Today we are all socialists. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/14/news/companies/banks_capital_plan/index.htm?postversion=2008101417
This is "free market capitalism"!!! W/ help from the WTO, World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, CIA, FBI, U.S. Military, Department of Commerce, USAID, NSA & every other US government institution.
I just cannot see where a socialist government or more socialist programs will make the United States stronger or even more why someone would even vote for someone with socialist views. The United States can not handle any more programs. I am taxed to death at the moment and I am tired of paying the astronomical amounts and I am sure others feel the same.
Obama Under Fire For Playing T-Ball During Vietnam instead of fighting. I just can't believe he was a draft dodger.
We all consider different things when responding. I respond at my own pleasure, not necessarily at the pleasure of others or what their expectations might or might not be. Perhaps you are giving yourself more credit than I would (see bolded above). I disagree completely with that assessment. What I read was an emotionally charged "opinion" not based upon anything in reality. It seems the basis and summary of the "opinion" was derived from a personal "belief" (and/or "opinion" of what you believe the Washington Times is.) On the other hand, I find unsourced quotes from KOS and the NYT to be completely unacceptable. KOS goes without saying, but the NYT is clearly in bed with Obama. It cites a "disputed" report from the WT. A disputed report does not qualify as a lie. I'll take WT over the NYT any day, who has a long history of undermining our country and committing what many (including myself) would find as "treasonous." Who disputed the report? Democrats and one republican who is really a democrat. The notion that because a few democrats disputed a report makes it a lie doesn't wash with me. I'm not a socialist liberal. Obama has a history of lying which is well documented. I have no reason to take his word for anything. An opinion of the owner of a newspaper does not qualify a statement of truth as a lie. Its simply an opinion. Responding to stories in the headlines of the day is not uncommon for any candidate. In fact, that is "politics," "my friend."
Wade, this tactic - "opinion" v. "fact" is an old, hackneyed thing, between you and a good many others. I am truly sorry to say this, but you have portrayed mine as some kind of "loon opinion" ("not grounded in reality," as you said), not something based in fact, and you do this a good deal. Frankly, I would have thought you wouldn't do this, after all this passage of time, when it is simply not true. I can't make it any more factual than a straight comparison of what Palin said, and what her "news source," the Washington Times, said. You may resort to any number of tactics you would like, to include insulting me, to impugn me, to do whatever you would like to convince yourself and others of whatever agenda you need to hold to. Bottom line, whether Debunked's groundless game playing: "Vague." "Non-Answer." "In the line of Pizzaman." When, in direct response to: I offered this, as a start, believing it to be a specific, responsive, and factually based reply - something you dismissed as my "overinflated ego," in so many words, without saying why (far too often, I am sad to say): Now, I challenged debunked to indicate what in the above is a "vague," "non-responsive post" "in the manner of pizzaman" to debunked taking issue with my assessment of Palin's record of civil rights respecting gays. He ran for cover. Since you indicated my post in the above paragraph is "emotionally charged opinion not based in reality," I will challenge you, as well, to answer the same question: how so? You've certainly spoken liberally about your perceived flaws of my person, respecting the issue, my character in posting thoughts on the same - now, please indicate the basis for your claim? Whether this, or your attempt to hide the Palin lies, it's all the same, sadly, to me. I don't see any obfuscation taking place here, but by you, and by the lesser skilled, seeking to divert attention from the truth (I'm thinking debunked, Biz, Simpleg123, off the top); no one can sanitize her mischaracterization of even the Sun Myung Moon lie: https://www3.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/10/obama-sought-to-sway-iraqis-on-bush-deal/ It may not be apparent to you, or to debunked and the few others, but yes, I see a difference between "Obama sought to secure a secret deal" (Palin) and "sought to ensure the Iraqis wouldn't enact the President's deal without congressional approval. (the WASHINGTON TIMES ITSELF - itself a lie, apparently). Additionally, you indicated you would take the Washington Times itself over other sources disputing the validity of the Times article. I guess they're all "in bed with Obama" and the only "truth-teller" is the paper owned by the far-right extremist, cult leader, Sun Myung Moon. Not in my world. You have resorted to relying on aspersions, only ("not grounded in reality"), but I'm sorry, you have nothing more; and now, I note your "my friend," closer, in quotes. You have previously expressed displeasure over what you somehow believe is my "alignment" with Grim, and it forces me to remind the entire community of something long with me - whether debunked's stated attempt to "goad me," to "make me mad," etc., or Wade, your seeing things in terms of "alliances" on DP, as you earlier indicated to me, or "friends," here. I don't see things here as a kindergarten sandbox, and don't feel the need to check with "buds" to see that my thoughts past muster. It's not in my nature. I hope to seek the truth, and that is it. If you choose to resort to the above kinds of tactics, that is your call to make. Lies, "opinions" and "facts." Food for thought: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/the_mccainpalin_lies_and_the_n.html (By the way - Real Clear now has Obama with a +155 electoral lead over McCain, up from yesterday - +146 for Obama; itself dramatically up from the day before, at +119).
