NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081005/pl_bloomberg/a1f8yut_qo0

Even the most impartial of observers should probably be disturbed by the outright sinister turn taken by the McCain campaign. Sarah Palin's suggestion that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" is a platter of outrage served with a side of stupefaction. The move, of course, is consistent with an ideological movement that is intellectually and morally bankrupt. John McCain can hardly point to glowing successes in Republican policy for the past eight years, and he does not differ with his conservative base overmuch on the core issues.

Instead of trying to spin off his own ideas about the direction in which he would take the country, he has now launched his campaign on a crusade to tear down Barack Obama. This might almost make some type of sense if McCain were not attempting to pin the sins of a homegrown terrorist (Ayers) onto the-then eight year old Obama. In launching such a reprehensible and glaring attack on personality, Palin and McCain have demonstrated that they are willing to say virtually anything in order to win...even something as blatantly false as the accusation that Obama is somehow rooting for or even affiliated with terrorists. Have you at last, Mr. McCain, no shame? I do not pretend to know your motivations, but your actions certainly seem to be at odds with your lofty stated goals. I find myself questioning what type of President you will be should you win, because if you are perfectly willing to allow such lies to be told, then how will we, the public, be able to trust in anything you would say as President?

This is not your finest hour, Mr. McCain. I could have voted for you in 2000, when you behaved far differently than you are behaving now. There was a time a decade ago when I was just as open to Republican messages as any other. But the Republican Party has changed over the past two decades or so, and it has become increasingly apparent that the change was not a good one. It pleases me, then, as a former Clinton supporter to vote against you. I hope that many other Independents and Democrats will follow suit and not reward you for your quite frankly disturbing political behavior.

Its the call of desperation. As I said earlier, even the most backwater country bumpkin could see this.

Oh, and its great to have you on my side ;)

I agree with your statements, though I'm a Canadian and can't vote for either candidate.

I'm always intrigued, though, at the amount of "voting against" that goes on, rather than "voting for"...

*Faceplants*

Look... Sarah Palin went too far when she took her first breath.

I agree with your statements, though I'm a Canadian and can't vote for either candidate.

I'm always intrigued, though, at the amount of "voting against" that goes on, rather than "voting for"...
Well, consider what we are dealing with. After having watched and listened to Obama, considered his policy proposals and his choice of running mate, I am happy to be able to vote FOR him this November.

But even if I wasn't, or if someone I liked less was the Democratic candidate, I would still be voting AGAINST McCain and the Republicans because, I mean, come on, just look at them. Look at what they've done, listen to what they say. How can a person not vote to put them out of power?

People often find it easier to vote against something than for something. In my case, I looked at Palin. She seems to be very shallow, with little substantive knowledge about world affairs or politics on the national level. She also appears to be a religious conservative ideologue. Her selection raises all sorts of red flags about John McCain's intentions or perhaps even his judgment. This lady would be second in line to the Presidency. If, God forbid, something were to happen, can you honestly look at Sarah Palin and envision her as President? I've tried, and the exercise is so frightening that I force myself to stop.

It's the same old "Obama iz t3h 3b1l m0zl3m" spook story with a fresh coat of manure on it.

The problem is that like certain things, if there wasn't a proven rate of success or demand for such tactics it would never occur in the first place.

Yeah, I hear ya. It's easier with more than two parties to find something you can strongly believe in and vote FOR it, rather than against something you don't like.

Are McCain and Palin trying to commit hari kari??

I just had an epiphany!


Sarah Palin is not a Republican.. in fact she is a DEMOCRAT! She is a spy sent to infiltrate republican ranks and destroy thier election bid from the inside.

In a few short months she has done as much if not more than anyone else to destroy the Neo-Conservative's image. She is single handedly tearing down McCain's bid for presidency and ensuring more people will vote for Democratic candidates. She's a genius!

I bet Franklin Roosevelt's brain still living in a mason jar somewhere in the foothills of the rocky mountains devised this plan! Its too brilliant to have been Al Gore's doing...

Are McCain and Palin trying to commit hari kari??

I just think theyre really, really, really, really, really disconneted from reality.

Much like 90% of all other conservatives.

I just think theyre really, really, really, really, really disconneted from reality.

Much like 90% of all other Neo conservatives.

Fixed.

Fixed.

I meant what I said.


If we were judging NEO conservatives, the number would have been 100%. There is no sane or realistic neocon.

I meant what I said.


If we were judging NEO conservatives, the number would have been 100%. There is no sane or realistic neocon.

All the sensible Conservatives are Libertarians. *nod*

I bet Frankling Roosevelt's brain still living in a mason jar somewhere in the foothills of the rocky mountains devised this plan! Its too brilliant to have been Al Gore's doing...

FDR was DOA from a cerebral hemorrhage. That would require alien technology to get that brain whole again.

FDR was DOA from a cerebral hemorrhage. That would require alien technology to get that brain whole again.

Area 51. :)

Who cares? Your country is fucked, and you deserve it.

All the sensible Conservatives are Libertarians. *nod*
Too easy.

Area 51. :)

Area 51 is a decoy, Area 52 is the one that has all the alien stuff. *nod*

While it is easy to imagine them being that divorced from reality, and possible to imagine peope that mentally disconnected somehow not being institutionalized, it is still hard to believe than anyone who has been in politics as long as McCain and his handlers could flub a campaign THIS badly by accident.

And there are still tens of millions of people who will happily vote for McCain.

All the sensible Conservatives are Libertarians. *nod*

Libertarians are not sensible either.

FDR was DOA from a cerebral hemorrhage. That would require alien technology to get that brain whole again.

That was just a cover story so that they could perform the operation in secret. They havn't finished his 40 foot tall robotic body yet because the technology is still a bit iffy.

Who cares? Your country is fucked, and you deserve it.

Thank you for your contribution. I know from your posting history that it is harder for you to post anything in depth. So I appreciate the effort.

That was just a cover story so that they could perform the operation in secret. They havn't finished his 40 foot tall robotic body yet because the technology is still a bit iffy.

The same robotic body that was commandeered by Nixon?

The same robotic body that was commandeered by Nixon?

Nixon's robotic body was better because his business connection built it. FDR *sniffled laughter* relies on government funding.....

Thank you for your contribution. I know from your posting history that it is harder for you to post anything in depth. So I appreciate the effort.

Any country where the media can say "Well, now that the bailout bill has passed, we can FORGET ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND GET BACK TO THE ELECTION!" is fucked, and deservedly so.

Any country where the media can say "Well, now that the bailout bill has passed, we can FORGET ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND GET BACK TO THE ELECTION!" is fucked, and deservedly so.

Yea because it's not like the next President will have to know how to handle the economic crisis....oh wait....

I don't get it. Obama wasn't 8 when he accepted the campaign contribution.

Who cares? Your country is fucked, and you deserve it.
Bite me, alien boy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiG_oFVQCeE

Yea because it's not like the next President will have to know how to handle the economic crisis....oh wait....

Why, because the current one does?

Why, because the current one does?

Oh, clearly. ;)
I say this roughly every 90 days, but damn Canada looks good from here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiG_oFVQCeE

Kat, I love you...

I haven't heard much from the direction of Ann Coulter lately. I guess Palin is the new right wing fundie demon-woman. At least until after the election.

I met Lec Walesa when I was 11. Does that make me a Polish revolutionary?

I haven't heard much from the direction of Ann Coulter lately. I guess Palin is the new right wing fundie demon-woman. At least until after the election.

Nah, I heard Ann (Anne?) raving about what a "nutjob" Biden was after the VP debate.

I don't think it's fair to put Palin's demonicitude (it's a word) on the same level as Coulter's. They're both right-wing and they're both girls, but Coulter's an entirely crazier breed of animal.

Good to have you on our side, Shal.

I met Lec Walesa when I was 11. Does that make me a Polish revolutionary?

I dunno, have you hung out with him and borrowed cash from him in the last few months?

Also, the accusation was not that Obama is targeting America the way the Weathermen did, it's that he's "palling around" with a terrorist... albeit a former one.
So that's kind of a misleading post you made right there.

I met Lec Walesa when I was 11. Does that make me a Polish revolutionary?

Damn, I hope not, because I got photographed with John Ashcroft when I was 13. :eek2:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081005/pl_bloomberg/a1f8yut_qo0

Even the most impartial of observers should probably be disturbed by the outright sinister turn taken by the McCain campaign. Sarah Palin's suggestion that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" is a platter of outrage served with a side of stupefaction. The move, of course, is consistent with an ideological movement that is intellectually and morally bankrupt. John McCain can hardly point to glowing successes in Republican policy for the past eight years, and he does not differ with his conservative base overmuch on the core issues.

Instead of trying to spin off his own ideas about the direction in which he would take the country, he has now launched his campaign on a crusade to tear down Barack Obama. This might almost make some type of sense if McCain were not attempting to pin the sins of a homegrown terrorist (Ayers) onto the-then eight year old Obama. In launching such a reprehensible and glaring attack on personality, Palin and McCain have demonstrated that they are willing to say virtually anything in order to win...even something as blatantly false as the accusation that Obama is somehow rooting for or even affiliated with terrorists. Have you at last, Mr. McCain, no shame? I do not pretend to know your motivations, but your actions certainly seem to be at odds with your lofty stated goals. I find myself questioning what type of President you will be should you win, because if you are perfectly willing to allow such lies to be told, then how will we, the public, be able to trust in anything you would say as President?

This is not your finest hour, Mr. McCain. I could have voted for you in 2000, when you behaved far differently than you are behaving now. There was a time a decade ago when I was just as open to Republican messages as any other. But the Republican Party has changed over the past two decades or so, and it has become increasingly apparent that the change was not a good one. It pleases me, then, as a former Clinton supporter to vote against you. I hope that many other Independents and Democrats will follow suit and not reward you for your quite frankly disturbing political behavior.

It's about time the McCain campaign started calling Obama's ties to Ayers to the public attention. They should have been throwing this out there from the beginning, but better late than never. This highlights the main difference between John McCain and Barack Obama: McCain wants to kill terrorists, Obama wants to brunch with them.

It's about time the McCain campaign started calling Obama's ties to Ayers to the public attention. They should have been throwing this out there from the beginning, but better late than never. This highlights the main difference between John McCain and Barack Obama: McCain wants to kill terrorists, Obama wants to brunch with them.

And Nicea Sancta is a pathological liar. *nods*

I dunno, have you hung out with him and borrowed cash from him in the last few months?

Also, the accusation was not that Obama is targeting America the way the Weathermen did, it's that he's "palling around" with a terrorist... albeit a former one.
So that's kind of a misleading post you made right there.
No more misleading than the original smear. If you look at the actual "connections" between Ayers and Obama, they hardly exist, let alone amounting to "palling around." I'm surprised McCain/Palin didn't try to work Kevin Bacon into the mix so they could scream about the liberal Hollywood elite being in on it.

It's about time the McCain campaign started calling Obama's ties to Ayers to the public attention. They should have been throwing this out there from the beginning, but better late than never. This highlights the main difference between John McCain and Barack Obama: McCain wants to kill terrorists, Obama wants to brunch with them.

Oh gods. Where do I start?

You're actually calling mudslinging "bringing to public attention". Not to mention that it was brought to public attention quite a bit. And people didn't care. You know why? Because you're flat out lying, that's why.

You're actually trying to tie Ayers in the 60s to Obama now. And it's actually not working, as PALIN is facing backlash for her remarks.

Comprehended, clarified, explained, perceived, realized, grasped, known, UNDERSTOOD?

It's about time the McCain campaign started calling Obama's ties to Ayers to the public attention. They should have been throwing this out there from the beginning, but better late than never. This highlights the main difference between John McCain and Barack Obama: McCain wants to kill terrorists, Obama wants to brunch with them.

Yep and McCain palled around with Manuel Noriega. They're both from Panama after all. I'll bet you there is eve na picture out there of them shaking hands. McCain is a drug dealer.

Nah, I heard Ann (Anne?) raving about what a "nutjob" Biden was after the VP debate.

I don't think it's fair to put Palin's demonicitude (it's a word) on the same level as Coulter's. They're both right-wing and they're both girls, but Coulter's an entirely crazier breed of animal.

It's Ann.

She's quite sane, but her loathing of the left is absolute and non-negotiable.

As I've said for most of my life, it's called the right wing for a reason.

On a different note, what exactly is it that makes neoconservatives so insane in your view? Other than foreign policy differences with a Lindsey Graham-type conservative (proactive rather than reactive), the differences are only ones of motivation and vitriol. Basically, neocons are simply the ones most willing to put themselves on the front lines.

You apparently suffer from DeMintia (the name is my thoroughly modern creation, but the condition is as old as The New Republic) I'm lobbying for the inclusion of this, along with Charles Krauthammer's BDS, in the list of recognized psychological disorders.

Any country where the media can say "Well, now that the bailout bill has passed, we can FORGET ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND GET BACK TO THE ELECTION!" is fucked, and deservedly so.

Yep, now your going to have to show me where the media said that.

