|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 12:45:33 GMT -5
Like I said, Gore isn't a tool of the "religious right"... religious left, maybe... but I'd personally rather than be on that side than the other... of course I'm not on either... You don't see fanatical Islamists protesting for wind and solar energy... you see 'em beheading innocent people... Which makes them Leftists. It's the Left that can't abide opposing lines of thought, because the Left can't defend a single tenet of any of their nonsense demands. Opposition simply highlights the absurdity of Leftism, so can't be allowed. That's why Muslims simply kill anyone that doesn't tow THEIR line, just like Leftists. Except that, in the civilized world, the beheadings are metaphorical. Yeah... that's why all them OWS protesters are righties, right?... (The use of the word "them" is intentional...)
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 12:53:51 GMT -5
Some people who are "in the public eye" would also fit into this category... I just thought of this particular contact when you said what you did, without being specific, and I recalled the very recent conversation... of course, this woman could very well be "in the public eye" as far as anyone knows... As for Carson, I don't want to get in a specific conversation with regard to what I like or don't like about him... it would serve no useful purpose... and he's not running yet... let's just let it suffice to say that he is supposed to have been a good, possibly a very good, neurosurgeon, but now we're supposed to think that, because of his comments, he's a good politician we could support if he ran for President... largely because of his supposedly... (and I'm NOT questioning them)... high moral values...
NAP TIME... You called him a snake oil salesman, therefore I think the ball's in your court to back up your statement. If he really is a snake oil salesman, I'd like to know it, but I can't be convinced just because you claim he is... I'd rather we have a President with high moral values and no experience than the one we have now with low moral values (big time liar and disregard for the U.S. Constitution) and essentially no experience when elected. However, before you jump to conclusions, in RJ's poll none of those votes for Ben Carson is my vote. No, Sir... I am not required to back up ANY opinion I express here... although I can back up my "belief" or "thinking" with regard to any and all opinions expressed here... (of course several here would challenge that if it were based on experience of a personal life event... so why bother?)... and why didn't you ask me to back up my "snake oil" references to Huckabee and Santorum... do you agree with my opinion with regard to those two?... Needless to say, I don't agree with your characterization of the President... and of course, none of the votes in the poll are mine... GOOD NAP...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 6, 2015 14:35:54 GMT -5
Which makes them Leftists. It's the Left that can't abide opposing lines of thought, because the Left can't defend a single tenet of any of their nonsense demands. Opposition simply highlights the absurdity of Leftism, so can't be allowed. That's why Muslims simply kill anyone that doesn't tow THEIR line, just like Leftists. Except that, in the civilized world, the beheadings are metaphorical. It's extremists of any type that are highly intolerant of differing thought. They're extremists precisely because they're absolutely confident of the rightness of their position. Right, left, religious, communist... for this purpose these are differences without distinction. If you don't believe it, study Dominionists sometime. The only difference between them and fanatical Muslims is that here, the law keeps them from acting on their fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2015 17:28:28 GMT -5
Which makes them Leftists. It's the Left that can't abide opposing lines of thought, because the Left can't defend a single tenet of any of their nonsense demands. Opposition simply highlights the absurdity of Leftism, so can't be allowed. That's why Muslims simply kill anyone that doesn't tow THEIR line, just like Leftists. Except that, in the civilized world, the beheadings are metaphorical. It's extremists of any type that are highly intolerant of differing thought. They're extremists precisely because they're absolutely confident of the rightness of their position. Right, left, religious, communist... for this purpose these are differences without distinction. If you don't believe it, study Dominionists sometime. The only difference between them and fanatical Muslims is that here, the law keeps them from acting on their fantasies. Except that's just not true. The Right certainly disagrees with differing thought... the right may get snarky and mock the left, but it argues its point. The Left, on the other hand, DOESN'T argue it's point. It screams "racism!" It screams "sexism!" It screams "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and "bigotry" and when none of that fits it screams "the science is settled!" as though science is something done by majority opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 6, 2015 17:46:16 GMT -5
Except that's just not true. The Right certainly disagrees with differing thought... the right may get snarky and mock the left, but it argues its point. The Left, on the other hand, DOESN'T argue it's point. It screams "racism!" It screams "sexism!" It screams "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and "bigotry" and when none of that fits it screams "the science is settled!" as though science is something done by majority opinion. Never spoken to a creationist, I see.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2015 18:07:49 GMT -5