I could, but I will not be lured to that level nor have I done so. You'd be surprised at what people who are threatened by an informed republican will go to, to silence their opposition. For example, one might do a little scouting for a really old post where some heated discussions took place. They might find a post of someone they want to "get rid of" that was a bit inflammatory, due to the nature of the thread and any number of other participants. Especially when they can't find anything new to report. Perhaps a thread like this one. Or, maybe even one like this. Then they might forward a link to a particular post onto a new found friend (strange bedfellow might be more appropriate) that wants to silence him as well, who in turn might pass it on to another friend to report as a "third party," hoping a moderator might not take note of the date, and voila, oui oui, he's gone. So you can imagine why I have to watch my back a little more than the average poster around here. There always seems to be a sharp object waiting with a smile. I do hope you will understand.
Wade, you've called me a loon, in so many words, saying that my contentions aren't based in reality; yet, like debunked, biz, simply, who have tried a similar tactic, you won't show why - and in the meantime, I've posted facts that you are free to refute, or not. I don't get it. Wade, sorry, I'm not following you here. You've provided links as examples - they appear to be some scrap with Guerilla, in the first link, and some scrap with Grim, in the second. If I understand your intent correctly, I don't feel you're very transparent here. You are saying, in so many words, that some "new found friend" will send on to me material that will get you banned, or that I will respond and use this material somehow, to get you banned - is that about right? I will have to say again: I don't see this as a sandbox, peopled with children. Debunked earlier said he hoped to "get me mad," etc., and you earlier said you were aware I've formed some kind of "alliance" with others; I'm just not interested, as I told you, in thinking along these terms. What I care about is what's in the post. That's it. If you've something legitimate to post, based in more than an accusation that "I'm wrong, not based in reality," and if in fact I have erred, I am glad to admit so, publically, and learn from it. All the rest just seems ridiculous - isn't it?
No, I have not called you any name or said anything of the sort. In fact, I've gone out of my way to stay away from anything personal. In the following post, debunked asked where Sarah Palin was lying. I responded with: "She wasn't. Not on anything based in reality." I would appreciate it if you would keep things honest and stop trying to drag every post off topic about yourself. I've already stated I will not be lured into a personal level. I know what the intention is. Tonight was very illuminating for me. What I care about is discussing issues and sourcing material. I'm not interested in having someone making every "non-personal" post I make into something personal and about themselves.
You now say I am being dishonest - I guess this also isn't "personal." Now, given your post(s) on the idea of "reality," perhaps we simply have a different view of what constitutes "on topic," and what constitutes "personal," Wade, particularly when what we have on hand, the exchange you labelled as "mere opinion, emotionally charged, not based in reality," is, literally: Debunked has shown he likes to play the same card, but it doesn't make it any more accurate. If you've a substantive dispute with anything I've said here, I am honestly open to taking a look, and admit my error, if wrong, whatever you have found that is "illuminating" about tonight's discussion notwithstanding.
