RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 5
by 3
users |
Sunday, November 9, 2008 7:57 AM CST
Freedom over equality best choice
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
Freedom over equality best choice
By DENNIS CLAYSON
There was an important article published in the Wall Street Journal on October 30th by Fouad Ajami on the politics of crowds. It helps resolve a mystery about this election.
Basically, very little is known about our next president. Barack Obama is a first term senator who has spent the majority of that term campaigning for another office. Much of his background is not known for three
reasons: 1) he hasn’t really done much, 2) he has been very careful not to leave a trail, and 3) the media has been uninterested in this past to a degree unknown in even modern journalism.
The media and Obama’s supporters seem to be almost totally uninterested in any information that could even slightly be inferred to be negative.
I wrote jokingly that if he killed someone, the media would simply congratulate him on saving the planet, and it would make no difference to his supporters at all.
According to Ajami, this lack of interest fits nicely with what Obama was trying to do, and cuts to the core of why people back him. He wrote, "On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen.
Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish."
The psychology of the crowd is hope, excitement, and a feeling of group unity. Everyone is on the same page. Everyone believes the same.
Everyone believes they want the same thing. It is the euphoria of unity and the loss of self in the mindlessness of the mass.
It is the political version of doing "the wave" in a sports stadium but with the added endorphin rush of self-righteousness.
It is the merger of the American and African-American version of the Peron rally in Argentina, or the Hitler spectacular in the Third Reich.
The unity is false because it is based on each person projecting their own image of "the leader" onto one individual who, at the end, will have his own vision for America which cannot coincide with those of all his supporters.
What we do know of Obama, the people around him, and from occasional unscripted off-the-cuff comments, is this. He is a liberal, but, and this is important, not all liberals believe the same things.
Over a hundred years ago, liberalism branched into two camps based on the relative importance of liberty and equality. One branch, which is quite close to what we now call conservatism, believed that liberty was more important than equality.
The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.
Given Obama’s background, it is highly likely that he falls into the second group, and firmly to the left of most Americans in that group.
This has all kinds of implications and repercussions for an Obama presidency.
Is America a good country? No. It once had slaves and no amount of time can erase that evil. This is a sin for which the country must be punished and for which it must pay.
Can we say, for example, that the 50s were a good time for most Americans? No. Because some Americans were unequal, it was a dark and evil time.
Is an employer free to pay a market wage? No. Businesses must pay a "fair" wage, which is based on the concept of equality.
Is an organization free to hire the most qualified worker? No.
Organizations must hire "fairly," which is based on the concept of equality.
Can religions teach doctrines that might create inequality? Yes, but only if they wish to be branded as "hate groups" and denied tax breaks.
Who determines equality? As Thomas Sowell wrote years ago, the "anointed ones" make this determination.
The reason conservatives favor freedom over equality is elementary.
Equality is a fiction that can only be approximated by intense force, and those who favor force only favor it for others.
A tyrant can never legitimately promise freedom, but any tyrant can promise equality.
Am I wrong about Obama? Who knows? But that is the point, isn’t it?
Basically, very little is known about our next president. Barack Obama is a first term senator who has spent the majority of that term campaigning for another office. Much of his background is not known for three
reasons: 1) he hasn’t really done much, 2) he has been very careful not to leave a trail, and 3) the media has been uninterested in this past to a degree unknown in even modern journalism.
The media and Obama’s supporters seem to be almost totally uninterested in any information that could even slightly be inferred to be negative.
I wrote jokingly that if he killed someone, the media would simply congratulate him on saving the planet, and it would make no difference to his supporters at all.
According to Ajami, this lack of interest fits nicely with what Obama was trying to do, and cuts to the core of why people back him. He wrote, "On the face of it, there is nothing overwhelmingly stirring about Sen.
Obama. There is a cerebral quality to him, and an air of detachment. He has eloquence, but within bounds. After nearly two years on the trail, the audience can pretty much anticipate and recite his lines. The political genius of the man is that he is a blank slate. The devotees can project onto him what they wish."
The psychology of the crowd is hope, excitement, and a feeling of group unity. Everyone is on the same page. Everyone believes the same.
Everyone believes they want the same thing. It is the euphoria of unity and the loss of self in the mindlessness of the mass.