Except that's just not true. The Right certainly disagrees with differing thought... the right may get snarky and mock the left, but it argues its point. The Left, on the other hand, DOESN'T argue it's point. It screams "racism!" It screams "sexism!" It screams "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and "bigotry" and when none of that fits it screams "the science is settled!" as though science is something done by majority opinion. Never spoken to a creationist, I see. No. Not really. Their theories are pretty marginalized, and they're few and far between. But here's the thing: when Global Climate Change theories are argued almost entirely on the basis of popular vote, can you really blame the Creationists for thinking "God" is a scientifically valid theory? I mean, they're both variations on the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 20:11:16 GMT -5
It's extremists of any type that are highly intolerant of differing thought. They're extremists precisely because they're absolutely confident of the rightness of their position. Right, left, religious, communist... for this purpose these are differences without distinction. If you don't believe it, study Dominionists sometime. The only difference between them and fanatical Muslims is that here, the law keeps them from acting on their fantasies. Except that's just not true. The Right certainly disagrees with differing thought... the right may get snarky and mock the left, but it argues its point. The Left, on the other hand, DOESN'T argue it's point. It screams "racism!" It screams "sexism!" It screams "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and "bigotry" and when none of that fits it screams "the science is settled!" as though science is something done by majority opinion. And you've never proven me wrong on a single issue...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2015 20:23:31 GMT -5
Except that's just not true. The Right certainly disagrees with differing thought... the right may get snarky and mock the left, but it argues its point. The Left, on the other hand, DOESN'T argue it's point. It screams "racism!" It screams "sexism!" It screams "islamophobia" and "homophobia" and "bigotry" and when none of that fits it screams "the science is settled!" as though science is something done by majority opinion. And you've never proven me wrong on a single issue... Sure I have... in fact, I've proved you wrong on every provable issue we've discussed. You're just to hard-headed to accept it. A perfect example is the recent attempt at a sane discussion that I had with you on the 'unanimous consent' issue. I gave you the Senate's own explanation of it, and you continue to insist that the Senate is wrong and that you know Senate rules better than the Senate itself. When I realized that your ego was so out of control that it simply couldn't accept what the Senate had to say about its own rules, I realized continuing the discussion was pointless. But it doesn't mean you weren't proven wrong, or that you didn't beclown yourself trying to defend the absurd.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 20:24:36 GMT -5
Never spoken to a creationist, I see. No. Not really. Their theories are pretty marginalized, and they're few and far between. But here's the thing: when Global Climate Change theories are argued almost entirely on the basis of popular vote, can you really blame the Creationists for thinking "God" is a scientifically valid theory? I mean, they're both variations on the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Did anybody other than me hear Newt Gingrich on Hannity today say that people had forgotten that we live in a Republic where we elect representatives to go to Congress and make decisions in our behalf based on how they believe they should vote... not necessarily those who voted him... against him... or didn't vote at all... (paraphrased)...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 20:25:55 GMT -5
And you've never proven me wrong on a single issue... Sure I have... in fact, I've proved you wrong on every provable issue we've discussed. You're just to hard-headed to accept it. A perfect example is the recent attempt at a sane discussion that I had with you on the 'unanimous consent' issue. I gave you the Senate's own explanation of it, and you continue to insist that the Senate is wrong and that you know Senate rules better than the Senate itself. When I realized that your ego was so out of control that it simply couldn't accept what the Senate had to say about its own rules, I realized continuing the discussion was pointless. But it doesn't mean you weren't proven wrong, or that you didn't beclown yourself trying to defend the absurd. Bull sh!!t... I was... and still am right on unanimous consent... And I didn't say the Senate was wrong... I correctly said YOU were... you don't know how it works... still don't...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2015 20:28:29 GMT -5
