# Barack and Michelle in the Oval Office?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11718.html

With "friends" like that ...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Michelle the obnoxious, left-wing racist, and Obama the pathetic bastard imitating the idealized father he never knew.

Wait, it was supposed to be a parody of that characterization? I thought it was an honest take on a couple that does so much lying about themselves to the public.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Hilarious regardless.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

and less satirically:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

"Unlike Senator John McCain, I was not involved in national politics at the time the war began.... I was a minor state politician, a state senator or something, and no one gave a damn what I thought about the Iraq war."

Nice!


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I guess the funniest part is that these 2 really will be in the Oval Office in January, and they can do whatever they want with it. I've always supported Obama since he announced his plans to run. But I think now I'm really getting excited at the prospect of all of these massively anti-Obama people having to say the words "President Barack Hussein Obama" for at least 4 years. It will be good payback, since the same people voted for our nation's worst president in 230 years not once, but twice. I too wish we had a better candidate, but unfortuantely we don't.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Right. Let me try that again,

"Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war from the beginning. Of course, back in 2003, I was a state senator, and I represented a district where I could have said that Bush was invading Iraq so he could stop Saddam Hussein from telling people that Reagan invented AIDS, and it wouldn't have hurt my chances for reelection. But I'm not there, anymore, so please don't be discouraged if what I say about Iraq depends on the day's news, or the state I'm speaking in."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> and less satirically:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


Wow! That's awful! Are you sure that also isn't satire?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Wow! That's awful! Are you sure that also isn't satire?


What do you think is awful about it?

How long would you like to see this war go on? Until my kids are old enough to get killed there?

No, and no thanks.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

It still blows my mind that people are investing so much time in trying to paint Obama as a muslim. This swift boat tactic makes me think this is all the GOP has this year. Not any ideas or issues, just a smear campaign.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Helvetia said:


> It still blows my mind that people are investing so much time in trying to paint Obama as a muslim. This swift boat tactic makes me think this is all the GOP has this year. Not any ideas or issues, just a smear campaign.


I think you will see a massive reimagining of the GOP in the next 2-4 years. Obama will be in office and the dems will gain heavier majorities in both houses of congress. Its amazing here in Mississippi, where it is heavily republican and we now have a democratic congressman and might have a new democratic senator in November. I'd look for a new GOP to surface by 2012, one that is led by someone with no connections to Bush, Rove, Cheney and company. They have to get away from the tough guy, evangelical, smear campaign image they have now in order to survive. I have way more in common with repubs then dems, but I have to call myself independent because of the absurdity of the current GOP.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Helvetia said:


> It still blows my mind that people are investing so much time in trying to paint Obama as a muslim. This swift boat tactic makes me think this is all the GOP has this year. Not any ideas or issues, just a smear campaign.


Except nobody really is-- it's a straw man pushed to distract you from real concerns about Obama's past.

Racist church? "I"m not a Muslim!"


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Right. Let me try that again,
> 
> "Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war from the beginning. Of course, back in 2003, I was a state senator, and I represented a district where I could have said that Bush was invading Iraq so he could stop Saddam Hussein from telling people that Reagan invented AIDS, and it wouldn't have hurt my chances for reelection. But I'm not there, anymore, so please don't be discouraged if what I say about Iraq depends on the day's news, or the state I'm speaking in."


You're such a party hack! How bout, "we're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMD. He has yellow cake and is trying to make a bomb. No wait, it's 'cause he's a bad tyrant dictator. Whoops, I mean so we can fight the ter-ists over there instead of over here. I mean, it's to spread democracy. Hold on, it's 'cause me and my buddy Dick are oil men. ****, why'd we invade Iraq again?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

nolan50410 said:


> ... I'd look for a new GOP to surface by 2012, one that is led by someone with no connections to Bush, Rove, Cheney and company. They have to get away from the tough guy, evangelical, smear campaign image they have now in order to survive.


if we're lucky they'll all leave the country, be indicted for war crimes, and we won't have to deal with them ever again


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> You're such a party hack! How bout, "we're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMD. He has yellow cake and is trying to make a bomb. No wait, it's 'cause he's a bad tyrant dictator. Whoops, I mean so we can fight the ter-ists over there instead of over here. I mean, it's to spread democracy. Hold on, it's 'cause me and my buddy Dick are oil men. ****, why'd we invade Iraq again?


Wow, talk about a party hack and a hypocrite to boot--this is an Obama thread, remember?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Helvetia said:


> It still blows my mind that people are investing so much time in trying to paint Obama as a muslim. This swift boat tactic makes me think this is all the GOP has this year. Not any ideas or issues, just a smear campaign.


Lying about Kerry is all they had in 2004, but unfrotunately, he ran such a bad campaign it was enough.

It's all they have this year too. Expect to hear more of their Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton propaganda as the campaign moves on. (You've undoubtedly seen it from some of the Republican Kool-Aid drinkers here already.)

Maybe we'll see if the American voters really do prefer to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, which is McCain's stated plan.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> You're such a party hack! How bout, "we're invading Iraq because Saddam has WMD. He has yellow cake and is trying to make a bomb. No wait, it's 'cause he's a bad tyrant dictator. Whoops, I mean so we can fight the ter-ists over there instead of over here. I mean, it's to spread democracy. Hold on, it's 'cause me and my buddy Dick are oil men. ****, why'd we invade Iraq again?


LOL :icon_smile_big:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

You people are idiots. McCain never said he wants to be fighting a war for 100 years in Iraq. He said he would like to see us have a precense over there like we do in Japan, Korea, Germany, Kuwait... who's bastardizing the truth now? That's all you liberals have, because you know the average American won't stand for your socialist ideas that involve telling the average citizen the best way to live in the name of "internationalism," "political correctness," and "fairness." If that doctrine really worked, Mr. Obama wouldn't need to radically shift his policy. In fact, I think Mr. Obama now supports more of President Bush's policies than John McCain does.

Don't worry, there is no problem you can't fix with more taxes and more government programs. Perhaps we can just send the government our checks and they can give us back how much they think we should earn.


Mr. Obama hasn't won yet - so don't pat yourselves on the back quite yet.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Helvetia said:


> It still blows my mind that people are investing so much time in trying to paint Obama as a muslim. This swift boat tactic makes me think this is all the GOP has this year. Not any ideas or issues, just a smear campaign.


Swift boating? The only negative ad that I have seen by anyone pushing for Mr. McCain was condemning Mr. Obama's energy policy.

Yet, I read everyday about how McCain is too old, that he is running for "Bush's 3rd term." Etc.... etc... etc.

Stop reading the New York Times. Or don't. At the current rate of decline they might be out of subscribers by the election. Maybe if Mr. Obama wins he will subsidize the paper and keep it alive forever telling us about the greatness of socialism.

Of course it would be well meaning and in the "national interest."


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Right. Let me try that again,
> 
> "Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war from the beginning. Of course, back in 2003, I was a state senator, and I represented a district where I could have said that Bush was invading Iraq so he could stop Saddam Hussein from telling people that Reagan invented AIDS, and it wouldn't have hurt my chances for reelection. But I'm not there, anymore, so please don't be discouraged if what I say about Iraq depends on the day's news, or the state I'm speaking in."


That's pretty hilarious--and rings all too true.

As I understand Obama's candidacy, he and, perhaps more, his supporters argue that it is his superior "judgment" that makes him the best candidate (aside from all that bring the country together nonsense). However, on the greatest foreign policy challenge of his Senate tenure -- the surge -- he was decidedly wrong.

As a consequence, supporters parrot his opposition against the war as evidence of his great judgment. Well, as PT's satire suggests, his opposition is more likely a product of his sensitivity to his constituents concerns, rather than attributable to a great sense of "judgment" on his part.

But hey, its pretty much all that can be said for Obama -- aside from the fact that he isn't George W. So, I don't blame his supporters for trotting it out.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Wow, talk about a party hack and a hypocrite to boot--this is an Obama thread, remember?


Speaking of Obama. I went to the mall the other day with my wife. When we came out someone had tried to rip the Obama sticker I have on my car off. A little piece of the corner is now missing. But that was all they could get - it says right on the sticker that it was made in America by union workers!!! That kind of made me proud.

When we left the mall there were a few anti-Obama, anti-abortion protestors standing in the street. They all had signs saying, "we can do better than Obama and we can do better than abortion." Of course, they were all old men. I laughed and stopped at a yellow light just so they could see by half torn Obama sticker.

Whatever happened to the Goldwater conservative? I thought McCain was one. I really liked him in 2000 and would have voted for him then (if I had the chance). He seems to have lost the fiscal conservative social liberal quality that I liked. I think AuH20 would be a democrat if he were alive today - just my opinion.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I did note however, in that article posted Mr. Obama has stopped referring to it as "when I'm elected" but he is back to "if I'm elected."


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Speaking of Obama. I went to the mall the other day with my wife. When we came out someone had tried to rip the Obama sticker I have on my car off. A little piece of the corner is now missing. But that was all they could get - it says right on the sticker that it was made in America by union workers!!! That kind of made me proud.
> 
> When we left the mall there were a few anti-Obama, anti-abortion protestors standing in the street. They all had signs saying, "we can do better than Obama and we can do better than abortion." Of course, they were all old men. I laughed and stopped at a yellow light just so they could see by half torn Obama sticker.
> 
> Whatever happened to the Goldwater conservative? I thought McCain was one. I really liked him in 2000 and would have voted for him then (if I had the chance). He seems to have lost the fiscal conservative social liberal quality that I liked. I think AuH20 would be a democrat if he were alive today - just my opinion.


So you're replacing "John McCain" for any of his supporters?


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Speaking of Obama. I went to the mall the other day with my wife. When we came out someone had tried to rip the Obama sticker I have on my car off. A little piece of the corner is now missing. But that was all they could get - it says right on the sticker that it was made in America by union workers!!! That kind of made me proud.
> 
> When we left the mall there were a few anti-Obama, anti-abortion protestors standing in the street. They all had signs saying, "we can do better than Obama and we can do better than abortion." Of course, they were all old men. I laughed and stopped at a yellow light just so they could see by half torn Obama sticker.
> 
> Whatever happened to the Goldwater conservative? I thought McCain was one. I really liked him in 2000 and would have voted for him then (if I had the chance). He seems to have lost the fiscal conservative social liberal quality that I liked. I think AuH20 would be a democrat if he were alive today - just my opinion.


String,

I'm sorry someone tried to rip off your bumper sticker. Such juvenile crap is ridiculous--and pointless!


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Don't worry, there is no problem you can't fix with more taxes and more government programs. Perhaps we can just send the government our checks and they can give us back how much they think we should earn.


