



## Abe

I do believe the bias media's concerted effort to drop their coverage of the unpoplular war is based on these findings...

“Anti-war U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's first day in Iraq did nothing to change his view that if the country's various factions can't achieve political peace, no amount of U.S. involvement will bring stability. ‘If we don't see significant political progress ... over the next six months or so, we can pour money and troops in here until the cows come home, but we're not going to be successful,’ Obama told reporters in a Saturday [January 7, 2006] conference call.” (Eric Krol, “Obama: 'Everything's Up For Grabs' In Iraq,” Chicago Daily Herald, 1/8/06)

please make note of the date for Senator Obama's statement...

if you recall, he was not a supporter of the surge which occured 1 year later...

now what do we have...

1.“America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The ‘near-strategic defeat’ of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.” (Kimberly Kagan and Frederick W. Kagan, Op-Ed, “How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/10/08)

2. “The military situation in Iraq has improved so much that normally sober and pessimistic military and intelligence sorts are simply stunned. ‘I would never have believed that the Iraqi Army could simply walk into Sadr City and take over without firing a shot,’ a military intelligence officer told me. ‘Don't ask me what it means. I have no idea. But peace begets peace--and we've seen that when Iraqis live in secure neighborhoods, they are much less tolerant of those who would disturb the peace.’” (Joe Klein, “Progress In Iraq...And What To Do About It,” Time’s “Swampland” Blog, http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008 ... to_do.html 6/11/08)

3.Al Qaeda “Has Been Weakened To The Point Of Defeat” In Iraq. “Daily attacks continue, but at a fraction of 2006 levels--indeed, at levels not seen since before the Sadrist and Falluja rebellions began in April of 2004. Al Qaeda in Iraq still has the capability to ignite the occasional car bomb, but it has been weakened to the point of defeat. The real estate market in Baghdad is beginning to blossom. And on a broader front, as reported in The New Yorker and The New Republic, Al Qaeda's wanton butchery is facing an intellectual challenge from within its own ranks.” (Joe Klein, “Progress In Iraq...And What To Do About It,” Time’s “Swampland” Blog, http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008 ... tml6/11/08)

4.Levels Of Violence In Iraq Are The Lowest They’ve Been In Four Years. “U.S. and Iraqi military officials said violence in Iraq has decreased significantly in recent weeks to levels not seen in four years. … A significant difference the drop in violence announced Sunday: It came following concerted efforts by Iraqi security forces backed up by American and allied firepower -- not the other way around, as has been mostly the case in the five-year Iraq war.” (Gina Chon, “Violence In Iraq Reaches 4-Year Low, Military Says,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/26/08)

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Two blogs, and the Wall Street Journal - which is now owned by none other than Rapert Murder himself.

How many refugees are there in neighboring countries? What is the acceptable level of violence? I seem to recall it being pretty bad four years ago.


----------



## rJames

Come on, Nick. This is great news. The war is almost over! 

“America is very close to succeeding in Iraq." (I guess it depends on why we went there as to whether we are close to success or not)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Remember "peace with honor?"


----------



## Abe

Petraeus Explains Stance on Iraq’s Link to U.S. Security, Responds to Criticism
By Donna Miles

Sept. 12, 2007 
The top commander and diplomat in Iraq told reporters at the National Press Club today that what happens in Iraq is critical to long-term U.S. security.

“Achieving our national interest in Iraq is very important” and a critical part of the overall U.S. national strategy to make the country safer, said Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of Multinational Force Iraq. “The central front of al Qaeda’s global war on terror is in Iraq.”

General Petraeus, who holds a doctorate from Princeton.

From the September 11 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing:

McCAIN: General Petraeus, you have stated that Iraq is now the central front on the "war on terror." Is that a correct quote? 

PETRAEUS: That is correct, sir. 

what about the al qaeda leaders ....
what do they say about Iraq being the central front of the war....

"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation," Osama bin Laden said in an audiotape posted on Islamic Web sites in December 2004. "It is raging in the land of the Two Rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."

"I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." stated by al zawahiri

Abe


----------



## rJames

Ah, so Abe is really a pseudonym for Donna.

Or is it just that you can't think of anything to say on your own?


----------



## Abe

rJames,

let's get to the facts ...

state your references... 

I'm stating mine..

refute the points, if you're able.

Here is an article from Cnn, demonstrating that indeed al qaeda is 
and has been waging a war in Iraq, 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html 

Abe


----------



## rJames

Abe, I may be wrong, but I consider this forum a place to share ideas, "composers helping composers."

I'm not going to even read your articles much less debate them.

I was deluding myself that you might go away if it were clear that we don't care what you post. But I was wrong. Evidently, it just spurs you on.


----------



## Abe

Ignorance is Bliss...


----------



## Bruce Richardson

No, Abe, having an independent thought in your head is bliss.

Why are you here? Out of 22 total posts to date, all have been in this single thread.


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> Ignorance is Bliss...



Abe is bliss... connect the dots :wink:


----------



## Abe

You guys can't refute the statements I have presented.

It's understandable.

If you were in a court room, would that be your objection?

Your Honor, he is quoting reputable sources to make 
his case...

Abe


----------



## Abe

Obama saying don't bring the troops home

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kFrFIFizkU&

like I said ignorance is bliss.

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Actually, Abe, it's ignorant to believe that everything is going great in Iraq. It's not.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Wed Jun 11 said:


> You guys can't refute the statements I have presented.
> 
> It's understandable.
> 
> If you were in a court room, would that be your objection?
> 
> Your Honor, he is quoting reputable sources to make
> his case...
> 
> Abe




I mean no offence to Americans here but there are no reliable sources in the US mainstream media. And that probably goes for the western world in general. Of course truth gets out once in while but the media is heavily controled. One needs to use good judgement to figure out what is true or not.

And why do you think they picked up Petraeus? Because he's a team player that's why. So of course he's gonna say good things about Iraq cause he's 100% bias. 

Abe, are you a Republican operative?


----------



## JonFairhurst

So, Abe, when will we leave Iraq? What will be the total cost in lives, dollars, injuries, refugees?

We could "win" this war tomorrow, and it wouldn't be worth it. Saddam wasn't worth a trillion dollars, 4,000+ American soldiers and countless dead innocent Iraqis.

This war is personally costing me tens of thousands of dollars (in my share of the increased national debt), and I didn't even get a T-shirt. Or a single gallon of that cheap gas they promised.


----------



## Bruce Richardson

Abe @ Mon Jun 09 said:


> Hi ,
> 
> I will not make any more political posts..
> 
> If that is going to jeopordize my permission to visit this
> forum..
> 
> I find many talented musicians here...
> 
> and that is more valuable to me than debating politics..
> 
> Abe



While we're on the subject of veracity... ~o)


----------



## artsoundz

"truthiness" is the new veracity.

We accept your apology in advance, Abe.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/ (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ ... mearshome/)


----------



## Abe

Hi,

"truthiness" is the new veracity. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlT78hQYTzU&

Abe


----------



## artsoundz

how can anyone including Obama respond effectively to tiny little snippets?


----------



## Abe

artsounds,

It's funny you should ask?

I agree.

"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections," McCain said

no moderator, no pre-selected questions, scripts, or prompters.

Obama declines.

Abe


----------



## Abe

Fernando,

He's lucky???

How immature of you.

Abe


----------



## tobyond

is there a way to block seeing a particular poster on this forum?


----------



## Abe

Toby,

Here is Obama stating he would debate anywhere anytime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMGgyPm9 ... re=related

the notion that you would prefer to have me blocked rather than debate,
speaks volumes of your character.

Abe


----------



## artsoundz

no one owes you a debate. He was asking if HE had control over who he sees. Not the forum or it's moderators. 

Not a bad idea considering the ridiculous, inflammatory and offensive posts from you, Abe. 

Obama is just being a good politician. When he's ready-picked his V.P etc.. he'll meet anytime anywhere. I doubt if McCain meant before his own running mate was decided. Just basic common sense.


----------



## artsoundz

just heard Tim Russert died. This is so sad and shocking. Maybe we need to give the Obama/McCain thing a rest for a couple of days. 

Tim Russert was a great man.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Very sad, isn't it. 58 and in the prime of his life.


----------



## Abe

Hi,

We all will die at somepoint in time.

But just ponder not 58 but 108 years....
what is that next to the idea of eternity...

If you believe that this is where it all ends, I would 
agree not only is it sad , but it lacks any meaning...

Death is a reminder to us all.

Search for truth. Test what you hold to be true.

Abe

P.s. No more posts from me,
out of respect for those here who would like to 
take some time and reflect....

P.s.s. but only for a few days. 

I hope everyone has a nice weekend.


----------



## Bruce Richardson

Abe @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> Toby,
> 
> the notion that you would prefer to have me blocked rather than debate,
> speaks volumes of your character.



I've shared a meal with Toby. His character has never been in question here, and he was certainly charming at the gathering we both attended in Marina del Rey.

Your character, to date, is suspect, Abe. Signing up for a forum doesn't make you a member of this community. You haven't earned it. You don't crash a party, then try to set the rules. It doesn't work that way.

I, too, am sad about Tim Russert...so sad. I think the depth of the loss hasn't even registered. The thing I loved about him was how much enthusiasm and joy beamed through him in the course of his work. Even if he was grilling someone to a golden brown, it was never malicious or mean spirited. The stories that have come forward from his colleagues throughout the day have been amazing and touching.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Toby, I think the answer is no - you can't.

Sorry, you'll just have to put up with Bruce...


----------



## tobyond

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> Sorry, you'll just have to put up with Bruce...



actually it's you I want to block

/\~O


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I don't blame you.


----------



## Bruce Richardson

I've been trying to block myself for weeks.


----------



## tobyond

Bruce, I initially read that as:

I've been trying to lick myself for weeks.


----------



## midphase

"I've been trying to lick myself for weeks."

hmmm....make that "since I was a teenager"


----------



## Bruce Richardson

tobyond @ Fri Jun 13 said:


> Bruce, I initially read that as:
> 
> I've been trying to lick myself for weeks.



Haha. Like Midphase says...

or, the old faithful joke:

Why does a dog lick himself in the nuts?

because he can /\~O


----------



## Abe

Obama supporters,

Do words count?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU5V3fO7B1U

Abe

Bonus clip 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb1SGOs3jfM&eurl


----------



## Nick Batzdorf




----------



## Christian Marcussen

As a non-US citizen I ask: Does McCain have even the slightest chance of winning? 

Secondly it seems now like an oddity that McCain actually won the nomination. He really does not seem like a strong canditate... Perhaps in 2000. But now he seems to fumbling, insecure, and frankly - too old. While I understand that Romney does not appeal as well to independants (or to me) he seems like someone who would stand a better match in a 1 vs 1 against Obama. The recent interviews I have seen with him blasting Obama he seems more statesmanlike. I think having them side by side would not be as striking a contrast as when you put McCain and Obama on the stage. 

So what do you think? Does McCain stand a chance and do you find him the best candidate to go up against Obama?


----------



## midphase

McCain is weak and old. His stance on the war is a huge negative even for his own party, and he's not a particularly likable or charismatic candidate to the press.

I think we're about to witness history in the making in a few months!


----------



## JonFairhurst

Public financing attempts to fix two problems: 1) special interest money corrupts politicians, and 2) candidates running against special interests are often outspent; public financing helps level the playing field.

Given that Obama is funding his campaign with small donations from over a million Americans, has enough money for his campaign, and is not taking PAC/lobbyist money, public financing serves no purpose for him.

Rather than whine, McCain should just raise more money from regular folks.

Regarding the flip-flop charge, McCain flip-flopped on his signature issue - torture. How can anybody respect the man after that?


----------



## midphase

Abe,

To me the whole public financing issue is simply "meh"

There are too many way more important issues with which I disagree with McCain, the list is too long but it's topped with his remarkably stubborn stance on Iraq which reminds me so much of you know who!


----------



## Christian Marcussen

I must agree though that the quotes that Ape points to do have a point. It does not quite sit right with me either... 

But it is nothing that changes my support for him rather than McCain, but I don't think it's pretty.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe hasn't raised one issue in a single post. All he does is post links to amateur swift boat videos that make Obama look like a monster.

Well Abe, the truth is that neither he nor McCain are monsters, and that crap isn't going to work this election. You're going to have to debate the issues if you expect to do anything other than annoy people here - and I suspect that your posts are annoying to people who support either candidate.

Campaign finance: the whole system needs to have all the money taken out of it. I've said it again and I'll say it before: no paid political advertising. Mandatory debates with conditions that aren't negotiated by the candidates' handlers to try and make their fighter look the best. "Town hall" shams should be made illegal.

Politicians spend their time legislating to people who are going to going to give contributions (aka bribes) to their re-election campaigns. Yeah it's impressive if Obama can raise millions of $1 contributions, but money and the public good are at odds with one another when it comes to politics.


----------



## Ed

Obama also denies the NAU exists, but look he's a lot better than McCain. And really who else is there to vote for?


----------



## JonFairhurst

Give Abe one point. He has finally introduced an actual issue into the debate. Of course, he loses two points by thinking that the issue is a flip-flop, rather than NAFTA itself. 

Personally, I prefer to have a president who can adapt, rather than a stubborn ass like Bush.

Regarding the sentence, “The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA”, I would agree that we benefited FROM THE EXPORTS. But I'd like to hear the rest of the story. The next sentence could very well be "But we lost our asses on the loss of jobs, excessive imports, and now have the largest trade imbalance in history."

However, Abe, if flip-flops are the measure of a man in your eyes, how do you explain McCain's torture flip-flop?

In my opinion, anybody who supports torture does not support our constitution, and is therefore not qualified to be president.

To me, torture is a litmus-test issue. Anyone who engages in it, promotes it, or supports it deserves life in prison, not four years in the White House.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

He loses two points for that, and he loses ten points for not getting out of "Obama is Satan" mode. I'd even give him...gasp...TWO points for raising an issue if he were going to raise it. But alack, it's all just links to swift boating sites.

The sad reality is that all politicians have to say the things that will get them elected rather than the things they believe in. If they don't, their opponents will and they'll lose.

Gay marriage, for example. I hate that it's an issue, but no presidential candidate can say they support it or they're toast.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ed @ Fri Jun 20 said:


> Obama also denies the NAU exists, but look he's a lot better than McCain. And really who else is there to vote for?



Thats it isn't it? It's like the Republican didn't even bother picking a candidate.

It's pretty obvious to me the power that be has picked up Obama and the dems for the next elections. 

Did you guys know that just about all candidate except for Ron Paul are CFR members? Obama, Clinton, Edward, Biden, Thompson, Giulliani, McCain, Romney, Richardson, Gingrich, Doulfie. It's amazing.


----------



## artsoundz

hahhahahhahha! Good one! Abe Jr. right? hahahhahha...a perfect impression....


----------



## Fernando Warez

artsoundz @ Fri Jun 20 said:


> hahhahahhahha! Good one! Abe Jr. right? hahahhahha...a perfect impression....



Are you talking to me? :roll: You're an idiot if that's the case. Abbe is nothing more than a spammer for the Republican party which i hate cause these neocons are fascist and the world has taken a dramatic turn to the right because them.

The point is the next president was going to be a CFR member one way or the other.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What's CFR? The secret society responsible for 9/11?


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 20 said:


> What's CFR? The secret society responsible for 9/11?



You don't know what the Council on Foreign Relation is? 

And you still believe this ridiculous story about Angry Muslim out smarting a country that spend more on intelligence than all other nations combine? And out smarting the most powerful military on earth by far. You guys spend like like as much as all other NATO army combine on military and you cant even catch an airliner? It's not like you didn't know it was coming cause you've been told by several country Bin Laden was preparing an attack. France, Britain, the Saudi,.. like 11 country tried to warn the US.. Even the Taliban tried to warn you. But some how the US was cough of guard. Yea right! To quot the Loose change guys: '' the official story would have us believe the government were the 3 stooges on 911''. 

there you go, 911 was a lie.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdnq6IWWSA


----------



## artsoundz

hahahhahahaha....Fernando....haha(snort) you're killin'me... hahhahheehehha...

perfect delivery..the timing..seriously..you got that DOWN>...Kudos! 

and it's MISTER Idiot to you!


----------



## Abe

Eric Cantor - Chairman of the 2008 Victory Jewish Coalition 
released the following statement 6/19/08:

“Yesterday we saw Senator Obama assert habeas corpus rights for Osama bin Laden and today he seems to have ruled out capital punishment if he is captured alive and tried, saying that we should not ‘make him into a martyr.’

“Senator Obama needs to explain why he is arguing that Osama bin Laden should have the habeas rights and privileges of American citizens, and further why bin Laden should be exempt from the death penalty for his vicious attacks.”

Abe


----------



## midphase

I think everyone should have the right to a fair trial....everyone...even satan incarnate if that's the case. 

We have to be able, as a nation, to uphold these basic rights to everyone and not just "our own" if we are to consider ourselves above the very people we're fighting.

Also...this statement "today he seems to have ruled out capital punishment" sounds to me more like an interpretation than what Obama actually said. He definitely has a point, and he'll get no argument from me, I'm 100% against the death penalty, it's a barbaric punishment that just about every country in the civilized world has abolished, and yet the US clings to for reasons that are inexplicable to me.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Okay Abe, you're on - even though quite frankly your constant swift boat trolling is now officially out of hand and I'd like to ask you politely to cease and desist. It doesn't make for a good discussion, it's just annoying. And the same would apply if you were doing that to McCain.

But if that's what he said, Obama is absolutely right. Putting Bin Laden to death would be the worst possible thing we could do, and I think the reasons should be totally obvious. Nobody would grieve if he were killed while being captured, but that's different.

Apart from that, civilized countries have no business putting *anybody* to death. We're better than that.

Fernando, of course I've heard of the Council on Foreign Relations - I just didn't know what the initials were. And your 9/11 conspiracy theories are as ludicrous now as they always were. Every one of those people also wears socks. Isn't that also too much of a coincidence?

I have to admit that a few years ago these guys had me going for about an hour. If you look at the video of the WTCs collapsing with narration saying it's a controlled demolition, it's almost believable. But then reason kicks in. First, the collapses weren't neat at all - debris went flying all over the place. Then you have to imagine that each floor is the size of a city block; of course it's going to collapse straight down and build momentum. And it would have taken months and months and hundreds of people to plant all those explosives. That couldn't have happened without lots of people knowing.

Of course I'm leaving out the most important thing: it's preposterous in the first place that this was a US conspiracy. It was milked for all its worth, the PNAC wrote about how a catastrophic event would be what they need...lots of things fall into place.

But it's not terribly difficult to take over a plane and fly it into a building. Destroying things is easy - a lot easier than creating them in the first place.


----------



## blue

> But it's not terribly difficult to take over a plane and fly it into a building.



It's certainly easier than tòdr   } ûdr   } üdr   } ýdr   } þdr   } ÿdr   } dr


----------



## Fernando Warez

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> lol Frenando... you are still at it.
> 
> A few years ago the "Truth" movement was on a rise in the US. Do any of you know how it is going at the moment - is reason winning, or is the "truth" movement still growing?



No idea! :lol:


----------



## artsoundz

Fernando,

-Elvis...alive or dead?


----------



## Ed

JonFairhurst @ Fri Jun 20 said:


> However, Abe, if flip-flops are the measure of a man in your eyes, how do you explain McCain's torture flip-flop?.



Link? I saw the debate where he was all against torture and would be funny if he is now saying something different. :D


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Fernando Warez @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Sat Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol Frenando... you are still at it.
> 
> A few years ago the "Truth" movement was on a rise in the US. Do any of you know how it is going at the moment - is reason winning, or is the "truth" movement still growing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No idea! :lol:
Click to expand...


hehe... regarding your links to who is part of the "truth" movement... it seems there are nuts in all brackets of education and social status


----------



## Ed

Generally 911 Truth is a red herring. Shame really.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Fernando, it's always links links links. Frankly I'm not interested in clicking on them. They're always the same thing.

The fact is that 9/11 was a series of terrorist attacks. Bin Laden and that insane Egyptian ex-doctor asshole have already taken responsibility, and Bin Laden gave his list of grievances (why he did it) a month later. I've posted them before.


----------



## Fernando Warez

> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fernando, it's always links links links. Frankly I'm not interested in clicking on them. They're always the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with posting links to back up your claims? Isn't that what we're suppose to do? They are not always the same Nick. And these links should at the very least raise some questions. There's even a NORAD Tac officer in there, you know the guys in charge of North American air space? You think a nut case could get into this position?
> 
> Here's a 5 min. video I've never posted before Nick. It explain the physics regarding the so called collapse of the towers in a very simple way so that pretty much anyone can understand. BTW, you can clearly see the tower exploding on this clip. A collapse
> wont destroy concrete to dust in mid air. It just wont happened, but powerful explosives will.
> 
> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kGZ3XPE ... re=related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that 9/11 was a series of terrorist attacks. Bin Laden and that insane Egyptian ex-doctor asshole have already taken responsibility, and Bin Laden gave his list of grievances (why he did it) a month later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where did you hear that? The mainstream media? Is that suppose to count as proof or a reliable source? I've told you earlier the FBI doesn't have anything linking Bin Laden to 911? What's up with that huh?
> 
> I find it very strange that you who is so critical of the Bush administration would take their word over the words of 400 architects and engineer, Air force pilots, Airline pilots, CIA, FBI, NSA officers, professors and all kind of expert on this matter. You'd take the word of an administration that didn't want to investigate 911 and i find that amazing.
> 
> And what is your opinion worth if you don't even bother to check the links provided?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted them before.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I must have missed them. I'd be curious to see those. l


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'm not clicking on any more links, Fernando. They're all bogus regardless of who's in them.

Bin Laden listed three grievances: 1. the Prince Sultan military base in Saudi Arabia (quietly closed by the Rumsfelds as soon as they had a face-saving excuse [our victory in Afghanistan] because even they recognized it as being provocative); 2. our sanctions in Iraq being responsible for the deaths of 100,000 children (in his words); and 3. our support of Israel. I take what he said at face value.

To me it makes infinitely more sense that some depraved smelly lunatics decided to hijack some planes than that the US government toppled the WTCs and bombed the Pentagon in order to justify invading Iraq. There's simply no way our government could have pulled that off. And while I think the Bush administration is full of horribly cynical and corrupt people who whipped each other up into an irrational frenzy, I'd put this well past even them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"And what is your opinion worth if you don't even bother to check the links provided?"

I've checked many links over the years, Fernando, and I'm through. As I said, those guys even had me going for a very short time at one point. You can narrate video of the WTCs collapsing that make it look like exactly like a controlled demolition - especially if you use words that make it sound like physics - and you can show pix of the Pentagon making it look like a missile strike. And they're convincing if you look only at them without taking in the whole picture. But when you look a little deeper, that evidence simply doesn't stand up - and it can't stand up, because it's all bogus.

It's also possible to look at those videos and use physics to explain the real causes. As I said, those buildings were incredibly massive, and you don't get that from looking at YouTube.

I also have to go farther and say that I find what you conspiracy theorists are doing a little offensive - even though it's probably not intentional. You're making sport out of a pretty major tragedy that a lot of families are still living with.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Right. And even if Bin Laden had nothing to do with it, and just took credit (which he did) it still does not in the slightest make the US government the planners. 

A question... lets for arguments sake say the US Government did rig the WTC with explosions and wanted to bring it down - why not do just that and blame the Bin Laden? Why the planes? Why bother the impossible task of making it look like the buildings were brought down by the planes? The risk of beings explosed is simply too great and it complicates the plan beyond what is reasonable...


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> I also have to go farther and say that I find what you conspiracy theorists are doing a little offensive - even though it's probably not intentional. You're making sport out of a pretty major tragedy that a lot of families are still living with.



Not to mention intellectually offensive and dishonest. Reminds me of the whole creationist vs evolution debate.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ed @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> Generally 911 Truth is a red herring. Shame really.



Yes it's a shame.

But of course it would be naive to think the conspirators don't have people, both Republicans and democrats, on the web to defend their story. This debunking is not a natural phenomena. 

What did you think of the Bee Gees remake Ed?


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick, what is offencive here is for you to comment on links you don't even care to look. You've discredit yourself here defending your point of view without looking at the other side of the argument and the least you could do is refrain for posting if you're not at least willing to reed or watch the links provided to you as a counter argument.

I don't give me that BS about being offencive. Most 911 family victims think like me and want an independent investigation on 911 but Bush wont allow it. What is that about? If fact the family victims had to wait more than a year for Bush to approve. Now THAT IS offencive.


----------



## MacQ

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> Not to mention intellectually offensive and dishonest. Reminds me of the whole creationist vs evolution debate.



Wait ... you mean the official story is intellectually offensive, or the demolition story?

Because, quite frankly, if you still believe the official story at this point (pancake collapse) ... then I'd implore you to pay closer attention.

Sure, there are lots of wack-job theories about who's behind the thing, but I'm more interested in the science. The physics, the on-the-ground reports. And the fact is, there were secondary, tertiary, quarternary, etc, explosions in the buildings. That these facts are in dispute is plainly ludicrous to me. The first tower that gets hit falls second ... the jet fuel burns up instantly in a fireball ... there's just not enough there to explain either collapse without adding explosives to the equation. The towers did exactly what they were designed to do, and that was to withstand the impact of an airliner. The "fully-loaded" 707 that they were designed to withstand weighed MORE than modestly loaded 767's that hit them.

I remember someone saying that the squibs jetisoning from the sides of the building were "nothing more than video artifacts". Video artifacts that appeared at the same place from multiple angles. Wow, that must have been SOME electromagnetic phenomenon!

Even if you completely IGNORE the twin towers, you can't reasonably say that WTC7 was brought down by fire alone. It was a textbook implosion collapse. Heck, the lease holder admitted to it on TV (and then retracted his statement).

So, with evidence this outstanding, you'd choose to believe the catostrophic failure of buildings by fire alone, with tens of thousands of rivets and weld points failing instantly, and the "debris" above turning to POWDER as it falls. I mean, let's get serious here. Has Occam's razor taught us nothing at all? And this isn't even the bulk of the evidence. 

You're probably not even going to read this post, and won't click the links others have posted. That, honestly, is the most telling thing of all. It's not about being duped or led on, or about who's behind it, be it government or terrorist or both. It's about understanding the science. Blind faith bothers me in all contexts. And blind faith in an "official" story is just as bothersome.

I have my own theories about who's responsible, and they all have to do with money. Which is how the world works, anyway, so I'm not making any leaps of logic there.

I'm an evolutionist, by the way. Science wins. Though, I'm also a big Keith Olbermann fan, so take my liberal rantings with a grain of salt.

~Stu


----------



## artsoundz

laughable, non critical thinking. You're embarrasing yourself.

What would you do without youtube?


----------



## MacQ

artsoundz @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> laughable, non critical thinking. You're embarrasing yourself.
> 
> What would you do without youtube?



Um ... that's funny, I don't feel embarrassed. :? 

~Stu


----------



## Ashermusic

Folks, just think for a second:

If this were an inside job/conspiracy, THOUSANDS would have to be in on it and keep their mouths shut. That simply does not happen in this world.

For over 45 years I had to listen to the Kennedy conspiracy crap until finally Vince Bugliosi has put that to bed for any reasonable person with his "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy."


----------



## artsoundz

MAcq=that comment was meant for Fernando. But after reading yours...silly man. Abe, you and Fernando are not interested in critical thinking. 

Right, Asher. It would need enough people to create a small country. You take ingnorance and mix it with personal agenda and it's easy to see how the conspiracy theorists get riled up.

Youtube,,,,give me a break...


----------



## MacQ

Jay,

I absolutely agree. The ramifications are staggering, and hard to believe. To some, sure, even impossible. But that's why I'm specific in saying that I don't care who's responsible, and that it's not terribly relevant at this juncture. What is relevant is the science, since when it looks, sounds, feels like an explosion, it probably is. The conclusions I've arrived at from my personal and extensive study of the events are not politically motivated at all. I'm a Canadian, and honestly, the implications for my daily way of life are minimal.

There are lots of crackpot theories (I have a few of my own), but for the sake of argument, they're not even relevant. I'm dispassionate about the so-called "blame". What I am passionate about is the physics involved, and the reality that the offical story just doesn't explain the physical facts.

That's really it, for me. There's pòdæ   }Êdæ   }Ëdæ   }Ìdæ   }Ídæ   }Îdç   }Ïdç   }Ðdç   }Ñdç   }Òdç   }Ódç   }Ôdç   }Õdç   }Ödç   }×dç   }Ødç   }Ùdç   }Údç   }Ûdç   }Üdç   }Ýdç   }Þdç   }ßdç   }àdç   }ádç   }âdç   }ãdç   }ädç   }ådç   }ædç   }çdç   }èdç   }édç   }êdç   }ëdç   }ìdè   }ídè   }îdè   }ïdè   }ðdè   }ñdè   }òdè   }ódè   }ôdè   }õdè   }ödé   }÷dé   }ødé   }ùdé   }údé   }ûdé   }üdé   }ýdé   }þdé   }ÿdé   } dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }	dé   }
dé   }dé   }dé   } dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   }dé   } dé   }!dé   }"dé   }#dé   }$dé   }%dé   }&dé   }'dé   }(dé   })dé   }*dé   }+dé   },dé   }-dé   }.dé   }/dé   }0dé   }1dé   }2dé   }3dé   }4dé   }5dé   }6dé   }7dé   }8dé   }9              òdé   };dé   }<dé   }=dé   }>dé   }?dé   }@dé   }Adé   }Bdê   }Cdê


----------



## Fernando Warez

artsoundz @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> laughable, non critical thinking. You're embarrasing yourself.
> 
> What would you do without youtube?



I'll take a YT link any day an use my own judgement over what ever the main stream medias is selling. 

Attacking the messenger only makes you look like you have no argument. 

Here's the last thing I'm gonna say to you: You're a troll and you act like a smart ass and I'm not interest in talking with you.


----------



## Ed

As much as I dont want to help contribute to this thread continuing to veer off topic, I should be more specfic, _controlled demolition_ is a red herring. It makes no difference if the towers were brought down by explosives or not. There most certainly was a coverup, even conspiracy debunking films like the BBC's conspiracy files conclude there was. Literally, they say it was a conspiracy. The question is how deep it goes. Its a shame that "911 Truth" aside from I think one small example otherwise, set its whole case on controlled demolition being true. If there was a conspiracy but the towers didnt have any bombs in them, there really were planes at all 3 sites and no explosives or nerve gas or remote guided airplanes were used, you just shot yourself in the foot because now you just lost a lot of credability. The goverment does a lot of bad things, and stuff that Alex Jones talks about is important, but due to the amount of stuff that he goes over the top about most people will just tune out and disregard everything. Thats why its a shame.


----------



## artsoundz

fernando- chill. That just makes my case. Basic psychology says you aren't truly confident in your opinions or you are working out something else. Name calling is just desperation. 

Troll... well that's a new one. A smartass, however, that's an old one.


----------



## artsoundz

MacQ @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> artsoundz @ Sat Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> MAcq=that comment was meant for Fernando. But after reading yours...silly man. Abe, you and Fernando are not interested in critical thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha ... please don't lump me in with Abe. Dude's a crackpot with a capital C.
> 
> ~Stu
Click to expand...


I didnt really mean too, Stu. I dont at all, in fact. May I ask where you are from?


----------



## MacQ

artsoundz @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> I didnt really mean too, Stu. I dont at all, in fact. May I ask where you are from?



Okay, thanks. Haha. I read Abe's post and I think, "This passes for reason?"

I'm from Calgary, Canada. Born and raised. Ran a studio here for 2 years, now I work freelance. Here and there, this and that.

I have an irrational interest in American politics, I think. But then, it's wise to pay attention to the guys with the nukes, right? :wink: 

~Stu


----------



## artsoundz

Ha! I knew it! a foreigner! We should have sold Canada when it was cheap....now we'll never find a buyer. Maybe craigslist?..

I kid you know....


----------



## Ashermusic

I will make one last stab at this and then bow out, because experience has taught me that there is no dissuading people who are prone to these beliefs.

These kind of theories are not new. They have been going on forever and not one of them has ever paned out. Why? Because to keep it uncovered requires the participation and self-discipline of too many people and it is just not in the human character for large groups of people to keep secrets. When sizable groups of people do bad things, like Gitmo, Abu Greb, the U2 incident, CIA black ops, etc. the truth comes out rather quickly because SOMEBODY inside it blabs. That is the way humans are. The DaVinci Code is not real life.

And they always have "scientific" explanations that sound perfectly plausible to non-scientists.

Oh, and where are all the courageous muckrakers like Moore, Nader, Kucinich, Carter, etc.? Hell ,even Gore, he certainly has a scientific bent. Oh yeah, I forgot, they are afraid for their lives. Puh-leeze. They asre not saying anything because there is no there there.

Folks:
1. Oswald killed Kennedy, not the CIA or the Mafia.
2. Elvis is dead.
3. There were no UFOs covered up at Roswell.
4. The earth is not flat.
5. Paul McCartney did not die back in the 60's.
6. The CIA did not introduce crack cocaine into the Black community.
7. The Twin Towers were not blown up with the co-operation of the U.S. government.

Read people like Richard Clarke and Lawrence Wright, not the crackpots. They are no fans of the Bush Administration and if there were such a thing going on, they would have known and would be screaming it now on every talk show.

And now, I am truly through with this nonsense.


----------



## artsoundz

1.and another policeman
2.Elvis is dead?
3.they were left out in the open and got stolen.
4.whatever. I just happen to be looking at a map on youtube and it's looking pretty flat to me. Right, Fernando?
5. thankfully
6.then who did? be specific- cell phone numbers and addresses. prices would be a bonus...
7. not a good argument. Government agencies never cooperate with each other...


----------



## Thonex

Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 21 said:


> Folks:
> 1. Oswald killed Kennedy, not the CIA or the Mafia.



But how do you explain.. "back and to the left... back and to the left"????


----------



## Ed

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... 558#120558


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"1. Oswald killed Kennedy, not the CIA or the Mafia."

But was he put up to it by someone else? I think we'll never know.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Nick, what is offencive here is for you to comment on links you don't even care to look. You've discredit yourself here defending your point of view without looking at the other side of the argument and the least you could do is refrain for posting if you're not at least willing to reed or watch the links provided to you as a counter argument."

Sorry Fernando, no bite. I'm not looking at any more stupid 9/11 links. You'll summarize them here in English if you want a response from me - and you don't want one, because I'm quite satisfied that there was no US conspiracy. There was no squiff, no controlled demolition, nothing. And I take back my moderate position on whether you're going on and on about this for sheer sport - I now know you are. 

Having said that, whether or not the JFK assassination was or wasn't a conspiracy has nothing to do with whether 9/11 was or wasn't.


----------



## Fernando Warez

> Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will make one last stab at this and then bow out, because experience has taught me that there is no dissuading people who are prone to these beliefs.
> 
> These kind of theories are not new. They have been going on forever and not one of them has ever paned out. Why? Because to keep it uncovered requires the participation and self-discipline of too many people and it is just not in the human character for large groups of people to keep secrets. When sizable groups of people do bad things, like Gitmo, Abu Greb, the U2 incident, CIA black ops, etc. the truth comes out rather quickly because SOMEBODY inside it blabs. That is the way humans are. The DaVinci Code is not real life.
> 
> And they always have "scientific" explanations that sound perfectly plausible to non-scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you have no argument so you have to resort to cheap tricks like trying to associate the 911 conspiracies with Elvis and the earth is flat wackos instead of addressing the issue.
> 
> Well i guess you do have an argument(if we can call it that), and that is somehow one of the conspirators should be eager to incriminate himself and tell the world he took part in a mass murder. Makes perfect sense. And why would there be so many intelligence agency around the world if no one could keep a secret?
> 
> I have news for you, there are plenty of stuff that goes on covertly around the world and we don't here about it. It's true that some stuff surface but there is a lot more that don't. Of course it helps a lot when you have just a few corporation controlling the media to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read people like Richard Clarke and Lawrence Wright, not the crackpots. They are no fans of the Bush Administration and if there were such a thing going on, they would have known and would be screaming it now on every talk show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conclude that Clarke would tell us because he criticize the Bush admin? Ha ha! The whole world bashes Bush. It's the fashionable thing to do now. Especially now that he's at the end of his mandate and it's of no consequence.
> 
> I've heard Clarke when he address the 911 omission and i was not impress. He told the public: We failed you! It was very dramatic and all but he sure didn't convinced me and many of the 911 families. And that was it,.. We're sorry so now you know and there's no need for an investigation because we screwed up. These guy got off real easy.
> 
> It's clear you're trying to ridicule this and it's also a good way to avoid the issue. Issues Like WT7? Here it is again, it's a 9 second video. WTC7 is a classic control demolition. A control demo. is a precise sequence of explosion design to bring down a building etc... Now all of you know what a sequence is and you know that cant happened by accident. So why don't you explain what you see here, do you think it's a control demolition?
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&ei=&hl=fr (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &amp;ei=&amp;hl=fr)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now, I am truly through with this nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Frankly i think you're through with this because you know you have no argument.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> "Nick, what is offencive here is for you to comment on links you don't even care to look. You've discredit yourself here defending your point of view without looking at the other side of the argument and the least you could do is refrain for posting if you're not at least willing to reed or watch the links provided to you as a counter argument."
> 
> Sorry Fernando, no bite. I'm not looking at any more stupid 9/11 links. You'll summarize them here in English if you want a response from me - and you don't want one, because I'm quite satisfied that there was no US conspiracy. There was no squiff, no controlled demolition, nothing. And I take back my moderate position on whether you're going on and on about this for sheer sport - I now know you are.
> 
> Having said that, whether or not the JFK assassination was or wasn't a conspiracy has nothing to do with whether 9/11 was or wasn't.