Sure I have... in fact, I've proved you wrong on every provable issue we've discussed. You're just to hard-headed to accept it. A perfect example is the recent attempt at a sane discussion that I had with you on the 'unanimous consent' issue. I gave you the Senate's own explanation of it, and you continue to insist that the Senate is wrong and that you know Senate rules better than the Senate itself. When I realized that your ego was so out of control that it simply couldn't accept what the Senate had to say about its own rules, I realized continuing the discussion was pointless. But it doesn't mean you weren't proven wrong, or that you didn't beclown yourself trying to defend the absurd. Bull sh!!t... Yes. That's exactly the point I was making about liberals to EY. You can't make your case, you know you're wrong, and you've nothing left but ad hominem and profanity. Well done, and thank you for making my point for me. And you DID say the Senate was incorrect in it's explanation of unanimous consent, because the explanation I gave you came directly from the Senate's own web site. Whereas the explanation you gave comes from some unhinged conspiracy theory site.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 20:30:15 GMT -5
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making about liberals to EY. You can't make your case, you know you're wrong, and you've nothing left but ad hominem and profanity. Well done, and thank you for making my point for me. You're not worth the time... read my 3rd signature line and weep...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2015 20:34:30 GMT -5
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making about liberals to EY. You can't make your case, you know you're wrong, and you've nothing left but ad hominem and profanity. Well done, and thank you for making my point for me. You're not worth the time... read my 3rd signature line and weep... Once again thank you for proving my point about Liberals lacking the ability to make their case, and preferring to rely on personal attacks, profanity and ad hominem.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 20:40:04 GMT -5
You're not worth the time... read my 3rd signature line and weep... Once again thank you for proving my point about Liberals lacking the ability to make their case, and preferring to rely on personal attacks, profanity and ad hominem. You quoted me the rules... I quoted you how the rules were used... you rejected that... (go back... you'll see)... you're a waste of my time... You sound just like Hannity... who, BTW, said today that he wrote the "Contract with America" for Newt Gingrich...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 6, 2015 20:58:11 GMT -5
Once again thank you for proving my point about Liberals lacking the ability to make their case, and preferring to rely on personal attacks, profanity and ad hominem. You quoted me the rules... I quoted you how the rules were used... you rejected that... (go back... you'll see)... you're a waste of my time... You sound just like Hannity... who, BTW, said today that he wrote the "Contract with America" for Newt Gingrich... Sorry, but that's another one of your mistakes. You quoted me a conspiracy theory website explanation of how the rules were used, and I quoted you how the rules were used from the Senate's own website. Here it is again: SENATE.GOVYou opted to accept the nut-job web site's explanation rather than the Senate's. Please, if you think I'm a waste of your time, act like it. Oh, and rest assured I routinely weep when I read your posts. Uncontrollable laughter frequently has that effect. Shall we talk about your continued willingness to believe Johnathan Guber next?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 6, 2015 21:50:01 GMT -5
I don't read or quote conspiracy theory websites... nor have I claimed to believe or disbelieve anything Johnathan Gruber has to say...
The Democracy Initiative is not a conspiracy website...
The Democracy Initiative, launched in 2013, seeks to restore the core principle of political equality. Labor, civil rights, voting rights, environmental, good government and other like-minded organizations with broad memberships commit to build a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, prevent the systemic manipulation and suppression of voters, and address other obstacles to significant reform, including the abuse of U.S. Senate rules that allow a small minority to obstruct deliberation and block action on legislation drafted to address the critical challenges facing our nation.
Check out this list to see just how the Senate rules block a majority of senators from taking up important measures and getting the people’s business done.
Unanimous Consent: All 100 senators must agree that the business of the Senate will go forward. One senator can stop bills, nominations, appointments, even ordinary actions like naming a post office.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 7, 2015 6:27:26 GMT -5
I don't read or quote conspiracy theory websites... nor have I claimed to believe or disbelieve anything Johnathan Gruber has to say... The Democracy Initiative is not a conspiracy website... The Democracy Initiative, launched in 2013, seeks to restore the core principle of political equality. Labor, civil rights, voting rights, environmental, good government and other like-minded organizations with broad memberships commit to build a movement to halt the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics, prevent the systemic manipulation and suppression of voters, and address other obstacles to significant reform, including the abuse of U.S. Senate rules that allow a small minority to obstruct deliberation and block action on legislation drafted to address the critical challenges facing our nation.Check out this list to see just how the Senate rules block a majority of senators from taking up important measures and getting the people’s business done. Unanimous Consent: All 100 senators must agree that the business of the Senate will go forward. One senator can stop bills, nominations, appointments, even ordinary actions like naming a post office.Still desperately trying to convince yourself that the Senate doesn't know its own rules? BWAHAHAHAHA?