Uhm, who has raised the debt more than any other president in the history of the country? You know that $ has to be paid back at sometime and it will come from your pay check. Keep voting Republican - they don't spend any $. Or maybe since both parties overspend you could vote Democrat and maybe get something for you $ (you know, other than a war).

And even if you think the war was a good idea, Regan increased the debt and so did Bush 1. Yep, vote Republican and get lower taxes - not!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> You people are idiots. McCain never said he wants to be fighting a war for 100 years in Iraq. He said he would like to see us have a precense over there like we do in Japan, Korea, Germany, Kuwait... who's bastardizing the truth now?


Here's what I said: _Maybe we'll see if the American voters really do prefer to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, which is McCain's stated plan._

Now tell me if McCain said he'd be glad to have American forces in Iraq for another 100 years.

McCain's exit strategy is to stay in. In other words "I was against staying in Iraq forever before I was for it."


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Here's what I said: _Maybe we'll see if the American voters really do prefer to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, which is McCain's stated plan._
> 
> Now tell me if McCain said he'd be glad to have American forces in Iraq for another 100 years.
> 
> McCain's exit strategy is to stay in.


Yes.... at a reduced level like we are in Germany, Japan, et all.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> You people are idiots. McCain never said he wants to be fighting a war for 100 years in Iraq. He said he would like to see us have a precense over there like we do in Japan, Korea, Germany, Kuwait... who's bastardizing the truth now? That's all you liberals have, because you know the average American won't stand for your socialist ideas that involve telling the average citizen the best way to live in the name of "internationalism," "political correctness," and "fairness." If that doctrine really worked, Mr. Obama wouldn't need to radically shift his policy. In fact, I think Mr. Obama now supports more of President Bush's policies than John McCain does.
> 
> Don't worry, there is no problem you can't fix with more taxes and more government programs. Perhaps we can just send the government our checks and they can give us back how much they think we should earn.
> 
> Mr. Obama hasn't won yet - so don't pat yourselves on the back quite yet.


And how does McCain plan to pay for this 100 year occupation? So much for fiscal conservatism.

100 more years of roadside bombs and attacks on our soldiers. Great plan.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Uhm, who has raised the debt more than any other president in the history of the country? You know that $ has to be paid back at sometime and it will come from your pay check. Keep voting Republican - they don't spend any $. Or maybe since both parties overspend you could vote Democrat and maybe get something for you $ (you know, other than a war).
> 
> And even if you think the war was a good idea, Regan increased the debt and so did Bush 1. Yep, vote Republican and get lower taxes - not!


Explain what I would get from the Democrats except more gun control, a socialist health care system that is failing in the EU and in Canada, more mandates for "green" technology, and a union to protect me at my job that won't exist because it has moved overseas.

More directly to your point. You do realize that raising the capital gains tax will in fact lower the income taken in by the government from this tax? You probably are also aware that the United States has the second highest tax rate for corporations, which is leading more and more companies to places like Singapore where there is a massive pool of people who perform well in math and science, and oh yeah... Singapore will pay them to move there.

So if I were a company, and I had the choice of paying 38% of my income to the government (Federal only) or 18% in Singapore, or 0% in the UAE, where would I choose?!?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> And how does McCain plan to pay for this 100 year occupation? So much for fiscal conservatism.
> 
> 100 more years of roadside bombs and attacks on our soldiers. Great plan.


So do we "occupy" Germany or Japan?

I doubt it would cost much, if anything, more than we currently spend. Do you contend that Rammstein AFB costs us tons of extra money than if we had the base in the United States?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't understand the comparison of McCain's "100 years" comment and our bases in Germany and Japan. We fought world wars against Japan and Germany over ideology. We aren't fighting Iraq. We've spent 5 years trying to spread democracy to a region that doesn't want it. Having forces in Iraq for 100 years would be nothing like our bases in Japan and Europe. We would just be their free police just like we are now. Our only option now is to give tangible goals and deadlines to Iraq and if they don't meet them then we take X amount of troops out. If they meet the deadline we move forward until we gradually withdraw all troops. Whether it makes us look bad or not, we must leave. Would any republican run his or her small business any other way??


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Yes.... at a reduced level like we are in Germany, Japan, et all.


Are you overlooking the inconsequential little detail of how we get to the point where Iraq is as peaceful as Germany or Japan?

Or the inconvenient fact that the government of Iraq wants us to set a timetable to get out?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Are you overlooking the inconsequential little detail of how we get to the point where Iraq is as peaceful as Germany or Japan?
> 
> Or the inconvenient fact that the government of Iraq wants us to set a timetable to get out?


Yep. That's the crux of the lil trouble.

The more I hear from the war crowd, the more I see how nuts they are. Fortunately Bush & Co. will be sent back to the oil patch in a few more months. Let's hope they don't screw anything else up in the meantime.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Explain what I would get from the Democrats except more gun control, a socialist health care system that is failing in the EU and in Canada, more mandates for "green" technology, and a union to protect me at my job that won't exist because it has moved overseas.
> 
> More directly to your point. You do realize that raising the capital gains tax will in fact lower the income taken in by the government from this tax? You probably are also aware that the United States has the second highest tax rate for corporations, which is leading more and more companies to places like Singapore where there is a massive pool of people who perform well in math and science, and oh yeah... Singapore will pay them to move there.
> 
> So if I were a company, and I had the choice of paying 38% of my income to the government (Federal only) or 18% in Singapore, or 0% in the UAE, where would I choose?!?


lol. Speaking of Socialism: taxpayers bail out Bear Stearns and Freddie/Fannie. And how many more to come? Those free markets are wonderful!


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I think Bush and Cheney will do one more really stupid thing before their time is up. I can see them launching missles at Iran, only to have Iran blow up an entire U.S. base in Iraq. This will force the next administration to go to war with Iran, which is what our prez and VP have wanted to do since day 1. Fortunately for us they haven't had the resources.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

BertieW said:


> lol. Speaking of Socialism: taxpayers bail out Bear Stearns and Freddie/Fannie. And how many more to come? Those free markets are wonderful!


Remind me again how taxpayers "bailed out" Stearns...?

And do you even know what the other two are?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Remind me again how taxpayers "bailed out" Stearns...?
> 
> And do you even know what the other two are?


I know I do. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were legendary characters on Mama's Family.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

The bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is (partially) the result of years of Democratic Congressional opposition to any real oversight over the companies. 

Most Republicans would prefer to not have quasi-public entities like those two companies involved in the loan business. However, since so many people rely on those companies, Republicans are stuck with having to deal with them--at least for now.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

magogian said:


> The bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is (partially) the result of years of Democratic Congressional opposition to any real oversight over the companies.
> 
> Most Republicans would prefer to not have quasi-public entities like those two companies involved in the loan business. However, since so many people rely on those companies, Republicans are stuck with having to deal with them--at least for now.


I'll quibble with that. Trying to lay the blame at the feet of the Dems is short-sighted partisanship at best. FNMA & FHLMC have spread their lobbying money widely, roping in enough political support to survive under any attempts at reform.

-Oh, and which party was it that controlled all the White House and both branches of Congrees last ? Been out of the country ?

-still have a memory, after all these years


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

tabasco,

FM and FM have spread their money widely, but that doesn't rebut my point. Neither does the fact that Republicans controlled the country for a few years. 

Anytime reform has been introduced in the Congress (since the mid-90s), Democrats have blocked the reform. It is really that simple. Snide remarks don't change it.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying that FM and FM would have definitely survived if the proposed reforms had been instituted -- I simply don't know enough about the actual legislation. My point is far more narrow.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Explain what I would get from the Democrats except more gun control, a socialist health care system that is failing in the EU and in Canada, more mandates for "green" technology, and a union to protect me at my job that won't exist because it has moved overseas.
> 
> More directly to your point. You do realize that raising the capital gains tax will in fact lower the income taken in by the government from this tax? You probably are also aware that the United States has the second highest tax rate for corporations, which is leading more and more companies to places like Singapore where there is a massive pool of people who perform well in math and science, and oh yeah... Singapore will pay them to move there.
> 
> So if I were a company, and I had the choice of paying 38% of my income to the government (Federal only) or 18% in Singapore, or 0% in the UAE, where would I choose?!?


I never thought of it that way...wait, yes I have. I'm not a big fan of socialist health care either - but at least I get something for my taxes (like the money I currently spend for health insurance back). I like green technology just in case it saves the planet so I get something for that money too. With Democrats I get something that I just might like. With Republicans I get a war and lies.

As for the corporate tax rate (isn't it 35%), during the Kennedy administration capital gains tax was upwards of 80%. The country didn't shut down. People didn't stop going to work. Even Warren Buffet thinks the capital gains rate is too low. I have heard him say a number of times that he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary does.

I think companies are going offshore (like Chaney's Haliburton) for the cheap labor and land prices. I don't want America to look like Singapore or The UAE. Sure we have higher taxes than they do, but boy is our country nicer than theirs!

As for a pool of workers in Singapore that are good at math and science - I wish our education system was as good as theirs. Thanks No Child Left Behind and President Numb Nuts. We don't need no math and science here. Yee Haw!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Lying about Kerry is all they had in 2004, but unfrotunately, he ran such a bad campaign it was enough.


The thing that did Kerry in and I thought was particularly bad was when they were "lying" and said John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against war :devil:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I got a call from the RNC today asking me if I "support" John McCain ... that was interesting ...


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I got a call from the RNC today asking me if I "support" John McCain ... that was interesting ...


As a financial supporter of McCain, I get inundated daily with mailings from the McCain campaign--fortunately though only the occasional call. That said, I really wish they would spend their money sending the crap, oops, I mean important campaign literature to someone else.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

magogian said:


> As a financial supporter of McCain, I get inundated daily with mailings from the McCain campaign--fortunately though only the occasional call. That said, I really wish they would spend their money sending the crap, oops, I mean important campaign literature to someone else.


It is sort of pathetic how they try to milk you dry once you donate once.

I told the guy that everytime Obama says something stupid on TV my Wife looks at me and says, "Are we really going to have to vote for McCain?"

It's an almost unbearable thought. I keep praying something will happen.

When so many of the population isn't satisifed with either guy you'd think we could actually do something about it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I want to find out who the "go to" guys are for saying the nasty things about Obama are going to be before I give any money.

I'd give good money to see a 30-second, "God Damn America! / I don't wear a flag pin because I show my love of country through my socialism / My $350,000/year BS job I got because my husband is a senator is the first time I ever truly felt proud of my country" bit.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I want to find out who the "go to" guys are for saying the nasty things about Obama are going to be before I give any money.
> 
> I'd give good money to see a 30-second, "God Damn America! / I don't wear a flag pin because I show my love of country through my socialism / My $350,000/year BS job I got because my husband is a senator is the first time I ever truly felt proud of my country" bit.