It is the political version of doing "the wave" in a sports stadium but with the added endorphin rush of self-righteousness.
It is the merger of the American and African-American version of the Peron rally in Argentina, or the Hitler spectacular in the Third Reich.
The unity is false because it is based on each person projecting their own image of "the leader" onto one individual who, at the end, will have his own vision for America which cannot coincide with those of all his supporters.
What we do know of Obama, the people around him, and from occasional unscripted off-the-cuff comments, is this. He is a liberal, but, and this is important, not all liberals believe the same things.
Over a hundred years ago, liberalism branched into two camps based on the relative importance of liberty and equality. One branch, which is quite close to what we now call conservatism, believed that liberty was more important than equality.
The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.
Given Obama’s background, it is highly likely that he falls into the second group, and firmly to the left of most Americans in that group.
This has all kinds of implications and repercussions for an Obama presidency.
Is America a good country? No. It once had slaves and no amount of time can erase that evil. This is a sin for which the country must be punished and for which it must pay.
Can we say, for example, that the 50s were a good time for most Americans? No. Because some Americans were unequal, it was a dark and evil time.
Is an employer free to pay a market wage? No. Businesses must pay a "fair" wage, which is based on the concept of equality.
Is an organization free to hire the most qualified worker? No.
Organizations must hire "fairly," which is based on the concept of equality.
Can religions teach doctrines that might create inequality? Yes, but only if they wish to be branded as "hate groups" and denied tax breaks.
Who determines equality? As Thomas Sowell wrote years ago, the "anointed ones" make this determination.
The reason conservatives favor freedom over equality is elementary.
Equality is a fiction that can only be approximated by intense force, and those who favor force only favor it for others.
A tyrant can never legitimately promise freedom, but any tyrant can promise equality.
Am I wrong about Obama? Who knows? But that is the point, isn’t it?
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
1x2x3q wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:28 AM:
" Do you think liberals don't see this or just to stubborn to admit this. Seems to me right on "
Waterloo Reader wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:51 AM:
" I have already forwarded this column on to several friends and relatives. I thought Clayson hit the nail squarely on the head. We'll soon (two years) see if Clayson or jeroze was right. My money's on Clayson. "
reykr wrote on Nov 9, 2008 10:20 AM:
" Freedom and equality are complementary.
The citizens of a just society need certain kinds of freedom, as well as certain kinds of equality.
An employer needs the freedom to fire or lay off workers. However, the workers need the freedom to form unions, which may dispute possible injustices, during those procedures.
An example of a time and place when some workers didn't have that freedom, is discussed in "A murder in Dallas, during the Depression," which I posted
on my blog, on November 4.
http://reykr.livejournal.com/2008/11/04/ "
The citizens of a just society need certain kinds of freedom, as well as certain kinds of equality.
An employer needs the freedom to fire or lay off workers. However, the workers need the freedom to form unions, which may dispute possible injustices, during those procedures.
An example of a time and place when some workers didn't have that freedom, is discussed in "A murder in Dallas, during the Depression," which I posted
on my blog, on November 4.
http://reykr.livejournal.com/2008/11/04/ "
skelloch wrote on Nov 9, 2008 12:12 PM:
" Unions nowdays are for people who are too lazy go meet with employers to negotiate wages and benefits. The jobs belong to the EMPLOYERS, not the workers. If you think unions are so good, why did the US Congress outlaw the Armed Forces members joining a union? Yeah right on. Examples of union efforts...Rath Packing where the union actually bought the company then STILL couldn't operate it properly without going out of business. The taxpayers are STILL picking up after that mess. The Big Three automakers now about to sink without hard working american taxpayer money to bail them out. Yeah, the union bosses retirement is what really counts here. There is no such thing as PERMANENT jobs, remember tax the employers so they move those jobs overseas or close shop and you get what you wish for. "
think wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:10 PM:
" GM & Ford is about to show what the outdated unions do. Who you libs going to tax when there is no GM? Where you going to work? Spread the wealth and pass the sour grapes.You cut your own jobs. "
Oboy wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:23 PM:
" skelloch, you seemed to omit the Banking and Insurance industries, how did the unions effect or cause their need for a "BAILOUT?" "
Phil wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:38 PM:
" So we are going to bash unions and tell how they have ruined America and the companies that have them? Hilarious and pathetic all in one. Without unions we would still be a third world nation in many respects.