Nick, i could describe what is going on in the video but it's visual evidence so you really have to watch it and see for yourself. It's 911 second video of the collapse of WTC7 the third building to come down on 911 at around 5 pm. Is it a control demolition?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9184329400593634920&ei=&hl=fr (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &amp;ei=&amp;hl=fr)


----------



## artsoundz

Damn, George Carlin died.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

That's really too bad. 71 is too young. He could be absolutely hilarious. That HBO special of his in the 80s had me in stitches - "Remember the seven words you're not allowed to say on radio and TV? Well, there are more." Then he proceeded to let a huge scroll unravel, which he read.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Fernando, I'm not the least bit interested in any more videos of 9/11 buildings collapsing. Period. I've seen way too many of them already, and each one is farther over the top than the next. If you have new evidence, let's hear it. Otherwise forget it. Been there done that. Wouldn't wear the t-shirt. Sick of it. It's all preposterous.


----------



## JB78

I could just imagine how SvK would feel if this would've happened to him:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/19/ ... -supporter


----------



## Abe

Have you heard?

Please excuse the pun....

Obama just announced that he supports this warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty bill.

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike,while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people...

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act. . . .It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.” 

Senator Obama's previous stand 

"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill…. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed."

so much for the clear lines....

Abe


----------



## JonFairhurst

Any idea WHY the Dems caved? All I can figure is blackmail.

Also, did any Republicans oppose immunity for the telecoms? Did McCain?

For that matter, how did Hillary vote? I think I can guess.

From war funding to telecom immunity to "impeachment is off the table", it's pretty clear that there are few independent actors in Washington these days.


----------



## Abe

Change we can believe in...

maybe Change of mind...

Abe


----------



## Abe

Nick,

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading. 

I am giving you actual quotes...

I can appreciate your frustration....
Words do matter....

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

You obviously can't appreciate my frustration if you think it's because you're scoring points. In fact I wish you were scoring points, because that would be interesting.

Instead my frustration is with your childish behavior, which once again I would appreciate your stopping.


----------



## JonFairhurst

So, Abe... McCain says he's against the Enron loophole, yet his top economic adviser, Phil Gramm pushedòeÏ   }VTeÏ   }VUeÏ   }VVeÏ   }VWeÏ   }VXeÏ   }VYeÏ   }VZeÏ   }V[eÏ   }V\eÏ   }V]eÏ   }V^eÏ   }V_eÏ   }V`eÏ   }VaeÏ   }VbeÏ   }VceÏ   }VdeÏ   }VeeÏ   }VfeÏ   }VgeÏ   }VheÏ   }VieÏ   }VjeÏ   }VkeÏ   }VleÏ   }VmeÏ   }VneÏ   }VoeÏ   }VpeÏ   }VqeÏ   }VreÏ   }VseÏ   }VteÏ   }VueÏ   }VveÏ   }VweÏ   }VxeÏ   }VyeÏ   }VzeÏ   }V{eÏ   }V|eÏ   }V}eÏ   }V~eÏ   }VeÏ   }V€eÏ   }VeÏ   }V‚eÏ   }VƒeÏ   }V„eÏ   }V…eÏ   }V†eÏ   }V‡eÏ   }VˆeÏ   }V‰eÏ   }VŠeÏ   }V‹eÏ   }VŒeÏ   }VeÏ   }VŽeÏ   }VeÏ   }VeÏ   }V‘eÏ   }V’eÏ   }V“eÏ   }V”eÏ   }V•eÏ   }V–eÏ   }V—eÏ   }V˜eÏ   }V™eÏ   }VšeÏ   }V›eÏ   }VœeÏ   }VeÏ   }VžeÏ   }VŸeÏ   }V eÏ   }V¡eÏ   }V¢eÏ   }V£eÏ   }V¤eÏ   }V¥eÏ   }V¦eÏ   }V§eÏ   }V¨eÏ   }V©eÏ   }VªeÏ   }V«eÏ   }V¬eÏ   }V­eÏ   }V®eÏ   }V¯eÏ   }V°eÏ   }V±eÏ   }V²eÏ   }V³eÏ   }V´eÏ   }VµeÏ   }V¶eÏ   }V·eÏ   }V¸eÏ   }V¹eÏ   }VºeÏ   }V»eÏ   }V¼eÏ   }V½eÏ   }V¾eÏ   }V¿eÏ   }VÀeÏ   }VÁeÏ   }VÂeÏ   }VÃ              òeÏ   }VÅeÏ   }VÆeÏ   }VÇeÏ   }VÈeÏ   }VÉeÏ   }VÊeÏ   }VËeÏ   }VÌeÏ   }VÍeÏ   }VÎeÏ   }VÏeÏ   }VÐeÏ   }VÑeÏ   }VÒeÏ   }V


----------



## Ed

midphase @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> Ralph Nader (although I hope he doesn't run). On the Republican side...Ron Paul also seems to have some good ideas (although he's got some with which I do not agree).



Ralph Nader I believe is calling for Bush to be impeached. I agree, if they impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob Bush should be hung for what he did. Ron Paul as far as I can see is the most sincere and consistent politician ive ever seen


----------



## tobyond

Ed @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> Ron Paul as far as I can see is the most sincere and consistent politician ive ever seen



The guy doesn't accept evolution and Roe vs Wade, that's an immediate strike out.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

And is as I recall semi supportive of the "truth movement" 9/11 case. Yes - all those things are indeed a strik out 

I simply cannot fathom how potential presidents can deny evolution, and why there isent a thundering roar of laughter when they admit it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ron Paul doesn't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government, Christian. On the contrary, he believes it was blowback for interventionist US foreign policy over the years; he believes we shouldn't be "the world's policemen," and we should not get involved in other countries' affairs.

I happen to agree with him about 9/11 being blowback, although it's very difficult to look at any single terrorist attack (or series) and understand how insane people reason. And in fact I agree with him in principle about foreign intervention, although we get to that position by different routes.

Ralph Nader is not the only person who says Bush should be impeached, so please don't give that bastard credit for anything.  He's right about that, though - he should be impeached on multiple counts. Reagan should have been too.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Does John McCain use a Mac or PC? 

When asked, he responded, "Neither. I'm an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all the assistance I can get."

Here's the video

I thought we were electing the leader of the most technologically advanced country on the planet. I wouldn't hire a summer intern without basic computer skills.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> Ron Paul doesn't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government, Christian. On the contrary, he believes it was blowback for interventionist US foreign policy over the years; he believes we shouldn't be "the world's policemen," and we should not get involved in other countries' affairs.



That's good. I'm glad to hear that. However his evolution denial still stands, and which is just as bad... I simply could not have faith (no pun intended) in a candidates power to make rational dicisions when he denies one of the most well documented scientific theories. It's like saying he denies gravity... 

Regarding 9/11 being blowback... Does anyone deny that and beleive it? Dont they just deny it in order to play the "he says we deserved it" smear card?


----------



## Christian Marcussen

JonFairhurst @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> Does John McCain use a Mac or PC?
> 
> When asked, he responded, "Neither. I'm an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all the assistance I can get."
> 
> Here's the video
> 
> I thought we were electing the leader of the most technologically advanced country on the planet. I wouldn't hire a summer intern without basic computer skills.



lol... I don't think that goes over too well with the youth vote :D


----------



## Fernando Warez

> The guy doesn't accept evolution.



I've never heard him say that and i strongly dough that's true. I wouldn't be surprise if the media made that up.

Ron Paul sounds like a freaking God compare to other candidates. Except for Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Mike Gravel. 

All these guys support a new investigation on 911 by the way... And that's not because they are nuts!


----------



## tobyond

Fernando Warez @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> I've never heard him say that and i strongly dough that's true. I wouldn't be surprise if the media made that up.



Bad sound quality, but message is clear as day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw


----------



## Christian Marcussen

tobyond @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Tue Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard him say that and i strongly dough that's true. I wouldn't be surprise if the media made that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad sound quality, but message is clear as day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
Click to expand...


There is a jump cut in the video that is a little suspicious. 

Anyway, I just checked - appearently he was not one of the candidates who denied evolution at the GOP debate. So points for that! But on the video above it does seem like he might as well have raised his hand, but did not because he thought it was, in his word, an inapropriate question.


----------



## Fernando Warez

tobyond @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Tue Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard him say that and i strongly dough that's true. I wouldn't be surprise if the media made that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad sound quality, but message is clear as day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
Click to expand...


I'm not going to click on a worthless YT link. :wink: 

Seriously, what he said is accurate in that evolution is a theory and that no one can prove it. It's not something i like to hear cause i happen to believe in this theory but can we prove it beyond the shadow of a dough? I don't think so.

P.S. This video was edited and it's kind of unfair to judge the guy on that clip. What else did he say? As soon as he says ''i don't accept it'' the video caught off so maybe he added something after that or corrected what he said. I'd be more comfortable listening to the whole clip.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Fernando Warez @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> tobyond @ Tue Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fernando Warez @ Tue Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard him say that and i strongly dough that's true. I wouldn't be surprise if the media made that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad sound quality, but message is clear as day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not going to click on a worthless YT link. :wink:
> 
> Seriously, what he said is accurate in that evolution is a theory and that no one can prove it. It's not something i like to hear cause i happen to believe in this theory but can we prove it beyond the shadow of a dough? I don't think so.
> 
> P.S. This video was edited and it's kind of unfair to judge the guy on that clip. What else did he say? As soon as he says ''i don't accept it'' the video caught off so maybe he added something after that or corrected what he said. I'd be more comfortable listening to the whole clip.
Click to expand...


It's not a problem that he says it's a theory... it is... It's that he does not beleive in it and seems to suggest that theory of evolution is as valid as creation (which is not a scientific theory).

Evolution is one of the best supported theories at all. And while it is true to say that we can't prove it 100% it is only true in a philosophical sense... just like its true to say that I can't prove that if I throw a ball into the air it will fall down again. No matter how many times I throw it up, I cant prove that it wouldn't have stayed up there had I just thrown it again. 

Obviously in a our everyday use of language it is fair to say that it is a _fact_ that a ball falls down whenever I throw it up. Using the same everyday language evolution is a fact. 

That is not to say we understand it 100%, or that elements of theory won't be proven wrong. This happens all the time. Scientists add a _hypothesis_ to the theory that may be falsified. But the _fact_ of evolution still stands.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> That is why such speculation is unscientific and well - a matter of faith.


Exactly true. Acceptance of evolution (or other testable, scientific theories) does not preclude faith. Conversely, adapting faith to accept science does not make that faith scientifically valid.

Then again, we shouldn't reject faith out of hand. There are things we simply don't know, and as long as people don't get all dogmatic and certain about it, faith in one's beliefs is cool by me.

For instance, I have faith that love exists and that love is A Good Thing™ without needing a scientific explanation.


----------



## blue

The irony is that religious faith requires certainty. Without it, faith wouldn't stand up. The majority of people who believe in a god don't say "I think I believe in a god," they say "I believe in a god." Being uncertain is to question one's faith.

The certainty with which uncertainty is approached has always been the fundamental flaw in religious thinking. But I also see how, without that, the tangible basis of religious organization would have nothing to stand on. The ideals would be harder to manipultate. In other words, there would be one less excuse for war.


----------



## Ed

tobyond @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> Ed @ Tue Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul as far as I can see is the most sincere and consistent politician ive ever seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy doesn't accept evolution and Roe vs Wade, that's an immediate strike out.
Click to expand...


Him not accepting evolution is indeed annoying when I saw the tape of him answering that question a while ago, but its something I'd be willing to disagree with him on. I said he was the most sincere and consistent politician, now if him not agreeing with evolution is the only point against him then I'd say that was quite a minor point. At least when I hear him speak I feel I can trust the guy. 

Fernando, you cant defend what Ron Paul said in regard to Evolution. Its all Intelligent Design rhetoric. The only defence is he is an old guy and some beliefs die hard and hasnt heard the argument against it, or, and I hope this is it, maybe he needs to be more dilomatic when it comes to the religious right voters that will be looking to see if he is for or against Evolution. If he came out and said anything more supportive they might remove their vote straight away. 

Aside from this I see eye to eye with him on more world matters than any other candidate. McCains a war monger nutjob puppet, and Obama is potentially as dangerous as he is charismatic, denying the North American Union is a big red flag. 

Ed


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ed, agree that it's a minor flaw. I'd even say it would not impact on his presidency if he was elected.

As far as defending him the problem i have here is the video cuts off right after he said ''i don't accept it''. Maybe he added something like ''i don't accept it as the only theory''. And in that sense he would right. As John said, God or aliens :lol: could have started it all then evolution followed. I'm not saying that's what i believe. In fact that's not what i believe at all.

Basically, the video is cut off and I'm afraid it could have been edited by the right wing smear machine to make the man look bad. I'd like to hear the full clip.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> As John said, God or aliens could have started it all then evolution followed. I'm not saying that's what i believe. In fact that's not what i believe at all.



You can call me John if you like


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"McCains a war monger nutjob puppet, and Obama is potentially as dangerous as he is charismatic, denying the North American Union is a big red flag."

Can you explain both of those statements? To me they're a little curious, frankly, but I'd like to understand what you're talking about.


----------



## Ed

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 24 said:


> "McCains a war monger nutjob puppet, and Obama is potentially as dangerous as he is charismatic, denying the North American Union is a big red flag."
> 
> Can you explain both of those statements? To me they're a little curious, frankly, but I'd like to understand what you're talking about.



Well you already know what I think of McCain and his apparent desire for war, I say "puppet" as Ive see several stories about him getting stuck on answering questions and having to ask his advisors what his policy is on whatever it is. I believe its not because he is senile and insincere, although he most certianly is the latter as well, but because he is just a front for the party or group as a whole using him. Obama is a little scary due to things like supporting the Patriot Act and denying the NAU exists but he is very charismatic and smart and not just an idiot like Bush or a senile war monger like McCain, which is why I say that Obama is potentially as dangerous as he is charismatic. I hope for the best, but I can see warning signs. Does that answer your question?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Yes. I don't agree fully with most of that, but it does answer it.


----------



## blue

Ed @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> I believe its not because he is senile and insincere, although he most certianly is the latter as well, but because he is just a front for the party or group as a whole using him.



McCain has been one of the more independently-minded senators we've had. Some of his current positions have more to do with trying to get elected than being manipulated by a party. He's not going to have a chance to win unless he sells himself as a clear alternative to Obama, and in doing that he's aligned himself more closely with mainstream Republican positions. His take on environmental policy and nuclear weapons, on the other hand, is certainly not shared by the majority of his party, so you have to give him credit for that.


----------



## JonFairhurst

I used to think McCain was sincere. That was before he flip-flopped on his signature issue: torture. So much for sincerity.

And I have a really hard time believing him on environmental policy. Just look at the lobbying history of some of his closest advisers and fundraisers: 

* Wayne Berman - Lobbied for Chevron Texaco
* Eric Burgeson - Lobbied for BP
* Frank Donatelli - Lobbied for Exxon Mobil
* Rebecca Anderson - Lobbied for Sunoco
* Charlier Black - Lobbied for Occidendal Petroleum
* Nancy Pfotenhauer - Lobbied for Koch Industries
* Randy Scheunemann - Lobbied for BP Amoco
* Steve Philips - Lobbied for BP America
* Jack Oliver - Lobbied for Shell Oil
* Rebecca Anderson - Lobbied for Sunoco

A recent tally showed that McCain has taken $1,069,854 from the oil and gas industry.

* Bush said he was a compassionate conservative.
* Bush said he was a uniter
* Cheney said "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
* Rumsfeld said "They're in the area around Tikrit."
* Bush talked tough about firing those involved in the Valerie Plame leak - and then proceeded to pardon the convicted Scooter Libby.

Excuse me if I'm just a tad sceptical about what Republicans say - including McCain on the environment. Talk is just talk. Anybody who's seen penguins in an oil company commercial knows how easy it is to greenwash. 

PS: Obama has earned an 86 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his first three years representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate (a lower score than might have been because he's missed some votes while campaigning for president).


----------



## Fernando Warez

John, you forgot a few things:

-Iraq is going to be a cake walk.

-Iraq's Oil is going to pay for the war.

-we're going to be greeted as liberators.

-We're gonna catch Ben Laden dead or alive(we're gonna smoke him out :lol: ) .


A better question is did they ever say something that turned out to be true?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"His take on environmental policy and nuclear weapons, on the other hand, is certainly not shared by the majority of his party, so you have to give him credit for that."

I actually do give him credit for that. But one of the worst legacies of the Bush administration - not counting small things like hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people, an economy in ruin, and a country that started out as the leader of the free world but now has lost most of its prestige - is the right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court.

We simply can't afford any more of these horrible people. They're trying hard to undo all the progress made since the civil rights movement in the 60s, and only a Democratic president can stop them.


----------



## blue

JonFairhurst @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> Excuse me if I'm just a tad sceptical about what Republicans say - including McCain on the environment. Talk is just talk.



Of course, but even just saying you will support environmental issues pits you against your party if you're McCain. That was my point. Even if he's not sincere, having a Republican address the issue might at least give it more credibility among the remaining skeptics in his party.

I wouldn't trust McCain to get it done either when it comes to that issue, but follow through is a problem on both sides of the aisle. I didn't see Democrats doing much about the war after they took a majority in 2006 either.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"I didn't see Democrats doing much about the war after they took a majority in 2006 either."

The problem is that they don't have a big enough majority in either house to get anything passed.


----------



## blue

True, sometimes the absence of follow through is not from lack of intention. But it was their mandate, and it didn't get done. And they probably knew it wasn't gonna get done. Just another reason to take campaign promises with a grain of salt.


----------



## JonFairhurst

blue @ Wed Jun 25 said:


> JonFairhurst @ Wed Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me if I'm just a tad sceptical about what Republicans say - including McCain on the environment. Talk is just talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but even just saying you will support environmental issues pits you against your party if you're McCain. That was my point. Even if he's not sincere, having a Republican address the issue might at least give it more credibility among the remaining skeptics in his party.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when it comes to new energy, we need a big investment immediately. If McCain is elected and we get talk without action, that's another 4-8 year delay. That he's a Luddite who can't use a computer makes it even worse. We need to support higher education (McCain is against the new GI Bill) and support the tech sector. (When's the last time Bush even mentioned high tech, let alone supported it?)

Here's my reality: I live 18 miles by car from an international airport - yet, neither digital cable nor DSL is available at my home. I pay $50/month for 512 kbps wireless. The market has failed, and the Republicans like it that way. The liked Enron. They like record high oil profits. (If it's a demand problem, why can I drive right up to the pump without waiting behind a single car?)

I live in a state (Washington) with sun and wind in the east, tidal energy on the coast and hydro and thermal energy in the middle. Heck, we even have an active volcano. One thing we ain't got? Oil. With government support, our universities would have new energy research programs, we'd have engineers designing new systems, we'd have small entrepreneurs building new companies, and we'd have local labor building and maintaining the facilities. With self serve, oil doesn't even bring pump jockey jobs.

As an Obama delegate at the state level, I attended the Washington State Democratic Convention and was able to get two phrases inserted into the platform. 1) Education should feature "student centered" academic freedom, and 2) we need to "transform the energy infrastructure." 

I don't see John McCain transforming much of anything.


----------



## midphase

""I didn't see Democrats doing much about the war after they took a majority in 2006 either." 

The problem is that they don't have a big enough majority in either house to get anything passed."

I think the biggest problem is that they're incredibly afraid of coming across as "soft" Republicans have done a masterful job at portraying Democrats as soft on terror and unable to manage national security as even the most recent polls illustrate. Unfortunately, this strategy has worked only too well...so when it comes to issues like the war, or the Patriot Act, Democrats simply end up wimpying out afraid to lose their slight advantage.

Hopefully....with Obama in office, they would gain more strength and actually do something!


----------



## Fernando Warez

Mean while the democrats look weak for not standing up to what is right. :roll: And you can bet a lot of Americans are getting the message and you will see more vote going to Nader as of a consequence. 

Let's no kid ourself here, the real reason why the democrat support this war from the beginning is because of the very powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC. This lobby love the war on terror and at the rate things are going all Israel enemy will be wiped out pretty soon. Free of charge. I'm surprise nobody mentioned AIPAC here. THe thing is these people have so much influence that anyone who does not support AIPAC decision risk not getting elected in the next election.


----------



## Ashermusic

[quote:0d6189a43e="Fernando Warez @ Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:01 am"]Mean while the democrats look weak for not standing up to what is right. :roll: And you can bet a lot of Americans are getting the message and you will see more vote going to Nader as of a consequence. 

Let's no kid ourself here, the real reason why the democrat support thiòfµ   }Šrfµ   }Šsfµ   }Štf¶   }Šuf¶   }Švf¶   }Šwf¶   }Šxf¶   }Šyf¶   }Šzf¶   }Š{f¶   }Š|f¶   }Š}f¶   }Š~f¶   }Šf¶   }Š€f¶   }Šf¶   }Š‚f¶   }Šƒf¶   }Š„f¶   }Š…f¶   }Š†f¶   }Š‡f¶   }Šˆf¶   }Š‰f¶   }ŠŠf¶   }Š‹f¶   }ŠŒf¶   }Šf¶   }ŠŽf¶   }Šf¶   }Šf¶   }Š‘f¶   }Š’f¶   }Š“f¶   }Š”f¶   }Š•f¶   }Š–f¶   }Š—f¶   }Š˜f¶   }Š™f¶   }Ššf¶   }Š›f¶   }Šœf¶   }Šf¶   }Šžf¶   }ŠŸf¶   }Š f¶   }Š¡f¶   }Š¢f¶   }Š£f¶   }Š¤f¶   }Š¥f¶   }Š¦f¶   }Š§f¶   }Š¨f¶   }Š©f¶   }Šªf¶   }Š«f¶   }Š¬f¶   }Š­f¶   }Š®f¶   }Š¯f¶   }Š°f¶   }Š±f¶   }Š²f¶   }Š³f¶   }Š´f¶   }Šµf¶   }Š¶f¶   }Š·f¶   }Š¸f¶   }Š¹f¶   }Šºf¶   }Š»f¶   }Š¼f¶   }Š½f¶   }Š¾f¶   }Š¿f¶   }Š


----------



## Fernando Warez

Here's an example of the power Israel has over the US. Israel is not an ally of the US and they get treated as if they were an ally. Everybody think Israel is an ally but it's not true. Israel was offered a treaty alliance with the US in 67 by the US and they refuse because treaty like these require an international recognitions boundaries. Since Israel had just conquered Gaza and the west bank they were not interested in letting go of these newly acquired territory. 

And yet you see all presidential candidate saying ''during an US election'' Israel is our ally, Israel is our friend... Now one has to be very powerful to refuse a treaty alliances with the most powerful country on earth and still be treated like an ally. The reason for this is because of the powerful Israeli lobby. And yes they lobbied for this war in Iraq and they are now lobbying for a war with Iran.

Here's CIA Ray McGovern on this topic. 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bvZkl8l6k ... re=related


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Thu Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mean while the democrats look weak for not standing up to what is right. :roll: And you can bet a lot of Americans are getting the message and you will see more vote going to Nader as of a consequence.
> 
> Let's no kid ourself here, the real reason why the democrat support this war from the beginning is because of the very powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC. This lobby love the war on terror and at the rate things are going all Israel enemy will be wiped out pretty soon. Free of charge. I'm surprise nobody mentioned AIPAC here. THe thing is these people have so much influence that anyone who does not support AIPAC decision risk not getting elected in the next election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, the leading democracy in the world supports the only legally created democracy in that part of the world, surrounded by millions who crave its destruction, that shares its values and the American public by and large supports it, so the politicians must also?
> 
> Shocking, simply, shocking.
Click to expand...


Oh please! Don't act like you're offended. 

Israel a democracy? Israel has almost completely conquered Palestine and they are called a democracy? But when Iraq invaded Kuwait they are the bad guys? :roll: 

Israel doesn't even respect international law. Because if they did they'd give back the occupied territory. But they're not interested. It was always their intention to conquer Palestine and that is not very democratic if you ask me.


----------



## Ashermusic

Fernando Warez @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fernando Warez @ Thu Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mean while the democrats look weak for not standing up to what is right. :roll: And you can bet a lot of Americans are getting the message and you will see more vote going to Nader as of a consequence.
> 
> Let's no kid ourself here, the real reason why the democrat support this war from the beginning is because of the very powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC. This lobby love the war on terror and at the rate things are going all Israel enemy will be wiped out pretty soon. Free of charge. I'm surprise nobody mentioned AIPAC here. THe thing is these people have so much influence that anyone who does not support AIPAC decision risk not getting elected in the next election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, the leading democracy in the world supports the only legally created democracy in that part of the world, surrounded by millions who crave its destruction, that shares its values and the American public by and large supports it, so the politicians must also?
> 
> Shocking, simply, shocking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please! Don't act like you're offended.
> 
> Israel a democracy? Israel has almost completely conquered Palestine and they are called a democracy? But when Iraq invaded Kuwait they are the bad guys? :roll:
> 
> Israel doesn't even respect international law. Because if they did they'd give back the occupied territory. But they're not interested. It was always their intention to conquer Palestine and that is not very democratic if you ask me.
Click to expand...


Democracies "conquer" other nations all the time. You need to look up the meaning of the term.

In 1948, the U.N. partitioned that area into 2 states, Israel and Trans-Jordan. That version of Israel was quite small but they accepted it. Seven Arab states however did not and attacked Israel, They did so again 1967 and later yet again. Each time they were defeated and each time Israel acquired territory.

No nation is morally obligated to give back territory they acquire when they are attacked. And yet if Arafat had not bewildered even his own top advisors by walking away at the last minute from the Clinton brokered deal, Israel would have done precisely that. Even now, they are negotiating with Syria about possibly giving back the Golan in exchange for formal recognition. And they long ago agreed to a 2 state solution if they are promised recognition and peace, but the Arab nations, save Egypt, have not been willing. Although it is not a warm relationship., nonetheless Israel and Egypt have been at peace ever since.

I guess that is just a coincidence.


----------



## Fernando Warez

You are either misinform or you are lying. Israel stroke the first blow in this war. The Arabs were very clear and said they would not attack first. Of course Israel attacked because acquiring more territory is what they wanted. All the Arabs did was to mass troops because they were told by the Russians Israel was preparing an attack. And they were right. 

I've heard many Jews in public forums lye about Israel being attack in this war but the fact is Israel stroke the first blow and it was a devastating one.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"No nation is morally obligated to give back territory they acquire when they are attacked"

I agree with most of what you're saying, but that's questionable.

Moving away from what Fernando is saying (because it's not reasonable at all and has nothing to do with the street reality), I do think there's plenty of blame to go around at this point - and the truth is usually obscured (Hadditha for example - what really happened?). Of course Israel is our ally, and of course America is always going to support it; it's in our interest and it's oòfÎ   }‘‚fÎ   }‘ƒfÎ   }‘„fÎ   }‘…fÎ   }‘†fÎ   }‘‡fÎ   }‘ˆfÎ   }‘‰fÎ   }‘ŠfÎ   }‘‹fÎ   }‘ŒfÎ   }‘fÎ   }‘ŽfÎ   }‘fÎ   }‘fÎ   }‘‘fÎ   }‘’fÎ   }‘“fÎ   }‘”fÎ   }‘•fÎ   }‘–fÎ   }‘—fÎ   }‘˜fÎ   }‘™fÎ   }‘šfÎ   }‘›fÎ   }‘œfÎ   }‘fÎ   }‘žfÎ   }‘ŸfÎ   }‘ fÎ   }‘¡fÎ   }‘¢fÎ   }‘£fÎ   }‘¤fÎ   }‘¥fÎ   }‘¦fÎ   }‘§fÎ   }‘¨fÎ   }‘©fÎ   }‘ªfÎ   }‘«fÎ   }‘¬fÎ   }‘­fÎ   }‘®fÎ   }‘¯fÎ   }‘°fÎ   }‘±fÎ   }‘²fÎ   }‘³fÎ   }‘´fÎ   }‘µfÎ   }‘¶fÎ   }‘·fÎ   }‘¸fÎ   }‘¹fÎ   }‘ºfÎ   }‘»fÎ   }‘¼fÎ   }‘½fÎ   }‘¾fÎ   }‘¿fÎ   }‘ÀfÎ   }‘ÁfÎ   }‘ÂfÎ   }‘ÃfÎ   }‘ÄfÎ   }‘ÅfÎ   }‘ÆfÎ   }‘ÇfÎ   }‘ÈfÎ   }‘ÉfÎ   }‘ÊfÎ   }‘ËfÎ   }‘ÌfÎ   }‘ÍfÎ   }‘ÎfÎ   }‘ÏfÎ   }‘ÐfÎ   }‘ÑfÎ   }‘ÒfÎ   }‘ÓfÎ   }‘ÔfÎ   }‘ÕfÎ   }‘ÖfÎ   }‘×fÎ   }‘ØfÎ   }‘ÙfÎ   }‘ÚfÎ   }‘ÛfÎ   }‘ÜfÎ   }‘ÝfÎ   }‘ÞfÎ   }‘ßfÎ   }‘àfÎ   }‘áfÎ   }‘âfÏ   }‘ãfÏ   }‘äfÏ   }‘åfÏ   }‘æfÏ   }‘çfÏ   }‘èfÏ   }‘éfÏ   }‘êfÏ   }‘ëfÏ   }‘ìfÏ   }‘ífÏ   }‘îfÏ   }‘ïfÏ


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> "No nation is morally obligated to give back territory they acquire when they are attacked"
> 
> I agree with most of what you're saying, but that's questionable.
> 
> Moving away from what Fernando is saying (because it's not reasonable at all and as nothing to do with the street reality), I do think there's plenty of blame to go around at this point - and the truth is usually obscured (Hadditha for example - what really happened?). Of course Israel is our ally, and of course America is always going to support it; it's in our interest and it's only right that we do, because it's the only Western-style democracy for miles and miles.



Well excuse me for pointing out the obvious but i think you're a bit bias on these matters cause you're Jewish. 

But i salute you for being critical of Israel and saying things like this.



> We should have cut off Israel's aid in the 70s when they kept building West Bank settlements, frankly.



To Ashermusic,



> on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt's airforce.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_day_war


----------



## Ashermusic

Fernando Warez @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> You are either misinform or you are lying. Israel stroke the first blow in this war. The Arabs were very clear and said they would not attack first. Of course Israel attacked because acquiring more territory is what they wanted. All the Arabs did was to mass troops because they were told by the Russians Israel was preparing an attack. And they were right.
> 
> I've heard many Jews in public forums lye about Israel being attack in this war but the fact is Israel stroke the first blow and it was a devastating one.



Simply factually wrong. According to Wlkipedia (probably fearful of Jewish lobbyists)
"The British mandate over Palestine was due to expire on 15 May, but Jewish Leadership led by future Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared independence on 14 May. The State of Israel declared itself as an independent nation, and was quickly recognized by the Soviet Union, the United States, and many other countries.

Over the next few days, approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops invaded the newly-established state. Four thousand Transjordanian troops invaded the Corpus separatum region encompassing Jerusalem and its environs, as well as areas designated as part of the Arab state by the UN partition plan. They were aided by corps of volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab- ... _June_1948

And apprently in the WIkipedia article about the 6 day war, you chose to ignore ", "Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel.[5] In response, on June 5, 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[6] against Egypt's airforce. "

That is tantamount to attack. If you say to me, "I am going to hit you" and raise your fist, you better believe I will run at you and try to punch your lights out.

But your choices in who to believe is consistent with your choices of who to believe on the Twin Towers.

I think it is clear to everyone now Fernando, who and what you are.


----------



## Fernando Warez

President Nasser went on TV and said they would not attack first. They mass troops because the feared and attack by Israel.



> Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt's airforce.



Iraq was a pre-emptive strike too and look what happened. There was no threat after all. No matter how you twist this Israel launch the first strike in the 6 day war. And it's dishonest of you to deny this. It's a historical fact.

It was always Israel's intention to acquire more land.



> [...] Our central problem is immigration ... and not adapting our lives to this or that doctrine. [...] We are conquerors of the land facing an iron wall, and we have to break through it. [...] How can we run our Zionist movement in such a way that [... we] will be able to carry out the conquest of the land by the Jewish worker, and which will find the resources to organise the massive immigration and settlement of workers through their own capabilities? The creation of a new Zionist movement, a Zionist movement of workers, is the first prerequisite for the fulfillment of Zionism. [...] Without [such] a new Zionist movement that is entirely at our disposal, there is no future or hope for our activities
> 
> Ben Gurion


 


> But your choices in who to believe is consistent with your choices of who to believe on the Twin Towers.
> 
> I think it is clear to everyone now Fernando, who and what you are.



Of course, like the Israeli lobby AIPAC, it was just a matter of time before you accuse me of being an anti-semite which is probably what you're trying to do here.

And the real reason for this personal attack is to try to derail the debate cause you know you cant win this debate.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Fernando... The quote mining that Jay just caught you doing simply destroys what little credibility you had left - how disgraceful. 

You're pulling the exact same tricks as creationists and 9/11 truthers (of which you belong) and it's intellectually corrupt and unworthy. 

Seriously... don't you feel ashamed?


----------



## Ashermusic

Fernando Warez @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> President Nasser went on TV and said they would not attack first. They mass troops because the feared and attack by Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Egypt's airforce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was a pre-emptive strike too and look what happened. There was no threat after all. No matter how you twist this Israel launch the first strike in the 6 day war. And it's dishonest of you to deny this. It's a historical fact.
> 
> It was always Israel's intention to acquire more land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [...] Our central problem is immigration ... and not adapting our lives to this or that doctrine. [...] We are conquerors of the land facing an iron wall, and we have to break through it. [...] How can we run our Zionist movement in such a way that [... we] will be able to carry out the conquest of the land by the Jewish worker, and which will find the resources to organise the massive immigration and settlement of workers through their own capabilities? The creation of a new Zionist movement, a Zionist movement of workers, is the first prerequisite for the fulfillment of Zionism. [...] Without [such] a new Zionist movement that is entirely at our disposal, there is no future or hope for our activities
> 
> Ben Gurion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But your choices in who to believe is consistent with your choices of who to believe on the Twin Towers.
> 
> I think it is clear to everyone now Fernando, who and what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, like the Israeli lobby AIPAC, it was just a matter of time before you accuse me of being an anti-semite which is probably what you're trying to do here.
> 
> And the real reason for this personal attack is to try to derail the debate cause you know you cant win this debate.
Click to expand...


You may or may not not be an anti-Semite but you are clearly colored by seeing everything through an anti-Zionist perspective and you only quote what helps with that and ignore the rest, as Chrisitian just pointed out. And IMHO clearly, you are a conspiracy theorist wack job.

And I suggest to you that it is pretty obvious that in the eyes of most here, I can "win the debate" as you are not receiving very much support here, are you?


----------



## Fernando Warez

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Fernando... The quote mining that Jay just caught you doing simply destroys what little credibility you had left - how disgraceful.
> 
> You're pulling the exact same tricks as creationists and 9/11 truthers (of which you belong) and it's intellectually corrupt and unworthy.
> 
> Seriously... don't you feel ashamed?



:lol: I don't feel ashame at all. That quot is from the father of Israel Ben Gurion and I've posted it to back up my claim that Israel had intention to conquer Palestinian territory, which they did. What's wrong with that?

These personal attack only show you're desperately running out of argument.


----------



## blue

JonFairhurst @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> blue @ Wed Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but even just saying you will support environmental issues pits you against your party if you're McCain. That was my point. Even if he's not sincere, having a Republican address the issue might at least give it more credibility among the remaining skeptics in his party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, who said this?
> 
> _…_
> 
> That was George Bush's greenwashing segment of the 2003 State of the Union address.
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/ ... ranscript/
> 
> Trusting John McCain with the environment is like trusting Ted Bundy to run an all-girl dorm. Both would gladly tell you what you want to hear in order to get their way.
Click to expand...


Dude, I agree with you. Nowhere did I suggest McCain would do as he promised. I'm simply saying this: A Republican presidential candidate has raised global warming as a campaign issue. Cynicism aside -and trust me, I have plenty- that is surprising and not something "a front for the party" would do. Global warming has never before fit the Republican campaign strategy, so even this mere lip service goes against type. That was the only point I was making, so I'm not sure why you are responding as if I'm somehow supporting McCain.

As for the State of the Union address you quoted, Bush wasn't campaigning for votes when he uttered those words. There was little risk.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Well excuse me for pointing out the obvious but i think you're a bit bias on these matters cause you're Jewish



What basis do you have for assuming that?

Answer: absolutely none.

You might want to think about that.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> I don't feel ashame at all. That quot is from the father of Israel Ben Gurion and I've posted it to back up my claim that Israel had intention to conquer Palestinian territory, which they did. What's wrong with that?
> 
> These personal attack only show you're desperately running out of argument.



I'm referring to the "pre-emptive strike" quote which you chose to cut off to make your point - presenting quotes that way is essentially lying... You KNEW full well that your quote would only make sense if you did not include the preceeding sentance, so you intentionally left it out. That is intellectually corrupt and a disgrace - and frankly taking the piss on people here engaging with you in a debate. 

The fact that you don't see that and don't feel the least shameful speaks volumes about your character - far louder than any personal attacks.


----------



## Fernando Warez

> You may not be an anti-Semite but you are clearly colored by seeing everything through an anti-Zionist perspective and you only quote what helps with that and ignore the rest, as Chrisitian just pointed out. And IMHO clearly, you are a conspiracy theorist wack job.



I've caught you in a lie and I've showed you you were wrong. You said Israel was attack by Arabs country and that was false. 

But you are right in that I'm no big fan of Zionist because of the way they threat the Palestinians. They steal their territory, their resources, their homes and that is not something i can support. Most American would agree with me if they were better informed. But some how Israel get a free pass in US main stream media. Hell even Israel media is harder on Israel policies than the US media. But that's an other topic.