LOL

I told them I was going to wait and see what McCain did on VP and stuff like that. I might have to vote for him, but I don't have to give him money.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Like I said, more to come:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/...em&ex=1216180800&en=11da68641f267cf0&ei=5087


"Failed banks are a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator," said William Isaac, who was chairman of the F.D.I.C. in the early 1980s and is now the chairman of the Secura Group, a finance consulting firm in Virginia. "So you will see more troubled, more failed banks this year."

And yet IndyMac, one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders, was not on the government's troubled bank list this spring - an indication that other troubled banks may be below the radar.

Meanwhile, back at the White House story time continues:

https://www.goodnightbush.com/


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

ksinc said:


> LOL
> 
> I told them I was going to wait and see what McCain did on VP and stuff like that. I might have to vote for him, but I don't have to give him money.


I actually find it curious that so few people do donate--relative to the entire population. I think you have a few million or so that donate each election cycle out of the 300+ million in our pop. (Granted, that number includes children). I'm not saying its a bad thing--people can have plenty of good reasons: low income, don't care for the candidates, etc. I just find it curious that the percent of people who donate is pretty low.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

magogian said:


> I actually find it curious that so few people do donate--relative to the entire population. I think you have a few million or so that donate each election cycle out of the 300+ million in our pop. (Granted, that number includes children). I'm not saying its a bad thing--people can have plenty of good reasons: low income, don't care for the candidates, etc. I just find it curious that the percent of people who donate is pretty low.


As in most things, most people are all "talk."

One of the things I have really done to influence my Wife positively is harp on "there are many people that want stuff, but very few willing to do what they have to do to get it." She has really taken it to heart and become extremely self-sufficient and industrious.

Everything I told the RNC today I have told the Gov, my Senator(s), and my Congressman repeatedly in letters and phone calls. People who don't vote, don't contribute, don't volunteer, and don't contact their representatives receive little regard for their venting from me.


----------



## PennGlock (Mar 14, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I want to find out who the "go to" guys are for saying the nasty things about Obama are going to be before I give any money.
> 
> I'd give good money to see a 30-second, "God Damn America! / I don't wear a flag pin because I show my love of country through my socialism / My $350,000/year BS job I got because my husband is a senator is the first time I ever truly felt proud of my country" bit.


Im with you man! Every dime I spend on this campaign is going straight into the "swiftboat" style organizations. We need as many crackers and scared old ladies showing up on election day as possible... That leftist kook from Chicago's ghetto cannot be allowed win!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PennGlock said:


> Im with you man! Every dime I spend on this campaign is going straight into the "swiftboat" style organizations. We need as many crackers and scared old ladies showing up on election day as possible... That leftist kook from Chicago's ghetto cannot be allowed win!


I was on the fence, but you convinced me with that argument.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I want to find out who the "go to" guys are for saying the nasty things about Obama are going to be before I give any money.
> 
> I'd give good money to see a 30-second, "God Damn America! / I don't wear a flag pin because I show my love of country through my socialism / My $350,000/year BS job I got because my husband is a senator is the first time I ever truly felt proud of my country" bit.


Turkey,

Drop the act! I saw the picture you posted of your tie collection. I saw the compact florescent bulb you have in your closet. I know what side you are playing for. I bet you drive a hybrid and love wheat grass. You can't fool me! In debate class, when the teacher told you to argue the other side so you can learn their arguments and defeat them, you took it to heart. I'm on to you.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What you couldn't see is that I keep the place at 65 degrees year-round.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I never thought of it that way...wait, yes I have. I'm not a big fan of socialist health care either - but at least I get something for my taxes (like the money I currently spend for health insurance back). I like green technology just in case it saves the planet so I get something for that money too. With Democrats I get something that I just might like. With Republicans I get a war and lies.
> 
> As for the corporate tax rate (isn't it 35%), during the Kennedy administration capital gains tax was upwards of 80%. The country didn't shut down. People didn't stop going to work. Even Warren Buffet thinks the capital gains rate is too low. I have heard him say a number of times that he pays a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary does.
> 
> ...


Well let's take these issues one at a time.

We'll start with the green technology. I am indifferent to it. I might buy some of it to save me energy costs; however, I do not believe it should be mandated. For instance the CFL's require special clean-up; however, most people who purchase them are unaware of this.

Secondly, the capital gain's tax. You are correct that capital gains was at one time astronomical and the economy didn't collapse, but I did not say that would happen. I said that government collects less money from the tax as the rate goes up. So if you increase the percentage, the actual revenue will fall. And of course Warren Buffet wants taxes increased - just because one rich person thinks we should do it, we should listen?

The reason Warren Buffet pays so little in taxes is because the majority of it is from capital gains. However, the very fact you are neglecting is that his secretary probably has a 401k (along with other savings plans), which is making interest, and which she will have to pay taxes on, so those capital gains taxes do directly affect her.

The health care plan, it will certainly cost more than the war. In fact social security will, within the next 30 years, cost more than our whole budget currently is.

As for the corporations, why don't we talk about the major international corporations which are consistently choosing to headquarter themselves outside the United States.

Finally, No Child Left Behind. Our education system has been lagging long before then. In fact as early as the early 80's has America been scoring last in math and science. So get your facts straight. Turns out throwing more and more money at the problem doesn't fix it.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Finally, No Child Left Behind. Our education system has been lagging long before then. In fact as early as the early 80's has America been scoring last in math and science. So get your facts straight. Turns out throwing more and more money at the problem doesn't fix it.


Ok. I don't think No Child Left Behind fixed it. I don't remember the Democrats having a plan of "let's pay teachers and principals a high salary and throw money at this problem." Has there ever been a k-12 teacher that was over paid? Is this money going into the hands of big-school?

I'm not saying Democrats have a monopoly on education. But when I think education, I don't think Republicans and Dubya. I think W. would be the happiest if we gave up on math and science and only taught religion and prayer.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Ok. I don't think No Child Left Behind fixed it. I don't remember the Democrats having a plan of "let's pay teachers and principals a high salary and throw money at this problem." Has there ever been a k-12 teacher that was over paid? Is this money going into the hands of big-school?
> 
> I'm not saying Democrats have a monopoly on education. But when I think education, I don't think Republicans and Dubya. I think W. would be the happiest if we gave up on math and science and only taught religion and prayer.


Yes, but you think that because you were "left behind."


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Ok. I don't think No Child Left Behind fixed it. I don't remember the Democrats having a plan of "let's pay teachers and principals a high salary and throw money at this problem." Has there ever been a k-12 teacher that was over paid? Is this money going into the hands of big-school?
> 
> I'm not saying Democrats have a monopoly on education. But when I think education, I don't think Republicans and Dubya. I think W. would be the happiest if we gave up on math and science and only taught religion and prayer.


That's not true at all. He has given many speeches about increasing math and science education and becoming competitive again.

And has there ever been an over payed teacher? Yes. Most are. Gym teachers make as much as physics teachers. And the education system, which is suppose to prepare students for the "real world" (which is a meritocracy) ignores merits and good performance and only pays based on years of experience and the number of college credits.

Here is an example of a teacher in California: "At a hearing where she was given a ten-word vocabulary test, she could neither pronounce nor define the word "agrarian." She could pronounce the word "suffrage" but defined it as "people suffering from some reason or other." The word "ratify" she defined as "to get rid of something." In her defense, she said: "I'm not saying I was the best, but I don't think I did more harm than anyone else." A judge ordered her reinstated." - Thomas Sowell from Inside American Education


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The problem with these theories on poorly-performing schools (need more money and more Democrats) is that the worst schools are already in 100% blue districts and usually have outrageously high per-student expenditures. Lot of good it does them.

And throwing money at corrupt and incompetent government...well, it's not exactly a recipe for success, is it?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> That's not true at all. He has given many speeches about increasing math and science education and becoming competitive again.
> 
> And has there ever been an over payed teacher? Yes. Most are. *Gym teachers make as much as physics teachers.* And the education system, which is suppose to prepare students for the "real world" (which is a meritocracy) ignores merits and good performance and only pays based on years of experience and the number of college credits.
> 
> Here is an example of a teacher in California: "At a hearing where she was given a ten-word vocabulary test, she could neither pronounce nor define the word "agrarian." She could pronounce the word "suffrage" but defined it as "people suffering from some reason or other." The word "ratify" she defined as "to get rid of something." In her defense, she said: "I'm not saying I was the best, but I don't think I did more harm than anyone else." A judge ordered her reinstated." - Thomas Sowell from Inside American Education


So what? They chose to be teachers rather than physicists. They could make a much higher salary as a medical physicist (for one example) if they wanted to, and there is even a shortage of medical physicists. Besides, most of the P.E. teachers that I had also taught other classes like Drivers Ed or Health, or coached a sport.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Well that is exactly the problem. Most do. More than 50% of the bottom 40% go into education. Why? Because they can make more money doing other things.

And Driver's Education is a joke. It should not be in the public school schools. And coaches get extra money for coaching.

There are good teachers. They deserve to be payed well. There are bad teachers, they should be payed less or removed from the staff. If you had merit based pay for teachers, I think you would see a large increase in the education system in under a decade.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Well that is exactly the problem. Most do. More than 50% of the bottom 40% go into education. Why? Because they can make more money doing other things.
> 
> And Driver's Education is a joke. It should not be in the public school schools. And coaches get extra money for coaching.
> 
> There are good teachers. They deserve to be payed well. There are bad teachers, they should be payed less or removed from the staff. If you had merit based pay for teachers, I think you would see a large increase in the education system in under a decade.


Depends on how the merit pay is structured. Graduation rates and future success would not be a good way to rate them, since there are too many other factors that come into play...like parents and the kid's own attitude towards school. My wife just had a parent request that her daughter not be placed in her classroom next year because she says my wife was "too hard on her other daughter". "Too hard" meaning, my wife insisted that the child complete her homework and actually memorize her multiplication tables. Sure there are bad teachers, but there are also lots of bad parents. It's just not as simple as making teacher pay merit based. In fact, my wife, who loves teaching, says she will quit and go to nursing school if they ever go to a merit based program. She does not want her pay cut because some rotten parents don't want to make their kids do their work. Every year she has parents who take their kids out of school to go on 2-3 week vacations and then expect their child to not be held responsible for missed class work. If the parents and child are not interested, there is only so much the school can do.

Oh, and she is in one of the "good" school districts.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The problem with these theories on poorly-performing schools (need more money and more Democrats) is that the worst schools are already in 100% blue districts and usually have outrageously high per-student expenditures. Lot of good it does them.
> 
> And throwing money at corrupt and incompetent government...well, it's not exactly a recipe for success, is it?