It's about time the McCain campaign started calling Obama's ties to Ayers to the public attention. They should have been throwing this out there from the beginning, but better late than never. This highlights the main difference between John McCain and Barack Obama: McCain wants to kill terrorists, Obama wants to brunch with them.

Yeah, Im sure the 8 year old Obama was part of their plot.

She's quite sane, but her loathing of the left is absolute and non-negotiable.


She believes that women should be barred from voting but that said ban should not extend to her. I'd label that insane.

What's so surprising about Palin mentioning these connections? Even CBS used to talk about the strange company Obama keeps...

April 3, 2008
Why is Barack Obama so comfortable around people who so despise America and its allies? Maybe it’s because they’re so comfortable around him.

Ayers and Obama had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982). There can be no gainsaying, though, that he was an influential apologist for Yasser Arafat, the terror master who spawned two Intifadas and ordered the murder of American diplomats.

In the mean, besotted United States, of course, being a terrorist, a terror apologist, or simply raging at the machine qualifies one for a cushy academic soapbox. Thus did Khalidi eventually land on his feet at the University of Chicago, where he ran in the same circles as Associate Dean Michelle Obama, Law Professor Barack Obama, University of Illinois-Chicago Education Professor Bill Ayers, and Northwestern Law Professor Bernadine Dohrn (who prepared for a career in instructing future officers of the court with a stint in federal prison for flouting a judge’s order that she testify in a grand jury investigation into the Weathermen’s infamous Brinks robbery-murders).

For Khalidi, though, greener pastures called: the opportunity to become a professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. There, he now directs Edward Said’s legacy: Columbia’s notoriously Israel-bashing Middle East Institute -- though, much to the University’s chagrin, he was scratched in 2005 from a program designed educate teachers on instructing their young students about the Middle East. New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein concluded Khalidi’s splenetic meanderings mightn’t be the best model.

They didn’t faze Barack Obama, though. He was front and center with Ayers and Dohrn at a farewell bash when Khalidi left Chicago for New York. It was only right. Khalidi, after all, had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 2000, when the latter launched an unsuccessful campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. And so it goes. A few weeks ago, Khalidi told worldnetdaily.com he supports Obama’s presidential run “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause,” and because Obama has promised negotiations with Iran.

Ayres, too, provided a minor ($200) contribution to Obama, in 2001. That was the year of September 11, just a few days before the Times published its excerpt of Ayres’s remembrances of bombings past. Read the short interview and ask yourself: Could anyone, let alone someone as sophisticated as Barack Obama, chat with Bill Ayers for about 30 seconds and not know exactly where is coming from?

Could they really have been friends? Well, Ayers is virtually channeling Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright when he wails that American “society is not a just and fair and decent place.”

“God, what a great country,” he scoffed to the Times. “It makes me want to puke.”

Hey, right back at you there, Professor. At least that’s how most of us are likely to feel. But not Sen. Obama. And that’s why Ayers -- like Khalidi and Wright and Michelle Obama, and others who know the senator well while we’ve been told precious little -- sees in Barack Obama the change he’s been waiting for.

No thanks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/opinion/main4009369.shtml

How now is it so bad of Palin to mention this sort of thing a mere six months later than CBS did?

It's about time the McCain campaign started calling Obama's ties to Ayers to the public attention. They should have been throwing this out there from the beginning, but better late than never. This highlights the main difference between John McCain and Barack Obama: McCain wants to kill terrorists, Obama wants to brunch with them.

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

Remember these guys?

Apperantly McCain pals around with crooks.

She believes that women should be barred from voting but that said ban should not extend to her. I'd label that insane.

She really said that? Wow!

Yep, now your going to have to show me where the media said that.

It was on TV here after the bill passed.

She believes that women should be barred from voting but that said ban should not extend to her. I'd label that insane.

Source?

I've definitely heard her say there isn't a woman around cut out for the presidency, but this sounds like people quoting Rush Limbaugh as defending slavery... fake as Pam's tits. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find more bullshit at a fertilizer dealer.

Oh gods. Where do I start?

You're actually calling mudslinging "bringing to public attention". Not to mention that it was brought to public attention quite a bit. And people didn't care. You know why? Because you're flat out lying, that's why.

You're actually trying to tie Ayers in the 60s to Obama now. And it's actually not working, as PALIN is facing backlash for her remarks.

Comprehended, clarified, explained, perceived, realized, grasped, known, UNDERSTOOD?

No, Ayers is tied to Obama, even his campaign admits it. Ayers himself is a terrorist. The fact that he committed terrorism forty years ago is irrelevant; the man is a terrorist, and an unrepentant one. Barack Obama is, in fact, palling around with a terrorist.
I don't care whether there is a backlash or not. The truth often disturbs people, most especially those of a political persuasion inclined to vote for a friend of terrorists.

What's so surprising about Palin mentioning these connections? Even CBS used to talk about the strange company Obama keeps...

April 3, 2008
Why is Barack Obama so comfortable around people who so despise America and its allies? Maybe it’s because they’re so comfortable around him.

Ayers and Obama had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982). There can be no gainsaying, though, that he was an influential apologist for Yasser Arafat, the terror master who spawned two Intifadas and ordered the murder of American diplomats.

In the mean, besotted United States, of course, being a terrorist, a terror apologist, or simply raging at the machine qualifies one for a cushy academic soapbox. Thus did Khalidi eventually land on his feet at the University of Chicago, where he ran in the same circles as Associate Dean Michelle Obama, Law Professor Barack Obama, University of Illinois-Chicago Education Professor Bill Ayers, and Northwestern Law Professor Bernadine Dohrn (who prepared for a career in instructing future officers of the court with a stint in federal prison for flouting a judge’s order that she testify in a grand jury investigation into the Weathermen’s infamous Brinks robbery-murders).

For Khalidi, though, greener pastures called: the opportunity to become a professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. There, he now directs Edward Said’s legacy: Columbia’s notoriously Israel-bashing Middle East Institute -- though, much to the University’s chagrin, he was scratched in 2005 from a program designed educate teachers on instructing their young students about the Middle East. New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein concluded Khalidi’s splenetic meanderings mightn’t be the best model.

They didn’t faze Barack Obama, though. He was front and center with Ayers and Dohrn at a farewell bash when Khalidi left Chicago for New York. It was only right. Khalidi, after all, had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 2000, when the latter launched an unsuccessful campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. And so it goes. A few weeks ago, Khalidi told worldnetdaily.com he supports Obama’s presidential run “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause,” and because Obama has promised negotiations with Iran.

Ayres, too, provided a minor ($200) contribution to Obama, in 2001. That was the year of September 11, just a few days before the Times published its excerpt of Ayres’s remembrances of bombings past. Read the short interview and ask yourself: Could anyone, let alone someone as sophisticated as Barack Obama, chat with Bill Ayers for about 30 seconds and not know exactly where is coming from?

Could they really have been friends? Well, Ayers is virtually channeling Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright when he wails that American “society is not a just and fair and decent place.”

“God, what a great country,” he scoffed to the Times. “It makes me want to puke.”

Hey, right back at you there, Professor. At least that’s how most of us are likely to feel. But not Sen. Obama. And that’s why Ayers -- like Khalidi and Wright and Michelle Obama, and others who know the senator well while we’ve been told precious little -- sees in Barack Obama the change he’s been waiting for.

No thanks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/opinion/main4009369.shtml

How now is it so bad of Palin to mention this sort of thing a mere six months later than CBS did?

It's an opinion piece. Andrew McCarthy wrote it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

What's so surprising about Palin mentioning these connections? Even CBS used to talk about the strange company Obama keeps...


Exactly.

I heard those lines live, incidently, from about 150 yards away. No one seemed shocked then, because it made sense in context. Obama "palling around" with 60's radicals might not be the most compelling argument against his candidacy, especially if his associations with those people were loose, but the whole "she called him a terrorist" slant is a misrepresentation. At least, I don't think anyone took it that way, unless they had been living in a cave this last year.

Source?

I've definitely heard her say there isn't a woman around cut out for the presidency, but this sounds like people quoting Rush Limbaugh as defending slavery... fake as Pam's tits. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find more bullshit at a fertilizer dealer.

Yep, youre wrong.

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
-February 26, 2001


"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. "
-May 17, 2003


Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Women

What's so surprising about Palin mentioning these connections? Even CBS used to talk about the strange company Obama keeps...

April 3, 2008
Why is Barack Obama so comfortable around people who so despise America and its allies? Maybe it’s because they’re so comfortable around him.

Ayers and Obama had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982). There can be no gainsaying, though, that he was an influential apologist for Yasser Arafat, the terror master who spawned two Intifadas and ordered the murder of American diplomats.

In the mean, besotted United States, of course, being a terrorist, a terror apologist, or simply raging at the machine qualifies one for a cushy academic soapbox. Thus did Khalidi eventually land on his feet at the University of Chicago, where he ran in the same circles as Associate Dean Michelle Obama, Law Professor Barack Obama, University of Illinois-Chicago Education Professor Bill Ayers, and Northwestern Law Professor Bernadine Dohrn (who prepared for a career in instructing future officers of the court with a stint in federal prison for flouting a judge’s order that she testify in a grand jury investigation into the Weathermen’s infamous Brinks robbery-murders).

For Khalidi, though, greener pastures called: the opportunity to become a professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. There, he now directs Edward Said’s legacy: Columbia’s notoriously Israel-bashing Middle East Institute -- though, much to the University’s chagrin, he was scratched in 2005 from a program designed educate teachers on instructing their young students about the Middle East. New York City schools chancellor Joel Klein concluded Khalidi’s splenetic meanderings mightn’t be the best model.

They didn’t faze Barack Obama, though. He was front and center with Ayers and Dohrn at a farewell bash when Khalidi left Chicago for New York. It was only right. Khalidi, after all, had hosted a fundraiser for Obama in 2000, when the latter launched an unsuccessful campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. And so it goes. A few weeks ago, Khalidi told worldnetdaily.com he supports Obama’s presidential run “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause,” and because Obama has promised negotiations with Iran.

Ayres, too, provided a minor ($200) contribution to Obama, in 2001. That was the year of September 11, just a few days before the Times published its excerpt of Ayres’s remembrances of bombings past. Read the short interview and ask yourself: Could anyone, let alone someone as sophisticated as Barack Obama, chat with Bill Ayers for about 30 seconds and not know exactly where is coming from?

Could they really have been friends? Well, Ayers is virtually channeling Michelle Obama and Jeremiah Wright when he wails that American “society is not a just and fair and decent place.”

“God, what a great country,” he scoffed to the Times. “It makes me want to puke.”

Hey, right back at you there, Professor. At least that’s how most of us are likely to feel. But not Sen. Obama. And that’s why Ayers -- like Khalidi and Wright and Michelle Obama, and others who know the senator well while we’ve been told precious little -- sees in Barack Obama the change he’s been waiting for.

No thanks.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/11/opinion/main4009369.shtml

How now is it so bad of Palin to mention this sort of thing a mere six months later than CBS did?



No, Ayers is tied to Obama, even his campaign admits it. Ayers himself is a terrorist. The fact that he committed terrorism forty years ago is irrelevant; the man is a terrorist, and an unrepentant one. Barack Obama is, in fact, palling around with a terrorist.
I don't care whether there is a backlash or not. The truth often disturbs people, most especially those of a political persuasion inclined to vote for a friend of terrorists.

And McCain is friends with crooks and the corrupt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

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

Remember these guys?

Apperantly McCain pals around with crooks.

Except that he was... formally investigated. And... cleared of wrongdoing. By a Democrat-controlled Congress, no less.

McCain wasn't at fault, and the facts bore that out.

Except that he was... formally investigated. And... cleared of wrongdoing. By a Democrat-controlled Congress, no less.

McCain wasn't at fault, and the facts bore that out.

And Ayres wasnt convicted.


So, we're both back at square one.

And Ayres wasnt convicted.


So, we're both back at square one.

Ooh! Check and mate!

t would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.
From here. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/may/17/pressandpublishing.usnews)

and...
I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.
February 26, 2001, on Politically Incorrect

and...
If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'
From here (http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture).

Yep, youre wrong.

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
-February 26, 2001


"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted. "
-May 17, 2003


Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter#Women

Nice try. The word 'ban' is as conspicuously absent from the quotes you've presented as Michelle Obama at the 9/11 appearance.

I see the suggestion that women not vote, but no call that they be barred from doing so.

Lay off the Kool-Aid.

Republican Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico said on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' that Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, ``has been critical not only of the president but of American policy and hence has kind of a negative view of America in the world.''

HAHAHAHAHA well, no shit. I think the rest of the world can agree with that because you know, it's kind of sane.

Good job republicans, way to worsen your party with defamation of an 8 year old (technically; you know what I mean:p).

Nice try. The word 'ban' is as conspicuously absent from the quotes you've presented as Michelle Obama at the 9/11 appearance.

I see the suggestion that women not vote, but no call that they be barred from doing so.

Lay off the Kool-Aid.

Wow. Are you fucking kidding me. In the first one she flat out said that women shouldnt vote.