> And I suggest to you that it is pretty obvious that in the eyes of most here, I can "win the debate" as you are not receiving very much support here, are you?



See if i care? beside the debate is over and you were wrong. Israel stroke the first blow in the 6 day war.

BTW, you seem to have a dual loyalty to the US and Israel. You seem to support the war in Iraq and I'm pretty sure you would support the US attacking Iran. Now seeing how this war in Iraq is horrible and that things would get much worse if the US attack
Iran one has to wonder if you are first loyal to America or Israel? Because these 2 country may be enemies of Israel but they are not enemy of the US.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> I don't feel ashame at all. That quot is from the father of Israel Ben Gurion and I've posted it to back up my claim that Israel had intention to conquer Palestinian territory, which they did. What's wrong with that?
> 
> These personal attack only show you're desperately running out of argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm referring to the "pre-emptive strike" quote which you chose to cut off to make your point - presenting quotes that way is essentially lying... You KNEW full well that your quote would only make sense if you did not include the preceeding sentance, so you intentionally left it out. That is intellectually corrupt and a disgrace - and frankly taking the piss on people here engaging with you in a debate.
> 
> The fact that you don't see that and don't feel the least shameful speaks volumes about your character - far louder than any personal attacks.
Click to expand...


Go back a few post and you will see I've posted the ''pre-emptive strike'' quot. :roll:

The fact that is was a pre-emptive strick or a strick makes no difference at all BTW. They attacked first and it was not my intention to lie are what ever you amply... Now you,re seeing things that aren't there.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Well excuse me for pointing out the obvious but i think you're a bit bias on these matters cause you're Jewish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What basis do you have for assuming that?
> 
> Answer: absolutely none.
> 
> You might want to think about that.
Click to expand...


Well you Jewish aren't you?

edited: I saw that you've already said that you were Jewish. And the thing is Jews I've met on line support Israel and so that's what lead me to believe you might be bias when it comes to Israel. Are you saying you're not?


----------



## JonFairhurst

blue @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> As for the State of the Union address you quoted, Bush wasn't campaigning for votes when he uttered those words. There was little risk.


It turns out that Bush talks up the environment at every State of the Union address - including the 2004 election year.

Here's a summary of 2001 - 2007
http://climateprogress.org/2007/01/18/b ... yada-yada/

And here's 2008:
_To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. (Applause.) Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil. Last year, I asked you to pass legislation to reduce oil consumption over the next decade, and you responded. Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. (Applause.) Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power. (Applause.) Let us continue investing in advanced battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future. (Applause.) Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. (Applause.) _

When it comes to the environment, Republicans consistently offer sweet words - and dirty deeds.


----------



## artsoundz

we do have an option of just ignoring Fernando- then maybe his mom will find something for him to do.


----------



## Fernando Warez

artsoundz @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> we do have an option of just ignoring Fernando- then maybe his mom will find something for him to do.



Plus it's easier to ignore me than to address the issue. :wink:


----------



## artsoundz

the only issue here requires some significant psychoanalysis.


----------



## blue

JonFairhurst @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> blue @ Thu Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the State of the Union address you quoted, Bush wasn't campaigning for votes when he uttered those words. There was little risk.
> 
> 
> 
> It turns out that Bush talks up the environment at every State of the Union address - including the 2004 election year.
Click to expand...


Yes, I know. But again, a State of the Union address carries nowhere near the same risks as a presidential campaign, regardless of the year in which it's delivered.

Why do you keep using me as a springboard for your talking points? Your responses have little to do with the point. Again, I'm not talking about the realties of governance, I'm talking about the strategies of campaign salesmanship. As far as I know, no Republican seeking high office has even admitted to global warming, let alone included it in his campaign message. That's a new pitch for a person from that party, and one I wasn't expecting. What it all means is besides the point, really.


----------



## Fernando Warez

artsoundz @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> the only issue here requires some significant psychoanalysis.



Funny how people want to arrange a boy cut when you start criticizing Israel huh?

And then someone write stuff like Islam is a hateful religion and nobody says anything.

I've said nothing that isn't true in this thread. 

a)Israel did lobby for the US to attack Iraq and is now lobbying the US to attack Iran.

b)Israel did strick the first blow in the 6 day war.

c)That may not be as easy to prove but any politicians who vote against the war in Iraq will pay the price in the next election. I make this judgemnet after researching this. It's quiet amazing how powerful the Israeli lobby is.

Here's a good video on this topic.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nimGMe0ku ... re=related

here's a list of AIPAC contributions...

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_ ... 07027.html

here's Republican Paul Findley on the Israeli lobby. Very interesting and revealing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3252642434022358005 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4022358005)

To be fair I'm sure there are other group lobbying for America to stay in Iraq. But I've never seen an other lobby group like AIPAC who can fill up Arenas and have all the major politicians player pledging to Israel.

Here's just a short clip of an AIPAC conference. (don'd mind the comments from the video maker)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NcopGr1R4i4


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Well you Jewish aren't you?
> 
> edited: I saw that you've already said that you were Jewish.



I said my ethnicity is Jewish.

Is that a problem?



> And the thing is Jews I've met on line support Israel and so that's what lead me to believe you might be bias when it comes to Israel. Are you saying you're not?



This is commonly known as prejudice, Fernando, and it's very ugly.



> Funny how people want to arrange a boy cut when you start criticizing Israel huh?



No, they want to arrange a boycott when you post anti-Semitic remarks. The idea that the "Jewish lobby" is responsible for 9/11 is at best pathological.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Jews ROCK!!! - especially my wife (but you too, Nick). 8) :lol:


----------



## JonFairhurst

blue @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> As far as I know, no Republican seeking high office has even admitted to global warming, let alone included it in his campaign message. That's a new pitch for a person from that party, and one I wasn't expecting.



Yet, in my last post I showed that just this year Bush said:

_* Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing *carbon emissions*. 

* And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of *greenhouse gases*._

So I argue that it's not a new pitch from the party. McCain might have bumped the volume on the topic, but that's not surprising. With $4+ per gallon gas screwing the economy, of course he's going to talk about energy related topics.

BTW, here's some debunking of McCain's energy-related ads:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143344

So, why do I keep responding? Because the mere thought of the GOP being perceived as being the party for alternative energy is unacceptable, based on the party's actions over the past, well, forever!


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Well you Jewish aren't you?
> 
> edited: I saw that you've already said that you were Jewish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said my ethnicity is Jewish.
> 
> Is that a problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the thing is Jews I've met on line support Israel and so that's what lead me to believe you might be bias when it comes to Israel. Are you saying you're not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is commonly known as prejudice, Fernando, and it's very ugly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how people want to arrange a boy cut when you start criticizing Israel huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they want to arrange a boycott when you post anti-Semitic remarks. The idea that the "Jewish lobby" is responsible for 9/11 is at best pathological.
Click to expand...


Where did i write Jews were responsible for 911? :roll: WTF? Now you're lying. 

And you're saying it's a prejudice to suggest Jews might have a bias in favour of Israel? Don't you think you might be exaggerating here Nick? Cause most of the Jews I've met on line clearly showed a bias toward Israel, I'm not making this up. Is it so hard to believe? :shock:


----------



## blue

JonFairhurst @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> So, why do I keep responding? Because the mere thought of the GOP being perceived as being the party for alternative energy is unacceptable, based on the party's actions over the past, well, forever!



But, as should be obvious from reading my posts, those aren't _my_ perceptions. I don't know how I could make that more clear.



> McCain might have bumped the volume on the topic, but that's not surprising. With $4+ per gallon gas screwing the economy, of course he's going to talk about energy related topics.



But the Republican response to the energy problem is typically to focus on supply, which is directly opposed to altering demand. McCain has joined the chorus for offshore drilling, but his environmental pitch -sincere or not– is a separate push and clearly not aimed at the Republican base.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Fernando, 

I think you might want to make a distinction between a bias for Israel and a bias for the Israeli govt's policies. I love the US, but I can't stand their current govt. I have a bias in favour of Canada, but I think our current govt sucks.

BTW, prior to mid-20th century, Jews didn't even have a country - can you blame them for still being enthusiastic? With the always present (direct or indirect) anti-semitism in most countries (oh yes, in friendly Canada too), I'm sure that many view Israel as a much needed oasis that needs to be vigorously support. When was the last time the countries that neighbour yours threatened to destroy/sink it? When was the last time atlases and schoolbooks of another country deliberately erased the name of your country?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"And you're saying it's a prejudice to suggest Jews might have a bias in favour of Israel?"

I'm saying it's prejudice to assume that because I'm of Jewish descent that I have a bias toward Israel. In fact I don't, and nothing I said should have led you to the conclusion that I do. I'm saying that your asking Christian if he's Jewish in order to decode what he says is prejudice - and as Jay pointed out, it's pretty funny.

And to take Ned's point even farther, are you really naïve enough to think that all Israelis agree with one another, let alone 14 million Jews spread all over the world?

"Where did i write Jews were responsible for 911?"

Ah, I got the details wrong. Sorry. It's just the Jewish Lobby you were going on about.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Jews ROCK!!! - especially my wife (but you too, Nick)."

My wife rocks too, and she's Jewish!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Also, Fernando, you need to get out more. Of course there's a Jewish culture with a long history, but Judaism is a religion rather than a race.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> Also, Fernando, you need to get out more. Of course there's a Jewish culture with a long history, but Judaism is a religion rather than a race.



Where did i say Jews are a race? Of course i know Jews is not a race. :roll:


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 26 said:


> "And you're saying it's a prejudice to suggest Jews might have a bias in favour of Israel?"
> 
> I'm saying it's prejudice to assume that because I'm of Jewish descent that I have a bias toward Israel. In fact I don't, and nothing I said should have led you to the conclusion that I do. I'm saying that your asking Christian if he's Jewish in order to decode what he says is prejudice - and as Jay pointed out, it's pretty funny.



I may have made a mistake here but i don't think i should be blame for it. As i said before most Jews I've met on line had a clear bias. What lead me to believe you might have a bias toward Israel is that you kept saying Israel is an ally to the US even tough they have refuse to become an ally when offered in 67. 



> And to take Ned's point even farther, are you really naïve enough to think that all Israelis agree with one another, let alone 14 million Jews spread all over the world?



I know Israeli do not all agree about Israel policies. Iòg2   }©Ég2   }©Êg2   }©Ëg2   }©Ìg2   }©Íg2   }©Îg2   }©Ïg2   }©Ðg2   }©Ñg2   }©Òg2   }©Óg2   }©Ôg2   }©Õg2   }©Ög2   }©×g2   }©Øg2   }©Ùg2   }©Úg2   }©Ûg2   }©Üg2   }©Ýg2   }©Þg2   }©ßg2   }©àg2   }©ág2   }©âg2   }©ãg2   }


----------



## Fernando Warez

artsoundz @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> "He also says this is the reason that no democrats are coming out strongly against the war with Iran."
> 
> 
> there is no war with Iran.
> 
> Fernando,
> 
> I'm standing just outside your front door.



That sounds like a threat. 

And boy i wish you did stand outside my front door. :D But you wouldn't have the balls!

I'd preferred if you did what you say you would do earlier and ignore me. Cause frankly you've added nothing smart to this discussion.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Threats, threats... Hey Fernando and artsoundz, maybe you guys live on the same street? Anyhow, IMHO, you should get a room and make up...


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> Threats, threats... Hey Fernando and artsoundz, maybe you guys live on the same street? Anyhow, IMHO, you should get a room and make up...



To be fair Ned he's the one coming after me. You can go back and reed his post and mine. 

But don't worry. There's no way I'm going to let a guy like him get to me. And as of now, ''I'' will ignore him.

Back on topic,

So nobody is pissed of to see Israel lobbying the US to attack Iran? How much is that gonna cost. And if it's just a war of words, what effect those it have on oil prices? Maybe Israel should ease down and start looking at a peace solution?


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> Threats, threats... Hey Fernando and artsoundz, maybe you guys live on the same street? Anyhow, IMHO, you should get a room and make up...



BTW Ned, I'm sure you're you realize this boy cut is pure hate speech. As a moderator do you think it's OK?

What is the difference between these 2 situations: A) Even tough this guy said nothing wrong let's ignore him because we don't like what he has to say or B) this guy is Jewish and we don't like Jews so let's ignore him? Frankly i don't see any.

Can i be blamed for suggestion Nick who is Jewish may have a bias in favour of Israel(The home of the Jews)? I don't think so. Can one blame someone for suggesting bible believing Christians have a bias in favour of the Pope?

I haven't said anything offencive here other than express my opinion on politics issues.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

The home of the Jews? Huh? You think there's one home for every nationality/culture? My wife's home is Canada, even though she's Jewish. I don't know where you live, but I'm sure that if you live in Sweden, many Jews there call Sweden their home.


----------



## rob morsberger

Actually, 'bible believing Christians' generally take a dim view of the pope.
Just to further muddy these (extremely malodorous) waters.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Fernando, I think you're confusing the love of one's country or a country with the approval of that same country's government policies. I love Canada, but I often don't support our government.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> The home of the Jews? Huh? You think there's one home for every nationality/culture? My wife's home is Canada, even though she's Jewish. I don't know where you live, but I'm sure that if you live in Sweden, many Jews there call Sweden their home.



Are you serious? A home for the Jews was the slogan the Zionist used to gain support for the creation of Israel.


----------



## Fernando Warez

rob morsberger @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> Actually, 'bible believing Christians' generally take a dim view of the pope.
> Just to further muddy these (extremely malodorous) waters.



Who care? Replace bible believing Christian with catholics.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Fernando Warez @ 27/6/2008 said:


> Are you serious? A home for the Jews was the slogan the Zionist used to gain support for the creation of Israel.



And we are in 2008. Not 1928 or whatever...

OK, I'm out of here. This is too much fun.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Jun 27 said:


> Fernando Warez @ 27/6/2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious? A home for the Jews was the slogan the Zionist used to gain support for the creation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we are in 2008. Not 1928 or whatever...
> 
> OK, I'm out of here. This is too much fun.
Click to expand...


Pffff! What kind of comment is that? :roll: Unless I'm mistaken Israel is still view as a home for the Jews. Really I'm way off when i say this? :? 


For the record i do wish peace to the Israeli. Frankly i think they deserve it. Just like anybody else for that matter. But the Israeli government are war mongers and are not the least interested in peace. They know they need a treats to use as an excuse to acquire more land. It's always been their strategy and i see no sign of that changing. And that attitude may put us all at risk eventually.


I'm pretty much done here. It's obvious no one will talk about this issue but will rather throe insults, which is typical when ever someone criticize Israel or the lobby. Somehow this issue never get discuss. Anti-semite accusation derail the debate and it becomes personal, which is the goal.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

There are at least six million reasons that anti-Semitism is a touchy issue, Fernando, but you're mistaken that nobody will discuss Israel rationally. The problem is that you're not informed about what's going on, and you're making generalizations that don't hold.

While I'm pretty dovish and only favor violent solutions as a very last resort, you're missing the point that everyone in Israel is frustrated. That's what led to some of the simplistic, violent solutions - I'd say excesses in some cases - we've seen over the years. Of course everyone there wants peace; nobody wants to live like that.

What you need to realize is that millions of Jews all over the world disagree with a lot of the Israeli government's actions over the years. Millions agree with them too, of course, but when you assume all Jews feel the same way you're - knowingly or unknowingly - guilty of prejudice.

That's part of what's behind the reaction you're seeing here (the other part is that you're flat out wrong about a lot of things). But go ahead and pretend that you're the only one telling the truth while everyone else is being prudish if it makes you feel better.


----------



## JonFairhurst

I'm starting to think that a "1 and Only" thread for US elections was a really stupid idea...


----------



## artsoundz

oh for heveans sakes- Fernandp-I was just playing with your obvious paranoia. what else is there to do with this fool? He doesn't consider reason whatsoever and posts what I consider damaging ,disgusting opinions that anywhere else would get him booted. Most here respond just to defend basic intelligence and human principles. There is nothing "important' being offered by this little man.

I have no desire to"make up" with Fernando as it wouldn't be fun anymore. Fernando-you are just too easy.

Geez- To be clear- I'm not standing in front of your door.

i'm in your house.....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'd like to suggest that cooler heads prevail here.

And there's no law that this has to be a 1 and Only thread, Jon - although I like the meandering nature of this thread: Obama Boy, religion, Israel, evolution, religion...


----------



## artsoundz

fair enough. But to be clear- posters like Fernando dont bother me so much. I'm more fascinated how anyone in this modern world can remain so ingnorant on so many subjects. I for one have a feeling the little guy lives in an anti American environement and is a victim of group think.

But..ok..Fernando...I care about you. You are special. You are important.

edit- before I had just skimmed the posts that were posted after my posting the post I posted. 

To everyone here- I tend to have more fun than I should and my comments to Fernando are almost always in the spirit of fun- In other words- when I read such silliness, I tend to respond as a smartass rather than get offended or mad. It's just too fun to see the funnier side of things and it takes a lot to make me mad.

So-dont take me seriously. There is NO way that I thought Fernando would take me seriously(standing oustside his door) I was just making a comment on his over the top paranoia. I didnt think this would be taken as a threat. Although any kind of truth certainly threatens Fernando. 

Fernando- you owe this forum and yourself a more thorough and unbiased thought process. In the past I sent you a link to critical thinking in which you stated you have no tme to read. I suggest you consider that.


----------



## Ashermusic

Artsoundz, you forgot an essential truth that I believe was said by Einstein (un-oh, he was Jewish) and I paraphrase, "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."


----------



## Abe

Hi Nick,

I hope you are having a nice weekend.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa




----------



## artsoundz

Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 28 said:


> Artsoundz, you forgot an essential truth that I believe was said by Einstein (un-oh, he was Jewish) and I paraphrase, "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."




Hehe. good one, Al.


----------



## artsoundz

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Jun 28 said:


>


A

Al Einstein- 2 hours into his Nobel celebration party.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Hi Abe, welcome back.


----------



## Abe

Evolution is still a theory...

If I may.
Mutations are one of the driving forces for evolution..
Have you guys read up on the fruitfly experiments?
We should clearly have evidence of positive mutations..
In the millions really. Sickle cell anemia. How about a 
positive mutation with no negative effect.

where are the transitional (intermediary forms)

The fossil record is silent. The missing links(they don't exist)

So, now enters the gradual transition vs punctuality...

In other words, since we don't see transitional skeletal remains,
we should believe that at specific moments in time one species
gave birth to a different species. 

Evolution my friends is worth examining very carefully..

The problem with a theory is we have to block
out what the empirical evidence presents..

rather, make everything fit the theory...

btw, how was the intermediate form(which we have no
evidence of) reproducing..
when for example its reproductive system was changing
did the offspring have it's parents reproductive design...
how did it survive much less reproduce itself..
wasn't there need for the transitional design to
have been availabe in the opposite sex transitional design..

how, by mere random events could these processes
have taken place.. in perfect harmony...

for every species we need mutations numbering in the millions..
so literally trillions of mutations...

One truly must have faith...
to believe given enough time all of the complexity 
we see around us came to be through these processes. 

How much effort is required to compose a symphony?

How can we truly look at DNA and believe this highly ordered 
structure happened by mistake. as a result of an explosion. followed by 
millions of mistakes. 

Abe


----------



## Dan Selby

Is there an emoticon for banging your head on the desk until it bleeds?


----------



## Abe

Dan,

When all else fails,
resort to sarcasm.

Abe


----------



## blue

Here ya go…


----------



## Abe

sarcasm..

hmmm, come to think of it
I see the shared ancestral trait between 
you and the orangutans.

Abe :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dan:


----------



## Abe

Nick,

very funny 

I read the previous posts regarding 
Evolution being a fact , and was hoping
those making the claims would back it up.

this is funnier...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Abe


----------



## Ed

As I am intoxicated right now I will reply to this. o-[][]-o 



Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Evolution is still a theory...



Of course, no matter how many small afgan homes we nuke the Atomic Theory will remain a theory as well 



> If I may.
> Mutations are one of the driving forces for evolution..
> Have you guys read up on the fruitfly experiments?
> We should clearly have evidence of positive mutations..


We do. 



> In the millions really. Sickle cell anemia. How about a
> positive mutation with no negative effect.



Heres a site that lists a few:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html



> where are the transitional (intermediary forms)
> 
> The fossil record is silent. The missing links(they don't exist)



Actually theres so many transitional fossils its hard to know which to show examples of. 



> So, now enters the gradual transition vs punctuality...
> 
> In other words, since we don't see transitional skeletal remains,


We do.



> we should believe that at specific moments in time one species
> gave birth to a different species.



No, speciation occures gradually. Evolution is a change in *population *not individuals over a long period of time. 



> Evolution my friends is worth examining very carefully..



Just dont try learning about it from a Creationist or you will invariably learn nothing about it. 



> btw, how was the intermediate form(which we have no
> evidence of) reproducing..
> when for example its reproductive system was changing
> did the offspring have it's parents reproductive design...
> how did it survive much less reproduce itself..
> wasn't there need for the transitional design to
> have been availabe in the opposite sex transitional design..



Evolution is not X-Men. 
Evolution is not X-Men. 
Evolution is not X-Men.
Evolution is not X-Men. 
Evolution is not X-Men.
Evolution is not X-Men. 



> how, by mere random events could these processes
> have taken place.. in perfect harmony...



Natural selection isnt random. Thats why you have the word *selection *in there. 



> for every species we need mutations numbering in the millions..
> so literally trillions of mutations...



No more like gazzilion quadrillion squilloniouses of mutations! I floor myself.. but seriously though, no species ever _give birth to_ a different species. It didnt happen instantly.



> One truly must have faith...
> to believe given enough time all of the complexity
> we see around us came to be through these processes.



You might say the same about gravity but there you go. My apples still fall down. 


> How much effort is required to compose a symphony?
> 
> How can we truly look at DNA and believe this highly ordered
> structure happened by mistake. as a result of an explosion. followed by
> millions of mistakes.



Order happens all the time from chaotic elements, you could be talking about anything. 



> this is funnier...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g



Richards pause is him realising that he had been duped into letting a bunch of lying Creationist film makers into his house. Does it really make sence that he couldnt answer the question even though he had written a whole chapter answering that very thing in his book? Its not even a difficult question to answer, theres information on that everywhere. 

Ed


----------



## JonFairhurst

One can test evolution on the small scale. 

Take a culture of bacteria. Apply an external stimulus that kills the bacteria with one characteristic and helps bacteria with another extremely rare characteristic to thrive. Do this for a few generations. The unfavorable characteristic is eliminated. The favorable one grows beyond that of any in the original culture.

This is but a simple example. There are specific tests with impressive and repeatable results.

And, yes, God is probably clever enough to have designed life to evolve - maybe even abruptly. I hear He's that good.

Now, please tell us the experiment that tests for creationism and yields repeatable, positive results. 

Evolution is a tested scientific theory.

Creationism is an untested hypothesis.

If creationists want to call their beliefs "science", they have to play by the rules.


----------



## Ed

We've even observed speciation in the lab and in nature but Creationists dont like sciences definition of a "species". They want to see a dog give girth to a cat or something impossible that Evolution never suggested like that. Its best just to assume when they say species they really mean "kind", which is a vague everchanging undefinable thing.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

Natural selection ...
the assumption of the weak die off, the strong survive...
does not introduce new genetic material,
new organs or new species...

It does not cause evolution...

Darwin knew this ...
"Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."

hence, neodarwinism needed to add the idea of genetic mutation.

Colin Patterson - senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London "No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question"

Stephen Jay Gould "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well"

Pierre-Paul Grasse "Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy"

Grasse "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Grasse "Bacteria ...are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. Bacteria ...exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect"

Ed, you should read up on the fruitfly experiments...

check out there credentials...

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Okay Abe, so I assume your point is that since evolution is just a ridiculous theory, what happened is that everything was designed by God 6,000 years ago.

Right?


----------



## Abe

Nick,

I can't prove God exists...

but come on now...
from the origin of species...
Darwin "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered,
by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure
and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was 
produced as monstrous as a whale"
During his time, science wasn't aware of genetic homeostasis.

the problem is evolution doesn't
have a shred of evidence to back 
it up.

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

You seem so sure!

So what is your theory?


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Natural selection ...
> the assumption of the weak die off, the strong survive...


Its not an assumption and "strong" is defined as most likely to pass along its genetic material.



> does not introduce new genetic material,
> new organs or new species...



Evolution is mutation AND natural selection. It doesnt have to be natural, thats why you have the term artifical selection as well. 



> It does not cause evolution...



Without either mutation or selection there is no evolution. 



> Darwin knew this ...
> "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur."
> 
> hence, neodarwinism needed to add the idea of genetic mutation.



Darwin observed evolution through Natural Selection. Today through genetics, which Darwin did not live to see, we know about mutation.



> Colin Patterson - senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London "No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question"



Poor Colin Patterson always seems to get taken out of context, sadly I cant find the original by which to check this quote. Would be a silly thing to say when we have observed new species in the lab and in nature, so I will assume its just another typical quote mine. 



> Stephen Jay Gould "The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well"



What problem do you have with this one?



> Pierre-Paul Grasse "Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy"



Look up Lamarckism, thats the idea Pierre-Paul Grasse supported and has been proven false. 



> Ed, you should read up on the fruitfly experiments...



I know about them. I predict you have very warped perception of how evolution is meant to work.


----------



## JonFairhurst

The theory of evolution does not preclude the existence of a God or many gods for that matter.

In fact, the beneficial mutations could very well be created by God, and natural selection can take over from there. Again, I hear He's a clever guy.

The theory of evolution doesn't state that mutations must be random, though we know that random mutations exist. They could come about from chance, gamma rays or even divine intervention from alien spaghetti monsters. I don't know. I wasn't there at the time.

The problem is "either/or", "black and white" thinking. There is no reason for those who believe in God to be threatened by evolutionary theory.

Evolution exists. God might exist. They aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

Stop the presses ...

you know of new species being formed in a lab..

really.

show me please.

again, let me reinstate..
mutations do not introduce new genetic material.

they are errors in the duplicating process.

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Stop the presses ...
> 
> you know of new species being formed in a lab..
> 
> really.
> 
> show me please.



I will do this, if you tell me what you expect a new species would be like. Feel free to look up the term!



> again, let me reinstate..
> mutations do not introduce new genetic material.
> 
> they are errors in the duplicating process.



I gave you a link which lists some beneficial mutations. Im not going to repeat it.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

Humans being 2 inches taller today is not
evolution.

It is variation. 

Again, please show where
mutation introduces new genetic material
to form a new organ, much less a new species.

Abe

p.s. your link states the following "Scientists have 
shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce
brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment"

where does it mention new genetic material. not variants. 
I must admit the wording of "brand new" through me off
for a second.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Humans being 2 inches taller today is not
> evolution.
> 
> It is variation.



You dont understand evolution. Thats obvious. Variation *is *evolution. If put under the right selective pressures eventually those changes mount up to the point where if 2 seperate populations part ways long enough where population A is unable and/or not willing to breed with poplation B. For example, a donkey and a horse is unable to produce viable offspring. 



> Again, please show where mutation introduces new genetic material
> to form a new organ, much less a new species.



Define what you believe a new species would look like to you. You have talked about species "giving birth" to new species so I assume you have some twisted idea of it



> p.s. your link states the following "Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment"
> 
> where does it mention new genetic material. not variants.



And thats where you stopped reading, isnt it? Well heres some more. 
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... _info.html
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html


----------



## Abe

Ed,

Please focus like a laser beam.

Show me where one mutation..
not the millions upon millions that 
evolution is suggesting.

One, where new genetic 
material appears as a result
of a mutation.

Again, you talk about pressures 
from environment.

I recommend you revisit
the results of over 40 years
of experiments performed 
on fruitflies.

In the end. They were still fruitflies.
As mutated(foot in mouth, wings not functioning , etc.)
as they had become.

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Please focus like a laser beam. Show me where one mutation..not the millions upon millions that evolution is suggesting. One, where new genetic material appears as a result of a mutation. Again, you talk about pressures from environment.



I see so you ignored all the examples I gave. 



> I recommend you revisit the results of over 40 years of experiments performed on fruitflies.
> 
> In the end. They were still fruitflies. As mutated(foot in mouth, wings not functioning , etc.) as they had become.



And there we go, I knew you'd show you have no idea what you are talking about eventually. Evolution never suggested the fruit flys will stop being fruit flys, only modified fruit flys. Humans didnt stop being apes, we are still apes today. 

Ed


----------



## Abe

Ed,

I'm not seeing anywhere from
your link where it states new
genetic material.

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I'm not seeing anywhere from your link where it states new genetic material.
> 
> Abe



Its all over those links. The Nylon bug for example, two very detailed pages on that alone.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

This type of mutation was a frame-shift
and the change in the bacteria was a base pair deletion.

I asked for new genetic material.

Do you understand the difference?

Abe

P.s. 
in most cases a frame shift is deleterious..
this is a rare exception.

This was your best example.

very weak indeed...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Once more, Abe: what is your theory of the origin of species?

You have a habit of saying what you don't believe in, but you seem to have a problem saying what you do believe in.


----------



## Abe

Nick,

I believe evolution
is a fairy tale. 

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> I asked for new genetic material.



uh huh... Im thinking you dont really know what that means.

Discussing this point then seems like it will be a waste of time, so how about you do something simple and explain how you expect evolution to work. Why is it you think fruit flys are supposed to turn into something other than modified fruit flys? Why is it you think a species is meant to _give birth to_ a new species? If you do this you will show that you have no idea what evolution really is. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

*EDIT:*

I just noticed you moved the goal posts. First you wanted a beneficial mutation, when show that you come back asking to be shown where the new "information" was in the beneficial mutation. You must be working from some other definition as Creationists never do define it in the same way the dont define what "kind" means. Either way, you were wrong, of course beneficial mutations happen.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Nick,
> 
> I believe evolution
> is a fairy tale.
> 
> Abe



You didnt answer his question.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ah, but it's not a fairy tale, Abe, it's something that happens.

Think about a strawberry, which needs birds to eat its fruit and poop out its seeds to spread them around so it survives. But it doesn't want them to do that before they're ready, so it starts off green and bitter to discourage the birds. Then when it's ripe, it attracts them by being bright red and succulent.

Before Darwin people would look at the strawberry and say God creationismed (aka intelligently designed) it; it's just too well planned out for a fruit to know that it's supposed to be green until it's ready to be eaten. But Darwin showed that the stawberries that were red and/or tasty too early or green and/or bitter too late weren't the ones that survived.

And that's how natural selection works. Stawberries don't know they're doing what they're doing, of course, but there are no other theories to indicate that anything else is what's going on. The reason is simple: because Darwin's theory is absolutely correct.

Animals are more complicated, but then the time scales are way, way longer. (Great apes were 6 or 7 million years ago, modern humans have been around for about 50,000 or maybe 150,000 years, depending on the account and what you consider modern humans.)

We know much more than we knew in Darwin's time, but everything we've learned since - genetics, mainly - has only lent more proof to that basic concept.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

But of course, the only thing that was missing in this thread: God!

You guys should charge people for reading this. =o >8o ~o)


----------



## Abe

Guys,

Thank you for a lively discussion.
It's past my bedtime. I will check 
back tomorrow if I have some free time.
Meanwhile, please consider what Ed 
said..."without mutation and natural selection, there 
is no evolution."

So for the last time (this evening)
I ask where is the evidence for
new genetic material forming
from these two processes.

Good Nite,
Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What do you mean by "new genetic material?"

And can you disprove Darwin?

Well, of course you can't, because it's a fact. But do you believe you can?


----------



## Dan Selby

Thank you, Nick.


----------



## Ed

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> The reason is simple: because Darwin's theory is absolutely correct.



I know you know this and I dont mean to be picky, but you have to be because they are. Darwins theory most certianly isnt absolutely correct, not just because nothing in science is absolutely correct but because "Darwins" theory of evolution is over a hundred years old.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 01 said:


> Guys,
> 
> Thank you for a lively discussion.It's past my bedtime. I will check back tomorrow if I have some free time.Meanwhile, please consider what Ed said..."without mutation and natural selection, there is no evolution."
> 
> So for the last time (this evening)I ask where is the evidence for new genetic material forming from these two processes.
> 
> Good Nite,
> Abe



You dont understand what "new genetic material" is, its just a buzz word you've heard from Creationists. If you had read that site I gave you youve have read that a new protein was created along with new amino acids.

_"However, this single microevolutionary *addition of a single thymine ('T') nucleotide* caused the new bacterium's enzyme to be composed of *a completely novel sequence of amino acids*, via the mechanism of frame shifting...

.... Over this small portion of the enzyme, the old DNA coded for the amino acids Arginine, Glutamic Acid, Arginine, Threonine, Phenylalanine, Histidine, Arginine and Proline... But the NEW DNA strand, which includes *one extra T nucleotide*, is shifted, and the new string of amino acids is completely changed. *The addition of the thymine nucleotide* produces *a new Methionine amino acid*, which, like the conductor tapping his baton, *indicates the Start of a new Protein*. This is followed by other* new amino acids* because of the frame shift: Asparagine, Alanine, Arginine, Serine, Threonine, Glycine and Glutamine. The new string of amino acids - *the new protein* - is completely different from the original."_

First, if the examples I have shown already dont count as new information for you then tell me what you would have to see to fit that. Second, you still havent addressed your first point which was there are no beneifical mutations, when clearly I have shown you many examples already. Until you define your terms your objections to evolution are meaningless.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ed, I meant Darwin was absolutely correct about the strawberries, but yes, the entire field of biology has advanced a lot in the last hundred years. 

That strawberry example is the basic concept encapsulated, though. And I've never heard any arguments that can possibly refute it (other than that plants are different - which they are, but they're also alive).


----------



## JonFairhurst

One might return the challenge and ask the creationists to create new genetic material through prayer...


If and when life is discovered on Mars, the reaction of the creationists will be interesting. Any predictions? Will they

1) Say that life was "planted"?

2) Say that it's a coordinated lie?

3) Say that it was planted by the devil to confuse us?

4) Grab some currently inconsequential passage in the Bible and say (in retrospect) that the Bible confirms that God created life on Earth and on Mars.

5) Figure out that the Bible is not a scientific document?

I think (5) is the least likely for many people.


----------



## Ed

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Ed, I meant Darwin was absolutely correct about the strawberries, but yes, the entire field of biology has advanced a lot in the last hundred years.
> 
> That strawberry example is the basic concept encapsulated, though. And I've never heard any arguments that can possibly refute it (other than that plants are different - which they are, but they're also alive).



They dont just want to see another species of strawberry, they want to see a strawberry turn into a dolphin or sprout legs or eyes or something. 

Ed


----------



## Christian Marcussen

lol.. I was away a bit from this thread and holy moly! Ed, I applaud your patience with people who have no clue what they are talking about. 

Abe, you should read some _science_ books about Evolution. Quite frankly your are talking BS - and so much BS that it requires the tenacity of Ed to actually go through it all point by point. 

I hope to perhaps jump in once in a while now, but I'm not sure I have the will power even though the subjects is one that interests me to know end. I just tend to like it witha dose of reality and knowledge. 

Two questions:

a) What is your theory?
b) Given the selfcorrecting beauty of science - what is your theory to why Evolution still stands as a theory which _all_ life/earth sciences agree upon? 

Science is really unique in it's mechanisms. And what really sets it aside from scripture is that being proven wrong is a joyous event. Where with scripture you "have the answers" and try conform reality around it - a top down approach which cannot be taken seriously in releation to science.


----------



## Abe

Oh how defensive...

Sir Julian Huxley estimated that perhaps less than one-tenth percent of all mutations could be advantageous to an organism

I come back today to catch up on the
posts, only to find no evidence. just 
attacks. Back it up with science.

Poor Ed, who seems to be the most 
well read on this subject, first upped
the ante by saying not millions but 
quadrazillions I think was the way he
put it of mutations occuring... and yet here he
is arguing the four or five examples of
errors in dna coding that happened to
have a positive(beneficial) effect.This 
logic is like saying being born paralyzed
is a beneficial mutation in that you won't 
die from a traffic accident while driving. 

A far cry from the reality demonstrating 
how most mutations are deletrious,
causing diseases and if not lethal/death.
or best case they are benign.

And yet the fairy tale of evolution trying 
so desperately to fit every thing into its 
theory says, contrary to what all the 
empirical evidence shows , mutations (errors),
occured millions of times, not by any desire 
or intelligence but merely random events
not guided , not even one building upon another
resulting in new organs being formed ...
ultimately new species ....




Ed , you asked my definition of species
it's a breedable
population (in loose terms)

Abe


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> This
> logic is like saying being born paralyzed
> is a beneficial mutation in that you won't
> die driving in a traffic accident.
> 
> A far cry from the reality demonstrating
> how most mutations are deletrious,
> causing diseases and if not lethal/death.
> or best case they are benign.



I guess you missed the part about "survival of the fittest".

Extinction is not the exception... it is the prevalent norm. It's those species that have been able to adapt (read mutate) that have passed the test of "survival of the fittest".

BTW, how are your appendix, your coccis and your wisdom teeth? 

Do you realize some people never develop wisdom teeth?? It's an evolutionary trend. In fact, I never developed wisdom teeth... they're not there... not even a hint in an X-ray.

Abe... you were doing better with Obama.


----------



## Abe

Thonex,

please, focus like a laser
beam. New genetic material
is required for organisms to evolve from
simple to complex. Show me 
where mutations form new 
dna that results in new organs much less
new species.

Unfortunately for you, the dismal fossil
record doesn't help make your case. 

But let's stick to mutations
for now . I will get to the 
problems with the fossil records.