Here's the list.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

At the risk of offending you, it's your wife's job to work with the students. She has to "take them as she finds them." That means lazy kids, stupid kids, and bad parents. That's reality. Her job is to work here in the real world, to work through these problems; results need to be had _despite_ all the **** students and parents give her. If she can't do it and won't take responsibility for doing it, she doesn't need to be teaching.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> At the risk of offending you, it's your wife's job to work with the students. She has to "take them as she finds them." That means lazy kids, stupid kids, and bad parents. That's reality. Her job is to work here in the real world, to work through these problems; results need to be had _despite_ all the **** students and parents give her. If she can't do it and won't take responsibility for doing it, she doesn't need to be teaching.


But she can not _make _them do their work. Besides talking with the child about the importance of learning, sending notes home, setting up meetings with their parents and sending the child to the principal's office there is not a lot of options for making a child do their assignments. The parents just want their kid to pass and move to the next grade. So, when they don't do their work and fail, the parents complain about how bad the teacher is. There are a lot of spoiled, lazy kids in the world. Their parents don't make them do anything at home, so why would they do anything at school? Fortunately, these kids don't make up the majority of students at her school, but their parents are the most vocal.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

No, she can't _make_ the kids do anything, and it really ultimately is up to them. But if the capacity to _influence_ children, to persuade them to learn and apply themselves isn't within a teacher's purview, what is?

And what else could separate a good teacher from a mediocre one, if not results? Please don't say something like "As for efforts"!


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> No, she can't _make_ the kids do anything, and it really ultimately is up to them. But if the capacity to _influence_ children, to persuade them to learn and apply themselves isn't within a teacher's purview, what is?
> 
> And what else could separate a good teacher from a mediocre one, if not results? Please don't say something like "As for efforts"!


My wife, and other teachers like her, talk to their troubled students and offer other ways for them to learn. They set up meetings with their parents after school (often they don't show up) and even have aides to give these students extra attention. There are other kids in the class who want to learn, and their parents work with them at home. The teachers can't just ignore the other students because some kid decides he doesn't want to memorize his math tables, so they get behind in school and are passed on to the next grade because mommy and daddy don't want their child to be held back.

When I was in college, I remember hearing a girl cry to the professor that she needed more time for her paper to be finished. "But, I was on vacation with my family and didn't have time to work on it!" she said to him. "Tough, you knew about the assignment at the beginning of the semester." the prof said.

Blame someone else...it's not my fault/my child's fault.

Well, for one the principal is supposed to conduct a review of the teachers, so if there are bad teachers in the district it is the principal's responsiblity to handle them. In some colleges, students fill out a rating form for their professors. Something like that may help (with parents doing the evaluation for younger students), but as in college the students with A's and B's usually rate them well, while the students who did poorly usually say the teacher was terrible.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PennGlock said:


> Im with you man! Every dime I spend on this campaign is going straight into the "swiftboat" style organizations. We need as many crackers and scared old ladies showing up on election day as possible... That leftist kook from Chicago's ghetto cannot be allowed win!


EXACTLY whats wrong with the average joe America today. Whether you are being sarcastic or not I have no idea. But if you aren't then we surely need less people like you in the coming generations. Hopefully Obama can usher in a new level of intelligence into the next middle americans.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> EXACTLY whats wrong with the average joe America today. Whether you are being sarcastic or not I have no idea. But if you aren't then we surely need less people like you in the coming generations. Hopefully Obama can usher in a new level of intelligence into the next middle americans.


+1 on that.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> That's not true at all. He has given many speeches about increasing math and science education and becoming competitive again.
> 
> And has there ever been an over payed teacher? Yes. Most are. Gym teachers make as much as physics teachers. And the education system, which is suppose to prepare students for the "real world" (which is a meritocracy) ignores merits and good performance and only pays based on years of experience and the number of college credits.
> 
> Here is an example of a teacher in California: "At a hearing where she was given a ten-word vocabulary test, she could neither pronounce nor define the word "agrarian." She could pronounce the word "suffrage" but defined it as "people suffering from some reason or other." The word "ratify" she defined as "to get rid of something." In her defense, she said: "I'm not saying I was the best, but I don't think I did more harm than anyone else." A judge ordered her reinstated." - Thomas Sowell from Inside American Education


As with any profession I think there are winners and losers. Maybe if the school this teacher worked at paid more it could attract better teachers. When I graduated I thought about teaching but it doesn't pay anything I would have to deal with the underachieving/lazy/dumb kids. If it paid better I might have dealt with them and maybe made a difference in some kid's life. My sense of civic duty just isn't that strong.


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> But I think now I'm really getting excited at the prospect of all of these massively anti-Obama people having to say the words "President Barack Hussein Obama" for at least 4 years.


I get into arguements with Dems and they start calling McCain, McSame. It doesn't faze me, its all part of the game. However, when I start calling Obama, Osama the Dems get pretty angry with me. If the Dems want to rib McCains name they should be able to take some on Obama, fair is fair. In regards to calling him President Barack Hussein Obama, I would never, if he becomes president I will refer to him as the President and if I ever have to meet him which I hope I don't (but unhappily may happen) I will call him Mr President.



Laxplayer said:


> 100 more years of roadside bombs and attacks on our soldiers. Great plan.


Better over there than here in the states on our civilians. Its a mess over there and if we leave things a mess than we have just made a country that's willing to be a recruiting station for terrorists. Our soldiers signed up knowing they could be called up, they signed up to defend democracy and freedom or for benefits, either way the American people didn't sign up for it to be spilled over on to them. And thats what will happen if we handle leaving Iraq incorrectly.



Stringfellow said:


> Has there ever been a k-12 teacher that was over paid?


Sure there's been over paid teachers, those that are terrible or don't care or screw the whole school baseball team like that fat teacher from Louisana.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

SuitUP said:


> Better over there than here in the states on our civilians. Its a mess over there and if we leave things a mess than we have just made a country that's willing to be a recruiting station for terrorists. Our soldiers signed up knowing they could be called up, they signed up to defend democracy and freedom or for benefits, either way the American people didn't sign up for it to be spilled over on to them. And thats what will happen if we handle leaving Iraq incorrectly.


A lot of very intelligent republicans and democrats will argue that we are creating the problem by being there, not by not being there. We need very strict, harsh deadlines to be placed on the Iraqi government. This idea that we can somehow get Iraq to be peaceful and fully functional on its own and then leave is absurd. They are going to tear each other to pieces someday, whether its the day after Obama takes office and pulls out everyone, or 2-5 years down the road after a phased withdrawal. I understand we created the problem, but we have spent 5 years trying to fix it, and the Iraqis have done pretty much nothing.

Its time to show them we mean business. If they want peace they will make it, if they want to blow each other up then let them do it. Either way, we can't afford to destroy our military (which we are doing right now) over a war that doesn't affect Americans at home at all. The real war is in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists are now. Lets get out of Iraq, let them settle their civil war, and put those 200,000 troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and hunt the hell out of the terrorists before they can go into a torn up Iraq and recruit. This idea that we stay in Iraq so they don't come to our streets is hogwash. You are mixing 2 very different wars.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> EXACTLY whats wrong with the average joe America today. Whether you are being sarcastic or not I have no idea. But if you aren't then we surely need less people like you in the coming generations. Hopefully Obama can usher in a new level of intelligence into the next middle americans.





BertieW said:


> +1 on that.


I think that "exactly whats (sic) wrong with the average joe America today" is that 1) he's been conditioned by the media to think that GWB is the "worst president in 230 years" and 2) doesn't even realize than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, and blames their problems on _capitalism_.

The consequence of this ignorance is that they're willing to blindly elect a man they know nothing about to the most powerful office in the land, based on their ignorance and _a good marketing campaign_. Hope for the future! Drink coke!


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The consequence of this ignorance is that they're willing to blindly elect a man they know nothing about to the most powerful office in the land, based on their ignorance and _a good marketing campaign_. Hope for the future! Drink coke!


yeah a good many people will vote for Obama exactly because they know what McCain is about - better to take a chance on the unknown than the same old same old - at least voting for Obama has the potential for change in the right direction


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think that "exactly whats (sic) wrong with the average joe America today" is that 1) he's been conditioned by the media to think that GWB is the "worst president in 230 years" and 2) doesn't even realize than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, and blames their problems on _capitalism_.
> 
> The consequence of this ignorance is that they're willing to blindly elect a man they know nothing about to the most powerful office in the land, based on their ignorance and _a good marketing campaign_. Hope for the future! Drink coke!


I'm not conditioned to think anything. Name one major accomplishment of the Bush administration. You can't say fighting terrorism because its not like any other president would have not fought terrorists after the events of 9-11. I can't think of a single major success story from the last 8 years, but I sure as hell have a long list of F-ups to write down. I won't do that because I will develop carpal tunnel by the time I'm done on Thursday. Thats not the media's fault. Thats just fact.

I have a degree in finance and know exactly who fannie and freddie are and why they are important and why they should be bailed out by taxpayers. I'm not arguing any of that with you.

I love capitalism, its made my family and I fat and happy for a long time.

The ways of Bush 43 don't work for this country. I don't think McCain will be a 3rd Bush term. I do think Obama is more of a 180 from Bush then McCain is, and thats the main reason I will vote for him. We need a massive change and McCain doesn't represent that. If you'd rather have 4 more years (or 8) of the same ole crap then vote McCain. I like how these republicans sound just like the ones from 2004. Obama is too risky and McCain isn't great, but hes a whole lot less horrible then Obama. Does that sound familiar. I imagine a lot of republicans would go back and vote for Kerry if given the chance.

I love Coke.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'd certainly agree that Obama has a potential for change in the right direction, considering how much he's been moving to the right since he secured the nomination.

Yes, he's as fake and superficial as many of us "Believe," but at least underneath the hype it looks like there's a good ol' fashioned politician and not... well, who knows how bad the guy could be?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> I love Coke.


Yeah, but if the secret ingredient is rat ****, wouldn't you want to know about it?

No, I guess not.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think that "exactly whats (sic) wrong with the average joe America today" is that 1) he's been conditioned by the media to think that GWB is the "worst president in 230 years" and 2) doesn't even realize than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are, and blames their problems on _capitalism_.
> 
> The consequence of this ignorance is that they're willing to blindly elect a man they know nothing about to the most powerful office in the land, based on their ignorance and _a good marketing campaign_. Hope for the future! Drink coke!


Yep, Dub's been a great President. :icon_smile_big: I wish we could have more like him - Presidents elected to lead, not to read. The economy has done well under his watch, our military is in great shape, our educational system has improved, the middle and lower classes are making more money, our currency is worth more, there was no terrorist attack 9 months into his presidency, oil is cheap, food is even less expensive, this President and his administration handled Katrina quite well (I never thought we would have refugees in this country - I always thought we were better than that), and our infrastructure is in great shape. It is all probably the Democratic Congress' fault. Wait, didn't Dubya have a Republican Congress during his first term? Did he do any good?