Wow, I ran for cover?? Every thing you have quoted me on you never gave an answer to. Simply answer why her "christian right" constituency would be mad at her: Simply answer how her quoting a article or using someones information makes her the liar: You simply can't. You can keep re-quoting everything that is a non-answer (oh no I said it again) and it won't do you anyone any good. Write an answer. Try not to get personal or emotional on this if you can. I really am not asking for much. According to you I should be mad at Palin for things because of my "christian" beliefs, yet you can't explain how. Then you want everyone to believe she is lying, yet even you have quoted articles or material that at some time probably has been proven inaccurate or wrong. And on top of that you claim this Moon guy as "religious right" yet he is some sort of cult leader that has nothing to do with Christianity and you would know that if you were being truthful about your study of Christianity. Oh, if you can't reply with an answer, then don't bother replying. I simply won't be dragged on and on. This post was out of frustration in the matter feeling like you are attempting only to sling mud instead of deal in facts. "debunked this" "debunked that" shoot, you even took my responses for one post and made it look like that is what I said toward another of your posts. Grow up PLEASE.
Damian, debunked is in addition to everything else, trying to divert my supposed "non-answers" from one issue to another. Thanks for pointing out that I did supply where I think Palin was lying; in fact, the quote you posted was a reiteration of what I said at the start: So, it seems to be debunked's thing to attempt to portray concrete, fact-based answers as non-answers; that, or simply ignore the answers altogether, and continue to claim no answer was provided. I say it "seems to be his thing," because this wasn't even the original question/answer over which debunked attempted to mischaracterize things. And it was on the original issue/answer that Gtech characterized me as being "vague," "not grounded in reality, etc." Originally, debunked raised a question to my contention that Palin blew it with the far religious right, in seeming to agree with Biden on the notion of an equality of civil rights. Despite my earlier answer: Debunked continued to attempt: When, in fact, from the start, we have what I posted above. Debunked seems to be confused, as it is a straightforward statement - no "bolded" parts, no "quoting her," simply the governor's opposition to extending the same healthcare rights afforded heterosexual couples, to homosexual couples. Her opposition was long and forcefully fought, and it was only on being ordered to comply by the Alaskan Supreme Court that Palin complied, kicking and screaming. In other words, as I've said many times, in response to debunked's question, I had already supplied an answer. Now, maybe others can see what debunked is talking about, because for the life of me, I can't. Seems to me, mine was a pretty concrete post; seems to me it isn't "vague," isn't a "non-response," isn't a reply containing "quotes" or "bolded parts" for effect, isn't a reply "in the manner of pizzaman," isn't any of the things debunked would like to continue to attempt; that he doesn't like the answer isn't surprising, given his bias towards Palin, but it doesn't change that he is merely attempting a misconception of what I've actually said. Palin vigorously fought the right of homosexual couples to enjoy the same healthcare benefits afforded straight couples. In the debate, she attempted to change that record, by seemingly agreeing with Biden on the issue of civil rights. She then immediately realized her gaffe, because it would alienate the very religious right bloc that sees her as their darling, and closed shop, peremptorily. These are the facts. Anyway, it's a tactic debunked regularly employs - to ask for an answer, and then pretend an answer hasn't been supplied, or to characterize - as Gtech has also done (which I find sad, to be honest) - my (and, I'm guessing, others' with whom he disagrees) replies as merely "emotion-laden opinions not grounded in reality." But it's a very silly attempt, or it seems so to me, anyway. A good example of another tack, simple mischaracterization of what I do say, would be: When I never said anything of the kind: Now, maybe it's me - my eyes are older, and I do need glasses from time to time. But did I ever say Moon was a Christian/evangelical right leader, in the manner of Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell, etc.? Interesting that debunked would simply try things like this. Interesting, too, that he would now call into question my study or understanding of Christian theology. Depends on what one hopes to achieve, I suppose, in the way of "winning" web arguments. I know it doesn't feel that bad to simply say, "I was wrong," when, well, I was wrong. The ability to admit that seems really, really difficult for some people, in my opinion. ********** Sorry for the side track; as we are talking about Palin and her policies, to be told in so many words I'm merely some loon posting air infused with my own bias, well, I felt it requires an affirmative response. With that, unless debunked or any other would like to continue turning this into a referendum on me, I'd like to move on.