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Poor Ed, who seems to be the most well read on this subject, first upped
> the ante by saying not millions but quadrazillions I think was the way he
> put it of mutations occured...


I was being sarcastic. :roll: 



> and yet here he is arguing the four or five examples of errors in dna coding that happened to have a positive(beneficial) effect.



It created new amino acids and proteins. Because of that mutation it was able to metabolise nylon that didnt exist before 1935. Ive shown you beneficial mutations but you just backpeddeld and then asked for something different. 

You wont define information, you wont define new genetic material. You cant do it because you have no idea what it is. You most certianly cant define species or you'll immediately show you arent using the real definition, as we will soon see if you answer some more questions about it. 



> This logic is like saying being born paralyzed is a beneficial mutation in that you won't die driving in a traffic accident.



Its absolutely not the same as that at all. 



> A far cry from the reality demonstrating how most mutations are deletrious,
> causing diseases and if not lethal/death. or best case they are benign.



You probably think cancer is the same kind of mutation dont you. 



> And yet the fairy tale of evolution trying so desperately to fit every thing into its
> theory says, contrary to what all the empirical evidence shows , mutations (errors),
> occured millions of times, not by any desire or intelligence but merely random eventsnot guided , *not even one building upon another resulting in new organs being formed ... *ultimately new species ....



Thats an interesting comment, just want do you expect? That an animal will sprout wings or eyes or something? Do you really think evolution suggests thats what happenes?



> Ed , you asked my definition of species it's a breedable population (in loose terms)



Basically, so why do you claim we havent seen speciation occur? 

Small changes in a population over a long period of time through many successive speciation events make up large morphological differences. A mutation can be negative as in it makes the organism less able to reproduce, or it can be neutral in that it doesnt make much difference but might get carried along with the population anyway, or it can be positive which makes the population better able to reproduce. 

It will be interesting to see how you manage to get out of this one. What would you expect to see in speciation that you imply hasnt ever been seen?

Ed


----------



## Abe

Ed,

stop beating a dead horse.

speciation means a loss of genetic information,
rather than an increase.

various combinations of genetic information 
already existing in gene pool is not evolution.

Dean Kenyon (check his credentials if you 
don't know who he is) said "This new realm of
molecular genetics is where we see the most
compelling evidence of design on the Earth.” 

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Ed,
> 
> stop beating a dead horse. speciation means a loss of genetic information, rather than an increase.



No it isnt. You are going to need to define information right now or theres no point continuing with this point. 



> various combinations of genetic information already existing in gene pool is not evolution.



Youve been shown how new proteins and amino acids can form from mutation, you;ve been shown beneficial mutations. Youve hand waved all of it without a second thought. I ask you again, since you deny we've ever observed speciation what do you think we should be seeing for it to be called speciation?


----------



## Abe

Ed,

the bifurcation of an existing species
because of a loss of genetic variation...

Is not evolution.

You gotta try 
better than that.

Abe

Robin Collins, an American scientist
with three degrees and two doctorates 
in mathematics, physics, and philosophy
“The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws
and constants of nature, their beauty,
their discoverability, their intelligibility 
all of this combines to make the God 
hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have.
All other theories fall short"

P.s. 
Christian do you suppose this guy
is talking BS as you put it.
I think he has a read a book or
two on Evolution.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Ed,
> 
> the bifurcation of an existing species because of a loss of genetic variation... Is not evolution.
> 
> You gotta try
> better than that.



Come on, you've just replaced the word "information" with the word "variation" in a way that actually makes the above nonsence. Stop playing games, can you define information or cant you?



> Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy “The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short"



Not only is he not a biologist this statement isnt even against Evolution. Evolution doesnt mean god didnt do it. A "God theory" cannot be scientific however.


----------



## JonFairhurst

When studying mathematics in college, we would joke about getting stuck, inserting the line "miracle happens here", and then writing the expected answer at the end.

Inserting God into science is similar to the "miracle happens here" approach to mathematics. Everything behind that veil is hidden. It's the equivalent of "I give up."

To continue the scientific exploration, one would then have to ask questions about how God did it. How much does God weigh? How old is She? How was God created?

Okay everybody. Please provide your hypotheses, experiments and conclusions regarding the specific details of God.

Faith is just as lame at explaining science as science is at matters of faith.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

you said
'seriously though, no species ever give birth
to a different species. It didnt happen instantly."

not instantly, over millions of years?

you said
"Evolution never suggested the fruit flys
will stop being fruit flys, only modified fruit flys." 


microevolution - below the level of the species 
macroevolution - above the level of the species

Losses of genetic information,
through mutations or natural or artificial selection

Transfer of existing genetic information
from one living thing to another

Duplication of existing genetic information

All have been observed.

what has not been observed is
new genetic information.

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Ed,
> 
> you said 'seriously though, no species ever give birth to a different species. It didnt happen instantly." not instantly, over millions of years?



What I mean is that no animal ever "_gave birth to_" a different species from itself. Evolution involves *populations*, speciation happens over many successive generations if put under the appropriate selective pressures. 



> you said "Evolution never suggested the fruit flys will stop being fruit flys, only modified fruit flys
> 
> microevolution - below the level of the species.
> macroevolution - above the level of the species



Correct. Im impressed as you defined species correctly before. I wonder when you will be moving the goal posts to change it. Soon, I imagine. 



> Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection. Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another. Duplication of existing genetic information. All have been observed.
> 
> *what has not been observed is new genetic information*.



After all that you still neglected to define information. You cant progress any further on that argument until you do.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

My in-laws just came by.
Our discussion will have 
to be put on hold.
May we continue tommorow
if you've got some time.

Have a good one 

Abe

P.s. 
I'll get you a solid
definition for information.

here are some nice statements
from guys alot smarter than 
I.

Frank Salisbury - evolutionary biologist
"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Paul Auger - scientist
"We have to sharply distinguish the two stages in the chance formation of complex molecules such as nucleotides by chemical events. The production of nucleotides one by one-which is possible-and the combination of these within very special sequences. The second is absolutely impossible"


Ali Demirsoy
"In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimating. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic."

Homer Jacobson
"Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance."

Douglas R. Hofstadter 
"How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer."

Michael Denton 
"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence"

beyond our comprehension
absolutely impossible
so slight as to be called astronomic
an incredibly unlikely happenstance
content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe,
purely random process is simply an affront to reason.

do you see a pattern forming?

Let us be humble with
what we think we know....


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Ed,
> 
> My in-laws just came by. Our discussion will have to be put on hold. May we continue tommorow if you've got some time.
> 
> Have a good one



 This isnt an instant message chat room, you know?



> P.s. I'll get you a solid definition for information.


Good, but as I have been asking for the last 4 or so posts I can only assume you will now have to go look one up. 



> beyond our comprehension absolutely impossible so slight as to be called astronomic an incredibly unlikely happenstance content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, purely random process is simply an affront to reason.
> 
> do you see a pattern forming?



I see at least one of those is a Creationist (Michael Denton), Im not even going to bother looking the rest up. Creationists are famous for their quote mining, it proves nothing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"all of this combines to make the God 
hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have"

Regardless of one's definition of "god" and whether or not one is religious, I disagree with that.

Even if evolution were proven wrong, there would be far more reasonable explanations than a supreme being going "poof" and there we are.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> In fact, I never developed wisdom teeth... they're not there... not even a hint in an X-ray.



Yet you still drag your knuckles when you walk. How do you explain that? And what about the prehensile tail?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe, what's your explanation for this? (Genetic code for chimps and humans is pretty close)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9136200/


----------



## Thonex

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> In fact, I never developed wisdom teeth... they're not there... not even a hint in an X-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you still drag your knuckles when you walk.
Click to expand...


Only after I drink too much :wink:


----------



## midphase

How did a thread about the 2008 elections get to this subject?

Should we branch it off somewhere else?

I have no problem if people like Abe choose to believe that God created Adam and Eve and everyone else is a descendant of them...and so on. However I do have a problem with "creationism" being on school text books before we have a scientific explanation of God, especially when said God is specifically a Christian God and we all know damn well that creationists would have a shitfit if Buddha or Allah appeared on US school textbooks.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> How did a thread about the 2008 elections get to this subject?



It sprung from presidential canditates not beleiving in evolution.


----------



## Ed

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 02 said:


> Abe, what's your explanation for this? (Genetic code for chimps and humans is pretty close)
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9136200/



The thing is they allow for all kinds of "variation" in other animals, for example, birds, but not apes. Even different breeds of dogs can look very different to each other, and they're still the same species!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Not à propos anything specific here, I found out only recently that dolphins and whales can mate (and produce wholphins), and so can lions and tigers.

***

Kays, I agree, although I think the Jewish and Christian God is the same guy. Allah is someone else, of course.


----------



## Abe

Hi again,

The fossil record...no trace of the countless
intermediate forms that should have existed
at one time.

amazingly our fossil record presents 
no evidence on the origin of 
species.

with millions of species
(by the way we still
are not sure on just
how many are out there).
no case for evolution
is to be made based on 
the fossil record.It is dismal,
and that is an understatement.

Darren Irwin, Staffan Bensch and Trevor Price -
evolutionist biologists 
"The evolutionary divergence of a single species
into two has never been directly observed in nature."

Richard Harrison - Cornell University Professor
"Natural communities harbor an enormous variety 
of species ... But what of the origin of diversity? 
Much less has been written about how new
species arise—although the process of speciation
is central to evolutionary biology."

Troy Wood and Loren Reiseberg -Indiana University biologists 
"very little is known about the biological mechanisms
that give rise to species formation"
(Ed, you ought to get in touch 
with these guys. Fill them in...
Apparently , they don't have 
access to your findings.)

Francis Darwin - Darwin's son
"When we descend to details,
we can prove that no one species has changed."
(Christian ... this guy is talking BS)

Abe 

more information needed 
to go from simple to complex.

single celled to trillion celled 
organism.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Abe, it's great that you are skeptical. 

However, finding holes in evidence does not prove a negative. Nothing does. This is the same tactic as saying a candidate takes a given stand because of what they *didn't* say.

"The theory of gravity is wrong. You've never dropped a Yamaha Grand Piano off of the Empire State Building, have you? Oh. You have? Well, then, how about a Bosendorfer? No? Clearly, gravity doesn't act the same on all makes of pianos, so your theory of gravity is wrong."

So here's the challenge: show us the spontaneous creation of a new trillion celled species. Show us the intelligent designer. Tell us how the designer did it.

In other words, line up the observers, turn on the video cameras and pray your heart out. Make something happen. Then do it again.

Make a positive assertion. Devise the experiment. Show a positive result. Show that it's repeatable. 

Prove a positive for a change.


----------



## Abe

Jon,

If you read a few posts back.
I made the assertion of
not being able to prove that
God exists.

However, dogmatically
stating evolution as a
fact should follow the 
same standard you so
aptly point out.

Gravity is demonstrable.
In nature. In a lab.
Evolution on the other hand,
has never been observed anywhere, ever.
Not a shred of empirical evidence
to support its theory.

Being clever with words like
microevolution(variation) has no 
bearing on macroevolution.

no fossil record to back it
up. no scientific evidence to 
back it up. Just a bunch of
fairy tales.

As long as we agree in
one's choice to have faith
in God and his infinite wisdom vs.
faith in unguided, incoherent errors
millions upon millions of errors(mutations) ...
Fine. we have different faiths.
But to call evoltuion a science
is totally unfounded. No 
matter how hard one tries
to bang his emoticon head.

Abe

P.s. 
Thonex, try to make
sense of your own logic...
"Apes possess an appendix, 
whereas their less immediate relatives,
the lower apes, do not...
but it appears again among
the still lower mammals such
as the opossum. H
How can the evolutionists account for this?"

H. Enoch - famous biologist


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Thu Jul 03 said:


> more information needed
> to go from simple to complex.
> 
> single celled to trillion celled
> organism.



I was going to prepare a reply to this and your other points then realised all this is a distraction. I will gladly get to that if you stick to one thing at a time. Now, you promised a definition for information. What is it? If you want to move on because you dont have one or dont really understand it thats fine, but at least admit it. _Then _we can talk about fossils...


----------



## JonFairhurst

Abe @ Thu Jul 03 said:


> Evolution on the other hand,
> has never been observed anywhere, ever.


Of course it has (Yamaha), but not on the scale that you would like (Bosendorfer). You can post until you're blue in the face, but you still can't prove a negative. The challenge is to prove an alternative.

DNA was modeled just over 50 years ago (about 3 human generations), and you expect science to be able to already be able to model 3 billion years of evolution? Tough crowd.

The experiments will continue. The evidence will continue to grow. And the creationists will continue to move the finish line.


----------



## Abe

Ed,


In biology,
the genome of an organism is its
whole hereditary information
and is encoded in the DNA. 

Both the number of base pairs
and the number of genes vary 
widely from one species to another, 
and there is little connection between the two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome

your claim is that millions upon 
millions of mutations brought about
these variations.

my claim is most mutations
that we observe occuring in nature,
or the desperate attempts 
of scientists for the last 70+ years
of exposing fruitflies to extreme 
heat, cold, radiation etc., to see
the effects of "pressure" of the environment
on an organism, produced
no advantage.... and 
in the end.....albeit
very damaged flies...
they remained fruitflies....

No evolution... 

Abe

P.s. 
Jon, you say
"you expect science to be able to already be able to model 3 billion years of evolution?"
were you there 3 billion years ago or did someone send
you a letter giving eyewitness account?
the dating methods are full of holes 
and are just as bogus as evolution.

Again more fairytales.
You guys have a lot
of faith.

P.s.s
Thonex, you might find
this interesting

Appendix not useless after all:
"acts as a good safe house for bacteria," 
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/08/appendix-use.html?ref=rss (http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/ ... ml?ref=rss)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe, you are just *way* out there.

There, I've said it.


----------



## Abe

Nick,

Can we please present our viewpoints
without resorting to personal
attacks.

While we are discussing
Evolution. Sen.Obama's
Change is in force again.

"In order to end this war responsibly, 
I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. 
We can responsibly remove one to two combat brigades
each month. If we start with the number of brigades
we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months." 
Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq, Fayetteville, NC, 3/19/08

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq.
He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, 
and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." 
Obama For America Website, 
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

"I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be
dictated by the safety and security of our troops
and the need to maintain stability. That assessment 
has not changed...And when I go to Iraq and
have a chance to talk to some of the commanders
on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information
and will continue to refine my policies."
Jeff Zeleny, "Obama: Open to 'Refine'
Iraq Withdrawal Timeline," The New York Times'
"The Caucus" Blog, 7/3/08

The last statement sounds
like President Bush speaking...
"Any additional reductions will be based on the
recommendations of General Petraeus," Bush said. 
"Conditions on the ground will be those that guide 
his recommendations. I need to know his considered
judgment to make sure that the security gains ... remain in place."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 2320080112

David Axelrod
“He's always said that he would listen to
the advice of commanders on the ground,
that that would factor into his thinking,”
He's also always said that we had to be 
as careful getting out of Iraq as we were 
careless getting in. So he's been 
very consistent on this point. ... "


“I think he will take the advice, not just
the advice of the commanders on the ground
but his general assessment of conditions
on the ground in calibrating that withdrawal.
He said he thought we could get one to
two brigades out a month. But he's not wedded
to that in the face of events. No president would be.
And he's always said that he's never said that
this withdrawal would be without any possibility 
of alteration based on events on the ground.
That would not be a prudent thing to do for any president.” 

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Can we please present our viewpoints 
without resorting to personal 
attacks"

Get outta here! You're not supposed to take that seriously.

But when you start saying that the methods of dating things have flaws, that's when I'm reminded that there really isn't any way to discuss evolution with someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old, which is what I know you're circling around. We've all heard this before - you're going to keep coming up with quotes and lines and "facts" that sound absolutely wonderful and highly credible, spouted by the most esteemed people imaginable, followed by lines like "I'll listen to Professor bla bla bla before you, you're closed-minded, you weren't there so you don't know, your grandparents don't look like chimps, there are missing links therefore evolution is a fairy tale"...it's the same exercise in calling a square round that we know very well.

And it's always very well argued, due to the endless rehearsal. The only problem is that it's total nonsense from top to bottom. You actually know that deep down, Abe - you just won't admit it.

Frankly I find it sad that so many people are so insecure about their faith that they think it's all going to fall apart if they can't convince themselves that God created everything literally the way it's explained in the Bible. Well, the world's great religions are all heavy enough and have enough relevance in them to make that completely unnecessary.

***

Politics. Abe, like it or not - and I don't - this is a game that has to be played if one is going to win. We're going to see both Obama and McCain saying whatever they can to appeal to every group their handlers have identified. The game is to make everybody think you're on their side as much as possible without making it look like you're changing your mind.

Both Obama and McCain are and will continue doing it, and of course it's disgusting. But that's the way it is, and for you to keep acting indignant about it is really silly.

I mean, watch any talking heads program about politics and the discussion will always be "he has a problem among left-handed rich Jews, so he's wearing a yarmulka and playing tennis with a two-handed backhand; but he has to be careful not to offend veterans of foreign wars who own mopeds, because they like bowler hats." This is how American politics is played, and it's been exactly the same for years.


----------



## Abe

Nick,

I wish you, and all my
self-alleged evolved
forum friends a
happy fourth of July.

Hopefully ,
I'll touch base with you guys next week.

Sincerely,
Abe 

P.s. Help keep California safe this weekend.
No Fireworks, Please...


----------



## JonFairhurst

I used to live in California. If you want to see fireworks, go to the fairgrounds.

But here in Washington State, I can buy ten-packs of mortars from the tent in the Fred Meyer parking lot.    (Our webbed feet don't burn.)

And if we want to leave it to the professionals, there's always this option...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Vancouver_Fireworks


----------



## Thonex

One of the guys I play sports with in a league is a molecular biologist a researcher and a university professor. During a water break, I mentioned to him this thread and about the genetic degradation theory Abe has been putting forth.

His response was "That's flat out wrong. That's been debunked years ago." He said that "for people who don't understand genetics and molecular biology, those theories seem quite plausible... but they are flat out wrong."

He then, in the course of five minutes, went WAY over my head and explained about DNA and genes and proteins that turn on/off genes and how that enables different genetic combinations (or something.... I dunno) that can be combined into new sequences (or something) and in fact evolve.... NOT DEGRADE.

He said "hey... scientists have even created new species in a lab".

Now... I'll just trust the work of a phD on the subject since my expertise in this area is basically nonexistent.

Abe, I think you fall into that category of people "who don't understand genetics and molecular biology, and for whom those theories seem quite plausible."

BTW, he said he didn't know any respected scientist that subscribes to the idea that genes and DNA don't evolve.

I'm just quoting an expert, because I'm not one.

T


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Exactly Thonex. And trust me this is the case in all earth and life sciences. All of them agree upon Evolution. That's the beauty of the theory (using the term scientfically) of Evolution. When introduced it was pretty astounding, and very opposed. Yet as more as more evidence and tests were done the truth became evident to every scientist working with these things. What is even more fantastic is that as new fields of sciences began and new scientific breakthroughs were made they all - every single one - further confirmed the theory. 

Messiah College... give me a break :D

Anyway Abe you still did not answer any of my questions (maybe I missed it). So lets cut it down to one question. 

Explain me your theory of why the scientific community, with it's selfcorrecting mechanisms, on a whole agree that the theory of evolution is indeed correct.

Oh - and as Ed says. Dont keep jumping from issue to issue. We can start talking fossils if you like, but then lets stick to that for a while.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The fundamental flaw in that guy's "thinking" is that he draws a hard line between "materialism" and spirituality. There really isn't one - it just seems that way because it's hard to concentrate on both at the same time.

And yet even as you quote him, you use perverted material thinking (commonly known as Total Bull$#!+™) to convince yourself that what you know full well to be nonsense is true:

"not a shred of evidence to back 
up evolution"

There's lots and lots of evidence - in addition to large gaps, but that's doesn't mean the basic concept is false. What you clearly don't understand - and therefore find offensive to your religious beliefs - is that evolution doesn't attempt explain the magic of it all, just the mechanism.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> It's nice to be back... most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation.
> 
> Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
> Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
> Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
> Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
> Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
> Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler



So what? Most scientists used to be Creationists. The father of modern taxonomy Carl Linnaeus once pleaded with his fellow colleages to show him one generic characteristic by which to distinguish between humans and apes almost a century before Darwin. Or the Creationist geologists long before Darwin that tried to go out and gather scientific evidence to show the global flood happened had to conceed that there was no evidence for a global flood and the earth was ancient. You see back then Creationists were a lot more honest in science. Even Darwin credits god as the creator in his book, but Creationists dont ever quote that part! 

The point being that it doesnt matter what the personal beliefs of scientists are, it only matters what the science shows. Their personal opinions are not science, which is why it doesnt matter that Isaac Newton was a Christian. It doesnt mean his law of gravity is a creationist theory, nor does it mean Einsteins theory of Relativity is an atheistic theory because Einstein didnt believe in a theistic deity. Even I can show you many Christian scientists today doing great work in their fields like Dr. Robert T. Bakker the world famous paleontologist and Pentecostal Preacher, but that doesnt mean any of their science includes God. 



> SETI program looks for a signal from outer space carrying specific information.... must have an intelligent source.... reject an intelligent source for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell.



If you're going to ramble off some poor analogy do try to make it make more sence. 



> Where's the beef...
> 
> Ed, what are you confused about.. you keep asking, about definition of information...



Of course I keep asking for one! If you arent going to define your terms then your objections are meaningless. If *you *dont know what you mean by information, then not even *you *know what you are talking about. 



> How do you propose according to the fairytale (evolution), one cell mutated to become a multi-celled organism... was it a male or female or hermaphrodite...
> how did the reproductive systems form?



Urgh, Creationists always want a frigging science lesson. :roll: Im not going to waste my time bouncing around on different topics unless you conceed one or stick to one. You want to talk about fossils? Ok, so we talk about fossils. You want to talk about "information", fine we talk about information. But Im not going to jump around wasting everyones time researching several topics for you to ignore it all anyway. You obviously learnt about evolution from an idiot, and looking down at your closing comment I see that Im right. I know you wont but you need to realise that if you learnt about evolution from a Creationist you invariably know nothing about it. 



> surely we must have millions of examples not just the desperate sickle cell , and this nylon bug...



Already gave you a page with many examples of beneficial mutations and theres pages and pages of references I gave you on observed speciation. 



> is that it... we need new organs to evolve ....into new species ....



No, new organs are not necessary for speciation. 



> Don't let big words intimidate you.. Google is your friend



Yet you ask such easily researchable questions...



> was there not new information needed..
> (mutations sorted by natural selection)


 
Your posts seem so disjointed. I dont even understand what you are saying. 



> Ed, did life begin with rocks?


No. Good lord, please tell me you didnt learn this nonsence from Kent Hovind. Thats one of his lines. >8o That man is an embarrassment to Creationism, and thats really saying something. 

[snipped further quote mine, why do you bother?]





.


----------



## artsoundz

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> you use perverted material thinking (commonly known as Total Bull$#!+™) to convince yourself that what you know full well to be nonsense is true:
> 
> "




So you're the one who trademarked that. genius...

may I have your permission to use it on occasion? Actually I'm going to need to use it quite a bit...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I wish I could take credit for inventing it, but I can't. However I have made a career of it.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

Apart from amateurs with only 
a superficial knowledge of the subject,
just about all evolutionists are well aware 
of the real difficulty they face in trying
to account for the diversity of species on Earth. 
Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the 
architects of neo-Darwinism,
stated that the real problem
facing evolutionists was the variety of life. 
http://darwinisminruins.com/4.html

no amount of your 
apparent "frustration"
is making your case.

speciation does not 
result in new genetic information.

isolation(limited gene pool)
does not result in new species.

your poor examples do not
demonstrate any form
of macroevolution.

variation is not evolution.

now you are backtracking...
you do believe that
millions upon millions of errors within
the duplicating process
of dna, over millions of years,
in a purely undirected and incoherent 
manner lead us to where we are
today?

Abe

out of nothing comes everything...

p.s. who is the idiot you are refering to ?
The Harvard professor...


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the
> architects of neo-Darwinism, stated that the real problem facing evolutionists was the variety of life. http://darwinisminruins.com/4.html



Where does Dobzhansky say that? And you do realise that Harun Yahya is an Islamic Creationist version of Kent Hovind, right?



> speciation does not
> result in new genetic information.


How many times do I have to ask this? Define information. :roll:... Isnt this boring for you yet?



> isolation(limited gene pool) does not result in new species.


So you reject all my examples of speciation. Why? Apparently your definiton you gave me for a species earlier is incomplete, so why dont you explain what you believe a species to be and why all those examples provided dont fit the bill. Please also describe what we would need to see to be classed as speciation. 



> your poor examples do not demonstrate any form of macroevolution.


You said it yourself, macro evolution is above the species level. So you must have a different definition of species, so please do define it for us. 



> variation is not evolution.



Yes, thats exactly what evolution is. 



> now you are backtracking... you do believe that millions upon millions of errors within the duplicating process of dna, over millions of years, in a purely undirected and incoherent manner lead us to where we are today?



Sorry Im confused, where is the backtracking?



> out of nothing comes everything...



Define nothing. :roll: 



> p.s. who is the idiot you are refering to ? The Harvard professor...



No. Its Kent Hovind, who bought his diploma in "Christian Education" from a diploma mill. I told you it was Hovind in my post, you did read my whole post didnt you? Apparently though, you are getting this from his Islamic copycat. 

Ed


----------



## Abe

Ed,

Like Richard Dawkins,
you too seem to have a problem
answering the basic question...

can you give an example of a genetic mutation
or evolutionary process which can be seen to 
increase the information in the genome?

(if this is to difficult to comprehend please
read the next line.... it might become clearer...)

from the non-existence of information
in a rock to the minimal information in an amoeba 
to the very complex genetic information in a human.

if you still are struggling with the meaning
of new information or the meaning of nothing
well there is not much more I can say...

I refer you once more to the world's most prominent Darwinist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&eurl

Dawkins gave a completely irrelevant reply 
about the transition between fish and amphibians.

He was not able to answer, so I really 
never was under the impression 
that an amatuer evolutionst could answer.

Look below for some quotes from 
leading minds in this field with 
credentials, I'm sure you cannot 
touch.

Abe 

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.
This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. 
It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune,
former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg
and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, 
later Director of Research at the French National Centre
of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984. 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is 
a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they
are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining
evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959. 

"And in man is a three-pound brain which, 
as far as we know, is the most complex and 
orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." Dr. Isaac Asimov 

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged 
in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado
sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747
from the materials therein'." 
Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution"

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages
between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability,
even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates
in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem 
for gradualistic accounts of evolution." 
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged 
in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado 
sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 
from the materials therein"

The odds that human beings would even be here are incredibly small, and the odds that we exist - I mean the people in this thread - are even more infinitesimally small.

For that matter, the odds of particles assembling into atoms are ridiculously small, as are the odds of our living in the four dimensions (if you include time) we live in. The odds of the laws of physics being what they are would have to be unimaginably small too.

Yet we are here typing in this thread, and we weren't created by a supreme being who snapped his fingers one day. We evolved.

Our ancestors were a band of apes that split off from other apes, and they became hunter-gatherers, later farmers, and so on.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged
> in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado
> sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747
> from the materials therein'."
> Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution"



This often quoted quote shows a complete lack of understanding about what evolution is. It also shows how religion can poison ones ability to be fair and open in ones discourse. 

First of all it's a false analogy. Unlike a tornado, evolution is not chance. A tornado just flings things around with no "thought" but evolution does not work like that. Evolution is the mechanism that builds things bottom up one small step at a time. The 747 quote is stupid at best. 

Secondly as I explained earlier in another instance you cannot take things as they are and then calculate the odds of them happening and conclude it is so unlikely that it wont happen. Again I will give you the poker hand example. If you deal cards to 4 people and calculate the odds of them getting the exact cards they got, and in that exact order the odds are minimal - yet it DID happen.


----------



## rJames

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> If you deal cards to 4 people and calculate the odds of them getting the exact cards they got, and in that exact order the odds are minimal - yet it DID happen.



Elegant analogy!

Say no more!


----------



## JonFairhurst

What are the odds of a big guy in the sky that we can't sense with any technology, but who has our image, created us and the whole universe, and who has the time to watch over our actions every single day? Based on our physical observations, the odds are as close to zero as you can get.

The "what are the odds?" line is a time-tested rhetorical trick. The fact is, it disproves nothing.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Mon Jul 07 said:


> Ed,
> Like Richard Dawkins, you too seem to have a problem answering the basic question...


I did answer it but you rejected it without a second thought. You need to define information and what an example of an increase in information would look like.



> can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?



Aready done it, and specifically discussed the Nylon eating bacteria. Please explain why that fails to count as an increase in information. I realise it will be difficult for you as you dont seem to know what you are talking about.



> (if this is to difficult to comprehend please read the next line.... it might become clearer...) from the non-existence of information in a rock



No one but Kent Hovind and his copycats say that evolution says that life evolved from rocks.



> to the minimal information in an amoeba to the very complex genetic information in a human. if you still are struggling with the meaning of new information or the meaning of nothing well there is not much more I can say...


Yes and a single cell becomes a human baby in nine months. Impossible! And no one says life evolved from modern amoebas, which have been evolving as long as we have. Yes all eukaryotes seem to be derived from one and Creationists have no explanation for the nested hierarchy we see. Why is it we are talking about a definition for information and why the examples of beneficial mutation you've been shown dont count for anything, and now you want me to show amoebas to human evolution? Please stop making excuses and define your terms.



> I refer you once more to the world's most prominent Darwinist
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&eurl
> Dawkins gave a completely irrelevant reply about the transition between fish and amphibians.He was not able to answer, so I really never was under the impression
> that an amatuer evolutionst could answer.


 :roll: I have already talked about this.



> Look below for some quotes from leading minds in this field with credentials, I'm sure you cannot touch.


When will you learn quote mining is dishonest? But if you really must insist on embarrassing yourself...



> "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre
> of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.


 :lol: This is one of the most dishonest quote mines Creationists have ever used! Its amazing how wrong they managed to get it.
Part 1: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part11.html
Part 2: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html



> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great on-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.


He isnt a biologist, infact he was apparently a *physiologist *working for the AEC during the Reagan administration. And if he did say that he's just as ignorent as you. 



> "And in man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe." Dr. Isaac Asimov


Relevance?



> "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."
> Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution"



Actually the quote is referring to the origin of life. 

1. The origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution. They are difference fields of study.
2. He is an astronomer not a biologist.
3. He was operating under the mistaken understanding that the first cell formed itself in one single step. It is an argument against Spontaneous Generation, and this isnt abiogenesis either although that is the Creationist caricature.
4. It would be a bad analogy anyway, a junkyards parts dont reproduce or function on any level the same so that it could be compared.



> "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
> Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University)



Preeceeding the quoted part Gould says "The saltational initiation of major transitions:" He was talking about Saltation. Typical dishonest quote mine.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, *it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by
creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
no transitional forms.* Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but *they are abundant between larger groups*."
--- Stephen Jay Gould in "Evolution as Fact and Theory" - "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" 

As entertaining as that was, could you give it a rest and stick to the topic?

I will restate my questions, please try answering them this time.

1. Define information and explain why the examples of new information and beneficial mutations you have been given dont count as such.
2. Please give an example/s of what you would have to see to be considered as "new information" and what a "beneficial mutation" would need to be.
3. Define species and explain why the examples you have been given of speciation dont count as such.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

By "information" I think he means that one species evolves into another one that's more sophisticated.

But to me the factual approach doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The real question is the psychology: why makes people have a need to insist upon something even they know to be ridiculous?

The religious part of it is pretty obvious. But I think it's also that they can't deal with certain concepts, such as the fact that human beings are animals and that the beast within is our undoing.


----------



## Ed

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> By "information" I think he means that one species evolves into another one that's more sophisticated.


I know thats what he _really _means, but then he still needs a definition of species as per my third question.  But if he is going to talk about no new _genetic _information and talk about no beneficial mutations and disregard any examples that show this, he has no choice but to define the words he uses and explain exactly why they dont count. He cant do that because Creationists cant, and he is getting these buzz words from them along with these cut and paste quote mines. 



> But to me the factual approach doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The real question is the psychology: why makes people have a need to insist upon something even they know to be ridiculous?


I think it depends how you are brought up. If you've learnt that your religious faith depends on certian things being true, then accepting they arent true will severly test that faith. Never underestimate someones ability for denial! 



> The religious part of it is pretty obvious. But I think it's also that they can't deal with certain concepts, such as the fact that human beings are animals and that the beast within is our undoing.


Yea, Ive heard many Creationists say humans arent mammals, or even animals! Of course they cant offer any definition of either word that makes the least bit of sence in order to justify excluding us, but that wont stop them. 

Glenn Morton who used to write for one of the most famous Creationist organisations before he couldnt justify it anymore, wrote this on Creationism, he calls it "Mortons Demon" afflicting Creationists. Its worth a read if you are interested in the pshycology of it, and coming from an ex YEC like Morton its a particually interesting insight. 
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm


----------



## Abe

Ed,

We are just exchanging ideas...
Don't be angry...

Believing ones ancestors are bacteria
can weigh heavily on us ... 

However , Which came first, DNA 
or the proteins needed by DNA
which can only be produced by DNA?

How did sexual reproduction evolve?

Where did matter come from? 
What about space, time, energy, 
and even the laws of physics? 

Just before life appeared,
did the atmosphere have oxygen
or did it not have oxygen? 

Abe


----------



## José Herring

I'm not an animal. I'm a human being.

Specious arguments on both sides.

Man is sufficiently complicated enough that mere explanations like Creationism and Darwinism can't explain him. The creationist denies matter, the Darwinist denies thought leaving it to random chance. Both explanations are lacking of the other.

That the body evolved there can be no doubt. But, who's to say that we are just bodies. That life is different than matter is undisputed. If one examines how life animates matter into motion then perhaps we could get some place intelligent in this debate.

Will, Soul, Spirit, The mystery that underlies all mystery. Though man's body has been dissected numerous times nobody knows where these things lie. Some people say Brain, but there's no proof of that. If it were only brain then of course all men and most primates would have the same personality, same will power and the same soul since the biology is near the same.

What causes twins who are biologically identical, who have near the same "experience" to start to show signs of different personalities practically since the time they can walk and talk? What causes man to achieve the greatest things on Earth and yet destroy it all on drugs and perverted sex? Man is complicated. There's no doubt that there's more than meets the eye.

Darwinism. Good explanation of how a body evolves. Poor explanation as to what life is and what makes it evolve.

Creationism, good way to explain away that which can't be explain. Say God Did it. Stops all thinking.

So between God and primordial mud where do we come from?

If one can admit as the Toaist does that there is more to man and existence than can be see or touched then we might get somewhere.

The ancient Chinese thought of man as having a Spirit, Mind and a Body. How low we've come to think that the Spirit and mind come from the body. If it did then our ape man, our chimp and our monkey would be our equals and yet they are not. For which animal can compose music, song, poetry or even have enough of a mind to drive a car.

So there we are again. Back to basics. Toa te Ching. What is that mystery that underlies all Mysteries? It's opening lines point the way so clear yet few people grasp it. Looking for consciousness in a test tube, in a cell, on a brain stem hasn't lead to many answers. Do all answers have to have a basis in matter, space and time? Or do the basis of matter, space and time come from something else? Something more eternal.

You stare at your computer. It creates nothing. You have an idea and from that music manifest. A writer looks at a blank page, he imagines a story, from that the page is full.

What are the odds that the page could be filed at random? Not very good. The formless gives way to form. Thought, emotion and idea through energy manifest creation. In order for creation to endure it must adapt.

Before God there's the idea of God. Before life there's the idea of life.

So we can't remember. We cling to religion and science for answers. Perhaps all the answers lie within you. Perhaps that's what Lao Tzi meant by the Toa Te Ching.

Thought+matter=life. 

Whose thought though? Only you can answer.

I think I need a beer. What comes first? the beer in my hand, or my thought/decision to have one. Which brings another point. Thought, senior to life, senior to matter, space, time and energy.

Or, maybe matter, space, time and energy give rise to life, which give rise to thought.

At either end you have a mystery that can't be touched yet who's presence is felt--thought.

Penetrate the mystery for just prior to a mystery is the truth hidden from view.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"I'm not an animal. I'm a human being."

You're a real animal Jose!

(Human beings are very much animals. All of what you're saying applies to all animals if it's true, just to a lesser degree - i.e. I believe a snail has less soul than a dog, for example, which has just a little less than a person.)


----------



## JonFairhurst

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> I believe a snail has less soul than a dog, for example, which has just a little less than a person.''



Depends on the dog. And the person...


----------



## Dave Connor

Abe mentions the brilliant, late Steven Gould (an atheist) who I always enjoyed listening to very much. Even so when I heard him state the statistical odds of intelligent life on this planet (just think multiple successive occurances, each one a staggering, statistically freak event.) It actually takes a whole lot more faith for me to believe in those odds than in an intelligent being from which all intelligence flows. Being a person a faith however I still don't have the slightest problem with the universe being billions of years old and Earth four billion or whatever.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Tue Jul 08 said:


> Ed,
> 
> We are just exchanging ideas... Don't be angry... Believing ones ancestors are bacteria can weigh heavily on us ...
> 
> However , Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA which can only be produced by DNA?
> 
> How did sexual reproduction evolve? Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
> 
> Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?



We can talk about all those things if you answer my previous questions. Otherwise we will get onto another topic, and again you will jump onto another one when it again gets too tough for you. Why should anyone waste their time?