For Christ's sake, the Vice President shot a man in the face! I know I come off as a liberal but I'm not really. In 2000 I would have voted for McCain and I would have voted for Goldwater if I was alive. Unless you are Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson like, this President has been terrible! It's not just his screwups - he hasn't done anything good. I can't think how I am better today then I was 7 years ago.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, but if the secret ingredient is rat ****, wouldn't you want to know about it?
> 
> No, I guess not.


I'm sure the Jack Daniels will hide the rat s**t flavor.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You guys are really proving my point for me--Bush this, Bush that. Some of it true, most of it false.

But, Obama? Change! Hope! Platitudes We Can Believe In!


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You guys are really proving my point for me--Bush this, Bush that. Some of it true, most of it false.
> 
> But, Obama? Change! Hope! Platitudes We Can Believe In!


I'm not trying to say Obama is the best ever. But I think he is the best of the two options. I would much rather vote for Big Head Joe Biden or Crazy Ron Paul (I really like both of them), but I don't have that opportunity. Stupid elections!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I'm not trying to say Obama is the best ever. But I think he is the best of the two options. I would much rather vote for Big Head Joe Biden or Crazy Ron Paul (I really like both of them), but I don't have that opportunity. Stupid elections!


It always amuses me when someone says, "Gosh, I'd either vote for Ron Paul or Barack Obama." It's like saying, gee, I'd really like to vote for either Thomas Jefferson or Joseph Stalin. Of course this analogy is lost on those people, so it's probably not the most effective rebuke.

Maybe they're more like the people who go to a car lot and the salesman asks, what kind of car are you looking for, and their response is, "I'd really like a red one!"


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It always amuses me when someone says, "Gosh, I'd either vote for Ron Paul or Barack Obama." It's like saying, gee, I'd really like to vote for either Thomas Jefferson or Joseph Stalin. Of course this analogy is lost on those people, so it's probably not the most effective rebuke.
> 
> Maybe they're more like the people who go to a car lot and the salesman asks, what kind of car are you looking for, and their response is, "I'd really like a red one!"


Its because people are tired of the status quo. People like us believe Paul or Obama would be a welcome change, as vastly different as their policies may be. People like you seem to be fine with the status quo. John McCain wasn't fine with it in 2000, but now he seems to think everything will be just fine.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It always amuses me when someone says, "Gosh, I'd either vote for Ron Paul or Barack Obama." It's like saying, gee, I'd really like to vote for either Thomas Jefferson or Joseph Stalin. Of course this analogy is lost on those people, so it's probably not the most effective rebuke.
> 
> Maybe they're more like the people who go to a car lot and the salesman asks, what kind of car are you looking for, and their response is, "I'd really like a red one!"


Maybe. Or maybe we understand nuance. I like Libertarians. Of course, no one but Paul is running on that platform. Since I can't get a Libertarian I have to choose the next best. With Obama I get less government in the areas I care about - abortion remains legal, prayer stays out of schools, math, science, biology, and evolution can be taught in school, maybe the government doesn't listen in on my phone conversations, I don't care for guns and maybe Obama does something about them, etc. And maybe a red car is important to me - maybe the purpose of my buying a red car is to be seen. Maybe I don't care if it's a van or a sports car. Sometimes there is nuace - grey is an important color.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Maybe. Or maybe we understand nuance. I like Libertarians. Of course, no one but Paul is running on that platform. Since I can't get a Libertarian I have to choose the next best. With Obama I get less government in the areas I care about - abortion remains legal, prayer stays out of schools, math, science, biology, and evolution can be taught in school, maybe the government doesn't listen in on my phone conversations, I don't care for guns and maybe Obama does something about them, etc. And maybe a red car is important to me - maybe the purpose of my buying a red car is to be seen. Maybe I don't care if it's a van or a sports car. Sometimes there is nuace - grey is an important color.


Stringfellow,

You know that for Libertarians you have Bob Barr . . . (uncontrollable laughter)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It always amuses me when someone says, "Gosh, I'd either vote for Ron Paul or Barack Obama." It's like saying, gee, I'd really like to vote for either Thomas Jefferson or Joseph Stalin. Of course this analogy is lost on those people, so it's probably not the most effective rebuke.
> 
> Maybe they're more like the people who go to a car lot and the salesman asks, what kind of car are you looking for, and their response is, "I'd really like a red one!"


Stalin? I had no idea Obama planned to have millions of people killed.

I'd rather have a blue car. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Stalin? I had no idea Obama planned to have millions of people killed.
> 
> I'd rather have a blue car. :icon_smile_wink:


Plans? Oh, I'm sure it isn't planned. It will just be a necessary part of the revolution, oops, I mean bringing us all together. See, with conservatives gone everyone will agree!


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

magogian said:


> Stringfellow,
> 
> You know that for Libertarians you have Bob Barr . . . (uncontrollable laughter)


Who is not exactly Libertarian. Plus, I would much rather have Obama than Barr. I like Obama. If nothing else he is different from what we have had during my lifetime. I like that he is inexperienced - maybe he thinks outside of the box and doesn't know business as usual. Maybe he tries something different.

Excluding President Numb Nuts, I can't think of too many real changes that happened from Carter to Regan to Bush to Clinton. They all seem about 10* off center. I think one way or the other might be better. i.e. I think if Ron Paul or Michael Moore were King of America it might be better than status quo centrist dribble. Just my $.02.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're really just proving my point for me. Obama is "libertarian" in all the ways that matter-- like abortion and creationism!?

That's got to be the most bizarre thing anyone's ever said, especially to try and make a comparison to Ron Paul, who, by the way, supports bans on abortion and the teaching of creationism in schools, as long as it's what _the people of the state _want.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're really just proving my point for me. Obama is "libertarian" in all the ways that matter-- like abortion and creationism!?
> 
> That's got to be the most bizarre thing anyone's ever said, especially to try and make a comparison to Ron Paul, who, by the way, supports bans on abortion and the teaching of creationism in schools, as long as it's what _the people of the state _want.


I'm a bizarre person - you should see what I look like :icon_smile: Since I can't get what I want I vote for the best alternative. For instance, I really like the idea of Libertarianism but I hate guns. I am a riddle enclosed in an enigma who can do things like think for himself. Please, feel free to vote for whomever you would like to - I won't question your reasoning or patriotism one bit.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Who is not exactly Libertarian. Plus, I would much rather have Obama than Barr. I like Obama. If nothing else he is different from what we have had during my lifetime. I like that he is inexperienced - maybe he thinks outside of the box and doesn't know business as usual. Maybe he tries something different.
> 
> Excluding President Numb Nuts, I can't think of too many real changes that happened from Carter to Regan to Bush to Clinton. They all seem about 10* off center. I think one way or the other might be better. i.e. I think if Ron Paul or Michael Moore were King of America it might be better than status quo centrist dribble. Just my $.02.


Hence, my laughter about Barr.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I'm a bizarre person - you should see what I look like :icon_smile: Since I can't get what I want I vote for the best alternative. For instance, I really like the idea of Libertarianism but I hate guns. I am a riddle enclosed in an enigma who can do things like think for himself. Please, feel free to vote for whomever you would like to - I won't question your reasoning or patriotism one bit.


But your thinking is defective. You're not "thinking for yourself"; you're ignorant, and you're seeking to impose a government on _me_ based on your uninformed passions and prejudices. That's... really uncool.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> But your thinking is defective. You're not "thinking for yourself"; you're ignorant, and you're seeking to impose a government on _me_ based on your uninformed passions and prejudices. That's... really uncool.


Please feel free to vote for McCain. And if I ever fun for President please feel free not to vote for me - or even to campaign against me. In the mean time, I will continue to be defective and uncool.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> But your thinking is defective. You're not "thinking for yourself"; you're ignorant, and you're seeking to impose a government on _me_ based on your uninformed passions and prejudices. That's... really uncool.


PT,

That's difficult to show.

Although I will say that "a riddle enclosed in an enigma who can do things like think for himself" is just shorthand for someone who has an incoherent worldview or inconsistent political ideology.

Edit: I don't mean to say that Stringfellow is such, it is just that the above language is usually used by those who do.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

magogian said:


> PT,
> 
> That's difficult to show.
> 
> ...


I am inconsistent as far as the political parties go - consistent as far as I go. Let's say someone wanted socialized health care and wanted to continue the fight in Iraq. Who would they vote for?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> I am inconsistent as far as the political parties go - consistent as far as I go. Let's say someone wanted socialized health care and wanted to continue the fight in Iraq. Who would they vote for?


Hillary.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It always amuses me when someone says, "Gosh, I'd either vote for Ron Paul or Barack Obama." It's like saying, gee, I'd really like to vote for either Thomas Jefferson or Joseph Stalin. Of course this analogy is lost on those people, so it's probably not the most effective rebuke.


You undoubtedly consider me one of those people on whom the analogy is lost, so let me get this straight. You're saying that the choice between Ron Paul and Barack Obama is equivalent to the choice between Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Stalin?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> You undoubtedly consider me one of those people on whom the analogy is lost, so let me get this straight. You're saying that the choice between Ron Paul and Barack Obama is equivalent to the choice between Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Stalin?


Equivalent? That's a silly thing to say. Ever heard of the simile? It tends to follow "like."

Similar, comparable. Yes.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Equivalent? That's a silly thing to say. Ever heard of the simile? It tends to follow "like."
> 
> Similar, comparable. Yes.


Would you care to expound on how similar Ron Paul is to Thomas Jefferson, or how similar Barack Obama is to Stalin? Feel free to work in Magoogian's theory that an Obama presidency will entail the slaughter of millions.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Would you care to expound on how similar Ron Paul is to Thomas Jefferson, or how similar Barack Obama is to Stalin? Feel free to work in Magoogian's theory that an Obama presidency will entail the slaughter of millions.


The Magogian theory of Obamian slaughter . . . It has a certain ring to it. Remember it was first coined here!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Let's see--

Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson supported a very limited centralized power with strong constitutional limits. Stalin and Obama believe in an unrestrained centralized power with no or almost no constitutional limits.

Yes, it's a slightly hyperbolic comparison, but not too much.

And will Obama kill millions of people? It's not necessary for the comparison, but who knows. His supporters sure don't seem to know much about just _what_ Obama will actually do, as long as it's "change." Killing millions sure would be change. Stay tuned!


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And, yes, I deserve kudos for my restraint in not comparing Obama's support for the "aborting" of millions of human lives to Stalin's butchery.