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 7, 2015 7:02:34 GMT -5
No. Not really. Their theories are pretty marginalized, and they're few and far between. But here's the thing: when Global Climate Change theories are argued almost entirely on the basis of popular vote, can you really blame the Creationists for thinking "God" is a scientifically valid theory? I mean, they're both variations on the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Did anybody other than me hear Newt Gingrich on Hannity today say that people had forgotten that we live in a Republic where we elect representatives to go to Congress and make decisions in our behalf based on how they believe they should vote... not necessarily those who voted him... against him... or didn't vote at all... (paraphrased)... What Newt actually said on Hannity [about whether this is a republic or a democracy in the context of the election of the Speaker of the House] was "... we've always said it's a republic and that means you elect somebody, but the person you elect is actually supposed to go to Washington to render their judgement," which you paraphrased as " we elect representatives to go to Congress and make decisions." The rest of your post is your speculation on what Newt didn't say, but but perhaps should have. I speculate that Newt meant that "judgement" is based not on the legislator's whim, but on a number of things, including the will of the legislator's constituents--especially in the case of newly elected legislators because those legislators have no Congressional experience...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 7, 2015 7:48:44 GMT -5
Did anybody other than me hear Newt Gingrich on Hannity today say that people had forgotten that we live in a Republic where we elect representatives to go to Congress and make decisions in our behalf based on how they believe they should vote... not necessarily those who voted him... against him... or didn't vote at all... (paraphrased)... What Newt actually said on Hannity [about whether this is a republic or a democracy in the context of the election of the Speaker of the House] was "... we've always said it's a republic and that means you elect somebody, but the person you elect is actually supposed to go to Washington to render their judgement," which you paraphrased as " we elect representatives to go to Congress and make decisions." The rest of your post is your speculation on what Newt didn't say, but but perhaps should have. I speculate that Newt meant that "judgement" is based not on the legislator's whim, but on a number of things, including the will of the legislator's constituents--especially in the case of newly elected legislators because those legislators have no Congressional experience... You're right... I said I paraphrased it... and making a decision by him is making his own judgement... I was just glad to hear him say that... one thing about Ole Newt... he is no dummy... But your quote is NOT the portion to which I really referred... (I was busy outside and heard him from my truck radio)... as I said, he began these particular comments to which I refer by saying... "We forget................"... I didn't go back and listen to him again but it was likely AFTER what he said in your quote... He's right... The TEA party voters down here are really pissed at our Congressman Steven Palazzo because they say they elected him NOT to vote for Boehner... but he exercised his own judgement and made the decision to vote for him anyway... BTW... the vote to elect the Speaker is just like any other vote in the Senate... and subject to the same Senate rules... including unanimous consent... (which is not normally used in most votes... but could be)... We, the Democracy Initiative, and I... among others... have lobbied for a change in Senate Rules since this new rule with regard to unanimous consent, which gives any single Senator the ability to close the Senate down, came into effect two years ago... I may go back and listen... I do kinda like Newt Gingrich... he knows politics... and I respect him for that if not that much more...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 7, 2015 9:53:35 GMT -5
The "trouble" with politics is just that: politics. Politics is what elected Boehner to the Speaker's position yesterday. Some reps thought it would be political suicide (for some reason or other--such as not getting a seat on a particular committee, not getting support for a bill, not getting a piece of the pork, etc.) to vote against Boehner, so they held their noses and voted for him.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 7, 2015 11:36:03 GMT -5
The "trouble" with politics is just that: politics. Politics is what elected Boehner to the Speaker's position yesterday. Some reps thought it would be political suicide (for some reason or other--such as not getting a seat on a particular committee, not getting support for a bill, not getting a piece of the pork, etc.) to vote against Boehner, so they held their noses and voted for him. And they were right... several who didn't have already been notified of their losses... I love it... and I hate it... it really sucks... but I love the game...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 7, 2015 11:41:26 GMT -5
The "trouble" with politics is just that: politics. Politics is what elected Boehner to the Speaker's position yesterday. Some reps thought it would be political suicide (for some reason or other--such as not getting a seat on a particular committee, not getting support for a bill, not getting a piece of the pork, etc.) to vote against Boehner, so they held their noses and voted for him. And they were right... several who didn't have already been notified of their losses... I love it... and I hate it... it really sucks... but I love the game... And that game would be great if only it were a reality TV show.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 7, 2015 11:47:12 GMT -5
I prefer chess myself...
|
|
|
Post by husagafella on Jan 7, 2015 20:20:11 GMT -5
Doesn't matter, a Republican will never win the presidency again. The Republican party has run its course as have others throughout history. Wow talk about having your head(or little head) in the sand! Come back from a few weeks of Holiday only to find you are still obsessed with my anatomy. Glad to see you are still thinking about me.
|
|
|
Post by bullmikey on Jan 12, 2015 10:04:06 GMT -5
If that's true he's assured of at least one vote.
|
|