Once again:

1. Define information and explain why the examples of new information and beneficial mutations you have been given dont count as such.
2. Please give an example/s of what you would have to see to be considered as "new information" and what a "beneficial mutation" would need to be.
3. Define species and explain why the examples you have been given of speciation dont count as such

Ed


----------



## Moonchilde

Why are you folks replying to Abe? You know, I thought most of you would figure it out earlier sometime in the last 4 pages, but people are still giving him the time of day. Why? What productivity comes from it? Its beyond repetitive at this point and into the realm of the absurd.

Stop wasting time with that asshole and move on. This guy also seems a lot like Tarzana, could we get an IP check please? If you folks recall, he got his ass handed to him for copypasta, and disappeared afterwards. Same agendas, post styles, and quoting behavior.

On another note, Jose, many of those "questions" of yours can and have been answered by science if you'd read a biology book. What makes us us? Genetics, DNA, RNA, cellular structure, telomere tail lengths for lifespans, chemical make up such as balances and imbalances. Emotions are chemicals released to our bodies based on what our brains trigger as a reaction to an experience. Everyone reacts differently most of the time and thats why we have personalities, and based on our experiences our bodies learn certain methodical behaviors which shape us. There is no "will" or "spirit" that can't be explained. We're just biological make up, chemicals, and electrical impulses. Please don't think I'm trying to say we're nothing special, as I find it highly fascinating such simple things lead to something so complex and I'm in no means trying to undermine life. But its really not as complicated as some people try to make you think it is.

This is also why twins are never the same. They simply aren't the same biologically. Even identical twins are not truly identical, and certainly not clones of each other. Even if they look nearly identical, their chemical balances and mental functions could be different since no two brains are ever the same.

We're also not above animals, we are animals. Animals have thoughts and behavior, and emotions as well. They're the same as us, just on different levels. Chimps share 98% the same DNA as we do, and there are other ranges with other animals as well. Pigs are very similar to us and they're organs are used in biomedical research because of that. There are also similar personality behaviors within primate groups, such as war and tool usage. I don't see how anyone can not think we're animals with the mountains of evidence to support it. Only people with inferiority complexes believe that they aren't animals, and that they're somehow above it.

Just some quick and dirty response, and by no means a definitive explanation for your questions. But you could start to look into some of it for your own interests.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

I understand your obsessiveness
over information...

Really, if you don't understand what information is
I can't help you...

I made a simple example of a rock becoming a
single celled organism and moving up into
a trillion celled organism requiring greater
complexity within its structure.

You asked about beneficial mutation..

that is truly an absurd idea.

to me an error being beneficial sounds
like an oxymoron...

TO MOST EVOLUTION-ary biologists,
"directed mutation" is an oxymoron. 
Mutations, according to evolutionary theory, 
are random events--changes in an organism's 
genetic makeup that have no particular direction,
and that may be harmful or beneficial. 
Whatever direction is to be found in evolution 
is put there by natural selection. When a mutation
happens to be beneficial--when it improves the
organism's chances of producing offspring--
it survives, whereas harmful mutations die out. 
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15770748.html

mutation means error.

from wikipedia regarding mutations...
A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect.
(Focus.... the phrase very small)

(again, the notion of errors in copying dna leading to better adaptation....
like I said earlier is the equivalent of saying,
being born paralyzed better adapts you 
to not die in a traffic accident. Truly, flawed logic.)

And sickle cell anemia being a shining example of 
what evolutionists desperately cling to as beneficial mutation.
In case you didn't know ...
sickle cells block little vessels 
depriving the organs of blood and oxygen. 
This leads to the periodic episodes of
pain and damages the vital organs. 
that is your definition of beneficial ...LOL! 

Please, reread the sickle cell part again...
do you not see the problem in that logic???

You can't run around the fact that
this miserable example of a 'benefial mutation',
represents in your mind 1 of the 1,000,000,000,000's of
mutations needed, keeping in mind evolution
an unguided and therefore incoherent and 
not as stated before, step by step process...
a fish didn't look above the water and decide
hhmmm, I could use some lungs, legs , internal 
reproductive system... 

it is an unguided/undirected unintelligent process...
requiring random events (errors) to occur
in the incrediby ordered dna structure..

yet, around us we see perfectly designed 
structures in all of nature ...

you believe all of life is the result of
1,000,000,000,000's of errors...

a very sad view....

I see the beauty in all the designs
and marvel at the mind behind it all.

Evolution is a theory not a fact..
which I must say some here have
dogmaticaly impliled as being otherwise.. 

You have got to do better than that
to make your case...


Abe


----------



## Abe

Moonchilde,

You might need to do some 
reading yourself..

monozygotic twins(identical) share 100% dna

In your defense ..
your claim to be
similar to a pig.
I concede on that point.

Abe


----------



## midphase

Abe,

Just wondering,
why do you write
like...
William Shatner speaks?


----------



## JonFairhurst

*McCain: If you lie in Spanish, is it still a lie?*

If anybody here has changed their views on evolution, raise your hand. 

Yeah, that's what I thought...


Back on the topic of US elections, check out McCain's lies about free trade in a Spanish language radio ad.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145031

In typical Factcheck articles there is some benefit of the doubt and "on the other hand" clauses. In this article ALL of McCain'sòkà   ~É`kà   ~Éakà   ~Ébkà   ~Éckà   ~Édkà   ~Éekà   ~Éfkà   ~Égkà   ~Éhkà   ~Éikà   ~Éjkà   ~Ékkà   ~Élkà   ~Émkà   ~Énkà   ~Éokà   ~Épkà   ~Éqkà   ~Érkà   ~Éskà   ~Étkà   ~Éukà   ~Évkà   ~Éwkà   ~Éxkà   ~Éykà   ~Ézkà   ~É{kà   ~É|kà   ~É}kà   ~É~kà   ~Ékà   ~É€kà   ~Ékà   ~É‚kà   ~Éƒkà   ~É„kà   ~É…kà   ~É†kà   ~É‡kà   ~Éˆkà   ~É‰kà   ~ÉŠkà   ~É‹kà   ~ÉŒkà   ~Ékà   ~ÉŽkà   ~Ékà   ~Ékà   ~É‘kà   ~É’kà   ~É“kà   ~É”kà   ~É•kà   ~É–kà   ~É—kà   ~É˜kà   ~É™kà   ~Éškà   ~É›kà   ~Éœkà   ~Ékà   ~Éžkà   ~ÉŸkà   ~É kà   ~É¡kà   ~É¢kà   ~É£kà   ~É¤kà   ~É¥kà   ~É¦kà   ~É§kà   ~É¨kà   ~É©kà   ~Éªkà   ~É«kà   ~É¬kà   ~É­kà   ~É®kà   ~É¯kà   ~É°kà   ~É±kà   ~


----------



## Moonchilde

Haha, well I was just being honest. Someone has to call it.


----------



## Dave Connor

Christian,

I didn't mean to suggest that statistics and odds are the basis of my faith, only that it requires more faith to believe that life as we know it was a freak accident. Though I don't expect someone to arrive at faith due to statistics. Your example (poker hand) or any example of odds must be within the framework of an existent construct so I don't consider that a relevant issue. Only that it occurs within an intentional construct and not accidental.

To me it's about authorship. I've never seen a beautiful painting or heard great music that didn't have a distinct personality that held the brush or pen. The canvas that is life is so stunningly artistic that I'm always surprised when artists (who are loathe to be denied authorship) would not readily acknowledge such incomprehensible genius. Certainly the likes of Bach and Beethoven readily and effusively spoke of God so I don't think it's anything but the most obvious principle: creativity begets creativity. Darwin noted the same principal in that all species descend from a like one. To me it's scientific in that sense.


----------



## Dave Connor

Nick, yes we've tossed this kind of thing around before. I always enjoy it. I actually agree in essence with your "something is out there" view and have only moved to "someone" in the equation.


----------



## artsoundz

midphase @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Abe,
> 
> Just wondering,
> why do you write
> like...
> William Shatner speaks?




HAHAHAHAHA....


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Dave Connor @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Christian,
> 
> I didn't mean to suggest that statistics and odds are the basis of my faith, only that it requires more faith to believe that life as we know it was a freak accident. Though I don't expect someone to arrive at faith due to statistics. Your example (poker hand) or any example of odds must be within the framework of an existent construct so I don't consider that a relevant issue. Only that it occurs within an intentional construct and not accidental.
> 
> To me it's about authorship. I've never seen a beautiful painting or heard great music that didn't have a distinct personality that held the brush or pen. The canvas that is life is so stunningly artistic that I'm always surprised when artists (who are loathe to be denied authorship) would not readily acknowledge such incomprehensible genius. Certainly the likes of Bach and Beethoven readily and effusively spoke of God so I don't think it's anything but the most obvious principle: creativity begets creativity. Darwin noted the same principal in that all species descend from a like one. To me it's scientific in that sense.



Right I understand. I guess I dont agree that you can make an analogy between an painting and the universe. But if we set that aside I don't see how you can take the leap from there being an intelligence to that intelligence being a judeo christian god. The truth is that there most likely is no other explanation than your place of birth. 

It also brings up another issue. Essentially what you are saying is you dont understand it, and it's so hard to comprehend that god must have done it. My view is that is ought to raise a few concerns when that method of thinking is exactly what human beings have been doing since their existance to all phenomenon they dont understand. However we now have an explanation for all the things which god traditionally was the creator of. Rain, sunrise, the earth, the seasons, stars, etc etc... God no longer plays a role in any of these phenomenon as we now can explain them. 

Don't any of these things atleast cause you to pause for a second?

ps: It's really hard to discuss things without sounding hostile, so for the record I hope you don't take it that way - but rather see it as an interesting exchange of opinions. =o


----------



## Christian Marcussen

artsoundz @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> midphase @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abe,
> 
> Just wondering,
> why do you write
> like...
> William Shatner speaks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA....
Click to expand...


Yeah. Pretty funny indeed :D


----------



## Abe

I'll take that as a compliment..

Shatner is cool.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"The material sciences haven't even cured the common cold."

Therefore he's a witch! Burn him!

What I want to see is the debate between Abe and that animal Jose...


----------



## Ed

josejherring @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Biologically my body is an animal. But, I'm not my body. I'm me.



And a monkey could think the same if it had the brain capacity to do so, it doesnt mean he isnt still an animal. 



> Science cannot hope to find that which isn't rooted in material substance.


We have yet to have an objective reason to think there is anything except material substance. I realise its nice to believe there is anyway, even I like to imagine something more. 



> The material sciences haven't even cured the common cold. .



They can cure the cold virus, it just good at mutating. 



> But, if you apply the scientific method to things philosophical in nature you'll start to get somewhere.



If you apply it to the kind of things you are talking about you dont get past square one!



> Oh, in case you haven't noticed. Ducks and people are much different.



They are, but still they are both animals. If you are a human you are a primate, if you are a primate you are a mammal if you are a mammal you are an animal etc. A duck is also a bird which is also an animal. You cant be a human or a duck without also being an animal. 



> Oh and your invisible monkey can't be felt. But thought and emotion can.


Thought and emotions can be studied and even controlled (brain surgery, drugs and brain damage). We can switch off parts of someones brain, we can even totally and irreversibly change someones personality if we want to. Emotions and thoughts are very real, but we still have no evidence a soul exists so its unreasonable to complain science cant explain it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It depends on what you call soul, Ed. To me there's a pretty obvious spark that every living thing has in varying amounts. I'm not saying it's separate from the body or that it continues when we die, but we all have a kind of energy that's more than just our bodies. Whether that's the aura that's been photographed - and some people can see - is hard to say.

There are also forces driving everything, and in a way everything is all connected. Why does life want to be, for example? I see all that as being an intrinsic part of the universe - a part that evolved just like everything else from the infinite potential that preceded the big bang. (However, if you believe what Stephen Hawking and others say about time not having a boundary, that's not quite the right way to put it.)

Meanwhile we have an election coming up...


----------



## Alex W

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> It depends on what you call soul, Ed. To me there's a pretty obvious spark that every living thing has in varying amounts. I'm not saying it's separate from the body or that it continues when we die, but we all have a kind of energy that's more than just our bodies. Whether that's the aura that's been photographed - and some people can see - is hard to say.



Nick, to say that every living thing has some kind of "spark" or whatever doesn't really mean anything, it's just a bunch of words. True, science can't explain consciousness, but to say that it's created by anything more than our brain is unfounded.

As for aura photography and aura reading, that has as much scientific support as crystal powers, dowsing and astrology - ie none.



> There are also forces driving everything, and in a way everything is all connected. Why does life want to be, for example?



That's a misconception. Initial life didn't "want to be," it simply happened. After millions of years of evolution, life evolved complex bodies, controlled by DNA and brains which "wanted" to pass their DNA onwards. But this "want" is still just a result of a naturally occurring reaction inside a brain. Nothing more.

The thing I don't understand is why people somehow think that this undermines the beauty of nature. If you stop to think for a second how lucky you are to even exist in the first place, your parents meeting up, their parents meeting up, and so on for billions of years right back to the dawn of time. The chances are beyond comprehension.

And yet, people feel the need to think of themselves as being part of some greater plan - that enjoying life and appreciating it for how beautiful and amazing it really is to be one of the lucky few that can actually experience it, isn't enough.


----------



## Abe

Nick,

Here's one for ya 

"Let me be as clear as I can be," Obama said 
at a second news conference. "I intend to end this war. 
And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion
that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of 
one to two brigades a month, and again, 
that pace translates into having our combat troops
out in 16 months' time."

Obama has decided to go to Iraq
for what?He does not intend on 
changing his stance on troop 
withdrawl...
although for a moment there(first news conference)
he did mention refining his policy
based on commanders in the field...

His mind is already made up...
and the cost of fuel is so high...
we would be better served if 
he doesn't go...

I don't get the purpose of this trip?

Abe


----------



## Abe

Alex,

I think you are missing the point...
the beauty of life...

Frankly, when you die that is it for you...

according to your faith...

for me however... there is eternity
awaiting...and being in the presence
of the infinite Creator who has already 
put on display a reflection of His majesty
in all that I see around me 

Pure bliss... forevermore...

your view is, life resulted from 
an explosion, and your life
is merely the culmination
of billions of errors in the 
dna coding, finally when you die
that is the end...hopelessness...

and really your thoughts are 
just random errors if you 
follow through on your logic
there is no truth ...
there is just random 
events..

Abe

P.s.
If I'm wrong it doesn't matter.
what if you are wrong and you
lost your chance out on eternity...
Life on earth is but a vapor....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Alex, obviously to me those words aren't empty. To you they are, and that's fine. But I also don't think you understand what I'm saying, because you're arguing with a point of view I certainly don't hold. And whether the soul or whatever comes from the brain or is part of a universal consciousness (as Carl Jung put it) doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Also, I'm only speculating about the aura, but I don't discount that people see something. 

As to life "wanting to be," I didn't say it wanted to be when it started. But it's evolved to the point that it definitely does want to be, in fact that point is pretty much irrefutable. Everything from seeds in a field to humans definitely are driven to propagate themselves and survive. There's intense competition for that.

Finally, I absolutely don't believe in a master plan; nothing is preconceived. But I do believe the world is worth contributing to, and that's my mission on this planet. For me that's what it's all about. Well, that and the other lives I'm fortunate to be able to connect with.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"But this "want" is still just a result of a naturally occurring reaction inside a brain. Nothing more."

You're talking about the mechanism. I'm not someone who believes that understanding the mechanism ruins anything. At the same time, if all you see is a bunch of synapses firing in peoples' brains when they experience something, you're kinda missing the bigger picture.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> If I'm wrong it doesn't matter.
> what if you are wrong and you
> lost your chance out on eternity...



What if your chance at eternity has nothing to do with what rituals you follow but rather what you leave behind?

That's where I tend to put the emphasis - although I don't really believe in eternity (much as I wish I could); I believe in making the most of the short time we have here.


----------



## Alex W

Abe @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Alex,
> 
> I think you are missing the point...
> the beauty of life...
> 
> Frankly, when you die that is it for you...
> 
> according to your faith...



Well I never actually said that. I've never said that there is no afterlife and no god. I cant be sure of that, in the same way that I can't be sure that there's no (as Ed put it) invisible monkey sitting on my TV. I suppose you could call me an agnostic of sorts, rather than an atheist. But it's basically the same thing.



> for me however... there is eternity
> awaiting...and being in the presence
> of the infinite Creator who has already
> put on display a reflection of His majesty
> in all that I see around me
> 
> Pure bliss... forevermore...
> 
> your view is, life resulted from
> an explosion, and your life
> is merely the culmination
> of billions of errors in the
> dna coding, finally when you die
> that is the end...hopelessness...



I'm glad you used the word "faith," which means belief in something without evidence. There's no way you can be even remotely sure that there is any kind of life after death, you just hope there is. That's perfectly understandable, most people don't want to die and are afraid of death. 

Hey, I'd take a few hundred years of extra living if someone offered it to me. Hell, a few thousand. In fact, I don't ever see myself being ready for death. Unfortunately, it's inevitable.

You talk about beauty vs hopelessness. The difference between you and me is, I don't need to have faith in some kind of afterlife to enjoy this one. Actually I think that you somewhat belittle your own life by constantly hoping and dreaming of some kind of other life after you die. Why not just live for the here and now?



> and really your thoughts are
> just random errors if you
> follow through on your logic
> there is no truth ...
> there is just random
> events..
> 
> Abe



It's not exactly correct to say that our thoughts are just random or errors or whatever. They're all complex reactions occurring inside our brains, which themselves are insanely complex. Everything in the universe follows a very strict set of rules, and our brains are of course no exception to these rules.



> P.s.
> If I'm wrong it doesn't matter.
> what if you are wrong and you
> lost your chance out on eternity...
> Life on earth is but a vapor....



Ah, good ol' Pascal's wager. This has been used by religious hucksters for millenia. "Come with me if you want to be safe, all you have to do is do whatever we say."

Nothing like putting the fear of eternal damnation into someone in order to have them kowtow to your every whim. If that kind of reasoning doesn't scream "man made" to you, then nothing will.


----------



## Alex W

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> "But this "want" is still just a result of a naturally occurring reaction inside a brain. Nothing more."
> 
> You're talking about the mechanism. I'm not someone who believes that understanding the mechanism ruins anything. At the same time, if all you see is a bunch of synapses firing in peoples' brains when they experience something, you're kinda missing the bigger picture.



Lol, uhhhh yeah. Now you're just being ridiculous.

No, I'm just going along with the flow like everyone else does. I still acknowledge that my brain has developed in a certain way that makes me musically inclined.

I mean, how many times have you heard people say "I got my inspiration from god," or "god given talent?" etc. Sorta like when people say that life evolved, but god "gave it a helping hand." It sounds so reasonable, but really, god is superfluous to the actual workings of evolution.


----------



## Dave Connor

Alex W @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> There's no way you can be even remotely sure that there is any kind of life after death, you just hope there is.



Not true. Lot's of people know and have for thousands of years. In fact virtually every culture: Egyptian, African, Mayan, Asian, Native American, Hebrew, Christian have always had the local Shaman or Witch Doctor, Medicine Man or Priest et. al., to access the spirit world for any number of reasons. Not to mention modern people with no religious "beliefs" that were declared dead on the operating table and found themselves floating around, listening in on conversations and describing things with perfect accuracy after word. We can condescend to these noble peoples and cultures all we want but it won't change what was actually very practical and common to them.

You mean there's no empirical scientific proof of an after-life. But that's true with countless truths and principles which are proven every day. Why hold on to the belief that there is no afterlife like it's some kind of religion? There's certainly no empirical proof there isn't a spirit world. That there are other dimensions seems to be beyond any scientific doubt with quantum mechanics and all.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Abe @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Christian,
> 
> you calling Sir Hoyle 'ignorent'
> 
> was pretty funny to me..
> 
> I think you meant ignorant.
> 
> Abe



First of all I don't recall using that word. Secondly even if I did, I hope you can look past my spelling as a) English is not my first language b) I'm discussing larger issues which are more interesting to discuss and if you pay attention it might give you food for thought.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Now you're just being ridiculous."

Funny, I think I'm quite brilliant.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Dave Connor @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Alex W @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no way you can be even remotely sure that there is any kind of life after death, you just hope there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Lot's of people know and have for thousands of years. In fact virtually every culture: Egyptian, African, Mayan, Asian, Native American, Hebrew, Christian have always had the local Shaman or Witch Doctor, Medicine Man or Priest et. al., to access the spirit world for any number of reasons. Not to mention modern people with no religious "beliefs" that were declared dead on the operating table and found themselves floating around, listening in on conversations and describing things with perfect accuracy after word. We can condescend to these noble peoples and cultures all we want but it won't change what was actually very practical and common to them.
Click to expand...


What people see when they are declared is the brain messing up and can be re-produced artificially without near death. Secondly it is only natutal that all religions speak of the afterlife as it is the primary appeal of religion. The loss of loved ones, or the fear of dying are extremely powerful vehicles for faith. 



> ]You mean there's no empirical scientific proof of an after-life. But that's true with countless truths and principles which are proven every day. Why hold on to the belief that there is no afterlife like it's some kind of religion? There's certainly no empirical proof there isn't a spirit world. That there are other dimensions seems to be beyond any scientific doubt with quantum mechanics and all.



Add to that, that even if there was proof of an afterlife there is no proof what that afterlifge consists of - yet you still releate it to Christianity. The afterlife could be a truckload of different things, and has been in the examples from the previous quote - reincarnation, going to heaven, becoming a star, being born as a ruler of another planet etc etc.

So if you take how all cultures have had a myth about what happens after death, couple that with what we know of the human psyche and the fact that all these myths differ from culture to culture - that to be makes a strong case that it is not aresult of there actually being an afterlife, but rather a result of human psychology.


----------



## Alex W

Dave Connor @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Alex W @ Wed Jul 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no way you can be even remotely sure that there is any kind of life after death, you just hope there is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. Lot's of people know and have for thousands of years. In fact virtually every culture: Egyptian, African, Mayan, Asian, Native American, Hebrew, Christian have always had the local Shaman or Witch Doctor, Medicine Man or Priest et. al., to access the spirit world for any number of reasons. Not to mention modern people with no religious "beliefs" that were declared dead on the operating table and found themselves floating around, listening in on conversations and describing things with perfect accuracy after word. We can condescend to these noble peoples and cultures all we want but it won't change what was actually very practical and common to them.
> 
> You mean there's no empirical scientific proof of an after-life. But that's true with countless truths and principles which are proven every day. Why hold on to the belief that there is no afterlife like it's some kind of religion? There's certainly no empirical proof there isn't a spirit world. That there are other dimensions seems to be beyond any scientific doubt with quantum mechanics and all.
Click to expand...


Dave, I think you're getting a bit confused here. Empiricism doesn't work that way. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to say "Empirical science hasn't disproved the afterlife, therefore it's true."


----------



## José Herring

@ Ed,

There you go. Trying to prove a point by denying another. Poor science again.

If you want to talk science then I can talk all day about science.

I'm going to piss a lot people off. Then I'm going to drop out of this conversation (mostly because I don't have time these days to debate like the good old days).

So here are the bombshells:

Bombshell 1: 

Darwin's book is unfinished. He never completed his experiments. He proves that life can adapt to a changing environment, but could never figure out why or how. Natural selection and "survival of the fittest" are just hypothesis at this point. Not even proven enough to be a theory. There is evolution for sure. But that's not all there is to life.

Bombshell 2:

Scientist have proven by actual experiment that the brain isn't the center of personality, intelligence, sanity, or consciousness. 

Bombshell 3:

70% of man's illnesses are psychosomatic. The mind making the body sick with no physical causes. That's why medicine has such a poor ability to cure people.

Bombshell 4:

Mankind dominates this planet yet his body is least suitable for survival on it.

Bombshell 5: Most species are de-evolving rather than evolving. Getting weaker rather than stronger. Less able to survive in a changing environment.

Bombshell 6: Man though the most intelligent "animal" actually has a brain less evolved, less complicated and smaller than at least three other animals on earth.

Those bombshells are actually irrefutable hard facts easily verified.

Of course you hard Darwinist will cling to Darwin's "theories" like true zealots. Trying to find "explanations" for the facts above just because they refute your understanding of humanity.

There is evolution. But not all of life and mankind's existence can be explained by that half baked theory.

Oh, and did I mention that Darwin was mentally ill. Panic attacks, psychosomatic illness. I just find it hilarious in the extreme that the man whose work is used today to explain away all soul in mankind had a sick soul. kind of ironic.


----------



## Alex W

Note to anyone reading Jose's post: You might as well do a "find and replace" with the word "science" and change it to the word "scientology."

I'm sorry Jose, but calling people who believe in evolution "zealots" is just lame.


----------



## Ed

josejherring @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> So here are the bombshells:
> 
> Bombshell 1:
> 
> Darwin's book is unfinished. He never completed his experiments. He proves that life can adapt to a changing environment, but could never figure out why or how. Natural selection and "survival of the fittest" are just hypothesis at this point. Not even proven enough to be a theory. There is evolution for sure. But that's not all there is to life.



Hardly a bombshell, Darwins theory was in its infancy. A lot more has been discovered in the last hundred and fifty years, research is never "finished", thats just how science works. Darwin died before he could learn about Mendelian genetics for example. 



> Bombshell 2:
> 
> Scientist have proven by actual experiment that the brain isn't the center of personality, intelligence, sanity, or consciousness.



If that were true it would be the greatest discovery in the history of mankind, and you'd think all the religious scientists, and even the atheist ones, would be shouting this from the hill tops but they arent, because it hasnt. 



> Bombshell 3:
> 
> 70% of man's illnesses are psychosomatic. The mind making the body sick with no physical causes. That's why medicine has such a poor ability to cure people.



Sounds like scientology :wink: , but I do agree that something like depression can make you sick physcially. I think the placebo effect can work both ways. But that doesnt prove anything. Like I said by physically prodding and snipping away at the brain we can control and damage someones emotions and the way they think. With drugs and brain damange we can do the same and damange someones personality or completely change it. We can look at scans of peoples brains when they think and see which areas of the brain are being used. Emotions and thoughts are certianly real. 



> Bombshell 4:
> 
> Mankind dominates this planet yet his body is least suitable for survival on it.



Maybe but it wasnt always this way, our bodies have been less adapted because of our big brains make up for it. In other words, at points in our past humans ancestors that were born smarter were better at surviving to pass on their genes than others. 



> Bombshell 5: Most species are de-evolving rather than evolving. Getting weaker rather than stronger. Less able to survive in a changing environment.



There is no such thing as devolution. But this is a claim Creationists make, as they think the world is "winding down" from the perfection of their mythical "fall" in Genesis.



> Bombshell 6: Man though the most intelligent "animal" actually has a brain less evolved, less complicated and smaller than at least three other animals on earth.


Such as? But then what would that prove even if it were true? The complexity in the brain might work for some other gain other than intelligence, but frankly I think you're wrong anyway.



> Those bombshells are actually irrefutable hard facts easily verified.



Hardly.



> Oh, and did I mention that Darwin was mentally ill. Panic attacks, psychosomatic illness. I just find it hilarious in the extreme that the man whose work is used today to explain away all soul in mankind had a sick soul. kind of ironic.



What on earth are you talking about, even if he was what does that prove? Darwins theory has come a long way in a hundred years Jose, scientists dont hold onto what he wrote in Origins like some kind of inerrant scripture.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

hehe Jose... that post almost takes the cake as the most far out, becuase I know that your not trolling :D

Ed pretty much sums up what I would say about most of your bombshells - but I would like to ask for you to verify this one as it is the most interesting "Scientist have proven by actual experiment that the brain isn't the center of personality, intelligence, sanity, or consciousness."

To be honest I dont see the relevance in any of your other bombshells. So what if Darwin was mentally ill? So what if our human bodies arent fitted for surviving? so what if most illnesses are have a mental cause - it does not discredit evolution or science in anyway, nor does it say anything about man being an animal or not. 

But most importantly I would like you to back up what your outrageous claim in bombshell 2.


----------



## Ed

I'd like to point out that Im not against spirituality, I just think you need to understand what is scientific and what isnt. What is just a belief without evidence, or a hope, rather than something that has objective evidence for it. And not to rag on science because it cant explain the thing you want to believe exists. 

Nick, the "auras" you talked about are called kirlian photographs and was a new age fad in the 70s. No evidence for a real aura, unfortunately, but they sure are pretty! 
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/Kirli ... raphy.html

I dont just want to believe, I would *love *to believe in some kind of supernatural. I want to believe in auras and souls and after lifes. I can hope there is, because I really want it to be true. But I want to know its true, and the scientific method is the only way we know of to gain objective knowledge.


----------



## Dave Connor

Christian Marcussen @ Wed Jul 09 said:


> Right I understand. I guess I dont agree that you can make an analogy between an painting and the universe. But if we set that aside I don't see how you can take the leap from there being an intelligence to that intelligence being a judeo christian god. The truth is that there most likely is no other explanation than your place of birth. It also brings up another issue. Essentially what you are saying is you dont understand it, and it's so hard to comprehend that god must have done it.



The Universe is still something we behold. We see it and we respond to that information. I'm not going to look at everything I see (be it hideous or beautiful) and have whatever honest response I have and then throw some switch when I look at the universe and have a seperate response for that one thing. I look at everything the same and have whatever response I have. 

It doesn't make sense to me that creativity issues from non-creativity. It seems an unscientific equation.

I don't think anyone sort of chooses this God or that God. Most people I know mature and abandon their childhood religion for the most part or at least revisit it with a totally new perspective.

I'm saying I do understand it fundamantally just like I understand many things.

That science has identified the mechanics of weather etc., doesn't mitigate against a creator any more than understanding how a car works explains or even introduces one to it's designer. 

Even so I have no interest or even think it's possible to reason someone into my beliefs because I don't think it works that way. I marvel at Beethoven's work and God's is my point.

no hostility here either my fiend. :|


----------



## Moonchilde

josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:


> @ Ed,
> Darwin's book is unfinished. He never completed his experiments. He proves that life can adapt to a changing environment, but could never figure out why or how. Natural selection and "survival of the fittest" are just hypothesis at this point. Not even proven enough to be a theory. There is evolution for sure. But that's not all there is to life.



As other people noted, no one holds Darwin's theory as correct. Its a bit out of date and has been modified to suit much more modern science.



josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:


> Scientist have proven by actual experiment that the brain isn't the center of personality, intelligence, sanity, or consciousness.



No, they haven't. Also, ever hear of Terri Schiavo? Thats what happens when you have major brain damage. You become a vegetable beacuse it is literally the organ that processes everything for our bodies.



josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:


> 70% of man's illnesses are psychosomatic. The mind making the body sick with no physical causes. That's why medicine has such a poor ability to cure people.
> [/qupte]
> 
> Pulled out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mankind dominates this planet yet his body is least suitable for survival on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is bullshit too. In fact, we're extremely well suited. Just look into our immune systems for one. Our hands also allow us to use the most complicated tools in our known history. So we don't have fur for winter, leather skin for armor, or claws to kill with. We don't need them, and haven't for thousands of years. This is the most ridiculous serious nonsense I've seen here, lol!
> 
> 
> 
> josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most species are de-evolving rather than evolving. Getting weaker rather than stronger. Less able to survive in a changing environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such as what? Oh you mean sharks and aligators going from extremely large to relatively man-sized? Thats called evolution and adaptation. These smaller forms are more suited to the current environment. Otherwise, I can't think of anything else that can be misconstrued as "negative" evolution, so please back this one up with hard evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man though the most intelligent "animal" actually has a brain less evolved, less complicated and smaller than at least three other animals on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How on earth is that true at all? There is no other lifeform on earth more intelligent than humans. If there was, we wouldn't be #1. We have the most evolved brains, and because of that, we are the smartest and rulers of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those bombshells are actually irrefutable hard facts easily verified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're so easy to verify, why don't you back them up? Please do! I want to see the evidence if you have it.
> 
> 
> 
> josejherring @ July 10th 2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you hard Darwinist will cling to Darwin's "theories" like true zealots. Trying to find "explanations" for the facts above just because they refute your understanding of humanity.
> 
> There is evolution. But not all of life and mankind's existence can be explained by that half baked theory.
> 
> Oh, and did I mention that Darwin was mentally ill. Panic attacks, psychosomatic illness. I just find it hilarious in the extreme that the man whose work is used today to explain away all soul in mankind had a sick soul. kind of ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This ignorance shows you aren't knowledgable on the subject. No one is using his theories verbatim or holding on to them like faith. They're outdated and replaced with more modern ones. Darwin is credited for being the first to really think like this and make it available to the masses. His ideas have been the first stepping stone to greater knowledge. Thats how it works. In the future, someone will look back at our theories and laugh at how archaic they are compared to their modern versions of it. But they're still important because its just a step closer to a better understanding. Thats how science works.

Its just like computers. Today we laugh at what we had 10 years ago. But back then, they were some fast computers! Sure, we have much better, newer busses and better architecture, but they are the fruits of earlier archaic architectures and computer engineering. It all stemmed from an idea. An early idea that has been vastly improved on since it's conception.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> no hostility here either my *fiend*. :|



Then what's up with the name calling? :D


----------



## choc0thrax

Wow, I thought I smelled something rotting coming from this area of the forum, just checking in. Jose your post is like the perfect storm of nutty hilarity. Poor Darwin, he should've used an e-meter to cure approximately 70% of those illnesses you mention. 


About life after death I get the feeling you go right back to where you came from: nothingness. That religious safety net life after death stuff is quite appealing to the human psyche but if you realize you probably only have one shot at existence it makes life so much more meaningful.


----------



## JonFairhurst

choc0thrax @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> That religious safety net life after death stuff is quite appealing to the human psyche but if you realize you probably only have one shot at existence it makes life so much more meaningful.


 I don't know. I once had a 10 hour plane ride next to a preacher. After a while he told me that if there were no God, he wouldn't have any reason not to rape.

After hearing that, I started selling HIM on God! /\~O


----------



## Dave Connor

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> no hostility here either my *fiend*. :|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's up with the name calling? :D
Click to expand...


FUNNY! Okay we have to start a Freud thread (well this thread ought to do for that since we have every other subject under the sun going here: including the sun.)

I think I posted around 5 am after a long difficult orchestral mockup section.


----------



## Dave Connor

choc0thrax @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> About life after death I get the feeling you go right back to where you came from: nothingness. That religious safety net life after death stuff is quite appealing to the human psyche but if you realize you probably only have one shot at existence it makes life so much more meaningful.



Why go on feelings? Scientific inquirey is the only way to approach other dimensions. It's like music, you can go on your feelings or study composition rigorously like 98% percent of the great composers did. Consider that it is not unlikely that any other dimension (like every single one that has been discovered) will have attendant scientific properties. Maybe there's a safety net there for you if feel like you need one - that thought has never entered my mind in such matters. It's just another realm accessed by millions over the millenia and really isn't that big a deal. To discover it is like discovering the world isn't flat.

You're right about one thing though - I smell something too.


----------



## Abe

Evolutionists,

It is still called a theory...

but if you guys insist on 
the notion of your brain being
the result of millions of errors... 
I say enjoy that thought....

if you savor the idea of 
bacteria being your origins
Enjoy!

If you believe life is a mistake.
Enjoy!

If you believe Love and laughter and tears
and all the emotions that music 
can conjure up are merely 
chemical reactions caused by your brain.
Enjoy.

If I may present,
Truth that will endure forever...

For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God, neither were thankful; but became
vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God
into an image made like to corruptible man, 
and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature 
more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. 

Amen. 

May God Bless You All

Abe

P.s. I don't fear death.
On the contrary,
I love life, am grateful for it 
And look forward to what awaits.

A win win situation.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Evolutionists,
> 
> It is still called a theory...



My word, you really are coming out with the most ignorent claims Creationists have... 

Gravity is also called a *theory*, Atomic *theory *is also called a *theory*, Electromagnetism is also called a *theory*, Germ theory is also called a *theory*, Aerodynamics is also called a *theory*. Etc, Etc. 

They will never be anything other than theories because a theory is the best you can get in science. And before you say it, theories and laws are different things. Einsteins _*theory *_of relativity replaced Newtons _*Law *_of Gravity last century. 

If you stopped learning about science from Creationists you wouldnt embarrass yourself all the time. 

By the way, since you havent addressed any of my questions, I assume you dont want to discuss any of the claims you brought up.


----------



## JonFairhurst

So, let's take a quick break from Scopes Monkey Trial II to catch up on some of the recent news:

*Jesse Jackson Wants to Castrate Obama*
Oops. That wasn't news. It was yet more political soap opera and meaningless distraction. Thanks FOX NEWS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quch7x3R6gw

*343,000 Homes Foreclosed in First Half of 2008*
Got home?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/10/real_es ... /index.htm

*McCain Adviser Helped Create the Home Mortgage Crisis*
McCain doesn't understand the economy - but his lobbyist does.
http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on (http://i3.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/for ... id_corn_on)

*High Oil Prices: Speculators Still Working in the Shadows*
If there is a gas shortage, where are the lines? The system is rigged.
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/90692/?ses=f871ff0236ef007f5afc354e0add6469 (http://www.alternet.org/workplace/90692 ... 4e0add6469)

*Impeachment May Be Back On The Table*
Maybe this was the compromise: We'll give you FISA - and impeachment.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/09/10274/

*The Nation and ACLU to Sue over New FISA Act*
Wiretapping threatens free speech.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/336123

*McCain - 61 Flip Flops and Counting*
Flexibility can be good. But POW John McCain flips on torture???
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?ses=f871ff0236ef007f5afc354e0add6469 (http://www.alternet.org/election08/9095 ... 4e0add6469)

*McCain Hates Social Security*
Just because Bush failed to privatize it doesn't mean that McCain won't try.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/heres-little-straight-talk-my-friends-john-mccain-hates-social-security (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/her ... l-security)

It seems to me that at least one of these stories might have a larger effect on our lives than trying to teach Abe junior high school science.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

I hear your tone in these
posts... and you are really 
angry..