Well, until now.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Would you care to expound on how similar Ron Paul is to Thomas Jefferson, or how similar Barack Obama is to Stalin? Feel free to work in Magoogian's theory that an Obama presidency will entail the slaughter of millions.


Here is a blog that compares Ron Paul to Thomas Jefferson:

PT's comparison of Obama to Stalin is just plain ridiculous. Do you win the thread by using a Stalin reference rather than Hitler?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And, yes, I deserve kudos for my restraint in not comparing Obama's support for the "aborting" of millions of human lives to Stalin's butchery.
> 
> Well, until now.


And just what have conservatives done to overturn Roe other than talking about it ad nauseum? Pro-life talk is just a way to get votes from the religious groups. They have absolutely no plans to overturn Roe v. Wade.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Once again, the funniest part of all of this is that in January PT will have to look at someone who he compared to Stalin and realize that person is our President of the United States. I just really enjoy that for some reason.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It is pretty rich, isn't it?

For that matter, it's pretty amusing that all these guys who are attacking Obama as someone who is so inexperienced that we don't know what he's going to do are also so certain about what he's going to do.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Comparing Obama to Stalin is _not_ ridiculous, especially not when it's a alongside a comparison of Ron Paul to Jefferson.

Ron Paul's views of the Constitution and the limited role of the federal government are not nearly as strong as Jefferson's. Obama's take on the powers of the central government as nearly unlimited is much closer to Stalin's than Paul's is to Jefferson's.

If you're too ignorant to understand this, it's on you, not me.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And, yes, I deserve kudos for my restraint in not comparing Obama's support for the "aborting" of millions of human lives to Stalin's butchery.
> 
> Well, until now.


You think Obama has had millions of abortions? I don't even think he has been pregnant once.  And I don't think he has ordered anyone to have an abortion or even encouraged anyone to have an abortion. For someone who claims to be all about personal choice and personal liberties...

I know - I'm nuanced. I don't like guns and I don't have a problem with abortions.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, and Stalin didn't actually starve anyone to death, right? 

He just gave party members the "right" to take the kulaks' food away, and let freedom ring!


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, and Stalin didn't actually starve anyone to death, right?
> 
> He just gave party members the "right" to take the kulaks' food away, and let freedom ring!


I'm not exactly up on my history of the Soviet Union. I don't think Obama (or anyone else) is pro-abortion. I think he is pro-choice. I don't think he is encouraging anyone to have an abortion or looking the other way. But if you have to be either pro-choice or anti-abortion I kind of favor adults having a choice. You know adults - the veterans of childhood.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I'm not exactly up on my history of the Soviet Union. I don't think Obama (or anyone else) is pro-abortion. I think he is pro-choice. I don't think he is encouraging anyone to have an abortion or looking the other way. But if you have to be either pro-choice or anti-abortion I kind of favor adults having a choice. You know adults - the veterans of childhood.


Why not favor adults having a "choice" to murder their children after they're born? Why stop there--why not let them kill infants, or toddlers, maybe kindergarteners, or those damned adolescents? Rebellious teens? And adult children who never call, let them be murdered on a parent's whim, too?

And, hey, if you think about it-- this is a much better solution, because it gives equal "rights" to the fathers, who don't get to kill anyone these days.

Abortion is the premeditated taking of a human life by another. If you want to compare it to anything, compare it to infanticide or lynching.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Why not favor adults having a "choice" to murder their children after they're born? Why stop there--why not let them kill infants, or toddlers, maybe kindergarteners, or those damned adolescents? Rebellious teens? And adult children who never call, let them be murdered on a parent's whim, too?
> 
> And, hey, if you think about it-- this is a much better solution, because it gives equal "rights" to the fathers, who don't get to kill anyone these days.
> 
> Abortion is the premeditated taking of a human life by another. If you want to compare it to anything, compare it to infanticide or lynching.


The other day I needed a haircut so I went to the barber. He cut off a lot of my hair. It was full of human DNA. It was alive. But I didn't want it. Now it's dead. Did he _kill _something too? He took human life didn't he? I think even you can see a difference between a clump of cells and a toddler.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> The other day I needed a haircut so I went to the barber. He cut off a lot of my hair. It was full of human DNA. It was alive. But I didn't want it. Now it's dead. Did he _kill _something too? He took human life didn't he? I think even you can see a difference between a clump of cells and a toddler.


A toddler is just a clump of cells--so are you, you dimwit.

A "fetus" is a _unique, whole, independent human life_. Just like you. And as repugnant as you are, I wouldn't stand for the government making killing _you_ legal, either.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> A toddler is just a clump of cells--so are you, you dimwit.
> 
> A "fetus" is a _unique, whole, independent human life_. Just like you. And as repugnant as you are, I wouldn't stand for the government making killing _you_ legal, either.


I don't like the idea of abortion either, but which is worse a child whose life is ended before birth, or an unwanted child growing up with neglect and possible abuse? Obviously the person wanting an abortion does not want the child, so what makes you think they will care for it after it is born?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> A toddler is just a clump of cells--so are you, you dimwit.
> 
> A "fetus" is a _unique, whole, independent human life_. Just like you. And as repugnant as you are, I wouldn't stand for the government making killing _you_ legal, either.


If it is so independent why does it need a mother? If it was independent you would think it could live on its own. That would pretty much make the abortion argument moot.

What if I committed a crime. Say I killed two police officers. Could the government make killing me legal then?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> If it is so independent why does it need a mother? If it was independent you would think it could live on its own. That would pretty much make the abortion argument moot.


 Like how infants support themselves?



> What if I committed a crime. Say I killed two police officers. Could the government make killing me legal then?


What if you didn't commit any crime?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> I don't like the idea of abortion either, but which is worse a child whose life is ended before birth, or an unwanted child growing up with neglect and possible abuse? Obviously the person wanting an abortion does not want the child, so what makes you think they will care for it after it is born?


We simply don't kill people because we think it might be good for them. It sets kind of a bad precedent--why stop with babies? Why not kill disabled people, sick people, stupid people? I'd better stop this before I scare Stringfellow too much.

Remember the Declaration of Independence--

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, *that among these are Life . . . . That t**o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . .*"


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> We simply don't kill people because we think it might be good for them. It sets kind of a bad precedent--why stop with babies? Why not kill disabled people, sick people, stupid people? I'd better stop this before I scare Stringfellow too much.
> 
> Remember the Declaration of Independence--
> 
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, *that among these are Life . . . . That t**o secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . .*"


Maybe blastocysts aren't people?

Why can the govt kill cop killers? Why stop with them? Why not kill disabled people, sick people, stupid people? I'd better stop this before I scare Turkey too much. This is indeed a slippery slope...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I guess you can't tell the difference between punishing people who've committed crimes and killing innocent people for convenience.

There's that distinguishing problem you have again.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Maybe blastocysts aren't people?


Maybe blacks aren't either?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I guess you can't tell the difference between punishing people who've committed crimes and killing innocent people for convenience.
> 
> There's that distinguishing problem you have again.


In other words, there's a difference between a criminal and a non-criminal. A criminal can be treated one way while a non-criminal can be treated another.

Maybe there is a difference between a blastocyst and a person (they certainly look different). Maybe a one can be treated one way and the other another way.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

There's not "a" difference; there's a very specific difference-- guilt. 

There's that darn "distinction" issue AGAIN.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Look guys, the Pedantic Turkey is a rank hypocrite. On another thread where he was ranting about the necessity of having citizens serve as an armed militia, he conveniently ignored questions about his military service, leading one to believe that the only way he has ever served his country is to carry a concealed firearm. There is nothing to indicate he has ever carried a firearm while in uniform or in a battle zone.

I for one would also like to hear how many of these fetuses he so wants to save he has adopted and is raising or has already raised to maturity.

What about it Turkey? Please, no more smoke screens, just simple honest answers.

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Pedantic, I don't know why you bother. These liberals are inane and will never change their mind, because they have preset beliefs and will alter the facts to suit their needs.

I find the whole argument that Ron Paul is a libertarian amusing though, because while he may have ran as one, his record showed otherwise. His American Conservative Union rating was around 80% and his Friend of Taxpayer rating was a B. I don't understand how people can jump from Paul to Obama though.

Paul calls for basically ending the federal government. Obama wants to add more mandates, increase taxes, and increase the federal government's role. He wants to add Supreme Court justices who will ignore the Constitution and vote based on their beliefs and feelings. Just like FDR did to make his New Deal legal.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Look guys, the Pedantic Turkey is a rank hypocrite. On another thread where he was ranting about the necessity of having citizens serve as an armed militia, he conveniently ignored questions about his military service, leading one to believe that the only way he has ever served his country is to carry a concealed firearm. There is nothing to indicate he has ever carried a firearm while in uniform or in a battle zone.
> 
> I for one would also like to hear how many of these fetuses he so wants to save he has adopted and is raising or has already raised to maturity.
> 
> ...


Why does one have to serve in the military to believe that the common citizen should be allowed to carry a gun?

How does one adopt an aborted fetus?

Stop fighting a straw man.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Pedantic, I don't know why you bother. These liberals are *inane* and will never change their mind, because they have preset beliefs and will alter the facts to suit their needs.


When will you Yahoos...and I hope you have read your Swift...learn to spell. We liberals are not inane. We're *INSANE*!!!! And don't you forget it.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Why does one have to serve in the military to believe that the common citizen should be allowed to carry a gun?
> 
> How does one adopt an aborted fetus?
> 
> Stop fighting a straw man.


Hey, the Turkey was the one going on and on about how he needs to carry a concealed weapon to protect freedom. I just want to know what else he has done to protect freedom, like serve his country. He chooses to ignore the question and that tells me a great deal about the Turkey.

If the Turkey cares so deeply about protecting fetuses, I think it is perfectly fair to ask what he has done to help even one of those fetuses he has helped "save" lead a good and upright life.

These aren't straw men...or straw women...at all.

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> When will you Yahoos...and I hope you have read your Swift...learn to spell. We liberals are not inane. We're *INSANE*!!!! And don't you forget it.
> 
> Buzz


I hope you are being sarcastic, because while I am not the world's best speller, I did intend to use the word inane.

in·ane Audio Help /ɪˈneɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-*neyn*] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective

1.lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Also, what is "Swift." Because all I know is Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I hope you are being sarcastic, because while I am not the world's best speller, I did intend to use the word inane.
> 
> in·ane Audio Help /ɪˈneɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-*neyn*] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -adjective
> 
> 1.lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.


_Inane_? *INANE*? Gee, is that a word? I guess most of us liberals are just too darned dumb and uninquizative to bother learning all those BIG conservatives words, like INANE! Sheesh.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Also, what is "Swift." Because all I know is Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.