Thanks I missed that. North, I just replied with way too much typing and of course DP errored and I lost it all. Since then you edited your post as well. Sorry about misquoting you on the nut-case moon. Just to sum up the most important part I wrote: You totally misread me and in your own mind come up with who you think I am and what I am doing (intent) I only wanted a clear answer to understand how I as a "christian" would be shaken by her agreeing with biden, etc... If you think that westboro hate cult is what Christianity is you totally missed it. I wish you could visit me and talk for a few days to see how legit I am. How honest I am when I say I wanted a clear answer. Sorry, if I came across any other way, but furthering any response seems to only get muddled up more and I can say things any better I guess to clearify my writings. ADDED: I hope this doesn't create any new trail, just wanting to know what "right-extremist" is suppose to mean?
Good Lord! All this obsession and grand standing over one little comment: "She wasn't. Not on anything based in reality." Heh! Time to move on to something better. My oh my the left sure has a putrid hatred for Sarah! That certainly tells me I'm casting my vote for the right party
OK, no worries - we can move on from this issue. And again, I gave you that answer, immediately. You have chosen to ignore, or mischaracterize my answers, as a matter of course, but that doesn't change the fact I have answered, specifically, any outstanding questions. You claimed I never answered you, and further claimed I was "vague," and repeated the mantra over and over, several times - when in fact I answered you, with specifics, from the beginning - as with the above answer on Palin's lying. You then joined the refrain with an appraisal of my intents, using a method you seem to try quite a bit, that somehow I am merely "emotion-laden," therefore grossly biased, and this somehow colors an ability to post with substance and neutrality. I take issue with this, since I did, have and do post with points of fact - to be argued, sure, but not to be ignored and then my "intent and manner" are to mischaracterized. Again - as with the Moon misstatement, why would you say something like this, knowing full well I don't believe this - going all the way to create a thread about it, a thread you joined, for godsakes? It's this kind of whispered thing that is simply dishonorable, debunked, in my opinion. It's what I mean when I say that you seem to be intent on portraying something on my part that is simply not there; sorry. None of us know each other any more than by what we write on the board, debunked. It's all we have - what is said here is our best ability to know one another. EDIT: Just caught your edit. I consider Moon a cult leader: Most do, except for his followers, presumably. His extreme-rightism is embedded in his church's religious and political philosophy, which is extremely authoritarian, believing that democracy is only a phase of mankind, after which a divine, unitary state, will be placed on earth - presumably, with himself as head of state. A rightist philosophy.
Wade, best wishes. Yes, "all this effort and grandstanding" over refuting that I'm an emotion-laden loon, posting vagaries and non-answers, when what I post are answers grounded in facts - I am very happy to discuss, amend, or discard my views, so long as the discussion stays honorable, and truthful. The other stuff, the stuff on evidence here and elsewhere, well - no, not my cup of tea. I just have a hatred for the putrid, which is all I've seen emanate from the cipher's mouth. So much so, that even McCain at least made the attempt to put a halt to the garbage, at least for one day, coming from his campaign. Best wishes on whatever you do next.
Looks like there is a new Sarah Palin scandal on the horizon. One so repulsive and outrageous that it will surely be her demise. What is it? OMG, Sarah Palin stopped in a Walmart to visit with real Americans and pick up some diapers! So repulsive, so un-Ameri...uh, unCommunist! No 600 thread count Egyptian cotton diapers ordered from Neiman Marcus. Just regular old diapers from a regular old store where regular old Americans shop. Treasonous!