Ok, its official. Your blind. I know now how seriously to take your future posts. Thank you.


EDI: Here you go

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

So, now are you going to tell me that her saying its a fantasy that we take away womens right to votes is something else?

http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture

Nice try. The word 'ban' is as conspicuously absent from the quotes you've presented as Michelle Obama at the 9/11 appearance.

I see the suggestion that women not vote, but no call that they be barred from doing so.

Lay off the Kool-Aid.

Be careful, didn't you hear that ignorant caller on Hannity who claimed the term "drinking the Kool-Aid" was racist?

Be careful, didn't you hear that ignorant caller on Hannity who claimed the term "drinking the Kool-Aid" was racist?

Ignorant caller? Who else would watch that scumbag? :p

Be careful, didn't you hear that ignorant caller on Hannity who claimed the term "drinking the Kool-Aid" was racist?

Well, one has to be ignorant to watch Hannity.

Wow. Are you fucking kidding me. In the first one she flat out said that women shouldnt vote.

Ok, its official. Your blind. I know now how seriously to take your future posts. Thank you.

Nothing like parsing words. You've managed to demonstrate, that while she thinks women shouldn't be heard when selecting the President. Yeah, as long as she doesn't advocate an outright ban, then it's totally sane.

Ignorant caller? Who else would watch that scumbag? :p

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

Wow. Are you fucking kidding me. In the first one she flat out said that women shouldnt vote.

Ok, its official. Your blind. I know now how seriously to take your future posts. Thank you.


EDI: Here you go

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

So, now are you going to tell me that her saying its a fantasy that we take away womens right to votes is something else?

http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture


Yeah, now that would be check and mate.

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

I like you. You're silly. :)

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.


Let me turn on my neocon loon translator....there we go.

*translates*

Ok, the naive and the blind. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

Okay, now I know you're full of crap. Seriously.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I really did.

But, seriously, even you aren't going to pretend that all conservatives think Bush kept us safer.

Let me turn on my neocon loon translator....there we go.

*translates*

Ok, the naive and the blind. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

KoL, my dear lieutenant, I see you've already taken care of poor NS here. Will you clean up this mess? Nicea Sancta is beneath me. Well, beneath you, too, but you seem to have more of a disposition to deal with him.

Wow. Are you fucking kidding me. In the first one she flat out said that women shouldnt vote.

Ok, its official. Your blind. I know now how seriously to take your future posts. Thank you.


EDI: Here you go

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

So, now are you going to tell me that her saying its a fantasy that we take away womens right to votes is something else?

http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture

Except that the Politically Incorrect quote doesn't have the word 'ban'. In fact one of your compatriots slanderously added that [in brackets] in a later post. It simply isn't actually there.

Stephen Colbert noted that in Michelle Obama's DNC speech, it gets VERY offensive if you replace every instance of the word 'hope' with 'sodomy.'

The problem is that 'sodomy' isn't found anywhere in the speech. Get the point?

Okay, now I know you're full of crap. Seriously.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I really did.

But, seriously, even you aren't going to pretend that all conservatives think Bush kept us safer.

Nor did I so claim. Any conservatives who disagree that Bush has kept us safer would be incorrect, but I do not claim that there are none out there.

But, seriously, even you aren't going to pretend that all conservatives think Bush kept us safer.

The ones that love merika would.

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

Ugh. Even among conservative talk radio hosts, Hannity is at the bottom of the intellectual barrel. I'm sure he has enough clout to attract good guests, but Hannity himself is unbearable to me. You're really doing yourself a disservice if Hannity is your source for conservative political analysis.

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

Translating each of those terms into rational speech, I'm getting "insane nationalists, who never read the news, who are afraid of black people, who think that gay marriage is the biggest threat society has ever faced, who care deeply who the President sticks his dick in but not how many thousands of innocent civilians he helps kill, and who think it's okay to torture people for being brown and having somebody suggest maybe they might have known somebody who might have known somebody who was a terrorist." Yeah, that sounds about right.

Except that the Politically Incorrect quote doesn't have the word 'ban'. In fact one of your compatriots slanderously added that [in brackets] in a later post. It simply isn't actually there.

Stephen Colbert noted that in Michelle Obama's DNC speech, it gets VERY offensive if you replace every instance of the word 'hope' with 'sodomy.'

The problem is that 'sodomy' isn't found anywhere in the speech. Get the point?

So, your pretending that her saying its a fantasy that women cant vote is not the same as saying she would like to ban women from voting.

Ok, we're done here, youre not worth my time. I know I wont convince you, but Im sure Ive now shown every thinking third party youre full of shit.

Translating each of those terms into rational speech, I'm getting "insane nationalists, who never read the news, who are afraid of black people, who think that gay marriage is the biggest threat society has ever faced, who care deeply who the President sticks his dick in but not how many thousands of innocent civilians he helps kill, and who think it's okay to torture people for being brown and having somebody suggest maybe they might have known somebody who might have known somebody who was a terrorist." Yeah, that sounds about right.

exactly. You know, real Americans.

Ugh. Even among conservative talk radio hosts, Hannity is at the bottom of the intellectual barrel. I'm sure he has enough clout to attract good guests, but Hannity himself is unbearable to me. You're really doing yourself a disservice if Hannity is your source for conservative political analysis.

It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent.

Hehe. What a coincidence... suddenly Hannity is doing a show all about Wright. It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the new direction of the McCain campaign.

Yup, he's just reporting the truth. Yup. *nods*

Nor did I so claim. Any conservatives who disagree that Bush has kept us safer would be incorrect, but I do not claim that there are none out there.

Oh boy. So, I wanted KoL to finish you off, but even I can't take such idiocy.

See, I, too, can claim that anyone that wouldn't vote for Obama is incorrect and unpatriotic and immoral (as you seem to imply). In fact, I'll do so, just to drive home a point.

Anyone that disagrees with me about politics is incorrect, unpatriotic and immoral.

See what I did there? My claim has as much value as yours. Probably more, because I am me and you are you.

So, your pretending that her saying its a fantasy that women cant vote is not the same as saying she would like to ban women from voting.

Ok, we're done here, youre not worth my time. I know I wont convince you, but Im sure Ive now shown every thinking third party youre full of shit.

obviously you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word "fantasy", meaning something that nobody ever considers engaging in, or wishes to make a reality.

Nor did I so claim. Any conservatives who disagree that Bush has kept us safer would be incorrect, but I do not claim that there are none out there.

Safer than whom? Iraqis? I'll admit that he kept us safer than the Iraqis. He didn't have us bombed. That's safer I guess. So I suppose "safer that what?" or "safer than whom?" is really necessary to determine the answer to that. Also "Safer from what?" A lot of conservatives feel we are a lot less safe from the government than we were seven years ago. *nod*

It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent.

Its not a fallacy when its the truth.

Translating each of those terms into rational speech, I'm getting "insane nationalists, who never read the news, who are afraid of black people, who think that gay marriage is the biggest threat society has ever faced, who care deeply who the President sticks his dick in but not how many thousands of innocent civilians he helps kill, and who think it's okay to torture people for being brown and having somebody suggest maybe they might have known somebody who might have known somebody who was a terrorist." Yeah, that sounds about right.

Correction, It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent or immoral.

They have really crossed the line, they have decided that screw giving a damn about what people want, we're just going to have an insult fest.

What few redeming values they had are gone now.

Palin should be arrested for trying to incite terror.

obviously you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word "fantasy", meaning something that nobody ever considers engaging in, or wishes to make a reality.

I better stop having fantasies about boning Hayden Panettiere then.

Oh boy. So, I wanted KoL to finish you off, but even I can't take such idiocy.

See, I, too, can claim that anyone that wouldn't vote for Obama is incorrect and unpatriotic and immoral (as you seem to imply). In fact, I'll do so, just to drive home a point.

Anyone that disagrees with me about politics is incorrect, unpatriotic and immoral.

See what I did there? My claim has as much value as yours. Probably more, because I am me and you are you.

I neither claimed nor implied such.

Correction, It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent or immoral.

well, when you advocate positions that no intelligent, moral person would make...it kinda has to be one or the other.

At least we respect you enough to not automatically assume it's both.

Correction, It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent or immoral.

Again, its not a fallacy when its the truth. In fact, see my sig.

It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent.

Says the person who implies anyone that disagrees with him on who should be elected President would "vote for a terrorist", is "immoral", "unpratriotic", and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, AND THE FUCK ON!

Let me turn on my neocon loon translator....there we go.

*translates*

Ok, the naive and the blind. Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

So someone who believes in the most morally governed country in the history is naive and blind? Go back to college. Preferably a private college, so the productive among us don't have to subsidize you. The Ivy League will welcome you with open arms.

At least we respect you enough to not automatically assume it's both.

With "automatically" being the key word here.

With "automatically" being the key word here.

well, I'm fully capable of admitting when I have been overly generous.

Says the person who implies anyone that disagrees with him on who should be elected President would "vote for a terrorist", is "immoral", "unpratriotic", and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, AND THE FUCK ON!

Well, it is a classic fallacy of the right to assume that anyone who disagrees with them must be from the left. ;)

Nor did I so claim. Any conservatives who disagree that Bush has kept us safer would be incorrect, but I do not claim that there are none out there.

Yup. I know, after 911, I really prayed and prayed that we would ignore the people who attacked us and attacked someone who we already had under control.

Allowing Al Queda to rebuild while we focused on someone else completely unrelated to the attacks and to any group that has ever attacked us certainly make sense. Provided your eyes bleed whenever you try to think.

Says the person who implies anyone that disagrees with him on who should be elected President would "vote for a terrorist", is "immoral", "unpratriotic", and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, AND THE FUCK ON!

I claimed none of the above, nor implied such.

So someone who believes in the most morally governed country in the history is naive and blind? Go back to college. Preferably a private college, so the productive among us don't have to subsidize you. The Ivy League will welcome you with open arms.

Is there the undertones of the right's anti-intellectual arguement here?

I never understood the implications that those with the best educations are those who are someone the least intellegent...

You make me laugh.
EDIT: Believing the US is the bolded DOES make you naive and blind.

So someone who believes in the most morally governed country in the history is naive and blind? Go back to college. Preferably a private college, so the productive among us don't have to subsidize you. The Ivy League will welcome you with open arms.

Hey now, just because you're bitter that some of us managed to actually get into the Ivy Leagues and some of us did not, is no reason for you to go all emo.

It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent.

Um, no. I know intelligent conservatives. One of my exes, a self-described "arch-conservative," is a Rhodes scholar and one of the brightest people I've ever met. Sean Hannity, however, is a blithering idiot. If he became a Democrat tomorrow, he'd still be a blithering idiot.

So someone who believes in the most morally governed country in the history is naive and blind? Go back to college. Preferably a private college, so the productive among us don't have to subsidize you. The Ivy League will welcome you with open arms.

define morally governed? Who morals are we talking about here exactly and how is GWB moral??????

Except that the Politically Incorrect quote doesn't have the word 'ban'. In fact one of your compatriots slanderously added that [in brackets] in a later post. It simply isn't actually there.

I didn't add the brackets, but thanks for playing.

Hey now, just because you're bitter that some of us managed to actually get into the Ivy Leagues and some of us did not, is no reason for you to go all emo.

I really for the life of me cant understand how being an uneducated hick is somehow a virtue in America all of a sudden.


*- Not going to college DOES NOT automatically make someone an uneducated hick, but those of you with sense will get what Im getting at.

Um, no. I know intelligent conservatives. One of my exes, a self-described "arch-conservative," is a Rhodes scholar and one of the brightest people I've ever met. Sean Hannity, however, is a blithering idiot. If he became a Democrat tomorrow, he'd still be a blithering idiot.

that :D

define morally governed? Who morals are we talking about here exactly and how is GWB moral??????

Morally governed in the sense that dirty faggots must stay in the closet where they belong of course. Morally governed in the sense of woman being barefoot and pregnant.

It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent.

I wasn't saying that as a leftist. There are plenty of superior alternatives.

Ooh! Check and mate!

Oh nonsense, Ayers and wife have never denied their guilt, we don't need a conviction to know they've done what they've done because they freely admit it.

As to not liking the Opinion piece, it's been pointed out to me in this forum by others like TCT, that Opinion pieces are fine provided they provide verifiable dates and figures to quantify their statements. Thus, since you didn't like the CBS one, how about another hosted by TIME on Real Clear Politics way back on April 20, 2008.

When the issue came up in Wednesday's Democratic debate, the Illinois senator tried to duck it. "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from," he said. He added that to suggest "knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

Obama went on, "I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements?"

This exercise in moral equivalence is unconvincing, if not dishonest. Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol. (Though the last person who should object is Hillary Clinton, whose husband pardoned two Weather Underground members.)

Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.

It's not as though Ayers and Dohrn have denied or repudiated their crimes. After emerging from years in hiding, they escaped federal prosecution because of government misconduct in gathering evidence, but they don't pretend they were innocent. In 2001, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Dohrn has likewise rationalized the explosions, claiming that "our acts of resistance were tiny and symbolic." She even went to prison for refusing to testify about an armored car robbery involving her confederates. That crime was not tiny or symbolic to the two police officers or the security guard who were shot to death in the process.