If you believe what you do
why get so angry when you are
challenged..

Creationists as you call them throughout history
represent some of the greates minds of science...

they were inspired...
as were the greatest musicians..

name me the list of great composers
who were atheist..

no God ... no inspiration...

your point about theory of gravity and germ ,etc...

they are all testable unlike your evolution theory..

if i must once more, this is getting boring .. 
evolution does not have 
a shred of evidence to back it up...

playing with words by infering that 
variation (microevolution)
is a micro version of evolution(macroevolution)
can only be played on the simple minded..

you got caught up in these lies... 
no evidence of evolution
variation is not evolution...

however hard you insist.
not a shred of evidence
to support evolution(macroevolution)

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"no God ... no inspiration..."

That right there is why I'm not religious. The arrogant step to "and you're not" is way too short.


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Ed,
> 
> I hear your tone in these posts... and you are really angry.. If you believe what you do why get so angry when you are challenged..



Ive been arguing with Creationists for 8 years, its frustrating, especially when someone like yourself come out with the most ignorent ideas of science and evolution there is. 



> Creationists as you call them throughout history represent some of the greates minds of science... they were inspired... as were the greatest musicians.. name me the list of great composers who were atheist..


 
Even if I did, that would prove nothing for either of us. You are operating under the false logic that if you arent a Creationist it automatically makes you an atheist. I have no problem with believers of faith, its when they claim their faith is science is what I have a problem with. Most Christians are not Creationists, thankfully. Some of Darwins greatest supporters were people of faith, even Darwin credits the creator in his book. None of that means anything to science, but it still blows your argument out of the water anyway, 



> your point about theory of gravity and germ ,etc... they are all testable unlike your evolution theory..
> 
> if i must once more, this is getting boring .. evolution does not have a shred of evidence to back it up...


Repeating this over and over doesnt make it true, Abe. I tried discussing this with you but you refuse to answer any questions because I guess you know you cant. 



> playing with words by infering that variation (microevolution) is a micro version of evolution(macroevolution) can only be played on the simple minded..


It was you that correctly told me that macro evolution was above the species level, I didnt even have to tell you that. You even told me that a species is a breedable population, but later on you deny the examples of speciation I gave you. So, you must have a different definition of species. Once again, what is your definition of species? How about you give an example of two animals that scientists consider closely related but you believe are magically created. I must have asked this at least 6 or 7 times now, but you just ignore it and repeat what you wrote here.


----------



## Abe

Ed,

what?

I don't get your point about 
speciation.

an isolated species restricts the gene pool.
far from developing to give rise to new species,
small populations give rise to serious genetic defects.
think inbreeding.heterozygous individuals become
increasingly homozygous. reccessive genes becomes dominant.
that spells defects and disease not evolution.

and please it's 'ignorant' not 'ignorent'.

really, we are going in circles.
your case is very weak.
as stated earlier the empircal evidence,
'that which we observe with our senses',
comes no where close to validating evolution.
on the contrary, everything produces after it's
kind...(fruitflies)

i'm sure you know well,
we lack an accurate
count of all the living species.
estimates range from 2 to 12 
million. new ones are being discovered
as we speak.

so ,with that in mind you should 
have a fossil record with literally 
millions upon millions of
transitional forms.

instead we hear desperate attempts
by the likes of Gould when no
explanation exists for these 'missing links'.
absurd theories of new forms 
appearing in a moment.
because all that we find, are
in there completed form.
in other words as designed
from the beginning.

millions of species and
your claim of five 
mutated examples!
do not display whatsoever any 
new organ, only variation. 

does that represent your proof of evolution.
absurd really.

let the evidence speak for itself.
don't force it to fit
into this very dated and tired theory
that is not supported by the fossil
records or by the records kept
of all the mutations we observe.

I mean really the word mutation
should ring a bell. Hollywood 
even gets the idea of mutation
right. :oops: 

Ernst Mayer the Harvard University
evolutionary biologist who has been called 
"the Darwin of the 20th century"

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation...
is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks
that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'.
They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have
the slightest chance of escaping elimination through
stabilizing selection … the more drastically a mutation affects
the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. 
To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce 
a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, 
is equivalent to believing in miracles … The finding of a 
suitable mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment
of reproductive isolation from the normal members of the 
parental population seem to me insurmountable difficulties"


Populations, Species, and Evolution, Belknap Press, Cambridge, 1970, p. 235

you gotta love it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"your case is very weak"

And yet it's absolutely correct.


----------



## Dave Connor

JonFairhurst @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> So, let's take a quick break from Scopes Monkey Trial II....



Chuckled at this one.


----------



## Abe

Here is some real hard 
evidence of evolution
(Change we can believe in)...

Obama Spokesman Bill Burton: 
"To be clear: Barack will support
a filibuster of any bill that includes 
retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." 
10/24/07

"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes
giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications
companies and has cosponsored Senator's efforts...
and strongly urges others to do the same."
Statement From Senator Obama's Office 
On The FISA Bill," Press Release, 
12/17/07

grant retroactive legal immunity
to telecommunications companies alleged to 
have participated in the National Security Agency's
warrantless surveillance program."
2/12/08, Obama Voted Nay

Passage of the bill that would
allow for retroactive liability immunity
for telecommunications companies. 
7/9/08, Obama Voted Yea

Can't he just eat his waffle.

Abe


----------



## Fernando Warez

Some people have way too much time on their hands...


----------



## Abe

Fernando,

My friend, you too 
can have too much time...

all it takes is some ingenuity...

learn to be your own boss..

right a hit song...

that will definitely buy you some time 

Abe


----------



## Ed

Abe @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Ed,
> 
> what?
> 
> I don't get your point about speciation.
> 
> an isolated species restricts the gene pool. far from developing to give rise to new species, small populations give rise to serious genetic defects. think inbreeding.heterozygous individuals become increasingly homozygous. reccessive genes becomes dominant. that spells defects and disease not evolution.



Again, you have not answered the question. Why have you discounted all my examples of speciation? If you dont count any of them as speciation then you must have a different definition of species, so what is it?



> really, we are going in circles. your case is very weak. as stated earlier the empircal evidence, 'that which we observe with our senses',comes no where close to validating evolution. on the contrary, everything produces after it's kind...(fruitflies)



Stop saying that. No one said fruit flies would turn into anything other than modified fruit flies. What would you expect them to turn into? 



> i'm sure you know well, we lack an accurate count of all the living species. estimates range from 2 to 12 million. new ones are being discovered as we speak.
> 
> so ,with that in mind you should have a fossil record with literally millions upon millions of transitional forms.



Fossils are very rare, but we still do have an abundance of fossils that show transitions. What happens is Creationists will still want the inbetween fossils between A and B insisting that A and B could still be magically created. Theres just no pleasing them. 



> instead we hear desperate attempts by the likes of Gould when no explanation exists for these 'missing links'. absurd theories of new forms appearing in a moment.
> because all that we find, are in there completed form. in other words as designed
> from the beginning.


When you say "in a moment" its still millions of years. 



> millions of species and your claim of five mutated examples! do not display whatsoever any new organ, only variation.



I gave you a few examples, and you have yet to tell me why they dont count. Not only have we observed speciation, but we *have *actually observed the evolution of new organs, for example:

Sea squirts developing fully functional chambered hearts. This was due to a gene being artifically being shut off, but we know this happens naturally so that fact doesnt make a difference. - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094021.htm 

Italian wall lizard develops new digestive organs ("cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine", that enabled them to digest vegetation. 
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.abstract?sid=dff0e6d2-5075-4d19-80b6-ca6796404d19 (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/12/4792 ... 6796404d19)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html

So where will you move the goal posts to next?



> I mean really the word mutation
> should ring a bell. Hollywood
> even gets the idea of mutation
> right. :oops:



uuuh, please please please expalin how Hollywood gets mutation right? If you really think evolution is like X-Men then god help you. (pun intended) ~o) ~o) (o) 



> Ernst Mayer the Harvard University
> evolutionary biologist who has been called
> "the Darwin of the 20th century"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> you gotta love it.



Didnt you learn the last time that quoting people just made you look ridiculous?


----------



## Abe

Jon,

Here's some more
Change We Can Believe In 

3 weeks ago...

“What would be important would be
for us to do it in a way that allows the 
entire world to understand the murderous acts 
that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr, 
and to assure that the United States government is
abiding by basic conventions that would strengthen
our hand in the broader battle against terrorism,” Obama said.

today ....

"If he was captured alive, then we would make
a decision to bring the full weight of not only
US justice but world justice down on him.
And, uh, I think that I’ve said this before, 
that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty … 
I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes, 
but I certainly think that plotting and engineering the 
death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach."

the world justice?surely not europe...
they don't support the death penalty....
he must be refering to China, Saudia Arabia,and Iran.

somehow kill him....
without making him a martyr? rofl

if a predator drone gets bin laden in its sights...
don't martry him... bring him to world justice..


Abe

this guy is so funny.

p.s. really what difference is 
there in the premeditated murder of one innocent 
person vs. three thousand innocent people...

I don't get it...



on a side not.
Kudos to Nick on VI Magazine...
very cool indeed.

(for the record I believe
your talents are God given)


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> Fernando,
> 
> My friend, you too
> can have too much time...
> 
> all it takes is some ingenuity...
> 
> learn to be your own boss..
> 
> right a hit song...
> 
> that will definitely buy you some time
> 
> Abe



Well i did waist a lot of time lately. How come you know that? :wink:


----------



## artsoundz

Abe @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> Fernando,
> 
> My friend, you too
> can have too much time...
> 
> all it takes is some ingenuity...
> 
> learn to be your own boss..
> 
> right a hit song...
> 
> that will definitely buy you some time
> 
> Abe



Can't argue with that. In this crazy world, time seems to be what we're all after-time to relax and have fun. Time to waste is wealth. Always a goal of mine.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Abe,

I don't see the inconsistency. We have laws, courts and the death penalty. If convicted of masterminding the attacks on 9/11, bin Laden would surely get the death penalty.

The key point is that the laws should be followed objectively and without prejudice - even for bin Laden.

This is the opposite of the approach taken in Guantanamo. By holding prisoners without charges, without the right to face their accusers and under the threat of torture, we create living martyrs.

Barrack Obama is consistent on this point. We should follow the law. It is not the law that would martyr bin Laden. Vigilante "justice" creates martyrs.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Thanks Abe.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"p.s. really what difference is 
there in the premeditated murder of one innocent 
person vs. three thousand innocent people... 

I don't get it... "


If you're saying what I think you're saying, which is that the death penalty is wrong, we agree on that. Obviously the difference is 2999 lives, but I too feel that it brings the state down to the same level.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> "p.s. really what difference is
> there in the premeditated murder of one innocent
> person vs. three thousand innocent people...



Well - eye for an eye is the difference. 

Are you really against the death penalty Abe? I must admit this suprises me. Usually the more evangelic the more for the death penalty.


----------



## Abe

Guys,

you are missing my point.

obl and his cohorts dying at the
hands of the 'infidels' makes
them martyrs. regardless of the 
method...gun squad, lethal injection,
predator missile.... leads to their death.
hence they have been martyred for
their cause in the eyes of their followers. 

Obama was implying this point
when he said he wouldn't make
him a martyr.

second point.
when Obama says he believes the 
death penalty should be reserved
for the most heinous crimes,
I ask, what is the difference
between killing one innocent person
vs. three thousand innocent people.

In other words ,killing one person
doesn't cross this imaginary 
threshold that Obama has 
created to meet the death penalty.
How many people does 
someone have to kill to receive the
death penalty according to Obama?

Absolutely inconsistent.

Abe

newsflash..Barack's Bounce...
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll
shows the Democrat
with a 15-point lead over McCain.
Jun 20, 2008 

The latest NEWSWEEK Poll
shows Barack Obama leading
John McCain by only 3 points. 
Jul 11, 2008

Obama fell far short of his fundraising goals
for the second quarter. He’s down according 
to some sources by more than 70%.

update....

Imus vs. Bernie Mac

Imus refered to rutger's women's 
basketball team as "nappy headed ho's."
Barack Obama called for Imus 
to be fired immediately.

“my great friend, 
one of the kings of comedy, Bernie Mac"
Mac referred to a woman in a joke
he told at a Obama fundraiser as a “’ho”...
Obama chastized and then said
"I'm only playing with you man"

Imus says ho= should be fired
Mac says ho= chastised followed by "only playing with you man"

No principle.
Double standard.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Christian Marcussen @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> hehe Jose... that post almost takes the cake as the most far out, becuase I know that your not trolling :D
> 
> Ed pretty much sums up what I would say about most of your bombshells - but I would like to ask for you to verify this one as it is the most interesting "Scientist have proven by actual experiment that the brain isn't the center of personality, intelligence, sanity, or consciousness."
> 
> To be honest I dont see the relevance in any of your other bombshells. So what if Darwin was mentally ill? So what if our human bodies arent fitted for surviving? so what if most illnesses are have a mental cause - it does not discredit evolution or science in anyway, nor does it say anything about man being an animal or not.
> 
> *But most importantly I would like you to back up what your outrageous claim in bombshell 2.*



Perhaps these facts weren't so easy to confirm anyway?


----------



## Fernando Warez

To the mods, i reported a post by accident so......


----------



## Craig Sharmat

Fernando Warez @ Mon Jul 14 said:


> To the mods, i reported a post by accident so......



You will be banned like the rest of your kind!...whatever that is

Remember do not wake up the mods!


----------



## lux

who rang? who raaaannnggg?


----------



## Abe

Hi guys,

Have you heard?

It's official.

Dispite being outraised by Obama 2:1
during the primary season,

McCain now has more money on hand.
leading up to the last 3 months 'till elections.

McCain has steadily improved.

Obama has steadily declined.

Obama might need to reconsider
his stance on public financing.

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf




----------



## rayinstirling

I've just seen and listened to Obama's speech in DC this morning outlining his future plans as President.

In all my adult life I've seldom heard a politician speaking so sensibly.
As a Scot with no vote I shouldn't have an opinion but if I did it would be yes please.

Sincerely


----------



## Fernando Warez

Craig Sharmat @ Mon Jul 14 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Jul 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the mods, i reported a post by accident so......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will be banned like the rest of your kind!...whatever that is
> 
> Remember do not wake up the mods!
Click to expand...


I got heavy fingers... I hat when that happens. Even worse is when your yes shut down at the same time and you have no idea what you just did cause you don't know the software too well... But usually means it's time to go to bed.

And please don't ban me... A boy cut is bad enough. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I saw some of that speech on CNN this morning too, Ray. The man is just a terrific speaker, and that's something we've missed the past 7-1/2 years. I think he's exactly the kind of positive leader this country needs at this time in our history, even though I voted for Hillary.

Being able to inspire people and get them to buy into your vision is what good leadership is all about, of course, and that's his strength. Those skills are very important on the international scene too.


----------



## Fernando Warez

> JonFairhurst @ Tue Jul 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fernando Warez @ Tue Jul 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The man voted for the FISA bill >8o .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Republicans voted against the FISA bill. Not one. And McCain didn't even bother to show up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes i know Jon. And a lot of democrats voted against it but my answer to that is: so what? The result is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even had both McCain and Obama opposed it, the vote wasn't even close. And voting for Nader or McKinney won't change it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you have to vote with your conscience at some point. You have to vote for something you believe in. Voting out of fear the bigger evil will win is not going to get you anywhere IMO. I think Nader is right when he says the democrats are not a proper opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can proudly say that both of my senators (Murray(D), Cantwell(D)) opposed it. I even took the time to call both of their offices on the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good to see you're involve Jon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that this is a lesson for Obama - voting defensively by siding with the Republicans does not work. Rather than cheer, they'll call you a flopper and use it against you.
> 
> The problem is that not enough Democrats have figured this out. Had the party been united, FISA would have failed - and impeachment would never be taken off the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I don't think they are really voting defensively i don't buy that. I think they are caving in with what interests groups wants. Obama is smart enough to know he would be seen as a flopper. 

I think the real challenge the democrats had to face these last years was to vote with republican(pleasing various lobby) while trying to project the image that they oppose them. They did a pretty good job at it with the help of the media to a certain degree but is wasn't good enough IMO. Like some voted to fund the war because they said they could not betray the soldiers.. As if running out of bullets the army would have staid i Iraq and die or something... Of course it's a lie. What voting to fund the war really means is you support the war. If you really want to support the troop then you get them oòmq   9mq   9 mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9mq   9 mq   9!mq   9"mq   9#mq   9$mq   9%mq   9&mq   9'mq   9(mq   9)mq   9*mq   9+mq   9,mq   9-mq   9.mq   9/mq   90mr   91mr   92mr   93mr   94mr   95m


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

You're really going to feign indignation about the lack of any difference between a white guy calling a bunch of high-achieving black college girls nappy-headed hos and a black comedian using the word ho in a joke?

Get outta here.


----------



## Abe

Nick,

I find it amusing...

silence on, McCain having more
cash on hand.

silence on, Obama's lead dropping
12 points in a month.

silence on, McCain posting
record month in contributions...
Obama's steady decline in contributions.
over the last four months....

silence on the scrubbing of his site's
stance on the surge....

seems remarkably disingenuous.

calling a woman a 'ho'
is tasteless in any format.

apparently not to Obama.

btw, Imus was joking as was
Mac.

Mac was referring to a woman as a 'ho'.
contraction for 'whore'...
that's ok w/Obama?

Obama's response...
"He didn't just cross the line," Obama said. 
"He fed into some of the worst stereotypes
that my two young daughters are having to
deal with today in America....insults, humor 
that degrades women, humor that is based
in racism and racial stereotypes isn't fun..
and the notion that somehow it's cute or amusing,
or a useful diversion, I think, is something that
all of us have to recognize is just not the case... 
as a culture, we really have to do some 
soul-searching to think about what kind of 
toxic information are we feeding our kids.."

uhhh...
I should mention this was not 
refering to Mac...
this was his response to Imus.

what a hypocrite.

I can't begin to imagine McCain
having a "close friend" uttering the
same word at a fundraiser, and the
media not having much to say
about it.

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"calling a woman a 'ho' 
is tasteless in any format"

What if she is a ho?


----------



## rgames

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 15 said:


> I saw some of that speech on CNN this morning too, Ray. The man is just a terrific speaker,



I still don't get this "Obama is a great orator" thing. He's no better or worse than any of the other candidates, as far as I can tell (having not seen him in person, granted).

History has shown us many great orators. Obama definitely is not among them! Not that it really has anything to do with his candidacy - he just ain't "all that."

rgames


----------



## rgames

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 15 said:


> I saw some of that speech on CNN this morning too, Ray. The man is just a terrific speaker,



I still don't get this "Obama is a great orator" thing. He's no better or worse than any of the other candidates, as far as I can tell (having not seen him in person, granted).

History has shown us many great orators. Obama definitely is not among them! Not that it really has anything to do with his candidacy - he just ain't "all that."

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Obviously almost everyone else - Obama supporter or not - sees something you don't, Richard. I suspect your ability to perceive that is hampered by a raging conservative outlook. Unfortunately there's no medical treatment for that, so you'll just have to suffer with it.

Bear in mind that the reason he was a candidate in the first place is that he gave such an electrifying speech at the Democratic Convention last time. And I say - again - that it absolutely does have a lot to do with his candidacy. Being a great speaker is part of the job description for President.


----------



## Abe

interesting reaction from
the left on the cartoon
cover of the New Yorker...

Jon Stewart "a liberal elite"
prett much nailed it....

Obama camp called the cover 
tasteless and offensive...

Stewart 
"Really? You know what your response should've been?
It's very easy here, let me put the statement out for you:
Barack Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that
depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who 
gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists! Of which
Barack Obama is not. It's just a f***ing cartoon!"

Don’t mess with our messiah!

tolerance cannot be exclusive to
those who share your beliefs.

so much for being liberal minded.

Abe


----------



## rayinstirling

Excuse me Richard, but I've been on this earth 57 years and listened to, not just heard many politicians from JFK onwards, mostly to detect the half truths or even outright lies behind their speeches. I was sceptical of this Obama fella's credentials as a future world leader but, I've changed my mind after seeing his non auto-cue presentation. I also know that talk is cheap, actions a little harder to manage but I would give him a chance.
I'm not a US citizen so my opinion isn't relevant this November but I like what he says.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Actually your opinion as a European is very important, Ray. We've lost our prestige, and that's not something to underestimate in world affairs - it corresponds directly to power. After all, wars are fought for control over the hearts and minds of your enemy, right?

Just this morning there was a very good article in the LA Times (a rarity!) about how all these oil-rich countries - Iran especially, Saudi Arabia, Venezuala, Russia - are now feeling their oats.

After 7-1/2 years of a leader who's the poster boy for terrorist recruitment, we need one who's going to gain respect again.


----------



## JonFairhurst

I saw Deepak Chopra today on The Daily Show. He accurately called the current administration "emotionally retarded."

That might be the biggest change in the transition from Bush to Obama. Compared to the average president, Bush is emotionally, intellectually and orally retarded. Obama is smart, emotionally connected and eloquent.

January can't come soon enough.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/ ... index.html

It's on CNN.com too (although less prominent). Excerpt:


Gore chastised those who have proposed opening new areas for oil drilling as a solution to U.S. energy problems.

"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil 10 years from now," Gore said.

New demand from places like China means oil suppliòmû   d†mû   d‡mû   dˆmû   d‰mû   dŠmû   d‹mû   dŒmû   dmû   dŽmû   dmû   dmû   d‘mû   d’mû   d“mû   d”mû   d•mû   d–mû   d—mû   d˜mû   d™mû   dšmû   d›mû   dœmû   dmû   džmû   dŸmû   d mû   d¡mû   d¢mû   d£mû   d¤mû   d¥mû


----------



## Abe

From the bomb that fell on
Pearl Harbor?

huh...

more like bombs and torpedo's.

having to depend on
teleprompters makes
for this really ignorant statement...

Barack get rid of 
the teleprompter already....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBMv-GfFwAE&

dubya ain't got nothing on this one...

57 states across America...
Obama claims to have visited...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

LOL!

in his defense this whole campaigning 
must be grueling on these poor guys.
God bless them both


----------



## midphase

Ok Abe, if all you can do is post YouTube anti Obama videos....are you suggesting that McCain is a better choice?

If so, instead of poo pooing all over Obama, why don't you explain why you think McCain needs to be elected instead?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I agree.

Abe, those posts are really tiresome. It's stupid to try and make either candidate out to be a monster. Why not discuss some issues instead of posting those stupid links that anyone with any sense wouldn't dream of following?

So far you haven't posted one thing that says what you do believe in! All you ever do is trash what you don't believe in, whether it's evolution, Obama, or the higher mathematical statement 2+2=4.

Apart from being tiresome, that's wimpy.


----------



## Abe

With brilliant minds making
points like these...

Senator Joseph Lieberman
"Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama's
policy on Iraq had been implemented, 
Barack Obama couldn't go to Iraq today,
it wouldn't be safe," 

What more can I say.
These guys get paid to 
think about the issues.

Evan Bayh (Obama supporter), said it perfectly.
"We would not be discussing surges in Iraq 
if Barack had had his way."

another gem from Sen.Lieberman
"If Barack Obama's policy in Iraq 
had been implemented, he couldn't be in Iraq today, 
is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat,
and that would mean, today, al Qaeda would be in charge
of parts of Iraq, Iranian-backed extremists would be in 
charge of other parts of Iraq. There'd be civil war and,
maybe, even genocide. And the fact is that we are winning 
in Iraq today. And, you know, you can't choose, as 
Sen. Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can 
win in Afghanistan. The reality is, if we lost in Iraq, 
which Obama was prepared to do, we -- 
we would go to Afghanistan as losers."

THe gist of the problem.

Poor judgement.
and no experience.


Abe


----------



## José Herring

Stupid is as stupid does Abe. It's stupid to judge a man's performance before the man has had the chance to do the job.

You say poor judgment and no experience. Why not give him a chance to figure it out.

And, of course you fail to mention that Obama and McCain had the same exact stance on Iraq before McCain flip flopped and decided for political benefit he was going to be Bush's lap dog.

And talking about poor judgment. Everything that McCain has stood for and fought for has been an utter failure. He's not even that well liked in his own party. Every time I hear a McCain supporter all I ever hear is that "he's a war hero", "he stood by his men".

What people fail to mention is McCain's stunning trail of defeat after defeat in the senate. They fail to mention his "I'll always hate gooks" statement when he ran last time. 

So there's plenty of poor judgment to go around. America is filled with politicians who have poor judgment even with experience.

The only reason why Republicans are in danger is because they've show nothing but poor judgment.

Damn, a 7 year war. We're a super power. It should have been a 7 day war. 7 years just shows bumbling incompetence or worse a mean streak. 

Let's face it. We've seen nothing but 7 years of poor judgment.

Nothing personal, but the republican party as it is now needs to be decimated. Barak may not be the ultimate answer. But it's time to bring down the republicans. 

Maybe in the wake of total annihilation the party may rise up from the ashes and rebuild into something that America can be proud of. But, for now it just isn't working.


----------



## artsoundz

+1


----------



## Abe

Jose,

you are making my point.

McCain announced a no confidence in 
Rumsfeld in 2004.

Back then he said..
“I have strenuously argued for
larger troop numbers in Iraq,
There are very strong differences
of opinion between myself and 
Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.”

McCain has "taken a very hard stand —
that we need more troops —
and that's not where the American people are," 
says James Thurber, director of the Center for
Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. 
"He's isolated over there in a position he can't really change easily,
even if things go more poorly on the ground."

This was when the war was going terrible in the 
beginning of 2007.

Unlike Obama who will say anything
to become the president.

McCain puts country before party.
(that is why he is not so popular
with the republicans.)

He has character.

Obama has not even admitted 
to being wrong on calling for the 
withdrawl 

Frankly, I'm not even sure were
he stands today.


Abe

Prove me wrong.
Clarify for me what Obama's
stance is on troop withdrawl.

Specific date or not?

Obama has certainly not made 
it clear just where he stands.

P.s.s.

Jose, I have news for you.
25,000,000 people have been liberated 
in Iraq.

It is working for them.

one more.
congress at 14% approval rating...


----------



## midphase

"Jose, I have news for you. 
25,000,000 people have been liberated 
in Iraq. 

It is working for them. "

Whoa Abe...pretty strong statement you're making right there....you sure? You really sure? Have you spoken to "liberated" Iraqis who have expressed to you how things are "working for them"?

Seems to me like Iraqis are so "giddy" with the US presence that they can't wait until we get the hell out of there:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

If I were a betting man, I'd be willing to bet that a big chunk of that 25mil that you quote, would prefer for things to go back the way they were before the war!


----------



## JonFairhurst

By the time this war is over, it will have cost each and every household conservatively $10,000 in new debt and interest.

McCain wanted to spend more. McCain wants to keep spending on the war.

I didn't even get a T-shirt.

I did get a tripling of gas prices though. 

The losers in this war are 1) the Iraqi people (including the million or so who's souls were "liberated" from their bodies and another two or three million who were "liberated" from their homes), 2) the thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers and their families, and 3) the American people who were fleeced by the Bush administration.

The winners of the war have been 1) the oil companies who profited from the instability caused by war, 2) the arms dealers and contractors who profited directly, and 3) the global banks who saw their interest rates propped up by borrowing to fund destruction.

Another winner is al Qaida in Pakistan. (The last thing the neocons want is a world without a boogieman.)

No matter what happens next in Iraq, the American people are losers in this war. We hold the debt. There is no return on this "investment."

Crossing Saddam's name off a list simply isn't much of a reward.


----------



## Abe

midphase,

That is amazing.

are you aware Saddam Hussein
was recieving 99% of the votes
during national elections.

can anyone say tyranny.

are you aware of the mass graves?

are you aware family members 
were pitted against each other.
they would not dare talk about 
the regime in fear of the baath party.
we are talking about a father and son
being so afraid, as to not dare engage in
political discourse in there own house.

and you think that was a good way of life.
really?
and the taliban also were good people?

Let history judge.

I hope we both are around 25 years 
from now to see what Iraq will have become
thanks to the courage of our military lead
by a man of conviction President Bush.
might I remind you this will be his legacy.


----------



## Abe

Jon,

heard of Nazi Germany?
they are a great ally these days.

And Japan?
One of the world's strongest economies.

Don't be so shortsighted.

Someone had to take the helm
on our approach towards the middle east.

that courageous someone was President Bush.
God Bless our military.
A force for good.
The only true beacon of hope 
left remaining in the world.

as I said to midphase.

History will set the 
record straight.

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"The winners of the war have been 1) the oil companies who profited from the instability caused by war, 2) the arms dealers and contractors who profited directly, and 3) the global banks who saw their interest rates propped up by borrowing to fund destruction"

And let's not forget 4) the mercenary companies! That's perhaps the most frightening part of this, and most people aren't aware of the situation. We could pull all "our troops" out tomorrow, and we'd still have a huge private army there operating outside the law, getting paid STAGGERING amounts of money.

Abe, your analysis of what's going on in Iraq is hopelessly shallow. Obviously Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. That never had anything to do with the war.


----------



## JonFairhurst

If Bush was interested in dethroning tyrants and protecting humanity, he would have taken action in Darfur. He didn't. 

On Sept. 9th, 2004 Colin Powell declared that genocide had taken place in Darfur. On Nov. 15th, 2004, Powell had been forced out of the administration, handing in his resignation.

This demonstrates that all the talk of liberation and beacons is just a miserable attempt at justification after the fact. Bush doesn't care about American people who lost their homes to a hurricane, let alone the people of Iraq.

The only purpose for a war in Iraq - is to have a war in Iraq.

Now the majority of Americans want us to leave. The Iraqi people want us to leave. The Iraqi government wants us to leave - including both the Shiite and Sunni factions.

McCain says we have to stay until we achieve "victory" - yet he refuses to define victory. Like Tomorrow, it's always a day away.

In 2004 McCain said that we would have to leave if the Iraqi government asked us to leave.

In May 2007 in the Rose Garden, Bush also said that we would leave if they asked us to leave.

Their response to the Iraqi government actually asking us to leave. "It was a bad translation" and "the media got it wrong."

The bottom line difference between McCain and Obama? For McCain, the strategic goal is to stay in Iraq. For Obama, the strategic goal is to bring our troops home.

I support the American people, the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government and Senator Barrack Obama. The time to begin the withdrawl of American troops from Iraq is now.


----------



## Abe

Guys,

For Obama it was about apeasing
the left wing and calling for a defeatist
strategy of leaving the Iraq's to fend
for themselves when they were not ready.
Selective amnesia won't work.

It is an idealogical battle.


Saddam was a strong leader of the middle east.
He is gone. Al qaeda has suffered a tremendous 
blow.

We have won in Iraq. The seeds of democracy
in that part of the world have been sown.

It takes time to see the results.
This isn't a Mcdonalds hamburger timeframe.

Look where Japan and Germany are today.

Don't deny the reality of the tremendous progress in
Iraq. Real elections have taken place for the first time
in the heart of the middle east. 

5 soldiers have died this month. Hello!
If 25,000,000 people hated us, there is no
way we could have been there all this time.
Don't believe the propaganda machine called 
the liberal media. It's amazing how this laughable 
media is refusing to declare victory in Iraq.

A real disgrace, they are.

History will be the true judge.
We all will just have to wait and see.

God Bless America!

Abe


----------



## JonFairhurst

May 24, 2007, Rose Garden Press Conference:

THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 70524.html


April 22, 2004, Council on Foreign Relations:

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6973/


July 19, 2008, Time:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible," according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1824606,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 06,00.html)


July 21, 2008, AP:

Iraq's Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, said after meeting Obama that Iraqi leaders share "a common interest ... to schedule the withdrawal of American troops."

"I'd be happy if we reach an agreement to say, for instance, the 31st of December 2010" would mark the departure of the last U.S. combat unit, he said — then noted that any such goal could be revised depending on threats and the pace of training for Iraqi security forces. 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD922HM300 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOF ... gD922HM300)


Even by Bush's and McCain's own words, it's time to start bringing our troops home. 

But do their words amount to anything?


----------



## Abe

Jon,

The fact that the government of 
Iraq is in such a position of strength
is exactly because the vision of 
President Bush being a strong commander
in Chief and not caving to the polls that
the media was shoving down our throats
the last few years.

Is it any wonder Iraq is saying leave.
We have won. No thanks to the likes 
of the left.

Every link you post calling for us 
to leave presents the progress that
has been made under President Bush's 
watch.

When was Obama calling us to leave?
No vision whatsover.
McCain called for the surge in
troop level, when violence in
Iraq had spiraled out of control.
That has resulted in us being
where we are today, with the Iraqi
government feeling confident enough to 
govern themselves.

Don't deny the success of the
surge. America won, not the
republican party. You really
should be praising our victory.

God Bless America!

Abe


----------



## SvK

McCain supporters getting "psyched-up" for Johnny Mac to hit the stage!

SvK



￼


----------



## SvK

you see.....if McCain's campaign got as much coverage as Obama's, THESE are the images that would excite and enthrall us, each and every day......

......McCain would be doing WORSE, if he received equal coverage. As long as Joe public is not being fully exposed to McCain and Co., they can at least still believe in the "idea" of McCain.......But the reality of it, is far to depressing.....

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe, I'm afraid your vision of what's going on in the world is simply insane. America did not "win." Nobody did except for the Iranians. The government of Iraq is not in a position of strength. As far as I can see the only one in control of anything is Muqtada Al-Sadr, and obviously he's not in control of the whole country.

You'd probably get a lot out of the book I'm reading right now by Zbigniew Brzezinksi: "Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower." He'll open your eyes - and he's no leftist when it comes to foreign relations, in fact he was one of the people most responsible for winning the Cold War.


----------



## SvK

Zbigniew Brzezinksi.....

....Endorsed Obama.

EARLY!!

SvK


----------



## midphase

"Saddam was a strong leader of the middle east. 
He is gone. Al qaeda has suffered a tremendous 
blow. 

We have won in Iraq. The seeds of democracy 
in that part of the world have been sown. "

Abe, 

Everything that you've said in the past few posts sounds like you're repeating propagandistic talking points about the war.

Saddam might have been a tyrant and a ruthless killer, but that doesn't mean that he was hated by his entire population, I assure you that country would have revolted in the same manner they're revolting now. My general feeling is that Iraqi's tolerated him as long as their personal lives were not affected directly (in much the same way that the American people have been tolerating this incompetent administration).

As one Iraqi (Haider Hamza) pointed out on an This American Life episode, under Saddam, Iraqis knew what would get them killed and how to avoid it....but since the US invaded, there are no rules, anything can get you killed and you have no control over it.

Much like I believe that Cuba is destined to become more and more Democratic over the next 10 or so years, due to the unavoidable spread of consumerism and capitalism....so I believe that Iraq would have eventually Democraticized itself even if that would have meant later than sooner.


----------



## SvK

MidPhase..........

Yup!

SvK


----------



## Fernando Warez

> Everything that you've said in the past few posts sounds like you're repeating propagandistic talking points about the war.



That's because he is a propagandist. What is saying is obviously scripted. There are loads of Republican cheerleaders like him on line. 

I once heard of the Republican billionaire who invested 200 million $ in a so called left wing media watch dog group. I believe these people do more than watch. Well all know how well organized the Republican party is and you can bet your ass they have an army 
of poster on the payroll influencing polls and spewing right propaganda. 

p.s. I'm assuming this is old news but i though i should mention it just in case.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Abe @ 21/7/2008 said:


> God Bless our military.
> A force for good.
> The only true beacon of hope
> left remaining in the world.



Tell that to the victims of Abu Graib, or Guantanamo (free Omar Khadr!!!), or of the growing Afghan archaic prison system, etc, etc, etc. The *only* true beacon of hope? Fresh, clean water, inexpensive staples and access to decent mediciine for all.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Because they don't want victory. They want an ongoing war and occupation. 

Because it is profitable for their financial backers."

In all honesty I don't even think these people are that vile, Jon.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jul 22 said:


> "Because they don't want victory. They want an ongoing war and occupation.
> 
> Because it is profitable for their financial backers."
> 
> In all honesty I don't even think these people are that vile, Jon.



It's pretty clear that the whole thing centers on "our national interests", in other words, oil. Bush is an oil man. Cheney is an oil services man.

They have these goals for Iraq's oil: 1) keep it off the market long enough to drive prices up, 2) keep others from pumping it, and 3) when it is finally pumped, make sure that it passes through the hands of the powers that be. Saddam's biggest crime was to try to sell oil by the Euro, rather than the dollar.

The US has had a history of supporting brutal dictators who "support our national interests." The US has taken down democratically elected leaders who oppose our interests. 

It's not a matter of being vile, Nick. It's just business.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Even though lots of people are profiteering (Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.), the initial neo-con vision for how this was going to go has gone wrong. Our support of "our S.O.B." dictators is a matter of realpolitik, but accusing our own government of continuing a war as a matter of policy is another matter.

Yeah we have a history of backing the wrong people, and again, I happen to agree with Ron Paul (and others) that we're seeing blowback as a result - including 9/11.


----------



## JonFairhurst

The US has a military presence in, what, over 100 countries? Iraq has "resources that are vital to our national interest". It has never been the policy of this Administration to leave Iraq.

(This article claims deployment in over 150 countries; however, it does not include sources. I personally believe that "over 100" is more realistic.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment ... s_Military

The goal hasn't necessarily been extended war in Iraq, but extended military "influence". In other words "control".

The neocons have a variety of motivations. Some believe the "democracy will spread like a mushroom cloud" thing. But if you read the original PNAC documents, its all about exercising our military options as the lone superpower in order to firmly establish strategic control.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Jon,

I like your posts very much. I think you're spot-on most of the time, as the Brits might say.