Let's put it this way, if the "market" was so great for the workers why was there even a need for unions to be formed? Ever think of that? Of course not. How ignorant.
As far as the car companies - ask them this - would they rather get rid of the unions OR would they rather not have to fund health insurance for all their workers? I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one. Our backwards "market" driven health insurance system is putting our companies at a huge disadvantage.
So Mr. Clayson thinks Pres. Obama is going to work to make everything "equal" for everyone. Since he doesn't really define how that result will look - he can say he was right no matter what Obama does.
What a genius!
Wish I could go back 8 years ago and see what Mr. Clayson wrote about George Bush. I am sure he predicted that he would be totally incompetent, habitual liar and destroyer of our constitutional rights. That's what he should have written anyway - somehow I feel he didn't. "
Let's put it this way, if the "market" was so great for the workers why was there even a need for unions to be formed? Ever think of that? Of course not. How ignorant.
As far as the car companies - ask them this - would they rather get rid of the unions OR would they rather not have to fund health insurance for all their workers? I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one. Our backwards "market" driven health insurance system is putting our companies at a huge disadvantage.
So Mr. Clayson thinks Pres. Obama is going to work to make everything "equal" for everyone. Since he doesn't really define how that result will look - he can say he was right no matter what Obama does.
What a genius!
Wish I could go back 8 years ago and see what Mr. Clayson wrote about George Bush. I am sure he predicted that he would be totally incompetent, habitual liar and destroyer of our constitutional rights. That's what he should have written anyway - somehow I feel he didn't. "
Phil wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:43 PM:
" Actually Mr. Clayson - what is your point - other than you have no idea what you are talking about!
That any of you actually think Mr. Clayson knows what he is talking about is the most amazing thing of all.
The world is quickly passing him by. "
That any of you actually think Mr. Clayson knows what he is talking about is the most amazing thing of all.
The world is quickly passing him by. "
hetfield wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:43 PM:
" 'all men are created equal' does not mean, you can sit on the couch and live off the man who works hard. What it does mean is, everyone has the same opportunity to excel in this country. Which everyone does have! obviously the country is not prejiduced if we have just elected the first mulato to the presidency.
the constitution is not a living thing. it was written by men much smarter than those in politics today, and it's words should be not be shifted by a liberal judicial system. nowhere does it say you can kill unborn babies, nowhere does it say you can 'spread the wealth' around, nowhere does it say Tyrone deserves the job over Tom just because Tyrone is not white.
Stop bringing the country down to liberal poverty by allowing laziness to prevail. "
the constitution is not a living thing. it was written by men much smarter than those in politics today, and it's words should be not be shifted by a liberal judicial system. nowhere does it say you can kill unborn babies, nowhere does it say you can 'spread the wealth' around, nowhere does it say Tyrone deserves the job over Tom just because Tyrone is not white.
Stop bringing the country down to liberal poverty by allowing laziness to prevail. "
cross1242 wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:06 PM:
" Today, Prof. Clayson discusses the relative merits of liberty vs. equality and finds that most liberals have made the wrong choice. In that, Prof. Clayson uses the classic “strawman” fallacy to prove his point. He also gets in a few post-election licks on President-elect Barack Obama.
He sets up his strawman thusly: “Over a hundred years ago, liberalism branched into two camps based on the relative importance of liberty and equality. One branch, which is quite close to what we now call conservatism, believed that liberty was more important than equality. The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.”
From whence did Prof. Clayson get his liberty vs. equality dichotomy?
We don’t know. He didn’t bother to tell us. I’ve studied political philosophy and political science for what is now approaching 50 years and it’s the first that I have heard of that supposed problem. I suspect that he got it from Thomas Sowell or another of the hard-right authors that he obviously limits himself to. So, unless he can prove up this dichotomy, I’d suggest that we all ignore it as another appeal to mythical history.
Prof. Clayson claims that liberals are of two minds: those who seek liberty first and those who seek equality first. He feels that most liberals are in the latter category and are now about to crush liberty in the name of perfect equality.