All this is public record, and Barack Obama would have to be in a coma not to know it. Yet he showed no qualms about consorting with Ayers and Dohrn.

It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_terrorist_connection.html

It seems that Obama does pal around with terrorists...

I claimed none of the above, nor implied such.

Really?

People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice.

Nope. You never implied people who disagree with you don't beleive in morality, truth and justice. Yeah. You definitely didn't. I made that quote up.

Morally governed in the sense that dirty faggots must stay in the closet where they belong of course. Morally governed in the sense of woman being barefoot and pregnant.

fuck that. not my morals lmao :D

Translating each of those terms into rational speech, I'm getting "insane nationalists, who never read the news, who are afraid of black people, who think that gay marriage is the biggest threat society has ever faced, who care deeply who the President sticks his dick in but not how many thousands of innocent civilians he helps kill, and who think it's okay to torture people for being brown and having somebody suggest maybe they might have known somebody who might have known somebody who was a terrorist." Yeah, that sounds about right.

I'm now going to play an ideological game of 'hide the wingtip' with you.

How many civilians he helps kill? Bill Clinton happens to have actively given up multiple opportunities to capture bin Laden before 9/11. Actively. As in, say, the Qatari government had him on the tarmac, and Clinton deliberately passed it up. We could already have dealt with him quite justly for the Embassy bombings, and Clinton deliberately let it go.

Torture for being brown? Forgive me for thinking people picked up off the battle field after shooting at you doesn't constitute proof of guilt.

Besides, the red presidential candidate has endured far worse than anyone in Gitmo. Nobody has come out of Gitmo with nerve damage that prevents them from raising their arms above horizontal, or with four broken limbs, or bayonet wounds to the lungs. Gitmo detainees get better treatment than American prison inmates.

When the opportunity arises, I'd implore you to take the red pill.

Really?



Nope. You never implied people who disagree with you don't beleive in morality, truth and justice. Yeah. You definitely didn't. I made that quote up.

No, I didn't. I stated that people who listen to Hannity do think as I do, that they believe in morality, truth and justice. There was no further implication.

Oh nonsense, Ayers and wife have never denied their guilt, we don't need a conviction to know they've done what they've done because they freely admit it.

As to not liking the Opinion piece, it's been pointed out to me in this forum by others like TCT, that Opinion pieces are fine provided they provide verifiable dates and figures to quantify their statements. Thus, since you didn't like the CBS one, how about another hosted by TIME on Real Clear Politics way back on April 20, 2008.

When the issue came up in Wednesday's Democratic debate, the Illinois senator tried to duck it. "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from," he said. He added that to suggest "knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."

Obama went on, "I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions. Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements?"

This exercise in moral equivalence is unconvincing, if not dishonest. Would Obama be friendly with someone who actually bombed abortion clinics and defends that conduct? Not likely. But he is friendly with William Ayers, a leader of the radical Weather Underground, which in the 1970s carried out numerous bombings, including one inside the U.S. Capitol. (Though the last person who should object is Hillary Clinton, whose husband pardoned two Weather Underground members.)

Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.

It's not as though Ayers and Dohrn have denied or repudiated their crimes. After emerging from years in hiding, they escaped federal prosecution because of government misconduct in gathering evidence, but they don't pretend they were innocent. In 2001, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Dohrn has likewise rationalized the explosions, claiming that "our acts of resistance were tiny and symbolic." She even went to prison for refusing to testify about an armored car robbery involving her confederates. That crime was not tiny or symbolic to the two police officers or the security guard who were shot to death in the process.

All this is public record, and Barack Obama would have to be in a coma not to know it. Yet he showed no qualms about consorting with Ayers and Dohrn.

It's hard to imagine he would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

You can tell a lot about someone from his choice of friends. What this friendship reveals is that when it comes to practicing sound moral hygiene, Obama has work to do and no interest in doing it.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_terrorist_connection.html

It seems that Obama does pal around with terrorists...

I'd consort with Ayers. If he invited me to take part in positive acts in my community. Yup.

I'd also consort with McCain, despite the fact that he sang a song about killing people because he thought it was cute.

See, I'm about getting things done. I'm crazy like that.

It is a classic fallacy of the left to assume that any who disagree with them must be unintelligent.

I don't know whether you're intelligent or as dumb as a post. But you are a liar, no two ways about that. Especially about those claims of yours in another thread about how America has never been attacked after 9/11 thanks to Bush, completely ignoring little details like the 2001 Anthrax attacks which claimed lives, as well as the Beltway sniper attacks.

SNIP
More like Former terrorists at the least. Retired Terrorists? Is that even considered a business?

No, I didn't. I stated that people who listen to Hannity do think as I do, that they believe in morality, truth and justice. There was no further implication.

Uh-huh. Surely.

I know you think this is cute, but seriously, how about a decent effort. This is just transparent. At least allow us to suspend disbelief.

Oh nonsense, Ayers and wife have never denied their guilt, we don't need a conviction to know they've done what they've done because they freely admit it.

Yes we do. Or why do criminals who confess still get their day in court?

I really for the life of me cant understand how being an uneducated hick is somehow a virtue in America all of a sudden.


*- Not going to college DOES NOT automatically make someone an uneducated hick, but those of you with sense will get what Im getting at.

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service and other people who've never held a real job.

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

I'm now going to play an ideological game of 'hide the wingtip' with you.

How many civilians he helps kill? Bill Clinton happens to have actively given up multiple opportunities to capture bin Laden before 9/11. Actively. As in, say, the Qatari government had him on the tarmac, and Clinton deliberately passed it up. We could already have dealt with him quite justly for the Embassy bombings, and Clinton deliberately let it go.

Torture for being brown? Forgive me for thinking people picked up off the battle field after shooting at you doesn't constitute proof of guilt.

Besides, the red presidential candidate has endured far worse than anyone in Gitmo. Nobody has come out of Gitmo with nerve damage that prevents them from raising their arms above horizontal, or with four broken limbs, or bayonet wounds to the lungs. Gitmo detainees get better treatment than American prison inmates.

When the opportunity arises, I'd implore you to take the red pill.

Okay, seriously, your arguments against what I said are:

"Well, yeah, but Clinton did something....not particularly related, and really not even arguably comparable!"

"At least some of them are actually enemy combatants! So, you know, still not terrorists, but at least it's not like they're all nice people that we're depriving of basic rights!"

"John McCain was a POW! POW POW POW!"

...and this is meant to convince me that Hannity and his fans are smart?

Yes we do. Or why do criminals who confess still get their day in court?

Keating went to court and thus, they're innocent (since you know, courts declare you innocent, don't they?) but because Ayers couldn't even be tried, he's guilty. Get an education, dumbass.

I don't know whether you're intelligent or as dumb as a post. But you are a liar, no two ways about that. Especially about those claims of yours in another thread about how America has never been attacked after 9/11 thanks to Bush, completely ignoring little details like the 2001 Anthrax attacks which claimed lives, as well as the Beltway sniper attacks.

You do know that when Nicea Sancta was talking about "no further terrorist attacks" he was thinking of "attacks from those dirty Mohammedans" right?

Uh-huh. Surely.

I know you think this is cute, but seriously, how about a decent effort. This is just transparent. At least allow us to suspend disbelief.

Your belief or disbelief is not my concern. I care not at all what you believe. Nor is cuteness my concern. I was claimed to have implied something I had not, in fact, implied, and therefore corrected that accusation. Whatever else you take from it stems entirely from yourself.

You do know that when Nicea Sancta was talking about "no further terrorist attacks" he was thinking of "attacks from those dirty Mohammedans" right?

This implication of religious bigotry is unfounded, unsupported, and will not be tolerated again.

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service and other people who've never held a real job.

Ah, ok. So teachers, journalists, lawyers, fire fighters, etc are not real jobs.

Oh, and do you KNOW what a community organizer does?

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

1. Show me a stat saying that engineers are "overwhelming conservative" because I call bullshit.
2. My dad is an engineer and would resent your implication that engineers are conservative.


You dont know what your talking about. But this isnt a suprise to me anymore.

I'm now going to play an ideological game of 'hide the wingtip' with you.

How many civilians he helps kill? Bill Clinton happens to have actively given up multiple opportunities to capture bin Laden before 9/11. Actively. As in, say, the Qatari government had him on the tarmac, and Clinton deliberately passed it up. We could already have dealt with him quite justly for the Embassy bombings, and Clinton deliberately let it go.

Torture for being brown? Forgive me for thinking people picked up off the battle field after shooting at you doesn't constitute proof of guilt.

Besides, the red presidential candidate has endured far worse than anyone in Gitmo. Nobody has come out of Gitmo with nerve damage that prevents them from raising their arms above horizontal, or with four broken limbs, or bayonet wounds to the lungs. Gitmo detainees get better treatment than American prison inmates.

When the opportunity arises, I'd implore you to take the red pill.

wow. ok so one very important point here. In attempting (and failing) to catch/kill bin laden good old George has killed many many more times the civilians than September 11th ever did. That and the idea that bin laden (who was in poor health at the time) was so key to those bombings that they wouldn't have happened anyway is shear idiocy.

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service and other people who've never held a real job.

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

Yep. This food:

http://images.thewavemag.com/images/articles/11001-12000/11541.jpg

:)

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

What's the "food" exactly? The vague, unsubstantiated claim, made without a shred of proof whatsoever, ignoring 1) the plethora of careers like lawyers, doctors, accountants and all the rest who also have to deal with real, solid facts; 2) the real properties of physics have nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and; 3) a lot of engineers actually teach engineering, making them, wait for it, academics.

The only "food" you've provided is a demonstration that you don't really know how to make an argument.

Is there the undertones of the right's anti-intellectual arguement here?

I never understood the implications that those with the best educations are those who are someone the least intellegent...

You make me laugh.
EDIT: Believing the US is the bolded DOES make you naive and blind.

The only government founded as one of individualism from the beginning.

The only government which originally took its rights from the people, rather than thinking it had the moral authority to grant them.

Unless you're a Woodrow Wilson-grade fascist/archolater, I don't need to conclude the argument.

This implication of religious bigotry is unfounded, unsupported, and will not be tolerated again.

well, there are two possibilities here. Either you ignored all those other terrorist attacks, since they weren't perpetrated by Muslims, which makes you a bigot, or you didn't know about them, which makes you ignorant.

Feel free to tell us which it is.

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service and other people who've never held a real job.

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

I'm an engineer. Computer engineering. Everyone in my company bills at over 200/hr. Is that a real enough job for you? We have ONE person who supports McCain. ONE. The entire rest of the company sounds just like me. Bush is the worst thing that happened to conservatives ever.

That conservatives won't simply admit Bush is a terrible President is disappointing.

First of all, Bush isn't fiscally conservative. On an level. Not only that, what happened to keep out of my life. When did that become a liberal belief.

See, conservatives lost me when they said I had to support racism, sexism and other kinds of bigotry in order to be "one of them"... one of us... one of us... one of us.

Keating went to court and thus, they're innocent (since you know, courts declare you innocent, don't they?) but because Ayers couldn't even be tried, he's guilty. Get an education, dumbass.

*Pies you until you admit your guilt*

If the universe is the creation of an engineer it's the creation of one who is brain-damaged and horrible at his job.

You do know that when Nicea Sancta was talking about "no further terrorist attacks" he was thinking of "attacks from those dirty Mohammedans" right?

The Beltway sniper attacks were conducted by a Muslim who was influenced by the ideas of an Islamic Jihad by radicals.

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service and other people who've never held a real job.

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

your an idiot. You just claimed that all students, academics, civil servants and whatever a community organizer is don't hold and have never held real jobs. I can only conclude that you are an idiot . . .. thank you for the food for thought. Also god doesn't exist. food for thought (and that was sarcasm)

The only government founded as one of individualism from the beginning.

The only government which originally took its rights from the people, rather than thinking it had the moral authority to grant them.

Unless you were black.

Or a woman.

Or not a property owner.

And, considering our nation's history excluded from the political process women, non land owners, and non Caucasians, and you made the statement that our nation "originally took its rights from the people", I'll pose the same premise I posed a moment ago. Either you believe in that statement, in which case you don't believe that anyone other than white male property owners are people, in which case you're a bigot, or you don't know the history of this country, in which case you're ignorant.

Feel free to tell us which it is.

Keating went to court and thus, they're innocent (since you know, courts declare you innocent, don't they?) but because Ayers couldn't even be tried, he's guilty. Get an education, dumbass.

Getting an education would make him an uninformed, idiot leftist who cant be trusted. Why would you wish that on LG?

If the universe is the creation of an engineer it's the creation of one who is brain-damaged and horrible at his job.

*looks around*


And?

This implication of religious bigotry is unfounded, unsupported, and will not be tolerated again.

Say's the one who thinks discrimination, religious and otherwise is perfectly fine.