----------



## José Herring

Abe @ 21/7/2008 said:


> God Bless our military.
> A force for good.
> The only true beacon of hope
> left remaining in the world.



If you think "hope" relies on the use of force then you've long fallen away from anything Godly. The crowning achievement of your lord and savior Jesus Christ is that he preached love over violence, understanding over force and forgiveness above all else. He preached that the meek shall inherit the Earth, not over take it with guns. That message toppled the most brutal empire the world has ever known. The Romans believed as you do, that peace depended on force. They couldn't understand a world without force. 

So not only are you being hypocritical. But, you claiming to be Christian don't even know or believe in the basic tenets of your own religion. Less you be one of those dim witted people that think that the words of the New Testament only apply to Christians. If that the case then we can see down to your soul. At the base of which would be religious intolerance.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Right on Jose. Anyone who thinks their army is blessed and the other side's isn't is (to quote Hans Morgenthau) fighting under skies the gods have long since departed.

Jon, if you think you're going to get me to argue in favor of our military bases all over the world, believe me you've got another thing coming! You know I'm totally opposed to imperialism and unjust exercise of power. I've read three Chalmers Johnson books on the subject and agree with at least 95% of what he says. Not only is it wrong, it's leading very quickly to the same fate as every other empire in history.

I also agree that the neo-cons have wanted to set up base in Iraq all along. My point is only that even these terrible people aren't so cynical that they want the war to continue just for profit.


----------



## Abe

Jose,

read a bit of revelation.

the 2nd appearance of GOD, will be as the Judge of the 
earth.

Yes God is Love. He is also a righteous Judge.

Salvation is to be saved from the death.

That is why we need a savior.

But back to politics for a moment.

I understand the left loves to blame America first...
The same mentality that asked why do they hates us?,
when our twin towers came down.

5 US troops have died this month,
25,000,000 Iraqi's could inflict much 
greater damage if they hated us as
the media propaganda machine so
desperately tries to convey.

You were hoping to declare defeat 
because Bush's legacy is tied to this 
war.

McCain said it best political parties 
don't win wars nations win wars,
in response to Clinton calling this 
Bush's war.

We are winning, you should be
grateful.

Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Yes God is Love. He is also a righteous Judge."

Bla bla bla.

Violence is bad. Sometimes it's necessary - some issues are settled that way. But it has nothing to do with God or love, it has to do with power and resources (which are the same thing).

"I understand the left loves to blame America first..."

Honestly Abe, you don't want to hear the two choice words I have to say to you in response to that. It's really offensive.


----------



## Abe

How sad indeed...

ABC news correspondent,

Moran: "'The surge of U.S. troops, 
combined with ordinary Iraqis' 
rejection of both al Qaeda and 
Shiite extremists have 
transformed the country. 
Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide.
U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, 
five this month so far, 
compared with 78 last July,
and Baghdad has a pulse again.' 
If you had to do it over again, 
knowing what you know now,
would you -- would you support the surge?" 

Obama: "No, because -- keep in mind that -"
Moran: "You wouldn't?" 
Obama: "Well, no, keep -- these kinds of hypotheticals
are very difficult . Hindsight is 20/20. 
I think what I am absolutely convinced of
is that at that time, we had to change the
political debate, because the view of the
Bush administration at that time was 
one that I just disagreed with." 

Moran: "And so, when pressed,
Barack Obama says 
he still would have opposed the surge."

ABC's "World News," 7/21/08 

Need I say more.
shameful really.

Abe

In this instance,a flip flop surely
would have served him 
better.


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Tue Jul 22 said:


> Need I say more.
> shameful really.
> 
> Abe



If it was up to him, he wouldn't have gone to war to begin with. I believe, HAD he gone to war... he would have listened to his generals and increased the initial troop presence to what all the generals agreed on.... which was roughly 100k more troops -- as opposed to how Bush handled it.

Who's to say if the surge is really working??? How do you know that the extremists aren't just waiting... and sitting back?? Are you that gullible?

I'd like McCain to come out and say... "The surge HAS worked and we WON the war"... but he won't... because he knows better.


----------



## midphase

"We are winning, you should be 
grateful."


We are winning what? Grateful for what?


----------



## Abe

Obama speaking
from the heart at
a townhall event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S47sO1TCVmE


Abe


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

No clicking on Abe's YouTube links. It's a waste of time.


----------



## Abe

The link above
merely demonstrates
Obama speaking from the heart
without a teleprompter.

--------------------------
Anyone find this news
a bit disturbing?

Obama's trip to Palestine will
include security provided by
members of a group labeled
a terrorist organization by
Israel, Canada, the European Union,
Japan, and the US State Department.

(a terrorist organization that uses 
women as suicide bombers.)

Any thoughts?

p.s.

where does Obama stand on Iran?

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, 
direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." 
Obama For America Website, 
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
(scroll down to Barack Obama's Plan and
read Diplomacy.

Obama: "I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally
as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest
whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing 
our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it ... 
That's not a change in position, that's simply responding
to distortions of my position."
Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, 
"Obama Seeks To Clarify His Disputed Comments On Diplomacy," 
The New York Times, 5/29/08

clarification?



Abe


----------



## midphase

"Obama's trip to Palestine will 
include security provided by 
members of a group labeled 
a terrorist organization by 
Israel, Canada, the European Union, 
Japan, and the US State Department. 

(a terrorist organization that uses 
women as suicide bombers.) 

Any thoughts? "


My thoughts is that I would like to see some actual proof of what you're alleging. Where exactly are you getting this information from? (please no YouTube links)


----------



## José Herring

Anybody find it disturbing that Obama rhymes with Osama?

Or, that he's half black and half white. Can't even make a decision on what race to be.

He's skinny, and I heard he smokes.

And, what's up with that mole on his face?

Also, when asked if he wore boxers or briefs, he didn't answer. Suspicious.

Abe, typical republican bullshit.

Your links and "quotes" only insult the intelligence of people that aren't religiously or ethnically biased.


----------



## artsoundz

Abe is just playin' with evryone. He doesn't believe his rhetoric and he is delighted that people are responding. In fact, his intention is more of a public service. Brilliant!


----------



## JonFairhurst

FWIW,

_July 23, 2008

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- It's official. Barack Obama's campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal's Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads. Read more on this breaking story at http://AdAge.com -- Ira Teinowitz_


----------



## midphase

Abe = Stephen Colbert?


----------



## artsoundz

We accept Abe's apology. : )


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Wed Jul 23 said:


> clarification?
> 
> 
> 
> Abe



http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/X/g/1/mccain_baghdad.jpg (http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0 ... aghdad.jpg)


----------



## Abe

Jose when you say
"Your links and "quotes" only insult 
the intelligence of people that aren't
religiously or ethnically biased."

:lol: 

are you being funny?
'cus the link I posted was Obama's 
official site contradicting Obama's stand
on Iran.

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, 
direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." 
Obama For America Website, 
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ 
(scroll down to Barack Obama's Plan and 
read Diplomacy. 

Obama: "I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally 
as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest 
whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing 
our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it ... 
That's not a change in position, that's simply responding 
to distortions of my position." 
Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, 
"Obama Seeks To Clarify His Disputed Comments On Diplomacy," 
The New York Times, 5/29/08 

clarification? 


-----------------------------------
Gibson: "And then there's the issue
of Jerusalem. You've said in the speech, 
to AIPAC, Jerusalem will remain the 
capital of Israel. And it must remain undivided. 
When you said that did you not realize the significance
that that has for so many people in this region?"

Gibson Interviews Obama," ABC News , 7/23/08 


"I continue to say that Jerusalem will
be the capital of Israel. I have said it 
before and will say it again"
July 23, 2008 (CNN) 

and yet here we have this...

Obama however, corrected his statements
and said that the future of the city can be
resolved through peace negotiations between 
Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians
want the eastern part of the city as the capital 
of their state.
(when visiting Pres. Abbas)
July 23, 2008


"Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital, 
and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided." 
American Jewish Committee Website, www.ajc.org, Accessed 7/22/08


huh?

more humor for your pleasure.

Obama said IsraòqV   €& qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&	qV   €&
qV   €&qV   €&qV   €& qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qV   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €&qW   €& qW   €&!qW   €&"qW   €&#qW   €&$qX   €&%qX   €&&qX   €&'qX   €&(qX   €&)qX   €&*qX   €&+qX   €&,qX   €&-qX   €&.qX   €&/qX   €&0qX   €&1qX   €&2qX   €&3qX   €&4qX   €&5qX   €&6qX   €&7qX   €&8qY   €&9qY   €&:qY   €&;qY   €&<qY   €&=qY   €&>qY   €&?qY   €&@qZ   €&AqZ   €&BqZ   €&CqZ   €&DqZ   €&EqZ   €&FqZ   €&Gq


----------



## Abe

JonFairhurst @ Wed Jul 23 said:


> FWIW,
> 
> _July 23, 2008
> 
> WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- It's official. Barack Obama's campaign will be among the TV sponsors of NBC Universal's Olympics coverage. In the first significant network-TV buy of any presidential candidate in at least 16 years, the Obama campaign has taken a $5 million package of Olympics spots that includes network TV as well as cable ads. Read more on this breaking story at http://AdAge.com -- Ira Teinowitz_



Jon, you demonstrate vividly

News conference in St.Louis, July 07,2008
(only a few weeks ago)
"In the absence of some sense of progress, 
in the absence of some sense from the Dalai Lama
that there was progress, I would not have gone," 

A man of principles.

Buying ads to support Olympics
is by far a more aggresive approach
to convice China of Human Rights 
violations than boycotting.

Good point Obama.

Obama recieves 
Olympic Gold medal
in Flip Flop event.


----------



## Thonex

Abe @ Thu Jul 24 said:


> Buying ads to support Olympics
> is by far a more aggresive approach
> to convice China of Human Rights
> violations than boycotting.



In that case, why doesn't McCan't support boycotting the Olympics????

At least Obama is supporting NBC... and the many people who work there. What's McCan't doing?


----------



## JonFairhurst

I believe that Obama bought air time from NBC, not the People's Republic. The ads won't be broadcast in China. They will be broadcast in the US.

I'll be watching the Olympics daily. Thank goodness we didn't boycott the Olympics over politics. The US and Russian boycotts accomplished nothing.

You just gotta love the double standard: Bush will travel to China to attend the opening ceremonies, yet it's not okay for Obama to air ads in the US.


----------



## JonFairhurst

So, rather than the typical piss-ant political posturing and feigned umbrage, how about a reason to actually vote FOR a candidate?

Here's a great reason: health care. 

Let's say you're in the US, you have a good job and your employer provides medical insurance. You're set, right? But what if a medical condition makes you unable to work? How will you keep your house? Can you avoid bankruptcy? How?

Check out this story of two people with MS - one in the UK and the other in the US. And the US guy? He had a job with insurance, and had been against public health solutions.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=92067101 (Read, or click the "Listen Now" button to hear it.)

Stay healthy people. Health problems are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.

And vote for Obama. Because the Republicans simply don't care.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Hey Abe,



> "Obama's trip to Palestine will
> include security provided by
> members of a group labeled
> a terrorist organization by
> Israel, Canada, the European Union,
> Japan, and the US State Department.
> 
> (a terrorist organization that uses
> women as suicide bombers.)
> 
> Any thoughts? "



My first thought is that your posts are consistently uninformed and lacking in thought. And my second thought is that this sounds like he might be using one of the same security companies every other dignitary uses in Iraq, one that rose to prominence because of some extremely cynical and amoral people. Donald Rumsfeld is at the top of that list. Remember him? The guy with the horns?

That company is Blackwater. They have "civilian contractors" from all kinds of choice sources, including Pinochet's people and many others of that ilk (former torturers of civilians who were out of work). Blackwater also has frightening ties to the extreme radical American religious right, by the way - the people who were talking about overthrowing the U.S. government at one point! And they almost have the firepower to do that.

So why don't you post something about policy instead of YouTube links that attempt to vilify Obama? Answer: because you don't ever read anything or bother to think beyond the level of a bumper sticker.

You also have a lot of nerve saying that the American left wants to blame America.


----------



## Abe

Post something about policy...

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, 
direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." 
Obama For America Website, 
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/ 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keywords to notice ('without preconditions' vs.unconditionally)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama: "I didn't say that I would meet unconditionally 
as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest 
whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing 
our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it ... 
That's not a change in position, that's simply responding 
to distortions of my position." 
Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny, 
"Obama Seeks To Clarify His Disputed Comments On Diplomacy," 
The New York Times, 5/29/08 

clarification?

Does he mean
without preconditions 
but not unconditionally.

It depends what your 
definition of is is I mean,
preconditions is.

F#major flip flop.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Do you know what "flip-flop" means in English? It means "I'm a total moron who understands nothing about politics, doesn't care to further my knowledge, and parrots inane things I see on TV - which I watch all the time - spouted by people who are every bit as moronic as I am. Instead of thinking, I'll just use retarded terms like 'flip-flop' to mock the candidate who fits my pathetically narrow world view least (i.e. the one who isn't [conservative/liberal] like me)."


----------



## SvK

When 250.000 Germans come out to see Obama speak and chant USA, USA, USA.......

.............It just shows you that the rest of the world very much WANT to believe in our nation and what it stands for.........

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Of course they do, and so do I. They spent the second half of the 20th century living through the Cold War, and they want the back U.S. that emerged as the moral leader of the world in 1991. It was a hopeful time for them - and for us.


----------



## artsoundz

no time for reasoned thinking

but time for ignorance, Abe?

BTW- I was born in Landstuhl which has no bearing on this thread except it's a very odd thing to know that soldiers injured in an incredibly heinous conflict are being treated where my life started.

personal irony to say the least.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Thu Jul 24 said:


> You guys must be real
> proud of your candidate..
> 
> July 24, 2008
> SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned that
> Obama has canceled a planned visit
> with wounded troops at
> Rammstein and Landstuhl
> US military bases opting to work
> on his abs at the gym at the Ritz Hotel.
> 
> I think part of the problem
> is getting the teleprompter
> to fit inside the hospital rooms.
> 
> No time for US wounded troops,
> but time for a rally?



:lol: wow! I see the people at Republican smearing headquarters are not about to run out of ideas.


----------



## Abe

Guys,

"Barack Obama will not be coming to us,"
a spokesperson for the US military hospital
in Landstuhl announced. "I don't know why."
Shortly before the same spokeswoman 
had announced a planned visit by Obama.

Obama has time to get in a workout
Obama has time to give a speech to Europeans
Obama doesn't have time to visit American troops
wounded in action recovering at a military hospital.

-----------------------------------------------
A $500,000 total overhaul of his 757. 
Part of the new design,
remove the American flag from the tail,
replace with symbol of himself.

Expensive decision to emphasize 
the importance of self over country.

P.S. Having the French Love you
is not good for US presidential candidates.

Check out our history boys.
-----------------------------------------------
Despite best efforts by the media,
July 24,2008

CNN reports....
'New state polls show good news for McCain'

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... icalticker

another article from LA times
'McCain gains on Obama among voters in 4 key states, polls show'

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign25-2008jul25,0,1225728.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 5728.story)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe, I want to repeat one final time that this constant smearing just has to stop. It's ruining this thread; all it does is irritate people and create acrimony. If you don't stop you're going to be sent to your room for a time out.

You're more than welcome to raise legitimate issues; everyone welcomes opposing points of view. But what you're doing with this steady stream of smearing and just ignoring peoples' challenges to your smears isn't a discussion. I'd also encourage you to take part in the V.I. discussions instead of just relieving yourself all over this thread. Musicians helping musicians, right?

As a moderator of this section I'm issuing an Official Cease and Desist Order. Enough.


----------



## Abe

Nick,

'just ignoring peoples' challenges to your smears isn't a discussion'

I feel the points I raise, granted by use 
of direct quotes from Obama and his
campaign are still worthy of discussion.
There are clear contradictions that 
are not being addressed.

I have no interest in hurling personal
attacks on anyone here, yet time and
again pattern and practice of members
of this forums has proven otherwise
towards me.Can't we agree to disagree?

Without personal insults?

Btw

Here are some great lines 
from Obama's speech
urging global fight against terror
at the rally in Germany.

"The enemy is different
but the need for an alliance is the same
as the world stares down terrorism 
and the extremism that supports it. 
This threat is real and we cannot shrink
from our responsibility to combat it," 

Kudos to Obama for that line 

"This is the moment when
we must defeat terror
and dry up the well of 
extremism that supports it.
This threat is real and we 
cannot shrink from our responsibility
to combat it, to dismantle the networks
that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in
London and Bali; in Washington and New York.
This is the moment when we must renew 
our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten 
our security in Afghanistan. 

Another great line 

"Europeans sometimes view America
as part of what has gone wrong in our world, 
rather than a force to help make it right. ...
Europeans miss the truth, just as
American bases built in the last century
still help to defend the security of this continent, 
so does our country still sacrifice greatly for 
freedom around the globe." 

Bravo Obama!

"My country must stand with yours
and with Europe in
sending a direct message
to Iran that it must
abandon its nuclear ambitions ... 
This is the moment when 
we must come together to save this planet. "

Very Impressive .


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Abe... You are missing Nick's point. It is fine to disagree - it's fine to point out what you find flaws in a candidate. However what is annoying and not ok is when you rather than DISCUSS the issues just post some new smear. 

For instance when people challenge you either on the points of Obama, or on issues with McCain you do not respond other than with a new copy/paste job. And Nick want's that to stop.

Do you get the point now?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

I'm in Seattle right now for a casual game conference, and a friend from this town just told me that he had to pay 450 dollars to rent one of those impossible-to-tie-well-enough-to-hide-your-butt hospital blue gowns. 450 BUCKS to RENT a gown? That's just insane. You guys really need to fix the health care system, or else too many people are going to die earlier than they should.

PS: Abe, you're becoming boring.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> I'm in Seattle right now for a casual game conference, and a friend from this town just told me that he had to pay 450 dollars to rent one of those impossible-to-tie-well-enough-to-hide-your-butt hospital blue gowns. 450 BUCKS to RENT a gown? That's just insane. You guys really need to fix the health care system, or else too many people are going to die earlier than they should.



I have never heard of such a thing in my life...and I worked in the health care system for many years and was an EMT who did ER clinicals and spent many hours in a hospital at the time. I have no clue what your friend is referring to Ned. Seriously. And frankley with my mom's recent experience in the hosipital and the fact that pretty much 100% of that whole experience is taken care of via medicare and their AARP supplimental and my dad had a heart attack 7 years ago and 100% of that $100,000+ bill was taken care of between medicare and their AARP supplimental...I would say things are not as bad as others would like to paint them. Could things be improved? Of course. In many areas. But frankly, the quality of care in the US is extremely high. It is against the law for any Emergency Room in the country to refuse treatment of any patient for any presented illness regardless of their need to pay. There is medicare for the older folks. Medicaid for the poorer folks who need financial assistance. And various private HMO and PPO options for those who work starting at about $100+ a month. 
:wink:


----------



## JonFairhurst

The problem isn't the odd broken leg, nor is it a problem for dependents, if you are reasonably well employed, and the breadwinner stays healthy. 

The problem is when the breadwinner gets a long-term illness. If you lose your job due to a long-term illness, you can quickly lose everything. And then there's the problem of not being covered, even if you do have insurance.

Check out the difference between diabetes care in the US and The Netherlands:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=92102835

We spend twice as much money on healthcare as other 1st world nations, and this is the result? The system is clearly designed to benefit insurance companies, not people.

To flip the accusation often leveled at Democrats by conservatives... 

Why do conservatives hate AMERICANS?


----------



## JonFairhurst

I just came across this humorous video about "Insurance Company Rules."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpX5fUvPlg

Enjoy!


----------



## Abe

According to CNN.
and San Francisco Sentinel:

New state polls show
good news for McCain.

Colorado last month;
Mccain down by 5,
this month up by 2.

Minnesota last month;
Obama up by 17,
this month up by 2.

I, personally don't
think much of polls.
Yet, it is interesting
to note, the negative
effect the media's 
obsession with
Sen.Obama seems
to be having.

Foxnews poll 
says Obama will win.

Israeli paper publishes 
prayer Sen.Obama placed
in crack of prayer wall.

“Lord — Protect my family and me,”
Forgive me my sins, and help me
guard against pride and despair. 
Give me the wisdom to do what is
right and just. And make me an instrument
of your will.”

Wow


----------



## Christian Marcussen

> “Lord — Protect my family and me,”
> Forgive me my sins, and help me
> guard against pride and despair.
> Give me the wisdom to do what is
> right and just. And make me an instrument
> of your will.”



Scary. Seriously - talk like that freaks me out >8o


----------



## synthetic

Crowd for JFK "Ich Bin Ein Berliner" speech: 200,000
Crowd for Reagan "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall" speech: 20,000
Crowd for Obama yesterday: 220,000

I guess Germany votes Democratic.


----------



## Brian Ralston

1. I am now waiting for Nick to scold our good friend Jon Fairhurst for basically doing the same thing Abe is doing in this thread. I mean...if the "constant smearing just has to stop. It's ruining this thread; all it does is irritate people and create acrimony."...then that is true for everyone with every post really, is it not?

2. Why don't we just give Abe and Jon their own thread where their YouTube links and opposing insults can be repeatedly hurled at each other. At least it will keep the political *discussion* thread from getting inflamed over and over again on a daily basis. Just a thought. 
o-[][]-o


----------



## Abe

It might freak you out,


----------



## Abe

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> “Lord — Protect my family and me,”
> Forgive me my sins, and help me
> guard against pride and despair.
> Give me the wisdom to do what is
> right and just. And make me an instrument
> of your will.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scary. Seriously - talk like that freaks me out >8o
Click to expand...


Christian,

It might freak you out, 
but the majority of Americans 
are religious and appreciate 
Sen.Obama''s prayer to God.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

josejherring @ 25/7/2008 said:


> I know that liberals want everything for free. But, c'mon.



This northern liberal can confirm that healthcare is certainly never free - we pay for it in our taxes. And because it's not itemized in any way, money is the very last thing that I think about when I enter a Canadian hospital.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"I know that liberals want everything for free. But, c'mon."

Uh-huh. And you rednecks all drive around in pickup trucks with shotgun racks wearing hoods and shooting at black people.

***

I don't want to go on and on with this, Brian, since Abe is on his best behavior. But the difference is that in his former life *all* Abe was doing is posting smear links. Jon does a little too much for my liking, but in between he makes cogent arguments and carries on a discussion.

I know you'd like to believe that I'm trying to show off my huge bulging muscles and sanitize your crazy right-wing points of view, but I promise you that's not the case.


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> JoseJHerring said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I know that liberals want everything for free. But, c'mon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh. And you rednecks all drive around in pickup trucks with shotgun racks wearing hoods and shooting at black people.
Click to expand...


As long as you know that I find your response above to Jose's quote (calling him a redneck) incredibly...humorous.
>8o :mrgreen: 

And besides, no one can see your huge bulging muscles anyway through all that fur. :wink:


----------



## Abe

Obama supporters,

you have no problem with 
Obama asking God to make
him an instrument of His will?

I bet if 'W' had left a prayer
asking God to make him
an instrument of His will,
you would be all over it.

I'm actually pleasantly
suprised to not hear any
murmuring from the left
on this point.

Btw his speech in Berlin
was strong on the war.
"we must defeat terror" 
"This threat is real"
"We cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it"
"We must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists"

"My country must stand with yours 
and with Europe in sending a direct message 
to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions ... 
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. " 

sounds an awful lot like President Bush to me.  òrÙ   €ƒÙrÙ   €ƒÚrÙ   €ƒÛrÙ   €ƒÜrÙ   €ƒÝrÙ   €ƒÞrÙ   €ƒßrÙ   €ƒàrÙ   €ƒárÙ   €


----------



## Brian Ralston

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> Brian, I'm planning on shaving my manly arms before the dinner Monday night. Are you going to be there?



I will be there. Heather will not be there this time though. She will be on a work trip in Kentucky next week.

I hear skintimate works well on the fur.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Bring it along, would you?

***
Abe, are you suggesting that any politician in history got elected without posturing?


----------



## Abe

Nick,

A well loved politician once said...

"Don't tell me that words don't matter..."

Btw,

Yes we can

kinda sounds like

Yes McCain 8)
----------------------------------------
I was wrong.

Obama cancels visit to troops
not because teleprompters don't
fit in hospital rooms but camera's
not allowed. 

NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski 
got the skinny on the the abrupt cancellation 
of Barack Obama’s visit to Landstuhl and Ramstein yesterday. 
It turns out Obama canceled because he
would not be allowed to make a photo
op out of it.

Did the Pentagon discourage Obama from visiting Landstuhl?
"No," says Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman.

Did the Pentagon tell Senator Obama that it was inappropriate for him to visit because he is on a campaign trip?
"No. That's inaccurate," Whitman said.

Was Obama's Senate office told that he and his Senate staff could visit the facility?
"Absolutely."

Whitman "Restrictions include the law that campaign events may not be conducted on a military installation." 

Obama supporters,
are you offended by
this?


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Big thread - sorry if I missed it - Jose, did you ever back up your claim that scientist now know that feelings aren't located in the brain? You said it was easy too look up and confirm, but I´m having some trouble with that. 

So could you please either back it up or just conceed that perhaps your claim wasn't entitrly true?


----------



## wonshu

I'm trying to stay out of the politics discussion.... and frankly I wonder where many of you get the time for all of this, show me that vending machine, NOW!

Anway, I was at the speech in Berlin and it was quite a pleasant experience. Very very very little obtrusive security although the whole area was very widely fenced off.

Good mood in the audience, felt good to be with 200.000+ people that came to actually hear what someone had to say. Although a lot of them didn't really understand, not because of their English, but because they couldn't read between the lines. I thought he made some _very_ clear statements. Now, whether or not he manages to put his words into action come next year is a completely different story. It sure would be great though.

And I have to say: from a performer standpoint I have not seen a politician handle himself that well on a world stage ever.

I'm glad I went and I will remember the event for a good while!

Best
Hans


----------



## José Herring

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Jul 25 said:


> Big thread - sorry if I missed it - Jose, did you ever back up your claim that scientist now know that feelings aren't located in the brain? You said it was easy too look up and confirm, but I´m having some trouble with that.
> 
> So could you please either back it up or just conceed that perhaps your claim wasn't entitrly true?



The answer is simple. The idea that man's emotions and intelligence stem from the brain haven't lead to any significant improvement in the state of man's intelligence or emotional health. People still go mad, get forgetful in old age, get depressed and too many of the human race are stupid. The actual cure rate of these things hasn't gotten any better since the days of the old Romans when Pliny was buzzing people in the head with electric fish. As a matter of recorded record. It's still 22%.

Ergo if a "theory" hasn't lead to any real answers that one can use then that theory is flawed. The theory that atoms contained a large potential of energy lead to the creation of nuclear power. The conservation of energy and the discovery of the laws of motion lead to interplanetary space travel, jet planes, and rockets. True science leads to observably workable answers.

Sifting through the gigaquads of bullshit information Neuroscience has published in the last 150 years, I've concluded that there's something else at play. Working it out mathematically I've practically proven it.

If you want to do it yourself be my guest. I'll lead the way.

Look up the wavelength of the smallest wavelength observable in the universe. Figure how many wavelengths the brain could hold. Notice that you have a running record of memory for every single second of your life. Calculate how much data that is. Calculate how fast the brain would fill to capacity and you'll find that about 3 years of memory can be held in storage. Then look up the oscillating frequency of a brainwave. You'll see that it rages from about 3hz to 100hz. That's not enough electrical horsepower to do any kind of work.

So one looks at the babbling nonsense that calls itself "Neuroscience". One looks at the actual capacity of the brain. One looks at all the things man is able to accomplish. All the joy and pain and the victory and sorrow. You'll conclude that man is much more than the sum of his parts. His ability far exceeds the capacity of his brain.

The brain isn't even powerful enough to hold a decent conversation much less provide enough horsepower to power a body. If you're looking in your brain to give you strength and power you'll be sad and have a pretty uneventful life spending days on your sofa. But, if you think for a second that maybe you're more powerful than that. You'll start to find true hope and happiness.

And in closing, I bet if you figured out the amount of information that it takes to write 1 min of music you'd find that it far exceeds the storage capacity of the brain. 

I would offer up more subjective proof, have you do some cognitive exercises, but not at this time.

( A word of warning though. For a lot of this data you'll have to venture off the computer and hit a University Library. I got a lot of the data in my 20's at Columbia University and University of Arizona Libraries. The internet is filed with false crap. The true studies and data are in libraries. I forgot in my challenge that people don't really go to libraries any more. I'm still sort of from the old school. But, a word of caution. You'll see things done to people "in the name of science" that will make Saw look like a Disney film.)

Now show me the study where somebody poked and ice pick in the frontal lobe of some poor fella giving him the sensation of joy. Then volunteer for some electric shock therapy of the brain and see if that will make you feel better. Ah yes, the brain cures mankind has invented are wonderful indeed. Nothing like a trans orbital leucotomy to lift the spirits.

Good night,

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Jose, are you okay?


----------



## JonFairhurst

[quote:1afaf4d7f0="wonshu @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:37 pm"]Anway, I was at the speech in Berlin and iòsP   €¡dsP   €¡esP   €¡fsP   €¡gsP   €¡hsP   €¡isP   €¡jsP   €¡ksP   €¡lsP   €¡msP   €¡nsP   €¡osP   €¡psP   €¡qsP   €¡rsP   €¡ssP   €¡tsP   €¡usP   €¡vsP   €¡wsP   €¡xsP   €¡ysP   €¡zsP   €¡{sP   €¡|sP   €¡}sP   €¡~sP   €¡sP   €¡€sP   €¡sP   €¡‚sP   €¡ƒsP   €¡„sP   €¡…sP   €¡†sP   €¡‡sP   €¡ˆsP   €¡‰sP   €¡ŠsP   €¡‹sP   €¡ŒsP   €¡sP   €¡ŽsP   €¡sP   €¡sP   €¡‘sP   €¡’sP   €¡“sP   €¡”sP   €¡•sP   €¡–sP   €¡—sP   €¡˜sP   €¡™sP   €¡šsP   €¡›sP   €¡œsP   €¡sP   €¡žsP   €¡ŸsP   €¡ sP   €¡¡sP   €¡¢sP   €¡£sP   €¡¤sP   €¡¥sP   €¡¦sP   €¡§sP   €¡¨sP   €¡©sP   €¡ªsP   €¡«sP   €¡¬sP   €¡­sP   €¡®sQ


----------



## Abe

Yeah, real treat Hans.

Obama playing hoops 
with troops as a
political prop is ok?

Obama visiting wounded 
troops is not ok?
Why you ask...
No camera's allowed.

Disgraceful.


----------



## wonshu

@Abe:

aha.


----------



## artsoundz

Abe- we all know why Obama didnt visit the troops. Why dont you, just for grins, post HIS reason for not going. Hint- it has something to do w/class and being respectful.

see if you can rise to the challenge.


----------



## Abe

artsoundz,

Did the Pentagon discourage Obama from visiting Landstuhl? 
"No," says Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman. 

Did the Pentagon tell Senator Obama that it was inappropriate for him to visit because he is on a campaign trip? 
"No. That's inaccurate," Whitman said. 

Was Obama's Senate office told that he and his Senate staff could visit the facility? 
"Absolutely." 

"For a young man so apt at playing president,
Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands
of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches
to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for
comforting injured American heroes.”
Lt Col. Joe Repaya

So much for Obama's 
campaign platform
"Judgement"

No cameras were allowed.
Obama couldn't have his
photo op.

Shamefull really.

Btw,
artzoundz Obama's camp
has so far stated 9 different excuses
as to why the Senator cancelled.

maybe you can clarify.
---------------------------

Btw,
the berlin rally...

a result of 
REAMONN ,
free beer and 
free food.


Afghanistan War protesters
were not allowed to protest the event.

whats up with that?

a manufactured event.


----------



## artsoundz

try again, Abe. But now pretend you are fair and balanced. Google can help.


----------



## Abe

LOL...

I thought so.

pass the buck.

A true Obama supporter

Let me give you a hint.

This visit(with the wounded troops)
was planned weeks 
in advance 

Only the campaign wasn't
aware of no cameras.

When they learned no cameras,
they cancelled.

A U.S. military official tells NBC News
they were making preparations for
Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops
at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein,
Germany on Friday, but “for some reason the visit was called off.”

Obama’s representatives were told, 
"he could only bring two or three of his
Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” 
In addition, “Obama could not bring any media.
Only military photographers would be permitted
to record Obama’s visit.”

“We didn’t know why” the request to visit
the wounded troops was withdrawn.
“He (Obama) was more than welcome. 
We were all ready for him.” 
military official


----------



## artsoundz

disgusting misinformation.


----------



## JonFairhurst

With gas over $4 a gallon, rising mortgage foreclosures, multiple bank failures, two ongoing wars, a no-new-tax policy pushing the debt over $9 trillion (and rising $1.77B per day), and 50 million Americans without health insurance, what is Abe most concerned about?

Obama's travel itinerary.

The Republicans used to be much more adept at character assassination.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The interesting thing about Abe, obviously a mindless parrot, is that he hasn't said one thing about why McCain would be good for the country, just how Obama is a total villain. Hopefully this is the strategy of the fools he's aping, because it's obviously not going to work; people clearly aren't in the mood for that this time - they want to believe in something again.

It's always amusing how these bumper sticker brains can dismiss some of the brightest minds in our country as if they're total fools. Obama was originally a lecturer on Constitutional law at Harvard - it's not like he fell off the fertilizer truck. They did that to Clinton too. I mean, the man was a Rhodes scholar.

Hey Abe: neither McCain nor Obama is a monster. Neither is a disgrace. Neither is a fool. These are both very intelligent people who want to do good for the country. I happen to believe that McCain's fundamental approach is wrong, but I don't sit here calling him an idiot just because I disagree with him.


----------



## Abe

artsoundz @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> disgusting misinformation.



I still have not
heard a clear answer
as to why Sen.Obama 
cancelled.

“Several explanations were offered,
none was convincing and each was at odds
with the statements of American military leaders 
in Germany and Washington,” 
Lt. Col Joe Petaya

All you guys offer are 
personal attacks,
and subject changing.

These issues will not go away.
Obama's campaing has presented
9 different reasons as to why 
the trip was cancelled.

That's not gonna fly, 
no matter how much you
stomp your feet.
-----------------------------
Sen.Hagel(accompanied Sen.Obama
on trip) says judgment 
more important than experience....

Katie Couric
"You raised a lot of eyebrows 
on this trip saying even knowing
what you know now, you still 
would not have supported the surge.
People may be scratching their heads 
and saying, 'Why?' "

Couric: "But do you not give the surge
any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?"

Obama: "No, no ... of course I have. .......

Couric: "But talking microcosmically, 
did the surge, the addition of 30,000....
additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?"

Obama: "You've asked me three different times,
and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt
that our troops helped to reduce violence.
There's no doubt."

Couric: "But yet you're saying ... 
given what you know now, 
you still wouldn't support it ... 
so I'm just trying to understand this."

“Even in retrospect, he would choose
the path of retreat and failure for America 
over the path of success and victory,
That's not exactly my idea of the judgment
we seek in a commander-in-chief.”
Sen.McCain

Yes We Can.
Yes McCain


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> Yeah, real treat Hans.
> 
> Obama playing hoops
> with troops as a
> political prop is ok?
> 
> Obama visiting wounded
> troops is not ok?
> Why you ask...
> No camera's allowed.
> 
> Disgraceful.



Abe, right wingers like you is what makes US election look like a freaking circus or worse! 

Of course the so called left like to lay along as if they too like fuel this fake left versus right BS. Better engage into these silly debates that gets no where than to address the hard issues i guess. Like how weak an opposition the democrats have been.


----------



## Fernando Warez

OK we all know it's not possible to have a smart conversation with Abe ''The smearing Machine'', :lol: and since people here have shown interest in having a real debate, I'd like you guys to explain to me why people should vote democrats this next election?

Personally i fail to see what change the democrats can bring. They ran the last election saying they were going to stop the war and once they had the majority they kept voting to fund this illegal war. They pretty much went along everything the GOP as done these last 7 years. FISA, failed to impeach these war criminals while Clinton was impeach for a BJ? :shock: I mean that's ridiculous. What are they good for if they cant impeach Bush considering everything they've done? And again, Clinton gets impeach for a BJ? :? 

I'm trying to think why people should vote democrats and i can only come up with 2 reasons. #1 is the Republican are sooo bad! :lol: #2 is people should vote democrats out of fear the GOP might win and names more right wing judges. So you have the Republicans who uses fear ''of the terrorist'' to get votes, and now the democrats are using fear as well. Fear of the neocons i guess. Well maybe they're not using fear but some democrats ask people to vote out of fear and that just seems wrong. And it sure doesn't sound very American to me.

In the end i just don't understand why people are so exited about Obama.


----------



## Abe

Mr.Conspiracy theorist aka Fernando,

How you do you like Obama now.

His speech in Berlin 
included these strong statements...

"We must defeat terror" 

"This threat is real" 

"We cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it" 

"We must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists" 

"My country must stand with yours 
and with Europe in sending a direct message 
to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions ... 
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. " 

8)


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> Mr.Conspiracy theorist aka Fernando,
> 
> How you do you like Obama now.
> 
> His speech in Berlin
> included these strong statements...
> 
> "We must defeat terror"
> 
> "This threat is real"
> 
> "We cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it"
> 
> "We must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists"
> 
> "My country must stand with yours
> and with Europe in sending a direct message
> to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions ...
> This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. "
> 
> 8)



What do you think? :roll: 


BTW, who are you Abe? I mean you work for the Republican party right? Are you willing to admit that?