I hope you are joking this time. You are, aren't you? If your not, you're one uneducated dude.

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I hope you are joking this time. You are, aren't you? If your not, you're one uneducated dude.
> 
> Buzz


Can't say I am.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Can't say I am.


Come on Cycle, ya gotta know the association between Swift and Yahoos! This is incredible, it is almost impossible to get out of middle school without learning _that_!

Buzz


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

Oh come on peeps, do we really need to go so far into name calling and personal attacks. I admit, I do like to occasional barb, but now its just not fun.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Come on Cycle, ya gotta know the association between Swift and Yahoos! This is incredible, it is almost impossible to get out of middle school without learning _that_!
> 
> Buzz


He must not _travel _much. (hint hint) :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> He must not _travel _much. (hint hint) :icon_smile_wink:


Instead of abortion he wants to eat all the unwanted Irish babies!!!! I kill myself!!! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

An episcopal priest once asked me if I thought I would still be pro-life if I was forced to live and survive in the ghetto of Memphis with no father, a mother on crack and multiple gangs recruiting me in the 7th grade. I'm now pro-choice. I also despise hunting and would probably be a vegetarian if I spent one day working at a slaughter house. I respect life in all forms, but I'm intelligent enough to recognize the difference between something living in its own habitat and being killed and a 12 week embryo in someone's stomach. I say this because I understand the world is very gray and not at all black and white as I assume PT thinks it is.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> . . . but I'm intelligent enough to recognize the difference between something living in its own habitat and being killed and a 12 week embryo in someone's stomach.


No, no, no, its not the stomach, babies come from a stork! God some people are so stupid thinking babies come from stomachs :icon_smile:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

It absolutely is black and white. Protecting the _unalienable_ right of its people to _life_ is the single most fundamental reason our government exists. It's not for you, or me, or anyone else to decide that an innocent life should be taken because it isn't worth living. Period. How would you feel if someone took pity on you and decided to end your miserable life?

You would think that the lessons of history would be sufficient to teach _everyone_ to declare that some people are not "human enough" is dangerous. It's still shocking to me that the same evils recur so frequently throughout history.



nolan50410 said:


> An episcopal priest once asked me if I thought I would still be pro-life if I was forced to live and survive in the ghetto of Memphis with no father, a mother on crack and multiple gangs recruiting me in the 7th grade. I'm now pro-choice. I also despise hunting and would probably be a vegetarian if I spent one day working at a slaughter house. I respect life in all forms, but I'm intelligent enough to recognize the difference between something living in its own habitat and being killed and a 12 week embryo in someone's stomach. I say this because I understand the world is very gray and not at all black and white as I assume PT thinks it is.


What exactly do you think the "habitat" of a 12-week fetus is, anyway? Do you make a similar distinction between an adult and a helpless 12-week infant?

I think it's interesting that you would say that you'd be a vegetarian if you only had to _see_ what happens to the carcasses of animals before they end up on your plate?

Isn't that what the abortion debate is really about? You don't have to see a million human beings destroyed every year (where have we seen _that_ before?), and so you can pretend that it's not HUMAN LIFE that's being extinguished? I find it just disgusting that some people will go on about how "animals are people too" but condone the premeditated murdering of human beings.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

magogian said:


> No, no, no, its not the stomach, babies come from a stork! God some people are so stupid thinking babies come from stomachs :icon_smile:


How does the stork know when your dad had sex with your mom?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Isn't that what the abortion debate is really about? You don't have to see a million human beings destroyed every year (where have we seen _that_ before?), and so you can pretend that it's not HUMAN LIFE that's being extinguished? I find it just disgusting that some people will go on about how "animals are people too" but condone the premeditated murdering of human beings.


Why is human life so important? My hair is living human life yet I kill it regularly (and you don't have a problem with that). I popped a pimple the other day and living human life splattered all over my mirror. I jerked off the other day too. Lots of living human life there. I killed it all. A couple of clumps of human cells aren't that important to me. Not every ejaculation deserves a name.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Your argument carries absolutely no logical merit. Should we not cure someone of cancer? Obviously the Almighty or nature has selected that human's time as up. Its perfectly fine to control the premature ending of a human's life but not ok to prevent the premature beginning of one? Nothing is black and white my friend. Nothing.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Why is human life so important? My hair is living human life yet I kill it regularly (and you don't have a problem with that). I popped a pimple the other day and living human life splattered all over my mirror. I jerked off the other day too. Lots of living human life there. I killed it all. A couple of clumps of human cells aren't that important to me.


You yourself are just a "clump of human cells."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> Your argument carries absolutely no logical merit. Should we not cure someone of cancer? Obviously the Almighty or nature has selected that human's time as up. Its perfectly fine to control the premature ending of a human's life but not ok to prevent the premature beginning of one? Nothing is black and white my friend. Nothing.


Life begins at conception. This is an undeniable scientific fact which you are obviously ignorant of. I can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Life begins at conception. This is an undeniable scientific fact which you are obviously ignorant of. I can't say I'm surprised.


Death begins the moment you take your first breath. We start dying from day 1. We can control death but we can't control life. At some point you have to realize you can't have it one way but not the other. I think the textbook definition of ignorance is constantly berating others for not sharing your beliefs.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> Death begins the moment you take your first breath. We start dying from day 1. We can control death but we can't control life.


Spare me.



> At some point you have to realize you can't have it one way but not the other. I think the textbook definition of ignorance is constantly berating others for not sharing your beliefs.


No, the textbook definition of ignorance is not knowing important facts. And supporting evil through ignorance, what do you call that?


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Spare me.
> 
> No, the textbook definition of ignorance is not knowing important facts. And supporting evil through ignorance, what do you call that?


So you think its logical to control death but not to control birth? I really would like to hear your logic behind that. We seem to know the facts, you can't seem to realize you can't pick which facts you will and won't believe. Doesn't the Jerry Falwell Hour come on at 9?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Abortion is not "birth control" any more than infanticide is.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

So I rise once again to ask our dear Turkey exactly how many unwanted babies he is raising and has he adopted? One? Two? Three? Jut as I have asked you during your rants about your need to carry a gun to defend liberty to tell us what you have done in defense of liberty other than carry a concealed weapon. Have you served in our military? Gone to war? Been a public safety officer? Come on Turkey, you feel so strongly about these issues, show us your commitment.

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> He must not _travel _much. (hint hint) :icon_smile_wink:


I feel like I'm being insulted.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I feel like I'm being insulted.


Talk about school teachers not being paid enough! I think yours need to be fired. You never read Jonathan Swift in school? He wrote Gulliver's Travels (hence, you don't travel much), a satire of the human condition and A Modest Proposal, a satire where he suggested the Irish sell their babies to the English for food (hence, instead of abortion you would like to eat the babies of the Irish). I'm sorry that all you got to read in school was the Bible.

https://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html

If you would like to read A Modest Proposal.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Never read the Bible in school. In fact, people weren't even made to stand for (much less say) the Pledge of Allegiance.

No my teachers were more keen on spending a semester talking about Their Eyes Were Watching God and The Scarlet Letter. Because Hawthorne was such a genius and it depicted the horrible plight of women while the men got off, and we need to learn all about black culture.

My english teacher also liked to waste classes complaining how women didn't make enough money, and how school teachers are underpaid. She was making ~$65,000/year for teaching plus 100% health care.

I'm jaded, because I got so tired of the teachers bitching when in fact, compared to many they have it good.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I'm jaded, because I got so tired of the teachers bitching when in fact, compared to many they have it good.


You may be jaded, but it would appear that you are woefully uneducated. It probably is not your fault, but it is sad.

Buzz


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> You may be jaded, but it would appear that you are woefully uneducated. It probably is not your fault, but it is sad.
> 
> Buzz


I'm betting it's at least partly his fault. After all, isn't the party line about taking personal responsibility? (I happen largely to agree with that, actually, for Sartrean reasons. That's another one I read.)

Funny thing: I also had to read Hawthorne, and, no, I didn't particularly like it either. But I didn't stop at the assigned reading list. I took it upon myself to do more reading. You know, on my own.

Never too late to get to a library and fill in the gaps.


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> So I rise once again to ask our dear Turkey exactly how many unwanted babies he is raising and has he adopted? One? Two? Three? Jut as I have asked you during your rants about your need to carry a gun to defend liberty to tell us what you have done in defense of liberty other than carry a concealed weapon. Have you served in our military? Gone to war? Been a public safety officer? Come on Turkey, you feel so strongly about these issues, show us your commitment.
> 
> Buzz


The "What have you done" line of attack is disingenuous. M6Classic, I'm guessing you support abortions, well why haven't you become an abortion doctor? Hmm? Why not?

Part of the greatness of America is that we are largely able to pursue our talents. For better or worse, talents differ. Perhaps PT is a great mathmatician, but physically weak. Then, why the heck would we want him as a police officer or on the ground in Iraq? Nevertheless, the fact that he isn't as useful is such roles doesn't and shouldn't diminish the appropriateness of his holding opinions on such matters.

Such lines of reasoning are just nonsense, and I'm surprised people try to pass it off as an argument.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

magogian said:


> The "What have you done" line of attack is disingenuous. M6Classic, I'm guessing you support abortions, well why haven't you become an abortion doctor? Hmm? Why not?
> 
> Part of the greatness of America is that we are largely able to pursue our talents. For better or worse, talents differ. Perhaps PT is a great mathmatician, but physically weak. Then, why the heck would we want him as a police officer or on the ground in Iraq? Nevertheless, the fact that he isn't as useful is such roles doesn't and shouldn't diminish the appropriateness of his holding opinions on such matters.
> 
> Such lines of reasoning are just nonsense, and I'm surprised people try to pass it off as an argument.


First of all, who said I support abortions? I never did.

Second, I have invited the Pedantic Turkey to address these matters more than once and he always disappears when challenged. If he has a disability that disqualifies him from otherwise serving his nation but allows him to carry a concealed firearm in the defense of liberty...why, let him say so himself.

One might assume that an individual who writes so often about needing to carry a concealed firearm in defense of liberty would be a hypocrite if he gave no other service in defense of liberty, but I would never be so judgmental about someone I have never met.

At the end of the day I appreciate your attempt to shill for the Turkey, but I for one would rather hear from the Turkey himself.

Buzz


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> First of all, who said I support abortions? I never did.
> 
> Second, I have invited the Pedantic Turkey to address these matters more than once and he always disappears when challenged. If he has a disability that disqualifies him from otherwise serving his nation but allows him to carry a concealed firearm in the defense of liberty...why, let him say so himself.
> 
> ...


The Turkey is a piece of work to be sure. One wishes him well in his journey.

But I must admit, visiting the forum is more enjoyable since I put him on "ignore."