Your belief or disbelief is not my concern. I care not at all what you believe. Nor is cuteness my concern. I was claimed to have implied something I had not, in fact, implied, and therefore corrected that accusation. Whatever else you take from it stems entirely from yourself.

No, you were pretty explicit. As it's been pointed out, you're simply lying now.

You know what kind of people agree with me? People who aren't child molesters.

(Don't worry, that doesn't imply anything about you. Unless you understand English.)

No, you were pretty explicit. As it's been pointed out, you're simply lying now.

You know what kind of people agree with me? People who aren't child molesters.

(Don't worry, that doesn't imply anything about you. Unless you understand English.)

Yes, I was explicit, in that I described the audience of Hannity's programs.

No, that doesn't imply anything about me, and I understand English quite well.

Say's the one who thinks discrimination, religious and otherwise is perfectly fine.

Incorrect, I think discrimination by private individuals and businesses should be legally allowed. I do not claim it is morally acceptable.

Incorrect, I think discrimination by private individuals and businesses should be legally allowed.

Perfectly fine then, by your definition.

Are they trying to incite assassination attempts against him?

God, that complete and utter ***** ******. I cannot described my disgust at this. Note, she didn't mention this "pal's" name, so a lot of listeners will hear "terrorist", and think "Muslim".

Incorrect, I think discrimination by private individuals and businesses should be legally allowed. I do not claim it is morally acceptable.

how, exactly, do you back that up

The only government founded as one of individualism from the beginning.

The only government which originally took its rights from the people, rather than thinking it had the moral authority to grant them.

Unless you're a Woodrow Wilson-grade fascist/archolater, I don't need to conclude the argument.

Yeah, if only those same rights still were held sacred by that same government. Unfortunately, freedom of religion is constantly attacked, right to a trial, freedom from illegal search and seizure... should I keep going?

That's not some past time. That's now.

What's the "food" exactly? The vague, unsubstantiated claim, made without a shred of proof whatsoever, ignoring 1) the plethora of careers like lawyers, doctors, accountants and all the rest who also have to deal with real, solid facts; 2) the real properties of physics have nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and; 3) a lot of engineers actually teach engineering, making them, wait for it, academics.

The only "food" you've provided is a demonstration that you don't really know how to make an argument.

I proved my statement to begin with. Allow me now to gut that sad excuse for a rebuttal:

Lawyers deal with solid facts? Lawyers exist to deal with entirely subjective creations. I find it criminal that we have a legal system complex enough that one needs special training to navigate it.

Accountants, too, deal only with subjective creations, though the fact that theirs is a scientific career makes it a respectable one.

Medicine as we know it is entirely dependent on engineering. For that matter, life as we know it is entirely dependent on engineering. The computer you're writing your sophomoric argument on? Designed by an engineer. The car you had to drive to go buy it? Designed by an engineer? The machines used to build it? Designed by an engineer. The mines used to get the metal to build those machines? Designed by an engineer. The housing for the people who helped mine the metal? Designed by an engineer.

I rest my case.

"A lot of engineers teach engineering?" The US employs 1.4 million practicing engineers. I doubt there are 25,000 professors of engineering in this country, and even that is probably a gigantic inflation. With my inflated figure, the number of engineers per academic is... 56? That makes them... slightly more than 1% of the engineers in this country? Not "a lot."

Yes, I was explicit, in that I described the audience of Hannity's programs.

No, that doesn't imply anything about me, and I understand English quite well.

Obviously not. Nor do you seem to know what "imply" means.

how, exactly, do you back that up

Well, my entire history of posting on this thread is more or less an answer to this question, but in short, I believe it is none of the government's business to interfere with who a business chooses as its clientele. If a given person wishes to sell his sandwiches only to people who are left-handed, it is none of the government's business to tell him he can't.

EDIT: Forgive me, got my threads mixed up. The discussion in question took place on the thread Gays should have to use separate gyms in General.

Are they trying to incite assassination attempts against him?

God, that complete and utter ***** ******. I cannot described my disgust at this. Note, she didn't mention this "pal's" name, so a lot of listeners will hear "terrorist", and think "Muslim".

Don't forget the Vice Presidential Debate where Caribou Barbie implied Obama would have a backyard grill party with Mahmoud "I wanna be Hugo Chavez" Ahmedinejad. It's not like the whole "Obama=Muslim=Terrorists" mantra's a recent Republican development.

I rest my case.

Not surprised, considering you have yet to state one, single fact to base your entire premise on. Really, all you have left now is to try and back out of it.

Accountants, too, deal only with subjective creations, though the fact that theirs is a scientific career makes it a respectable one.


Oh, you're one of those people who don't know what science is. That explains so much.

Oh, you're one of those people who don't know what science is. That explains so much.

The only science is Genesis.

Obviously not. Nor do you seem to know what "imply" means.

I know full well what imply means. You were simply describing the positions of the people who agree with you, in essence claiming "All s is p." This does not in any way imply that "All p is s" or that "All not-s is not-p".

I proved my statement to begin with. Allow me now to gut that sad excuse for a rebuttal:

Lawyers deal with solid facts? Lawyers exist to deal with entirely subjective creations. I find it criminal that we have a legal system complex enough that one needs special training to navigate it.

Accountants, too, deal only with subjective creations, though the fact that theirs is a scientific career makes it a respectable one.

Medicine as we know it is entirely dependent on engineering. For that matter, life as we know it is entirely dependent on engineering. The computer you're writing your sophomoric argument on? Designed by an engineer. The car you had to drive to go buy it? Designed by an engineer? The machines used to build it? Designed by an engineer. The mines used to get the metal to build those machines? Designed by an engineer. The housing for the people who helped mine the metal? Designed by an engineer.

I rest my case.

"A lot of engineers teach engineering?" The US employs 1.4 million practicing engineers. I doubt there are 25,000 professors of engineering in this country, and even that is probably a gigantic inflation. With my inflated figure, the number of engineers per academic is... 56? That makes them... slightly more than 1% of the engineers in this country? Not "a lot."

You seriously suck at trolling. Like I said, you have to at least let us pretend you've got a good argument.

So, let's see, being a student makes you into a liberal. Yet Engineers are students first, are we not? At my previous company, nearly everyone had a graduate degree.

It should be noted, by the by, that educated people overwhelming lean liberal. You can claim all day that it's people who don't have real jobs, but claiming to be the party that most panders to those who are uninformed is embarrassing. It's specifically this that keeps me from getting behind Republicans.

Even when I was more conservative the idea that one would intentionally pander to those who are uninformed and brag about it seemed to me to be like making fun of someone in school for studying.

Yeah, if only those same rights still were held sacred by that same government. Unfortunately, freedom of religion is constantly attacked, right to a trial, freedom from illegal search and seizure... should I keep going?

That's not some past time. That's now.

Freedom of religion is attacked? The fact of this country is that a considerable majority of its inhabitants will identify themselves as Christians. Christianity is no more exclusionary than varsity sports, and far more productive.

If you're referring to the fact that Moslems are more likely to be searched getting on planes, give me a break. We're told that the majority of the world's Moslems are 'good Moslems.' If they are good, why do we not see any Moslems save the apologists at CAIR condemning the violence?

If he were still alive, I'd tell you to tell Daniel Pearl to his face that the people we're fighting deserve trials. Picking up a rifle and shooting at the other team is pretty convincing proof of which side you're on.

Illegal search and seizure? You don't have a right to airline service. They're private enterprises, and you enter into a contract by booking a ticket where you agree to the terms they require. Nothing illegal.

I proved my statement to begin with. Allow me now to gut that sad excuse for a rebuttal:

Lawyers deal with solid facts? Lawyers exist to deal with entirely subjective creations. I find it criminal that we have a legal system complex enough that one needs special training to navigate it.

Accountants, too, deal only with subjective creations, though the fact that theirs is a scientific career makes it a respectable one.

Medicine as we know it is entirely dependent on engineering. For that matter, life as we know it is entirely dependent on engineering. The computer you're writing your sophomoric argument on? Designed by an engineer. The car you had to drive to go buy it? Designed by an engineer? The machines used to build it? Designed by an engineer. The mines used to get the metal to build those machines? Designed by an engineer. The housing for the people who helped mine the metal? Designed by an engineer.

I rest my case.

"A lot of engineers teach engineering?" The US employs 1.4 million practicing engineers. I doubt there are 25,000 professors of engineering in this country, and even that is probably a gigantic inflation. With my inflated figure, the number of engineers per academic is... 56? That makes them... slightly more than 1% of the engineers in this country? Not "a lot."
what the hell are you talking about? First where did you get the idea that "all engineers support conservatism" I mean where? Second medicine depends on engineering . . . .you know cause m,medicine has been around since Hippocrates . . .or before the wheel was invented . . . cause its new . . .entirely. In fact engineering is the only true "job". but wait without scientists and inventors (not engineers by anyone's definition) engineers would have anything to design? oh . . .shit! a hole in your otherwise perfect logic! oh that and you just claimed that 25 000 is not a lot. So if someone offered you 25000 dollars you'd be like "nah its not a lot I'm good" [/rant]

I know full well what imply means. You were simply describing the positions of the people who agree with you, in essence claiming "All s is p." This does not in any way imply that "All p is s" or that "All not-s is not-p".

What kind of people listen to Fox News?
White people

Now, either that answer doesn't mean anything, or it implies that non-white people wouldn't listen. I can't believe we're even arguing about this. Seriously, when you get caught lying, generally you should try to distract people, not keep pointing out why you think it's okay.

If you're referring to the fact that Moslems are more likely to be searched getting on planes, give me a break. We're told that the majority of the world's Moslems are 'good Moslems.' If they are good, why do we not see any Moslems save the apologists at CAIR condemning the violence?

Its spelled "muslim" pal.

You have to be a satirist. Really. You have to.

what the hell are you talking about? First where did you get the idea that "all engineers support conservatism" I mean where?


I already asked for a source and have yet to recieve one. Why? Because such a source doesnt exist.

I already asked for a source and have yet to recieve one. Why? Because such a source doesnt exist.

ya tht claims entirely unjustifiable . . .I wonder if Kibun and Kapitalizm is just trying to be funny?

Freedom of religion is attacked? The fact of this country is that a considerable majority of its inhabitants will identify themselves as Christians. Christianity is no more exclusionary than varsity sports, and far more productive.

If you're referring to the fact that Moslems are more likely to be searched getting on planes, give me a break. We're told that the majority of the world's Moslems are 'good Moslems.' If they are good, why do we not see any Moslems save the apologists at CAIR condemning the violence?

You're not demonstrating my point very well, but only because no one believes you at this point.

However, those who would espouse such a belief as held above does demonstrate well. Realize, that there was a time when people felt the same way about Christians.

If he were still alive, I'd tell you to tell Daniel Pearl to his face that the people we're fighting deserve trials. Picking up a rifle and shooting at the other team is pretty convincing proof of which side you're on.

Illegal search and seizure? You don't have a right to airline service. They're private enterprises, and you enter into a contract by booking a ticket where you agree to the terms they require. Nothing illegal.

Um, I'm not talking about airlines. I'm talking about searching our emails and various other private information they collect about us.

Freedom of religion is attacked? The fact of this country is that a considerable majority of its inhabitants will identify themselves as Christians. Christianity is no more exclusionary than varsity sports, and far more productive.

Christianity has produced nothing but a mountain of corpses.

Its spelled "muslim" pal.

You have to be a satirist. Really. You have to.

Not a good one. Either it has to actually be funny or it has to be believable. It's neither. It doesn't even get out good points. Nothing. I expect better.

What kind of people listen to Fox News?
White people

Now, either that answer doesn't mean anything, or it implies that non-white people wouldn't listen. I can't believe we're even arguing about this. Seriously, when you get caught lying, generally you should try to distract people, not keep pointing out why you think it's okay.

No, it means that white people watch Fox News. It implies nothing about people who do not watch Fox News, nor does it imply anything about non-white people.
Nor can I, as your position is obviously irrational.
I did not lie, any more than I implied anything about people who do not watch/listen to Hannity's programs.

Christianity has produced nothing but a mountain of corpses.

"The only good thing to come out of religion was the music" -George Carlin

Freedom of religion is attacked? The fact of this country is that a considerable majority of its inhabitants will identify themselves as Christians. Christianity is no more exclusionary than varsity sports, and far more productive.

If you're referring to the fact that Moslems are more likely to be searched getting on planes, give me a break. We're told that the majority of the world's Moslems are 'good Moslems.' If they are good, why do we not see any Moslems save the apologists at CAIR condemning the violence?

If he were still alive, I'd tell you to tell Daniel Pearl to his face that the people we're fighting deserve trials. Picking up a rifle and shooting at the other team is pretty convincing proof of which side you're on.

Illegal search and seizure? You don't have a right to airline service. They're private enterprises, and you enter into a contract by booking a ticket where you agree to the terms they require. Nothing illegal.

Christianity . . .the religion who basis is that its alright to kill as long as its not Christians. And productive . . .the religion that caused the Spanish inquisition the crusades and countless litterally) other horrors. well I guess that productive . . . kinda

ya tht claims entirely unjustifiable . . .I wonder if Kibun and Kapitalizm is just trying to be funny?