----------



## Abe

I think Obama's speech surely did not
help your conspiracy theory.

:lol:


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Sun Jul 27 said:


> I think Obama's speech surely did not
> help your conspiracy theory.
> 
> :lol:



You probably don't realize it but the official story is a conspiracy theory body. An unproven conspiracy theory of course but a conspiracy theory nonetheless. The only proof ever found seemed to have been planted according to an intelligence officer. Proof like Mohamed Atha's passport that magically survived the plane crashing into the tower, the subsequent fires and the collapse of the tower(or demolition of the towers for those who know better). The passport was found intact on the pile of debris. Kind of like the magic bullet you know? :wink:


----------



## artsoundz

youtubeitis. the new disease.


----------



## Abe

(USA Today Headline reads)
Why can't Obama admit the obvious? 
The surge worked 

"What does that stubbornness say
about the kind of president that he would be?" 

"Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, 
he would support the surge, the senator said no." 
Nighline Interview 7/21/2008

MR. BROKAW: 
Let's begin there in Iraq,
and that judgment of yours that violence
has lessened and that there is a possibility
now that Prime Minister Maliki can take on more responsibility. 
You engaged in some verbal kung fu with reporters 
and others as well this week about the surge."

hmmm...
verbal kung fu sounds like,
“That depends on what your definition of "is" is” 

A new kind of politics?
I think not.
Just a mirage.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Abe @ Mon Jul 28 said:


> (USA Today Headline reads)
> Why can't Obama admit the obvious?
> The surge worked



Then get the f*** out!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Abe.

We get it. You don't like Obama.

In the meantime you have become the biggest crashing bore on the entire internet. Is it really necessary to go on and on and on with the same stupid post over and over and over again?

Answer: NO!

Please. Give it a rest for heaven's sake.


----------



## wonshu

Do not feed the trolls....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Auf wiedersehen. See you in another thread.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Apparently, McCain supporters have nothing to say about the items I brought up:
1) Finishing the Iraq war.
2) Avoiding war with Iran. 
3) Making capitalism stronger through sensible regulation. 
4) Fixing our ineffective, overpriced health care system. 
5) Alternative energy.
6) Honoring he Constitution. 
7) Torture, and 
8} Technology. 

Is McCain only seeking the presidency to eliminate changes in rhetoric and travel plans?

What the hell is this guy's VISION?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"and have since obtained one of the lowest approval ratings in recorded history. I mean, really, the Democratic-controlled congress has even lower approval ratings than Bush! That's BAD!"


If it weren't for the Republicans in Congress the approval ratings for both houses would be higher, since the Democrats could begin to restore order - although it's going to take generations to undo the damage of the past seven years if it even can be undone.

"Alternative energy is great, but real progress will come only when we use less."

That's true, and it's 180˚ opposite to what Dick Cheney said. However, the age of oil is coming to an end and we need to move on to the next energy economy at a faster pace than we're moving. Like that ass Bush, McCain thinks the main answer is to drill for more oil, and that's just criminally negligent. He knows full well that's not true, of course, but it's appealing politically because it's an easily digested bumper sticker answer to a complicated problem, catering to a level beneath the lowest common denominator. The Republican party has a history of being particularly adept at doing that, but Democrats now do it too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Also bear in mind that transportation is only 28% of the oil we use. It's going to take more than small cars - even though it wouldn't take much of an increase in our cars' MPG to eliminate the need to import any oil from the Persian Gulf.


----------



## rgames

JonFairhurst @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> Dang, the last chart gave away the answers.



What answer? That we want to go back to the good 'ol days of the Carter presidency? Long lines at the gas pump? 14% interest rates for mortgages? Runaway inflation? No thanks! What's the point behind that post?

Economic prosperity doesn't correlate with the national debt. In fact, there's a lot that's economically good about having national debt. The simple fact that we're approaching record levels doesn't really mean much. Kind of like global warming (oh no!).

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The risk of a worldwide depression doesn't mean much?!


----------



## artsoundz

hey-did you L.A. guys forget about politics. global warming and the like during your earthquake today? I Imagine that's would it would take.

Scary...hope nothing was damaged.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Nothing was damaged. We eat 5.4s for breakfast.


----------



## artsoundz

good. as long as no music gear was damaged.. 

that would be upsetting.


----------



## JonFairhurst

rgames @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> Economic prosperity doesn't correlate with the national debt. In fact, there's a lot that's economically good about having national debt. The simple fact that we're approaching record levels doesn't really mean much...



As I wrote above, if somebody tells you the national debt doesn't matter, they're most likely a Republican.

The debt is at NINE TRILLION DOLLARS. That's nearly $100k per US household. If the interest were at 5%, we'd be paying $450B per year in interest. That would be nearly $5k of interest per year per US household. (Disclaimer, the actual interest rate is probably less than 5%, but it's easily more than that when you figure in opportunity costs.)

Any good businessperson knows that you borrow money for capital, but hopefully not expenses. The woodworker invests in tools. The shipper invests in trucks. The franchiser invests in new restaurants.

Government should invest in infrastructure. But the Republicans are against government spending that directly benefits Americans. Instead, they invest in war and no-bid contracts to cronies.

Borrowing when economic times are good, yet not investing, is as stupid an economic policy as I can imagine. (Unless, of course, you represent the interests of big oil, banks, military contractors and mercenaries.)

Nine trillion dollars doesn't matter? Wake up, people!!! We are being scammed!!!


----------



## rgames

JonFairhurst @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> As I wrote above, if somebody tells you the national debt doesn't matter, they're most likely a Republican.


If by Republican you mean "rational thinker" then I agree. Here's why:



JonFairhurst @ Tue Jul 29 said:


> Nine trillion dollars doesn't matter? Wake up, people!!! We are being scammed!!!



The number, in and of itself, doesn't really mean much. It's how the number stands in comparison to other benchmarks of the time. GDP is a good benchmark.

So, I'm still wondering, are you or are you not advocating the economic policies of the Carter administration? It seems like you are (lowest recent debt as % of GDP). Or do you prefer the economics of the Clinton administration (highest recent debt as % of GDP)? Just curious what you're getting at because your inference seems at odds with historical data and, more importantly, what benefits the largest number of people.

Summary:
Lowest recent debt, worst recent economy
Highest recent debt, best recent economy

Of course debt matters, but we're at levels that are not unprecedented and, in fact, levels that have been the precursor to great economic growth in the past.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Don't you think that could be faulty logic, Richard? It's also possible that the nature of the debt has a lot to do with it. If you have a country with no manufacturing (other than weapons) that's overextended with foreign wars - combined with some other unfortunate circumstances like our economy being based on cheap energy - doesn't that have a faint end-of-empire smell?


----------



## rgames

Could be - but our national debt isn't really tied to any one sector of the economy. It's just debt incurred because Congress spent more than the IRS taxed.

And the vast majority of that spending is on Social Security and Medicare. So it's more logical to say that we're incurring debt as a result of these programs, not defense spending. If you really want to reduce the national debt, scale back SS and Medicare! Let's see which candidate adopts that platform....

My point is simply that the national debt doesn't necessarily have anything to do with our economic well-being. It certainly CAN be a bad thing.

Your points are well taken, though. We definitely need to reduce our reliance on current energy sources. So which candidate do you think will make that happen? And how?

I want results-based incentives for energy conservation! Four people in four hybrids still burn more gas than four people in one SUV, yet the four people in the hybrids get the incentives! AND they can all drive in the HOV lane - Bollocks!

rgames


----------



## midphase

"What answer? That we want to go back to the good 'ol days of the Carter presidency? Long lines at the gas pump? 14% interest rates for mortgages? Runaway inflation? No thanks! What's the point behind that post?"

Man...you weren't even born back then. People like you always vilify Carter, but if you really were to take any interest in what the guy was really about, you'll realize that he was actually a good president...hell, compared with the current guy Carter was a freaking genius!


"Economic prosperity doesn't correlate with the national debt. In fact, there's a lot that's economically good about having national debt. The simple fact that we're approaching record levels doesn't really mean much. Kind of like global warming (oh no!)."

Are you for real? I just can't get my head around a musician in his 20's thinking like this!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> We definitely need to reduce our reliance on current energy sources. So which candidate do you think will make that happen? And how?



I think both candidates know we have to make that happen, frankly. But I think Obama is more likely to be able to sell it to the public, since that's his strength.

A lot of people say they only care about the substance, not the charisma, but I think they're missing a really important point. Jimmy Carter was able to get appliances to be more efficient, but he wasn't really able to sell conservation despiteƒæ   (Ats   €ß   (Btu   €ßy   (Ctx   €ßê   (Dt{   €à[   (Et}   €àÌ   (Ft~   €á=   (Gt€   €á®   (Htƒ   €â   (Itƒ   €â   (Jtƒ   €ã   (Ktƒ   €ãr   (Ltƒ   €ãã   (Mtƒ   €äT   (Nt„   €ä»   (Ot„   €å,   (Pt‡   €å§   (Qt‡   €æ   (Rtˆ   €æ‰   (StŠ   €æú   (TtŽ   €çc   (Ut   €çÜ   (Vt’   €èM   (Wt’   €è¾   (Xt’   €é/   (Yt“   €é    (Zt–   €ê%   ([t›   €ê‚   (\tœ   €êó   (]tŸ   €ël   (^t£   €ëÝ   (_t¥   €ìN   (`t¨   €ì¿   (at«   €í0   (bt«   €í¡   (ct«   €î   (dt­   €î{   (et¯   €ïH   (ft¯   €ï¹   (gt²   €ï   (ht¹   €ð?   (itº   €ð°   (jt¿   €ñ   (ktÁ   €ñ’   (ltÃ   €ò   (mtÆ   €òt   (ntÊ   €òå   (otÊ   €óV   (ptÌ   €óÇ   (qtÏ   €ô8   (rtÑ   €ô©   (stÕ   €ôà   (ttØ   €õ‹   (utÚ   €õü   (vtÞ   €öm   (wtá   €öÞ   (xtä   €÷O   (ytç   €÷À   (ztè   €ø1   ({té   €ø¢   (|të   €ù   (}tì   €ù„   (~tï   €ùõ   (tð   €úf   (€tò   €ú×   (tö   €ûH   (‚tø   €û¹   (ƒ                          òtq   €Þ˜tq   €Þ™tq   €Þštq   €Þ›tq   €Þœtq   €Þtq   €Þžtq


----------



## rgames

midphase @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> Man...you weren't even born back then. People like you always vilify Carter, but if you really were to take any interest in what the guy was really about, you'll realize that he was actually a good president


Sure - I love Carter. I spent my formative years in Georgia and went to Georgia Tech, as did Carter. So he's kind of a home-town hero. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he did.



midphase @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> Are you for real? I just can't get my head around a musician in his 20's thinking like this!



Well, thanks, but I'm not in my 20's anymore :lol:. And debt is not fundamentally bad - even Microsoft has debt. Governments are no different in that regard - managed debt can be a good thing. Know anybody with a mortgage? Oh yeah, and I still make most of my living outside of the music world, though I'm not sure why that matters...???



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> Congress already borrows from SS. But your heart isn't in that argument anyway, is it.



Nope, it's not, but I'm ok with the debt. 

And yes, of course I believe the earth is getting warmer (especially since I moved to Tucson :? ). I also believe that, since early July, it's getting closer to the Sun (and the scientists agree!), but that doesn't mean we're going to suffer death by solar ingestion in the near future. Trends without explanation don't really mean much (witness Jon's plots above)! But we've already discussed global warming...

(BUT remember NASA's corrections to the climate data? I'm still waiting for Gore to step forward and say "You know - we got the numbers wrong in that documentary." Any comments from "get the truth out" Gore? I know - OT).

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Richard, you're very smug about the debt, but you're totally mistaken about the reality. Of course *managed* debt is okay. Companies have credit lines, etc. - you need that for growth.

What we have is nothing to do with that. The interest payments alone are in the hundreds of billions a year. Our dollar is losing value because of this, and that causes inflation. The current gas prices are partly due to that, and obviously everything that uses oil is affected. Lots of oil is used in food production and delivery, for example.

It's NOT a good thing AT ALL. You're taking a snippet of truth - that not all debt is bad - and using it to construct a totally false parallel reality.

You're also smug about man-made global warming, and to be blunt I just can't fathom how anyone with a functional brain could be so ridiculous. It's not like you're some moron with three teeth, you're an educated guy. I guess it's just the herd mentality: other people believe the same crap, and that makes it easy to join them in their delusions.

NASA indeed.


----------



## rgames

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> It's NOT a good thing AT ALL. You're taking a snippet of truth - that not all debt is bad - and using it to construct a totally false parallel reality.


I do, actually, (mostly) agree with you Nick. I am being a bit smug about it; of course we need to reduce the debt. All I'm saying is that the fact that we have debt doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

The question we need to ask is "What is the appropriate level of debt?" Is our current debt too much? Probably, but it's not unprecedented and it hasn't seemed to hurt us in the past.

I just think it's silly when folks show plots of debt and say "Look how high the national debt is!" That's meaningless unless you follow it with explanations of what it should be. That's like saying "Look how blue the sky is!" OH NO! It is REALLY BLUE TODAY! Boy, we better hurry up and, ummm..., wait, what's wrong with a blue sky?



Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> You're also smug about man-made global warming


Now we're getting somewhere! Is it man made? That's the part I'm not 100% sold on. As I said, I agree the earth is getting warmer. OH NO! It is REALLY GETTING WARMER! Boy, we better hurry up and, ummm... Somebody based an entire documentary on that type of demagoguery....

Are we to blame for Venus, also? Venus is the poster child for global warming run amuck. Did we destroy the atmosphere of Venus, or (gasp!) could it be a natural occurrence? >8o 

But we've been through this...

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's not demagoguery, Richard, it's reality. The only thing that's up in the air (literally) is the time scale. Maybe we have ten years to reverse the carbon PPM before the point of no return, maybe 20, maybe one.


----------



## midphase

Is it really wrong to wish that the US would become two separate countries?

When I hear those guys talk like they do...all I can think of is...let them have Bush for another 8 years if that's what they're happy with, let them have all the national debt they like, and let them drive SUVs and drill for oil anywhere they please.

As long as I also get to have my country...where Obama is president, where we are all energy conscious, and where we have respect for this planet and each other.

It's more and more obvious to me that those two places can never possibly exist under the same state!


----------



## midphase




----------



## artsoundz

midphase @ Wed Jul 30 said:


> Is it really wrong to wish that the US would become two separate countries?
> 
> When I hear those guys talk like they do...all I can think of is...let them have Bush for another 8 years if that's what they're happy with, let them have all the national debt they like, and let them drive SUVs and drill for oil anywhere they please.
> 
> As long as I also get to have my country...where Obama is president, where we are all energy conscious, and where we have respect for this planet and each other.
> 
> It's more and more obvious to me that those two places can never possibly exist under the same state!



good idea but wouldn't it be easier if we did a V.I. Control group buy on an island somewhere?


----------



## wonshu

artsoundz @ Thu Jul 31 said:


> good idea but wouldn't it be easier if we did a V.I. Control group buy on an island somewhere?



Good lord that would be the most boring place in the universe...

No offense, but where would the girls be?????????


----------



## artsoundz

uh.....craigslist?


----------



## wonshu

Good point


----------



## JonFairhurst

Lots ofòu%    u%   !u%   "u%   #u%   $u%   %u%   &u%   'u%   (u%   )u%   *u%   +u%   ,u%   -u%   .u%   /u%   0u%   1u%   2u%   3u%   4u%   5u%   6u%   7u%   8u%   9u%   :u%   ;u%   <u%   =u%   >u%   ?u%   @u%   Au%   Bu%   Cu%   Du%   Eu%   Fu%   Gu%   Hu%   Iu%   Ju%   Ku%   Lu%   Mu%   Nu%   Ou%   Pu%   Qu%   Ru%   Su%   Tu%   Uu%   Vu%   Wu%   Xu%   Yu%   Zu%   [u%   \u%   ]u%   ^u%   _u%   `u%   au%   bu%   cu%   du%   eu%   fu%   gu%   hu%   iu%   ju%   ku%   lu%   mu%   nu%   ou%   pu%   qu%   ru%   su%   tu%   uu%   vu%   wu%   xu%   yu%   zu%   {u%   |u%   }u%   ~u%   u%   €u%   u%   ‚u%   ƒu%   „u%   …u%   †u%   ‡u%   ˆu%   ‰u%   Šu%   ‹u%   Œu%   u%   Žu%                 òu%   ‘u%   ’u%   “u%


----------



## JonFairhurst

So, we've all seen the McCain ad that calls Obama "celebrity", and compares him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. But have you seen the Paris Hilton response ad?

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

It's good entertainment. But don't forget to look at the issues. Deciding an election on a Paris Hilton ad would be stoopit!


----------



## JonFairhurst

*John McCain the Antichrist???*

According to Biblical scholars at Colorado Springs' True Bible Society, there is evidence that John McCain could be the Antichrist. The analysis will be published next month in the End Times Journal. 

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/343356

The evidence?

* According to the Book of Revelation, the Antichrist will try to rebuild the ancient city of Babylon in order to use it as a springboard for an international effort at world domination. McCain's 100 years in Iraq statement makes him a candidate. Obama's desire to leave rules him out. (Some used to think Saddam was the Antichrist. So much for that idea.)

* Also, John McCain's great-grandfather was actually not John McCain, but John Mihai. Mihai is an ancient Romanian name, and according to Bible-believing Christians, the Antichrist is likely to be a Romanian.

* Finally, the bible says that the Antichrist will be charming, which is consistent with McCain's geniality.

Personally, I don't believe in this Antichrist stuff, but it does make you wonder about the neo cons' obsession with taking over Iraq!

And a reminder: please vote on the issues, rather than this tin-foil hat stuff!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Don't those biblical scholars know nuffin? We've already had the Antichrist for the past seven years.

McCain is a well intentioned tough guy with some good ideas and some bad ideas. The Devil is amoral and cynical - very different.


----------



## midphase

What are McCain's good ideas again?


----------



## JonFairhurst

> McCain is a well intentioned tough guy with some good ideas and some bad ideas.


Well intentioned? I used to think that until he flip-flopped on his signature issue: torture. 

And with his blind support of big oil and the nuclear industry, I'm thinking he's more a marionette than a tough guy.

BTW, he's not the Antichrist. He just works there...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Kays - his ideas about campaign finance are right on, for example.


----------



## midphase

It's been a bit quiet around here....so just to kick off the conversation a bit again...

What do you guys think about Joe Biden being Obama's running mate? Is this a good choice? Will it help Obama or hurt him? Is Biden a wild card? Would he have been better off with Hillary?


----------



## Christian Marcussen

It seems like a fine choice. It boosts Obama in the right areas. The biggest problem with Biden is all the quotes that can be found of him putting down Obama.


----------



## Thonex

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Aug 23 said:


> It seems like a fine choice. It boosts Obama in the right areas. The biggest problem with Biden is all the quotes that can be found of him putting down Obama.



I like Obama, and I was born in Delaware and have known about Biden since forever. I'm not sure about Biden as a running mate. He has said some stupid things in the past (like we all have)... but to me he is a "career politician" (since 1972) and I dunno... I guess it's better than if he would have chosen Edwards before the news of his affair was made public :shock: :D 

T


----------



## Ed

midphase @ Fri Aug 08 said:


> What are McCain's good ideas again?



Having a 100 years of war, that kind of thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Believe me, Ed, I'm not at all a McCain supporter. But anyone who attempts to demonize him is simply being shallow and not looking closely. It doesn't help our cause to go on and on with that out of context 100 years quote.

Having said that, the idea that anyone that much in favor of the Iraq war has "good foreign policy credentials" is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This was worst foreign policy move in our history, and for him not to see that is completely appalling.


----------



## Ed

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 23 said:


> Believe me, Ed, I'm not at all a McCain supporter. But anyone who attempts to demonize him is simply being shallow and not looking closely. It doesn't help our cause to go on and on with that out of context 100 years quote.



I know you dont support McCain but I've seen the claim that its "out of context" and putting it in context is just as scary. Especially as we already had him lying about how well it was going in Iraq. Im not an Obama supporter either, he seems better but then again...



> Having said that, the idea that anyone that much in favor of the Iraq war has "good foreign policy credentials" is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This was worst foreign policy move in our history, and for him not to see that is completely appalling.



Definitely. What was it he said about Vietnam? Something about how the US would have won if they just stuck with it. o=< 

Ed


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

That's normal conservative political thought: simplistic, impatient answers to the complicated problems of the world.

***

I like Joseph Biden, but I'm not sure whether he was the best choice as far as winning the election is concerned. As far as being comfortable with him as President if something happens to Obama, absolutely, but there's something unexciting about him as part of the ticket. I hope it's not just his age that's leaving me flat, because I don't want to be an ageist idiot, but I have to admit that it may be part of it - not that he's an old man at age 67, but part of Obama's excitement is his relative youth.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I really want to get interested in the Democratic National Convention, but so far I just can't. It's all hitting themes followed by talking heads analyzing how well they hit the themes.

Having said that, Edward Kennedy and Hillary were both very good.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Thank goodness for the DVR. I recorded CNN's coverage, simply because it was in HD. Unfortunately, rather than covering the speakers at the convention, the commentators yakked for the first three hours of coverage. When Kucinich spoke, they cut in halfway through. They'd cut into speakers after their intros and before their conclusions. 

At one point they cut away from the speaker on the floor to talk with Rudy Giuliani. Grrr. Let Mr. Noun-Verb-and-911 speak next week.

Thankfully, they showed Clinton and Warner uninterrupted.

The DVR was nice. Blitzer, Crowley, Gergen - and Giuliani - were just a blur.

Too bad CSPAN isn't in HD...


----------



## SvK

Michelle....was incredible.....Did you guys miss that? Or am I alone in thinking this? 

SvK


----------



## midphase

So far the women are stealing the show!


----------



## artsoundz

yeah, Michelle AND her daughters- the whole thing. Michelle and Obama's daughters crack me up. They're not shy and they seem feisty. Love'em..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 594321/pg1

That speech by Kucinich didn't make it onto TV. It should have been on in prime time. I don't normally post links to videos, but it is really worth seeing.

This should have been the keynote speech, not that boring guy hitting his bullet points.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 27 said:


> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message594321/pg1
> 
> That speech by Kucinich didn't make it onto TV. It should have been on in prime time. I don't normally post links to videos, but it is really worth seeing.
> 
> This should have been the keynote speech, not that boring guy hitting his bullet points.



And this wasn't aired on the liberal medias?!!!! :? .. :lol: 



> I don't normally post links to videos


 :wink: 


The democrats would win the next election easy with Kucinich.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Kucinich has been branded a nutcase. He got nowhere as a candidate. Too liberal - which to me means just right.


----------



## midphase

I agree with Nick....and as an added bonus...his wife is really hot and pierced!


----------



## Fernando Warez

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 27 said:


> Kucinich has been branded a nutcase. He got nowhere as a candidate. Too liberal - which to me means just right.



I think Kucinich is perfect the way he is too.  He ain't pretty but he tell it like it is.



> Kucinich has been branded a nutcase.



I did not see this but I'm not surprise the US medias would try to label him as such.

But frankly, i think the democrats are making a big mistake by playing this centrist game and i believe they are doing this out of fear of offending those who want to keep the status quo. I'm convinced it's a mistake and I'm convinced they should go against the medias and the establishment and have democrats nominee talk like Kucinich because I'm sure thats what the majority of Americans want to hear. My guts tells me the majority of Americans are pistoff right and don't want to hear some vague arguments like ''let's get out of Iraq in a responsible manner'', which probably means ''lets stay a while longer, perhaps much longer''. Right now, the democrats should play their role as an opposition and not make any concessions. Yes they would have the medias and the establishment working against them and it would be tough but ò~/   ƒ\ú~/   ƒ\û~/   ƒ\ü~/   ƒ\ý~/   ƒ\þ~/   ƒ\ÿ~/   ƒ] ~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]	~/   ƒ]
~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ] ~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~/   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ]~0   ƒ] ~0   ƒ]!~0   ƒ]"~0   ƒ]#~0   ƒ]$~0   ƒ]%~0   ƒ]&~0   ƒ]'~0   ƒ](~1   ƒ])~1   ƒ]*~1   ƒ]+~1   ƒ],~1   ƒ]-~1   ƒ].~1   ƒ]/~1   ƒ]0~1   ƒ]1~1   ƒ]2~1   ƒ]3~1   ƒ]4~1   ƒ]5~1   ƒ]6~1   ƒ]7~1   ƒ]8~1   ƒ]9~


----------



## JonFairhurst

*Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war*

*Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war*
CNN Link

Keep in mind, Bush claimed to look into Putin's eyes and see his soul. 
BBC Link

And McCain is proud that his top foreign policy adviser is a Georgian lobbyist.
Huffington Post Link

Dirty dogs all...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I have to wonder what Putin is getting at, because he wouldn't say something totally off the wall. There must be something behind it.

What's for sure is that our foreign policy of - as Joe Biden said right away after Obama's announcement that he was the choice - uniting our enemies and dividing our friends over the past eight years has made Russia and several other countries feel their oats. That line (uniting/dividing) is straight out of Zbniew Brzezhinski's book "Second Chance," and it's so true.

(Actually Biden left out the part about uniting our enemies, but it was implicit.)


----------



## Fernando Warez

*Re: Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war*



JonFairhurst @ Thu Aug 28 said:


> *Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war*
> CNN Link
> 
> Keep in mind, Bush claimed to look into Putin's eyes and see his soul.
> BBC Link
> 
> And McCain is proud that his top foreign policy adviser is a Georgian lobbyist.
> Huffington Post Link
> 
> Dirty dogs all...



Randy Scheunemann was a collaborator for the PNAC(Project for the New American Century ). The guys is just an other neocon. 

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC


----------



## Robobino

Obama / Biden...

*O*s*ama*/ *Bi*n La*den*...

>8o 

:mrgreen:


----------



## JonFairhurst

_"And the Lord sent Jerubbaal and *Barak*, and Jephthah and Samson, and rescued you out of the hand of your enemies on every side; and you lived in safety." _
I Sam 12:11

_"Then the Lord said to *Cain*, "Where is your brother Abel?" [Cain] said, "I do not know, am I my brother's keeper?" And the Lord said, "What have you done? Listen, your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground ...you are cursed...you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth."_
Gen 4:9-12

0oD


----------



## Robobino

Nothing about Biden in the scriptures?... In Planet of the Apes, they talk about the "for Biden zone"... (o)


----------



## SvK

People have acused me of drinking the Obama "Kool-Aid".............well, after that speech i say............


........make me a bucket of it, cause my thirst cannot be quenched!

GOBAMA
GO YOUTH
GO AMERICA

SvK


----------



## midphase

I was never so moved or inspired as tonight. My cynicism is being replaced by a resolve to make this a better country for everyone.

Obama is my president and there's nothing that Abe can say or do to make me think differently!


----------



## midphase

I also want to say that...I've seen b/w footage of people mourning and crying after Kennedy was assassinated, and I've never understood why. I've never understood what could connect the average citizen to a president to such a degree to actually cause such a deep emotional reaction. 

Today, I finally understand!


----------



## JB78

On the surface it's a no-brainer, I can't even conceive how people would choose McCain over Obama. However, I thought it was a done deal four years ago as well, it's still freaking mindboggling how the lonestar intellectual got another crack at it.

Hoping for the best though, GOBAMA!

Best regards
Jon


----------



## Robobino

Disneyland politics...


----------



## madbulk

Thonex @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> It seems like a total reaction/act of desperation to keep up with Obama. I'm sure she's a nice lady... But that nominations almost appears pathetic as a response the day after Obama's speech. It just smacks of desperation.
> T



I don't see desperation. It just smacks of cold calculation. Bad enough. And business as usual.


----------



## JonFairhurst

Tina Fey needs to rejoin SNL.


----------



## wonshu

JonFairhurst @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> Tina Fey needs to rejoin SNL.



L. O. L.


----------



## madbulk

JonFairhurst @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> Tina Fey needs to rejoin SNL.


It's pretty uncanny.

One very nice thing has happened. We will either have a black president or a woman veep. It's a good day on balance, come what may.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Just saw her speech. Pretty good... It does take the "experience" question out of it all - but apart from that I would say this choice is pure genius. Very smart... I think it will help him quite a bit!


----------



## Thonex

madbulk @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> I don't see desperation. It just smacks of cold calculation. Bad enough. And business as usual.



My feeling is they are 'reacting'... not acting... following Obama's lead... not leading. I sort of feel bad for McCain... it just appears as if his camp is flailing.

At least that's my take on it.

T


----------



## wonshu

Yes, I mean this is such an obvious strategic move that doesn't say anything at all about him except how sophisticated McCains tacticians are.

It does make him look desperate and thus weak, but for people not following what's going on, it may seems like a bold and modern move...

I hate this world...


----------



## José Herring

It is calculated. 27% of Hilary voters support McCain now. 

But on the other hand McCain's campaign seems to me to be more about saying fuck you to the Republican establishment than anything else. Here's a guy that's fought Republicans his whole life. After 30 years of losing it's almost like he's waving goodbye with his middle finger to the Republican's.

I'm not very good at politics. I often can't predict the outcome of elections. People I vote for seldom win. But, I must say that this looks like the swan song of any republican hopes of getting into the whitehouse.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

It is a bold move. Sure he is reacting, but what a reaction! The race just got exciting again


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"27% of Hilary voters support McCain now."

And 97.6% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment. Those polls are always misleading, Jose, and we haven't seen one after the DNC.

Having said that, some Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, and I think they're major league pathetic morons. How stupid. I mean, it's not like Obama was appointed the Democratic nominee by the Supreme Court, he won the election by getting more electorates. That's how it goes; we had two excellent candidates and one of them had to lose.


----------



## midphase

I'm really tired of excitement! I want for this country to do the right thing and put the right person in office.

Enough of staying up all night waiting for the results of a neck and neck election.....I want a damn landslide!!!


----------



## madbulk

Kays is fired up and ready to go, folks.


----------



## wonshu

midphase @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> I want a damn landslide!!!



What do you think the rest of the world is rooting for???

Well, except the Australians, they're Wombats (a wombat eats roots and leaves)

Best
Hans


----------



## artsoundz

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> "27% of Hilary voters support McCain now."
> 
> And 97.6% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment. Those polls are always misleading, Jose, and we haven't seen once after the DNC.
> 
> Having said that, some Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, and I think they're major league pathetic morons. How stupid. I mean, it's not like Obama was appointed the Democratic nominee by the Supreme Court, he won the election by getting more electorates. That's how it goes; we had two excellent candidates and one of them had to lose.



I couldnt agree more. It's embarassing for women everywhere. There was a women on Cnn-Larry King- the other night -Libby?- I cant remember her name-she's a Hillary supporter- but her reasons for not voting for Obama were just appalling. "Obama has to court me" "the obama camp was rude to us" her logic was so pathetic and it amounted to nothing more than pouting. 

McCain would be more of the same and I completely agree w/ Carter that he's milking his Vietnam experience.. Sorry- I just find him so lame.


----------



## Thonex

artsoundz @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> McCain would be more of the same and I completely agree w/ Carter that he's milking his Vietnam experience.. Sorry- I just find him so lame.



In McCain's defense, I don't find him so lame. He's always fought with the Republicans and is an independent thinker. Actually, I like the guy, but I just really don't think he is what this country needs right now. I think Obama is far more "in touch" with this country and it's people than McCain. 

My opinion.

T


----------



## artsoundz

He may a decent guy- I dont know. He's cracked me up on Leno and The Daily Show. But he's relatively slow and I've seen him get his hackles raised over something he should have handled calmly. That and this ridiculous war hero stuff rubs me the wrong way.

He would be a disaster for this country as a president but may do well as a senator. Plus- the guy monogrammed his fireplace. 

edit- AND I'm pissed that this Wivi update is just ridiculously not ready and I've wasted hours on it. So there!. humpff....


----------



## Thonex

artsoundz @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> *Plus- the guy monogrammed his fireplace. *



Well.... that there does it for me... I might not have voted for him before... but I definitely won't now 




artsoundz @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> edit- AND I'm pissed that this Wivi update is just ridiculously not ready and I've wasted hours on it. So there!. humpff....



Sorry to hear that. :?


----------



## artsoundz

that comment about his fireplace, although true, was totally tongue in cheek. In truth, I dont fault anyone for being rich. I just want someone as rich as he is to be more in touch with us po folk. 

But a monogrammed fireplace is kinda weird, or is that just me?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Obama was a very good candidate at the beginning, but he's become a fantastic candidate. There aren't very many people with that kind of leadership talent in the world.


----------



## midphase

Let me put it this way....if Hillary had won the nomination, and Biden was her vp choice....I would be very nervous right about now.

With Obama on the ticket, I feel like he'll be more able to grab this bull by the horns. I think with Hillary and Palin...it would have come across as a cat fight!


----------



## Ashermusic

midphase @ Fri Aug 29 said:


> Let me put it this way....if Hillary had won the nomination, and Biden was her vp choice....I would be very nervous right about now.
> 
> With Obama on the ticket, I feel like he'll be more able to grab this bull by the horns. I think with Hillary and Palin...it would have come across as a cat fight!



Interesting. I would have felt more confident with a Clinton-Biden, Biden-Clinton, or Biden-Obama ticket. But Barak sure makes great speeches. Let's hope that if he wins, he does not turn put to be another incompetent, like W and Carter.

I AM reassured that he chose a strong, smart, experienced guy like Biden, who I believe will not hesitate to tell him when he is going wrong and I think Obama is the kind of guy who listens and learns quickly.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Just heard that Palin supports Creationism in school... away went all my sympathies... insane.


----------



## José Herring

Christian Marcussen @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> Just heard that Palin supports Creationism in school... away went all my sympathies... insane.



Technically she supported Creationism and Evolution. Then later she abandoned creationism. Personally I can't believe that they teach either one in schools. Both theories are half baked at best. But, at least with evolution there's a tiny amount of science to back it. But, both theories are more based on faith and anti-faith rather than anything solid. :wink: 

That's a minor issue compared to the fact that she's being investigated for abuse of power by her attorney general because she used her position to try to get her ex brother in law fired from being a state trooper at the time he was divorcing her sister. Then when the head state trooper said no he had him demoted and he resigned. To me this is a smoking gun that could get her in a lot of legal trouble around election time. And, also says a lot about her character. Fine line between maverick and law breaker. And in more that one instance she's become law breaker based around her religious beliefs. Her record indicates that she can't distiguish the law from her own personal religious beliefs. Sad. She may be a woman like Clinton, but judging from her record she's an emotional thinker rather than analytical.


----------



## artsoundz

Never mind the Supreme court voted to not allow it. 

I'm glad to know that. She does support her Alsaka GOP platform which says I.D and evolution should be presented side by side because evolution is just a theory. She later backtracks and says creationism/ID should be discussed if it comes up in class but not as added curriculum. I dont have a problem with that since a significant amount of people actually buy into that crap. Unfortunately, it's Alaska. 

I worked in Alaska in "72 and had a 2 week job there last februrary. I guarantee you, Alaska is the north's Texas. 

BUT- I'M GLAD TO HEAR THIS. and, interestingly, it only took a day to see her for what she is-old school GOP. maybe a nice lady- but so far from what this country needs . The more I know, the less I respect her.

Plus- she's a for Wolf Control. 

Btw- McCain is one of the worst speech givers I've ever seen. He cant keep 2 sentences in his head before he's back on the paper or prompter.


----------



## artsoundz

"But, at least with evolution there's a tiny amount of science to back it. But, both theories are more based on faith and anti-faith rather than anything solid. Wink" 

Another one from Mr.Science. dont quitcher day job, Jose. : )

Apparently, her ex tasered his 10 year old stepson. If I were her, I would have rubbed moose greese on the guy and sent him on a hike. Seriously, she will dodge that one. But there is some smoke there and soon enough she will burst into flames.

This issue wont impact her. Being a GOP, using the office to commit crimes seems to be acceptable SOP.


----------



## Ed

josejherring @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> Personally I can't believe that they teach either one in schools. Both theories are half baked at best. But, at least with evolution there's a tiny amount of science to back it. But, both theories are more based on faith and anti-faith rather than anything solid. :wink:



Im glad you have a winky at the end of that, I thought you were serious for a moment.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

Ok. I'm glad she backed off it a bit. I agree 100% that it should be discussed if it comes up. How else can it be shot down 



> Technically she supported Creationism and Evolution. Then later she abandoned creationism. *Personally I can't believe that they teach either one in schools. Both theories are half baked at best. But, at least with evolution there's a tiny amount of science to back it. But, both theories are more based on faith and anti-faith rather than anything solid.*



I like you Jose. But you ill informed and/or crazy. I hope the latter as there would still be hope :mrgreen: 

It's interesting how the US supreme court forbids the teaching of I.D. That is very cool, but curious given how the left generally bash the current supreme court for it's "rightness". But good stuff!


----------



## artsoundz

Christian, I believe her backing off was more political expediency. I get a sense that she does believe in ID and any hint of that does not belong in government. It's the slipperyest of slopes and is an indication of an ignorant mindset.


----------



## Christian Marcussen

artsoundz @ Sat Aug 30 said:


> Christian, I believe her backing off was more political expediency. I get a sense that she does believe in ID and any hint of that does not belong in government. It's the slipperyest of slopes and is an indication of an ignorant mindset.



Yeah, that sounds more likely.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"Both theories are half baked at best. But, at least with evolution there's a tiny amount of science to back it. But, both theories are more based on faith and anti-faith rather than anything solid."

True. The solid theory is that man came from outer-space aliens.


----------



## midphase

Hehe Nick....you beat me to it! Damn...I wanted to be the one to point that out....oh well!


----------



## artsoundz

yeah- I think someone's EasyBake oven needs a new light bulb.


----------