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> First of all, who said I support abortions? I never did.
> 
> Second, I have invited the Pedantic Turkey to address these matters more than once and he always disappears when challenged. If he has a disability that disqualifies him from otherwise serving his nation but allows him to carry a concealed firearm in the defense of liberty...why, let him say so himself.
> 
> ...


First, I said that I guess you support abortions. The policy preference itself is irrelevant. My point regards the fact that you assuredly do support something--and probably at least a few things passionately.

PT probably doesn't respond because your attack is baseless and disingenuous.

While we are talking about rhetorical cheap tricks, here is one I like. Let's argue about Iraq. Since I'm sure most, if not all, of you haven't been to Iraq, you should all defer to my judgment because I have been--I worked with a democracy promoting NGO. As such, you must all defer to me! hahaha


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

magogian said:


> First, I said that I guess you support abortions. The policy preference itself is irrelevant. My point regards the fact that you assuredly do support something--and probably at least a few things passionately.
> 
> PT probably doesn't respond because your attack is baseless and disingenuous.
> 
> While we are talking about rhetorical cheap tricks, here is one I like. Let's argue about Iraq. Since I'm sure most, if not all, of you haven't been to Iraq, you should all defer to my judgment because I have been--I worked with a democracy promoting NGO. As such, you must all defer to me! hahaha


One hardly knows where to begin. You make various assumptions and guesses about me. You may be right or you may be wong. I note that you never asked me any of my opinions regarding matters about which you make assumptions. One must conclude that you don't want to be bothered with the facts.

Second, I reitterate; let the Turkey address these matters himself, why should he need your help?

Third, regarding your hypothesis about rhetorical cheap tricks; I simply don't care what you think, but go ahead and play all of the tricks you want.

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

magogian, you are basically correct, of course. 

The bit about Turkey not serving his country in a way that satisfies M6 is simply a diversion and a lame attempt to stifle him. It's a tactic used when the argument is lost and it is nothing less than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack. 

Just construct your own arbitrary 'standard' to which Turkey must either measure up or have his opinions somehow rendered invalid. At least, that's the conclusion you're expected to jump to. A big 'gotcha!', if you will, that simply falls flat on its face. 

It's purely the common type of indignant, emotional appeal that so often tries to disguise itself as logic.

Another common 'winner' of an argument tactic (subject of the discussion matters not, of course): "Oh, you haven't read Swift? Weelllllll, there you go, then. I have. And I've read lots of other classics. I'm better educated than you, ergo, my opinions must be right and yours must be wrong. Hah! Case closed!"

What arrogance. 

A wise man knows that he can learn something from everybody. Yes, everybody. He never knows what that something might be.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> magogian, you are basically correct, of course.
> 
> The bit about Turkey not serving his country in a way that satisfies M6 is simply a diversion and a lame attempt to stifle him. It's a tactic used when the argument is lost and it is nothing less than a thinly veiled ad hominem attack.
> 
> ...


My, feeling a tad insecure and overwrought today are you?

If I am so dumb, over-emotional, and of such little consequence, why are you and Magogian getting so worked up?

Let the Turkey speak for himself. If I have maligned him I will apologize and slnk away.

Buzz


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> One hardly knows where to begin. You make various assumptions and guesses about me. You may be right or you may be wong. I note that you never asked me any of my opinions regarding matters about which you make assumptions. One must conclude that you don't want to be bothered with the facts.
> 
> Second, I reitterate; let the Turkey address these matters himself, why should he need your help?
> 
> ...


Okay, this is irritating. But, let me spell it out for you. *What you actually believe on a certain issue is irrelevant* to my argument. What is *relevant* is that presumably you, like any human being, will feel strongly on some issues. My argument flows from that point. Relayer explained my argument in part, but I'll lay it out more.

M6, we should have you list out everything you feel passionately about or have strong opinions on. Then, we ask you what exactly you have done in futherance of them. We then decide whether you have sufficiently worked to further them. If you haven't in our minds, then we dismiss your argument.

That is the rhetorical cheap trick you are trying to get away with.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

magogian said:


> Okay, this is irritating. But, let me spell it out for you. *What you actually believe on a certain issue is irrelevant* to my argument. What is *relevant* is that presumably you, like any human being, will feel strongly on some issues. My argument flows from that point. Relayer explained my argument in part, but I'll lay it out more.


In other words, you are too small minded to be bothered with facts. I get it, thank you for spelling it out for me.

Buzz


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> In other words, you are too small minded to be bothered with facts. I get it, thank you for spelling it out for me.
> 
> Buzz


M6,

Well, yes, in this case I'm not bothered with them, because they don't matter!

When discussing the logical validity of a type of reasoning, the facts themselves are irrelevant. The issue is the structure of the argument, not the factual content.

And, with that I'm done arguing about it. Others can decide the merits. We can just both agree that the other is stupid/ignorant/small-minded/etc. Take your pick.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> My, *feeling a tad insecure and overwrought today are you?*
> 
> If I am so dumb, over-emotional, and of such little consequence, why are you and Magogian *getting so worked up*?
> 
> ...


You display another interesting application of your logic here.

I made one post to this 7 page thread, you've made, what... 10? 12? hmmmm...

In any case, I'm done. You go on back to... whatever it is you think you are proving.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

magogian said:


> M6,
> 
> Well, yes, in this case I'm not bothered with them [facts], because they don't matter!
> 
> ...


Oh, this is just _so_ hard. I can't decide, so I pick all three!

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> In any case, *I'm done*. You go on back to... whatever it is you think you are proving.


Not until you reach an internal temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit you're not.

Buzz


----------



## SuitUP (Feb 8, 2008)

Gentlemen, the abortion is the consequence, most of the time. of poor judgment. I say most of the time because the jimmy cap can break, birth control can fail, one can get raped and other similar situations. Its the show of poor judgment that needs to be changed for abortions to stop.

Through the church we help people and I have heard excuses like I didn't think I'd get pregnant, he said he'd pull out (I think most of us have told a girl that at one point), he said if I loved him I wouldn't make him wear a condom and other similar stories. One girl even said that she'd sleep with multi guys just to get pregnant then tell each guy he was the father and collect money from each guy making money on it. Figure 4 guys at $1000 each after the abortion she has $3000 left. I even heard a girl say she has gotten 8 abortions.

Its this poor show of judgment that needs to change. Sex Ed in school is not working. Something needs to change and don't give me that Obama will change things because both Democrats and Republics want change. Democrats want change of more government and Republicans want change of less. These people that have abortions are not living with the consequences of their actions they are taking an easy out. And in this world, most normal people, have to live with the consequences of their actions.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

BertieW said:


> I'm betting it's at least partly his fault. After all, isn't the party line about taking personal responsibility? (I happen largely to agree with that, actually, for Sartrean reasons. That's another one I read.)
> 
> Funny thing: I also had to read Hawthorne, and, no, I didn't particularly like it either. But I didn't stop at the assigned reading list. I took it upon myself to do more reading. You know, on my own.
> 
> Never too late to get to a library and fill in the gaps.


I do read plenty on my own. I just choose to read mostly non-fiction.

I think the only two books I liked that I was assigned to read during high school was Catch-22 and The Great Gatsby.

I did go to a private school for elementary school and after switching to public schools, it took until 9th grades to get to math higher than what I learned in 6th.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I do read plenty on my own. I just choose to read mostly non-fiction.
> 
> I think the only two books I liked that I was assigned to read during high school was Catch-22 and The Great Gatsby.
> 
> I did go to a private school for elementary school and after switching to public schools, it took until 9th grades to get to math higher than what I learned in 6th.


Since public school has clearly failed you I think the best way to improve the schools in the community you grew up in is to cut their funding. That'll make em better. By the way, were do public school teachers make $65,000/year? And your English teacher had to do more than just complain about her salary - she made you read The Scarlet Letter, Catch 22, and The Great Gatsby (and probably more).


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> I do read plenty on my own. I just choose to read mostly non-fiction.
> 
> I think the only two books I liked that I was assigned to read during high school was Catch-22 and The Great Gatsby.
> 
> I did go to a private school for elementary school and after switching to public schools, it took until 9th grades to get to math higher than what I learned in 6th.


BC, well we've found some common ground. I also liked both of those books. Catch-22 is still a devastating black comedy that seems as relevant as ever.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Since public school has clearly failed you I think the best way to improve the schools in the community you grew up in is to cut their funding. That'll make em better. By the way, were do public school teachers make $65,000/year? And your English teacher had to do more than just complain about her salary - she made you read The Scarlet Letter, Catch 22, and The Great Gatsby (and probably more).


The Kenosha Unified School District. (I can link you their pay schedule if you like). The biggest benefit they get is the health insurance which would make anyone envious. When I was in high school, it was free and you had to pay the first $100/individual or $200/family max for medical bills then everything else was covered 100%. They now have to pay $500/person or $750/family.

Indeed, she did make me read books; however, spending class time complaining about her wage, income disparities between men and women (and giving extra credit for bringing in news articles that showed this), and spending entire class periods Bush bashing and other political nonsense.

These items are not relevant to english class.

There was more political complaining and such in my english class than was in my AP Government & Politics class.

And I believe there would have been better books to have assigned to read than Their Eyes Were Watching God.

Most of my teachers were quite competent and good. I've been reading books on the education system and am shocked to hear about what goes on at other schools.

Sure there are other bad examples like my programming teacher who after teaching the class for about 10 years still couldn't program herself. But my calculus teacher was sharp and kept the class relevant, my physics teacher was good, my government teacher was good. I tested out of calculus one and government in college and the parts of physics in college that were similar to my high school physics was easy and I felt well prepared. I felt like I learned more in calculus two and understood more of calc one after taking two; however, that could simply be the curriculum.

I was lucky, I took all honors and advanced placement courses when they were available, and intelligent and competent teachers were assigned to teach those classes. The regular courses I took were easy at best, remedial at worst. This is likely partly due to the students.

I didn't claim that the schools need funding cuts. I don't think they need more money, however. The system in general is bloated with pork barrel spending and tons of administrators who get payed for little to no work.

I support merit based pay though. For instance advanced placement teachers should get a bonus if their students do well on the advanced placement exams; however, if for instance, no one passes the exam, the reverse should be true.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

BertieW said:


> BC, well we've found some common ground. I also liked both of those books. Catch-22 is still a devastating black comedy that seems as relevant as ever.


Well, there we go. I agree that Catch-22 is relevant today. It seems quite relevant about almost all government work. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## magogian (Jul 2, 2008)

Ughhh, high school English class. I have horrible memories that I try to repress. My AP English teacher spent most of one semester on "The Awakening." If there is a worse book to force a teenage boy to read/analyze/ponder, I haven't come across it.


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)




----------