I hope he's trying, but I wish he was succeeding.

(I'm holding off attacking him until I figure out if he's serious or just trolling. I've given up wasting words on trolls.)

Christianity . . .the religion who basis is that its alright to kill as long as its not Christians. And productive . . .the religion that caused the Spanish inquisition the crusades and countless 9litterally) other horrors. well I guess that productive . . . kinda

Monty Python wouldn't have been such an institution with "The Islamic Inquisition" though.

You seriously suck at trolling. Like I said, you have to at least let us pretend you've got a good argument.

So, let's see, being a student makes you into a liberal. Yet Engineers are students first, are we not? At my previous company, nearly everyone had a graduate degree.

It should be noted, by the by, that educated people overwhelming lean liberal. You can claim all day that it's people who don't have real jobs, but claiming to be the party that most panders to those who are uninformed is embarrassing. It's specifically this that keeps me from getting behind Republicans.

Even when I was more conservative the idea that one would intentionally pander to those who are uninformed and brag about it seemed to me to be like making fun of someone in school for studying.

Not pandering to the uninformed. Rather, it's a disdain of those who believe that education makes them superior, or that a lack of formal education makes you inferior. Real jobs are ones that produce wealth, rather than sapping it. "Educated people" with PoliSci degrees, JD's and doctorates in history work in jobs that sap it, like community organizing, the civil service and legal work. Most jobs are productive, and the ones held by uneducated people are virtually all in that category. The military is excluded from the general wealth-sapping category of government jobs because there's always real, life-or-death responsibility involved in the job. The diplomatic corps has no such standard.

I didn't say that being a student automatically makes you a liberal. Walk around on the Texas A&M or Purdue campus and see how many liberals you actually encounter. On that note, both happen to A) have gigantic engineering programs and B) have some of the country's best engineering programs.

From what I've seen, engineering schools are either avidly conservative or utterly apolitical.

Not a good one. Either it has to actually be funny or it has to be believable. It's neither. It doesn't even get out good points. Nothing. I expect better.

NSG really needs a quality control system for its trolls.

Monty Python wouldn't have been such an institution with "The Islamic Inquisition" though.

. . .true . . . lmao

"The only good thing to come out of religion was the music" -George Carlin

Even most of the music suck....contemporary ones at least.

Christianity has produced nothing but a mountain of corpses.

Please don't start that ridiculous hijack.

Not pandering to the uninformed. Rather, it's a disdain of those who believe that education makes them superior, or that a lack of formal education makes you inferior. Real jobs are ones that produce wealth, rather than sapping it. "Educated people" with PoliSci degrees, JD's and doctorates in history work in jobs that sap it, like community organizing, the civil service and legal work. Most jobs are productive, and the ones held by uneducated people are virtually all in that category. The military is excluded from the general wealth-sapping category of government jobs because there's always real, life-or-death responsibility involved in the job. The diplomatic corps has no such standard.

I didn't say that being a student automatically makes you a liberal. Walk around on the Texas A&M or Purdue campus and see how many liberals you actually encounter. On that note, both happen to A) have gigantic engineering programs and B) have some of the country's best engineering programs.

From what I've seen, engineering schools are either avidly conservative or utterly apolitical.


You produce more crap then a fertilizer factory.

Its epic.


What about U of I, which has a very large and very well regarded engineering department and is very liberal?

Again, I am awaiting real evidence that engineers are mostly conservative.

Please don't start that ridiculous hijack.

I really should stop bringing up positions I don't hold when I'm tired.

Even most of the music suck....contemporary ones at least.

Actually, the Church did a lot to shape modern music.

Even most of the music suck....contemporary ones at least.

Christian Rock Music is like artificial sweetners. It's supposed to convey the same flavor but people know what the real thing tastes like.

Actually, the Church did a lot to shape modern music.

True, but I'm talking about modern Christian musics. They're basically pop song with "Jesus" replacing the word "Babe". *nod*

Not pandering to the uninformed. Rather, it's a disdain of those who believe that education makes them superior, or that a lack of formal education makes you inferior. Real jobs are ones that produce wealth, rather than sapping it. "Educated people" with PoliSci degrees, JD's and doctorates in history work in jobs that sap it, like community organizing, the civil service and legal work. Most jobs are productive, and the ones held by uneducated people are virtually all in that category. The military is excluded from the general wealth-sapping category of government jobs because there's always real, life-or-death responsibility involved in the job. The diplomatic corps has no such standard.

I didn't say that being a student automatically makes you a liberal. Walk around on the Texas A&M or Purdue campus and see how many liberals you actually encounter. On that note, both happen to A) have gigantic engineering programs and B) have some of the country's best engineering programs.

From what I've seen, engineering schools are either avidly conservative or utterly apolitical.
he actually believes this. . . .wow . . .so because down south is mostly conservative therefore engineers are all conservative . . .because texas A&M has good engineering programs. Real jobs are ones that produce wealth you do know that nothing actually produces wealth right? I assume your talking "for the good of the country right now". Walth can be neither created nor destroyed it can just be moved around and wealthy countries would be? oh right those countries with advanced schooling systems and with a small military per capita. and just while were at it . . .America=not that wealthy as a country. 10 trillion, sorry 10.7 trillion now, dollars in debt with a crashing economy. Fun stuff.

Not pandering to the uninformed. Rather, it's a disdain of those who believe that education makes them superior, or that a lack of formal education makes you inferior. Real jobs are ones that produce wealth, rather than sapping it. "Educated people" with PoliSci degrees, JD's and doctorates in history work in jobs that sap it, like community organizing, the civil service and legal work. Most jobs are productive, and the ones held by uneducated people are virtually all in that category. The military is excluded from the general wealth-sapping category of government jobs because there's always real, life-or-death responsibility involved in the job. The diplomatic corps has no such standard.

I didn't say that being a student automatically makes you a liberal. Walk around on the Texas A&M or Purdue campus and see how many liberals you actually encounter. On that note, both happen to A) have gigantic engineering programs and B) have some of the country's best engineering programs.

From what I've seen, engineering schools are either avidly conservative or utterly apolitical.

Heh. University of Illinois is where I went, but I did attend Purdue briefly. Granted, I was 13. When I reached adulthood I decided to go to a better college.

Meanwhile, nice. You decry the "elitism" of education while talking about the only real discipline is engineering, ignoring that this is also elitism. Not to mention that you redefined engineer to include everyone who every made a tool of any type.

Are soldiers real? Yeah, and they rely on engineers, because you can't make a sword without an engineer.

Every craftsman would be engineer by your definition.

Seriously, if you're going to do this, work it all out ahead of time. Your ticks are pretty blatant.

You produce more crap then a fertilizer factory.

Its epic.


What about U of I, which has a very large and very well regarded engineering department and is very liberal?

Again, I am awaiting real evidence that engineers are mostly conservative.

U of I just happens to be my college, actually. I can't wait for him to inform me about U of I.

U of I just happens to be my college, actually. I can't wait for him to inform me about U of I.

Your an engineer that went to a good engineering school. Apperantly you never got the memo. Your supposed to be conservative. Now go out and buy a McCain/Palin sign.

True, but I'm talking about modern Christian musics. They're basically pop song with "Jesus" replacing the word "Babe". *nod*

Oh, no doubt.

No, it means that white people watch Fox News. It implies nothing about people who do not watch Fox News, nor does it imply anything about non-white people.
Nor can I, as your position is obviously irrational.
I did not lie, any more than I implied anything about people who do not watch/listen to Hannity's programs.

Like I said, I think you don't know what imply means.

Otherwise, the answer was nonsensical and wildly incomplete.

You might as well have said, the kind of people who breath. Because you're basically claiming we can't take anything from your statements and that taking your statements to have any actual substance in unfair. When did you start channelling Sarah Palin?

Damn, liberals and acting like the words you use and what order you use them in has some significance. Those bastards what with their reading comprehension and understanding of context.

Its been fun guys, but Im out. Night.

gods I don't wanna know. Their probably not real engineers . . .cause REAL engineers are patriots and only conservatives are patriots so y'see they can't be real engineers by tarnation. their just academic engineers . . .not real at all. *saunters off into the fairy land of K&K*

Like I said, I think you don't know what imply means.

Otherwise, the answer was nonsensical and wildly incomplete.

You might as well have said, the kind of people who breath. Because you're basically claiming we can't take anything from your statements and that taking your statements to have any actual substance in unfair. When did you start channelling Sarah Palin?

Damn, liberals and acting like the words you use and what order you use them in has some significance. Those bastards what with their reading comprehension and understanding of context.

No, the answer is complete, accurate, and sensible. You can take things from my statements, things that are stated or provable from such. Those statements in no way implied anything about those who do not listen to Hannity. A demonstration:

Given the phrase:

"People who listen to Hannity's program are patriots."

You are attempting to claim that this implies "People who do not listen to Hannity's program are not patriots."

This, however, does not follow. The first phrase was of the form "All S is P." From this, it does not follow that "All !S is !P." EDIT: (Read as "All not-S is not-P.")

You are further attempting to claim that the original phrase implies "People who are patriots listen to Hannity's program."

This does not follow either. The first phrase, as stated, was of the form "All S is P." From this, it does not follow that "All P is S."

Thus, your two "implications" are invalid, and cannot be reasonably drawn from my original claim.

Your an engineer that went to a good engineering school. Apperantly you never got the memo. Your supposed to be conservative. Now go out and buy a McCain/Palin sign.

Incidentally, I was conservative. That is, until I actually started actually paying attention to politics.

I've actually had other rich men tell me that I'm betraying myself by voting for the party that doesn't seek to protect us at the expense of the rest of the country.

Don't believe me? Conservatives thinks socialism bad, as long as you're not talking about protecting Airlines, Car companies, etc. Conservatives are against welfare, unless you're talking about the government protecting the large corporations. Conservatives are for a free market... sort of. They certainly aren't for a just tax system.

If you think GWB was a good President, you don't like small government. I like small government. If you think GWB was a good President, you don't want an effective government. If you think GWB was a good President, you don't believe in a free market. If you think GWB was a good President, you DO NOT agree with the founders.

You can support GWB, if you like. However, you aren't conservative. You're something else. There is pretty much no definition of conservative that GWB fits. He's not fiscally conservate. He's not moral. He's not a fan of the conservative understanding of the Constitution.

So, let's stop pretending this is an argument between conservatives and liberals.

*snip*

your right. but I disagree that every single person who listens to whoever that was is a patriot . . . .I'm sure most just accidentally hit the wrong button on their radio and either melted or managed to switch in time to save themselves . . .if not their hearing

No, the answer is complete, accurate, and sensible. You can take things from my statements, things that are stated or provable from such. Those statements in no way implied anything about those who do not listen to Hannity. A demonstration:

Given the phrase:

"People who listen to Hannity's program are patriots."

You are attempting to claim that this implies "People who do not listen to Hannity's program are not patriots."

This, however, does not follow. The first phrase was of the form "All S is P." From this, it does not follow that "All !S is !P."

You are further attempting to claim that the original phrase implies "People who are patriots listen to Hannity's program."

This does not follow either. The first phrase, as stated, was of the form "All S is P." From this, it does not follow that "All P is S."

Thus, your two "implications" are invalid, and cannot be reasonably drawn from my original claim.

Then by your logic, as long as two or more people who listen to Hannity are not patriots then: "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots".

I hear this thread is about cake.

incidentally, i was conservative. That is, until i actually started actually paying attention to politics.

I've actually had other rich men tell me that i'm betraying myself by voting for the party that doesn't seek to protect us at the expense of the rest of the country.

Don't believe me? Conservatives thinks socialism bad, as long as you're not talking about protecting airlines, car companies, etc. Conservatives are against welfare, unless you're talking about the government protecting the large corporations. Conservatives are for a free market... Sort of. They certainly aren't for a just tax system.

If you think gwb was a good president, you don't like small government. I like small government. If you think gwb was a good president, you don't want an effective government. If you think gwb was a good president, you don't believe in a free market. If you think gwb was a good president, you do not agree with the founders.

You can support gwb, if you like. However, you aren't conservative. You're something else. There is pretty much no definition of conservative that gwb fits. He's not fiscally conservate. He's not moral. He's not a fan of the conservative understanding of the constitution.

So, let's stop pretending this is an argument between conservatives and liberals.

nice :d

I hear this thread is about cake.

no that would be more fun . . .and productive. . . and also I might learn how to bake cake . . .which would be awesome . . .

No, the answer is complete, accurate, and sensible. You can take things from my statements, things that are stated or provable from such. Those statements in no way implied anything about those who do not listen to Hannity. A demonstration:

Given the phrase:

"People who listen to Hannity's program are patriots."

You are attempting to claim that this implies "People who do not listen to Hannity's program are not patriots."

This, however, does not follow. The first phrase was of the form "All S is P." From this, it does not follow that "All !S is !P."

No, but implies that those who don't listen are more likely to not be patriots. This is the same type of lame excuse that people use for racial comments.

I'm not being racist when I say that black people are criminals, because I didn't say all. And I'm not being racist when I say white people are not criminals (and like your statement it's also just blatantly untrue).

Again, I could hold the above to not be racist, if I was illogical. Unfortunately, I understand English. It's a curse.

You are further attempting to claim that the original phrase implies "People who are patriots listen to Hannity's program."

This does not follow either. The first phrase, as stated, was of the form "All S is P." From this, it does not follow that "All P is S."

Thus, your two "implications" are invalid, and cannot be reasonably drawn from my original claim.

Uh-huh. Keep going. I love when I catch someone lying and then get them to keep explaining. See, I'm not just speaking to you. We have an audience. We both already know you're lying. There is no need to continue if it's just you and me. But we have an audience and you're just continually demonstrating for them how willing you are to show them that you're lying.

Worse, you're claiming that your statement had no meaning. Why mention that patriots listen to Hannity, if those who don't listen are just as likely to be patriots? Answer that.

Then by your logic, as long as two or more people who listen to Hannity are not patriots then: "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots".

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

I hear this thread is about cake.

I wish it was. :(

Christianity . . .the religion who basis is that its alright to kill as long as its not Christians. And productive . . .the religion that caused the Spanish inquisition the crusades and countless litterally) other horrors. well I guess that productive . . . kinda

Wrong again. It's kinda in the old testament... "Thou shalt do no murder"

The Spanish Inquisition. What overwhelming cultural force ruled spain for the 8 preceding centuries? ISLAM. What overwhelming cultural force completely Arabized Spain? ISLAM. Spain is culturally quite similar to the middle east, and has been since before the discovery of the New World.

Besides that, the United States is rooted in Protestantism of one form or another. The only protestants who didn't come to America to avoid the persecution of institutional churches were the Puritans, who came to persecute via their institutional church, and in doing so laid the groundwork for Massachusetts as we know it today.

I won't dignify the remainder of your idiocy with a response.

No, but implies that those who don't listen are more likely to not be patriots. This is the same type of lame excuse that people use for racial comments.

I'm not being racist when I say that black people are criminals, because I didn't say all. And I'm not being racist when I say white people are not criminals (and like your statement it's also just blatantly untrue).

Again, I could hold the above to not be racist, if I was illogical. Unfortunately, I understand English. It's a curse.



Uh-huh. Keep going. I love when I catch someone lying and then get them to keep explaining. See, I'm not just speaking to you. We have an audience. We both already know you're lying. There is no need to continue if it's just you and me. But we have an audience and you're just continually demonstrating for them how willing you are to show them that you're lying.

Worse, you're claiming that your statement had no meaning. Why mention that patriots listen to Hannity, if those who don't listen are just as likely to be patriots? Answer that.

Wrong, it says nothing whatsoever of likelihood, nor does it imply anything.

Actually, I think we both know I am not lying, and, due to our disagreements on an unrelated matter, you are intentionally attempting to obscure this with unfounded accusations.

No, I'm claiming my statement has meaning, but not the meaning you attempted to take from it.

Why mention it? Look back at the original statement I responded to. It was asked what kind of people watch Hannity. I responded.

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

Careful, you're going to throw your backout moving those goalposts.

Careful, you're going to throw your backout moving those goalposts.

Have you now decided to remove all content from your responses? Or will this be an isolated incident?

Wrong, it says nothing whatsoever of likelihood, nor does it imply anything.

Actually, I think we both know I am not lying, and, due to our disagreements on an unrelated matter, you are intentionally attempting to obscure this with unfounded accusations.

No, I'm claiming my statement has meaning, but not the meaning you attempted to take from it.

Why mention it? Look back at the original statement I responded to. It was asked what kind of people watch Hannity. I responded.

Interesting, you just said your statement wasn't true. You didn't put SOME in your original statements. You worded it JUST LIKE LG did.

So if what you said was false, and you understand it's false, but spent pages claiming it's true, what would that make you? Hint: It rhymes with fire.

I proved my statement to begin with.

You have provided no proof that:

"Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people"

Beyond claiming it is so.

Did you know that:

Conservatives are overwhelmingly pedophile rapists?

That I claim it so means it must be true then.

So, getting back on the topic a bit here. I went to the same high school as Abbie Hoffman. Granted, he died when I was 6, but I went to the same school, sat in the same classrooms, pissed in the same toilets. Does this make me a 1960s revolutionary and drug dealer? Am I part of the Chicago 7, despite having never stepped foot in the state of Illinois?

Also, I went to college with a distant relative of Imelda Marcos. I talked to her (the relative), had drinks with her, and studied for tests with her. Does this make me complicit with what she and her husband did?

For that matter, is everyone that takes one of Ayers' classes at the University of Illinois Chicago somehow now linked to him? What about other faculty?

The connection between Obama and Ayers is tenuous at best. Palin intentionally obscured the facts and grossly misrepresented the facts. Anything that is more liberal with the truth than, "Obama once served on the same charity committee as an alleged 1960s radical" is rather slanderous.

And Balderdash's statement that we don't need a conviction to know of Ayers' guilt is disgusting.

You have provided no proof that:

"Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people"

Beyond claiming it is so.

Did you know that:

Conservatives are overwhelmingly pedophile rapists?

That I claim it so means it must be true then.

It must be true. Mark Foley is a conservative! :eek:

Have you now decided to remove all content from your responses? Or will this be an isolated incident?

Pointing out a fallacy IS content. You do realize this is a debate forum, no?

Now, you can dispute that it was a fallacy, but since you haven't, may we assume, you admit to the fallacy? Or maybe now is a good time to go back to debate?

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service


You mean intelligent caring and/or giving people?

So, getting back on the topic a bit here. I went to the same high school as Abbie Hoffman. Granted, he died when I was 6, but I went to the same school, sat in the same classrooms, pissed in the same toilets. Does this make me a 1960s revolutionary and drug dealer? Am I part of the Chicago 7, despite having never stepped foot in the state of Illinois?

Also, I went to college with a distant relative of Imelda Marcos. I talked to her (the relative), had drinks with her, and studied for tests with her. Does this make me complicit with what she and her husband did?

For that matter, is everyone that takes one of Ayers' classes at the University of Illinois Chicago somehow now linked to him? What about other faculty?

The connection between Obama and Ayers is tenuous at best. Palin intentionally obscured the facts and grossly misrepresented the facts. Anything that is more liberal with the truth than, "Obama once served on the same charity committee as an alleged 1960s radical" is rather slanderous.

And Balderdash's statement that we don't need a conviction to know of Ayers' guilt is disgusting.

:eek: OMG! University of Illinois is a terrorist recruiting facility! :eek:

Interesting, you just said your statement wasn't true. You didn't put SOME in your original statements. You worded it JUST LIKE LG did.

So if what you said was false, and you understand it's false, but spent pages claiming it's true, what would that make you? Hint: It rhymes with fire.

True, I did not put some, and nor did I put all. However, as I realized that the format of my prior statement "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." is more likely to be taken as an "All S is P" construct, I clarified my statement to that which I actually hold, that of a "Some S is P" construct.

What I claim is true is that "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." What I claimed in prior posts was that "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" which in that form is ambiguous. I truly hold the "Some S is P" construct, but realize that it could all to easily be misconstrued as an "All S is P" construct. Hence, I clarified it.

So, getting back on the topic a bit here. I went to the same high school as Abbie Hoffman. Granted, he died when I was 6, but I went to the same school, sat in the same classrooms, pissed in the same toilets. Does this make me a 1960s revolutionary and drug dealer? Am I part of the Chicago 7, despite having never stepped foot in the state of Illinois?

Also, I went to college with a distant relative of Imelda Marcos. I talked to her (the relative), had drinks with her, and studied for tests with her. Does this make me complicit with what she and her husband did?

For that matter, is everyone that takes one of Ayers' classes at the University of Illinois Chicago somehow now linked to him? What about other faculty?

The connection between Obama and Ayers is tenuous at best. Palin intentionally obscured the facts and grossly misrepresented the facts. Anything that is more liberal with the truth than, "Obama once served on the same charity committee as an alleged 1960s radical" is rather slanderous.

And Balderdash's statement that we don't need a conviction to know of Ayers' guilt is disgusting.
I agree with all of the above, including the last statement.

But let's not kid ourselves here. All these so-called explanations of how this accusation is supposed to work are just deliberate bullshitting, because there is no one but Obama to whom these liars will apply such an argument. This is because they know perfectly well that Obama has no ties to terrorism, domestic or otherwise, and the only reason they spout this deliberate lie is to commit character assassination against him.

Wrong again. It's kinda in the old testament... "Thou shalt do no murder"

The Spanish Inquisition. What overwhelming cultural force ruled spain for the 8 preceding centuries? ISLAM. What overwhelming cultural force completely Arabized Spain? ISLAM. Spain is culturally quite similar to the middle east, and has been since before the discovery of the New World.

Besides that, the United States is rooted in Protestantism of one form or another. The only protestants who didn't come to America to avoid the persecution of institutional churches were the Puritans, who came to persecute via their institutional church, and in doing so laid the groundwork for Massachusetts as we know it today.

I won't dignify the remainder of your idiocy with a response.
lol hmmm fun . .. no answer

1)yes it is in the old testament. At the same time there are multiple sections of the old testament that explicitly allow murder of other, non christian, peoples. Please please read up before you try this.

2)The Spanish inquisition was backed by the church. But thats beside the point. how bout the troubles then or the witch hunts caused, essentially, by ergot poisoning. or slavery?

3)you still have not backed up the engineer claim with real actual truthful; data.

4) Last. Would you try to convert someone to christianity? if so why? If you would your personal version of christianity is not inclusive. If you wouldn't your probably npot actually christian OR your actually, in that one sense, kind of sensible. My moneys on you trying to convert someone tho.

I'll be back in the morning. try to come up with some sort of reasonable argument or maybe NSG isn't the best forum for you . . .maybe you could try http://christianforums.com/ instead

Pointing out a fallacy IS content. You do realize this is a debate forum, no?

Now, you can dispute that it was a fallacy, but since you haven't, may we assume, you admit to the fallacy? Or maybe now is a good time to go back to debate?

"Careful, you're going to throw your backout moving those goalposts." in no way points out a fallacy. It is contentless.

:eek: OMG! University of Illinois is a terrorist recruiting facility! :eek:

By the standard of proof established here, it is. Any faculty member who has ever served on a committee with him now "pals around with terrorists." Good luck with any future political careers.

And it seems like the University of Illinois at Chicago has a strong College of Engineering (http://www.uic.edu/depts/enga/index.htm). Bunch of terrorists, if you ask me.

It must be true. Mark Foley is a conservative! :eek:

You Elitist Mime!! Don't you know Foley is a Liberal!?

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots."

Yup. You're right, such statements are false, and the people who say them knowing they are false are lying.

"Careful, you're going to throw your backout moving those goalposts." in no way points out a fallacy. It is contentless.

You don't know what fallacy moving the goalposts refers to? Wow.

Meanwhile, when you keep changing your claims, you're definitely moving them. Do you want me to point out what you changed? I thought it was rather obvious, but if you're not sure what's different about suddenly admitting that the statement you originally made would be false while simultaneously claiming you never said something false, I'll help you out.

Let me know.

Yup. You're right, such statements are false, and the people who say them knowing they are false are lying.

Such statements, in the "All S is P" construct, are indeed most likely false.
I made no such statement in that construct. I made a statement in an ambiguous construct which, when I realized was being construed as in a construct other than that which I intended, I clarified it.

Thus, if I had said,

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? All people who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, all patriots.

I would have been incorrect, most likely. I did not, however, say this.

You're not demonstrating my point very well, but only because no one believes you at this point.

However, those who would espouse such a belief as held above does demonstrate well. Realize, that there was a time when people felt the same way about Christians.



Um, I'm not talking about airlines. I'm talking about searching our emails and various other private information they collect about us.

Private information like browsing habits? That much you agree to by using the Internet at all, a privately owned, privately operated tool where you're well aware that there's a record of everything. Your complaint is like walking around with bells on and complaining people can always tell where you are.

True, I did not put some, and nor did I put all. However, as I realized that the format of my prior statement "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." is more likely to be taken as an "All S is P" construct, I clarified my statement to that which I actually hold, that of a "Some S is P" construct.

What I claim is true is that "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." What I claimed in prior posts was that "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" which in that form is ambiguous. I truly hold the "Some S is P" construct, but realize that it could all to easily be misconstrued as an "All S is P" construct. Hence, I clarified it.

And again they move.

You didn't say it was more likely to be taken another way. You said stating it the way YOU stated it would make it false. Right after you defended it for several pages as true.

"Careful, you're going to throw your backout moving those goalposts." in no way points out a fallacy.

Actually...it does. In fact it quite clearly points out the fallacy, aptly named, of moving the goalpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost).

Private information like browsing habits? That much you agree to by using the Internet at all, a privately owned, privately operated tool where you're well aware that there's a record of everything. Your complaint is like walking around with bells on and complaining people can always tell where you are.

I bolded the important part for you. note the use of the word "private"

Private information like browsing habits? That much you agree to by using the Internet at all, a privately owned, privately operated tool where you're well aware that there's a record of everything. Your complaint is like walking around with bells on and complaining people can always tell where you are.

You do realize that it's been tested repeatedly, yes? They can't go to a private institution without a search warrant to get information about me. However, they recently passed a law that requires many of the institutions we use to hand over information about us. Information that has previously been deemed by the Supreme Court to be private information. I suppose you don't know that, because law isn't a real profession.

You don't know what fallacy moving the goalposts refers to? Wow.

Meanwhile, when you keep changing your claims, you're definitely moving them. Do you want me to point out what you changed? I thought it was rather obvious, but if you're not sure what's different about suddenly admitting that the statement you originally made would be false while simultaneously claiming you never said something false, I'll help you out.

Let me know.

Careful now, as you're dangerously close to a fallacy yourself. I in no way changed my claim; I clarified it to make its meaning explicit. The original wording was ambiguous, this I freely admit.
What I said was, the statement I originally made can be construed to be an "All S is P" construct, which would be most likely false. Hence, I clarified its construction to make explicit that it was intended as a "Some S is P" construct.

Such statements, in the "All S is P" construct, are indeed most likely false.
I made no such statement in that construct. I made a statement in an ambiguous construct which, when I realized was being construed as in a construct other than that which I intended, I clarified it.

Thus, if I had said,

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? All people who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, all patriots.

I would have been incorrect, most likely. I did not, however, say this.

Yup, man, you have them on wheels.

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots."

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in morality, in truth and justice. In short, patriots.

Look at the format of ths statement that by your logic would be false. There is no "all" in that statement. You'll notice that it is also the EXACT same format as your original statement. Ooops.

Actually...it does. In fact it quite clearly points out the fallacy, aptly named, of moving the goalpost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost).

Oh, you and your liberal attachment to information.

Its spelled "muslim" pal.

You have to be a satirist. Really. You have to.

As someone with two years of formal Arabic instruction, allow me to educate your sorry ass.

They use a different alphabet.

They speak with a different phonology.

The first vowel in Moslem (wauw) happens to be a very interchangeable O/U sound, and a sort of W if it begins a word. The second (ya) happens to be a very interchangeable I/E sound, and a sort of Y if it begins a word. That I opt for one spelling over the other is my choice when both are phonologically correct, and I'm not speaking arabic.

As someone with two years of formal Arabic instruction, allow me to educate your sorry ass.

They use a different alphabet.

They speak with a different phonology.

The first vowel in Moslem (wauw) happens to be a very interchangeable O/U sound, and a sort of W if it begins a word. The second (ya) happens to be a very interchangeable I/E sound, and a sort of Y if it begins a word. That I opt for one spelling over the other is my choice when both are phonologically correct, and I'm not speaking arabic.

Do you spell Christian with an X?

And again they move.

You didn't say it was more likely to be taken another way. You said stating it the way YOU stated it would make it false. Right after you defended it for several pages as true.

Here is the reply in question, in its entirety.

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

Note the final sentence, wherein I state that the original phrasing of the post implies an "All S is P" construct. Since I recognize this is an incorrect construction, I was free to make my first sentence, that, under the conditions described, the phrase I originally used, "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false; it would be false due to the implication of the improper construct. Hence, in the very next paragraph, I clarified which was my true belief, that of the "Some S is P" construct.

As someone with two years of formal Arabic instruction, allow me to educate your sorry ass.

They use a different alphabet.

They speak with a different phonology.

The first vowel in Moslem (wauw) happens to be a very interchangeable O/U sound, and a sort of W if it begins a word. The second (ya) happens to be a very interchangeable I/E sound, and a sort of Y if it begins a word. That I opt for one spelling over the other is my choice when both are phonologically correct, and I'm not speaking arabic.

And you're dismissing an informal usage where "Moslem" is generally considered to be an archaic Western spelling as well a term used to derisively refer to a follower of Islam.

Here is Bush "palling around" with a turkey:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

And everything it implies. ;)

Yup, man, you have them on wheels.


Look at the format of ths statement that by your logic would be false. There is no "all" in that statement. You'll notice that it is also the EXACT same format as your original statement. Ooops.

You're in the wrong here, Jocabia. Its simple canons of construction.

If I were to say "A has property B", I clearly only mean some A.

Just like any time in the Constitution where it says "The People", the obvious default meaning is "Some People".

If they wanted to mean all people, they should have said so, right?

I mean, you're just playing semantic games, and a person of principal and logical consistency would never engage in such "games" after thrice emphatically decrying them, on precisely the same issue.

Here is Bush palling around with a turkey:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

Considering the Turkey would have been America's National Bird if Benjamin Franklin had it his way, that's a sad and true social commentary.

Here is the reply in question, in its entirety.

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

Note the final sentence, wherein I state that the original phrasing of the post implies an "All S is P" construct. Since I recognize this is an incorrect construction, I was free to make my first sentence, that, under the conditions described, the phrase I originally used, "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false; it would be false due to the implication of the improper construct. Hence, in the very next paragraph, I clarified which was my true belief, that of the "Some S is P" construct.

Yes, you "clarified" two pages later after admitting that the construction you DID use would make your statement false after two pages of arguing it was true. You then acted like you didn't change your claim, saying that my pointing out that you'd moved the goalposts didn't add anything.

Now, you're definitely suggesting that you corrected yourself right away, even though, not only didn't you correct yourself right away, you don't even admit you were wrong, that what you said and defended was false according to your logic.

Worse, when challenged you changed false to mean "could possibly be seen as false". Unfortunately, everyone here is paying attention. Your attempts to move the goalposts have failed. Laughably.

You have provided no proof that:

"Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people"

Beyond claiming it is so.

Did you know that:

Conservatives are overwhelmingly pedophile rapists?

That I claim it so means it must be true then.

I'm speaking anecdotally. Despite having attended several overwhelmingly liberal schools, I've never met a liberal engineer, nor a liberal who would even consider being an engineer. In the field I can speak from, due to a lack of formal statistics on the matter, one wouldn't be simply a black sheep, but a fanged black sheep wearing a pink suit. They'd stick out that badly.

As for the rapists bit, I think you'll find they like Democrats' ideas about light sentences and furloughs (*cough*Dukakis*cough*).

You're in the wrong here, Jocabia. Its simple canons of construction.

If I were to say "A has property B", I clearly only mean some A.

Just like any time in the Constitution where it says "The People", the obvious default meaning is "Some People".

If they wanted to mean all people, they should have said so, right?

You've inadvertently proven my point.

There are three possible constructs in question here:

All S is P.
S is P.
Some S is P.

The first and third are clear in their meanings. The second is ambiguous, and could mean either without further clarification. It tends to imply a meaning of the first construction, but need not do so.

My original statement was made in the construction of the second type. When, in a response to my original claim, I realized that this construction was ambiguous, and was being misconstrued as pointing to the first construction, I admitted that such an understanding of that statement's construction would indeed be false, and clarified my intended claim as being of the third type.

And you're dismissing an informal usage where "Moslem" is generally considered to be an archaic Western spelling as well a term used to derisively refer to a follower of Islam.

Derisive? I've never heard this.

I just rather like British Imperial names and spellings for places, and they're usually equally correct for the same reasons. The exception is Ankara, because they do use our alphabet (though they didn't when the place was called Angora).

I'm speaking anecdotally. Despite having attended several overwhelmingly liberal schools, I've never met a liberal engineer, nor a liberal who would even consider being an engineer. In the field I can speak from, due to a lack of formal statistics on the matter, one wouldn't be simply a black sheep, but a fanged black sheep wearing a pink suit. They'd stick out that badly.

As for the rapists bit, I think you'll find they like Democrats' ideas about light sentences and furloughs (*cough*Dukakis*cough*).

Unfortunately for you, I HAVE to be included in your anecdotal evidence. It's rather famous that I'm an engineer here. Many people here have interacted with me, and even my company, in real life.

Meanwhile, we both know your claim is false. Pretending that ANY profession is as universal as you claim is begging to be made to look stupid. There is no way you studied science or engineering (since you of course realize that engineers make a distinction) and don't know that such a universal claim knowing that there are guaranteed to be exceptions is not logical or scientific and certainly doesn't jive with an engineers training. In fact, we're trained to prepare for likely exceptions.

Derisive? I've never heard this.

I just rather like British Imperial names and spellings for places, and they're usually equally correct for the same reasons. The exception is Ankara, because they do use our alphabet (though they didn't when the place was called Angora).

British Imperial names? You can't see why the people who were imperialized might not prefer such things.

I'm speaking anecdotally. Despite having attended several overwhelmingly liberal schools, I've never met a liberal engineer, nor a liberal who would even consider being an engineer. In the field I can speak from, due to a lack of formal statistics on the matter, one wouldn't be simply a black sheep, but a fanged black sheep wearing a pink suit. They'd stick out that badly.

Ah, okay, so in short, you're just making things up. Good to know.

By the way, my father is an engineer and an Obama supporter.

Yes, you "clarified" two pages later after admitting that the construction you DID use would make your statement false after two pages of arguing it was true. You then acted like you didn't change your claim, saying that my pointing out that you'd moved the goalposts didn't add anything.

Now, you're definitely suggesting that you corrected yourself right away, even though, not only didn't you correct yourself right away, you don't even admit you were wrong, that what you said and defended was false according to your logic.

Worse, when challenged you changed false to mean "could possibly be seen as false". Unfortunately, everyone here is paying attention. Your attempts to move the goalposts have failed. Laughably.

I did not change my claim, I clarified it so that its proper construction would be clear. This is far from the goalposts fallacy.
I did correct myself right away, immediately upon realizing that I was using an ambiguous construction.
The original statement was false as it was being construed, to have been of the first construction. Since this was not the intended construction, the statement itself, while ambiguous and deserving of clarification, was not false.
Your attempts at establishing the moving the goalposts fallacy have failed.

Derisive? I've never heard this.

I just rather like British Imperial names and spellings for places, and they're usually equally correct for the same reasons. The exception is Ankara, because they do use our alphabet (though they didn't when the place was called Angora).

Quickly, what's the capital of China?

You've inadvertently proven my point.

There are three possible constructs in question here:

All S is P.
S is P.
Some S is P.

The first and third are clear in their meanings. The second is ambiguous, and could mean either without further clarification. It tends to imply a meaning of the first construction, but need not do so.

My original statement was made in the construction of the second type. When, in a response to my original claim, I realized that this construction was ambiguous, and was being misconstrued as pointing to the first construction, I admitted that such an understanding of that statement's construction would indeed be false, and clarified my intended claim as being of the third type.

Dude you claimed the middle construction was false. That wasn't me. That was you. You said that by YOUR logic, the third construction is false.

Your statement was false, by your logic.

Derisive? I've never heard this.

I just rather like British Imperial names and spellings for places, and they're usually equally correct for the same reasons. The exception is Ankara, because they do use our alphabet (though they didn't when the place was called Angora).

This is a standard tactic, claiming that any language other than that used by the opponent is derisive.
Hence the outcry over the use of Obama's middle name and the term pro-abortion.

I did not change my claim, I clarified it so that its proper construction would be clear. This is far from the goalposts fallacy.
I did correct myself right away, immediately upon realizing that I was using an ambiguous construction.
The original statement was false as it was being construed, to have been of the first construction. Since this was not the intended construction, the statement itself, while ambiguous and deserving of clarification, was not false.
Your attempts at establishing the moving the goalposts fallacy have failed.

So saying that a construction is false by your logic isn't different than saying that someone else reading it might misunderstand it as false, so you clarified?

Hmmm... interesting. I guess I thought changed meant something was now different. Carry on then.

It must be true. Mark Foley is a conservative! :eek:

And we all know all Clowns are part of secret cabal plotting to slip us the banana peel of destiny and send us plummeting into the manhole of doom. :p

Dude you claimed the middle construction was false. That wasn't me. That was you. You said that by YOUR logic, the third construction is false.

Your statement was false, by your logic.

My statement, of the second construction, as being misconstrued as being of the first construction was false. Taken as it is, the statement

Those who listen to Hannity are patriots.

is neither demonstrably false or true; it is ambiguous. When it is assumed to be of the first construction, it is false.

Do you spell Christian with an X?

Not in formal writing. I may have done it once or twice in chatspeak, but only for the same reason people spell 'Christmas' with an X.

The word went from Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin and then into various Romance languages and Romance-based languages (like English) and in those is spelled according to applicable convention. 'Christian' isn't what's said in Arabic anyway.

Besides, spelling it 'Xian' would confuse about a sixth of the world's population. Hopefully everyone's worldly enough that I don't have to say which.

So saying that a construction is false by your logic isn't different than saying that someone else reading it might misunderstand it as false, so you clarified?

Hmmm... interesting. I guess I thought changed meant something was now different. Carry on then.

Changed does mean something is now different. My claim is as it always was in its content. I have clarified its form to reflect that content.