That is, of course, bunk. I think he is probably referring to the late, unlamented, Soviet Union as a place where liberty was crushed to achieve equality. But, regardless of what they tried in the USSR, about nobody (literally) is thinking about adopting their practices here.
The whole rigmarole is nothing more than a strawman that Prof. Clayson carefully sets up and then attempts to destroy. And, as all of us who have kept up on logical fallacies know, a strawman is an illogical argument.
Most of the column is criticism of the experience level of now President-elect Obama. What it is doing in any column now has me buffaloed. It was a major issue during the campaign. And, since the majority voted for Obama, they rejected the claim of inexperience as a telling issue. I can understand that Prof. Clayson is disappointed in the election’s result. However, I think he needs to switch from election mode to post-election mode. That means that he’s perfectly free to wait and hope that Obama will foul things up and then to boldly announce, “I told you so.” His continuance in election mode augers poorly for the future. We may be burdened with Prof. Clayson continuing in campaign mode for the next four to eight years. That will get rather boring.
The issue of Obama’s experience shows some hypocrisy on the part of most of those on the far right. They tell us what a “breath of fresh air” Sarah Palin would be since she has NO federal experience. It’s rather obvious that their claimed need for experience is their gal or our guy.
In any case, experience in the old ways of doing things is a doubtful qualification when you are selling “change.” The lack of lengthy experience is one reason why Obama’s pledge of “change” can be believed. He has nothing invested in the status quo.
One part of Prof. Clayson’s argument is simply revolting in character. He compares public election rallies held by Obama to those of Juan Peron and Adolph Hitler. Making that connection is both wrong and mean spirited. That it is wrong is easily proved. Just look at any film of a Peron or Hitler rally. There are military trappings and a martial spirit at those rallies that are completely absent from any gathering where Obama will speak.
And, besides, it can’t be helped that McCain (particularly without Sarah Palin) produces all the enthusiasm of a convention of undertakers.
/s/ Steve Cross
PS – I actually made it into the print in response to Prof. Clayson’s column from a week ago. You can see it at: http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/11/08/columnists/guest_column/doc491453035a8d2710624499.txt#blogcomments "
He sets up his strawman thusly: “Over a hundred years ago, liberalism branched into two camps based on the relative importance of liberty and equality. One branch, which is quite close to what we now call conservatism, believed that liberty was more important than equality. The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.”
From whence did Prof. Clayson get his liberty vs. equality dichotomy?
We don’t know. He didn’t bother to tell us. I’ve studied political philosophy and political science for what is now approaching 50 years and it’s the first that I have heard of that supposed problem. I suspect that he got it from Thomas Sowell or another of the hard-right authors that he obviously limits himself to. So, unless he can prove up this dichotomy, I’d suggest that we all ignore it as another appeal to mythical history.
Prof. Clayson claims that liberals are of two minds: those who seek liberty first and those who seek equality first. He feels that most liberals are in the latter category and are now about to crush liberty in the name of perfect equality.
That is, of course, bunk. I think he is probably referring to the late, unlamented, Soviet Union as a place where liberty was crushed to achieve equality. But, regardless of what they tried in the USSR, about nobody (literally) is thinking about adopting their practices here.
The whole rigmarole is nothing more than a strawman that Prof. Clayson carefully sets up and then attempts to destroy. And, as all of us who have kept up on logical fallacies know, a strawman is an illogical argument.
Most of the column is criticism of the experience level of now President-elect Obama. What it is doing in any column now has me buffaloed. It was a major issue during the campaign. And, since the majority voted for Obama, they rejected the claim of inexperience as a telling issue. I can understand that Prof. Clayson is disappointed in the election’s result. However, I think he needs to switch from election mode to post-election mode. That means that he’s perfectly free to wait and hope that Obama will foul things up and then to boldly announce, “I told you so.” His continuance in election mode augers poorly for the future. We may be burdened with Prof. Clayson continuing in campaign mode for the next four to eight years. That will get rather boring.
The issue of Obama’s experience shows some hypocrisy on the part of most of those on the far right. They tell us what a “breath of fresh air” Sarah Palin would be since she has NO federal experience. It’s rather obvious that their claimed need for experience is their gal or our guy.
In any case, experience in the old ways of doing things is a doubtful qualification when you are selling “change.” The lack of lengthy experience is one reason why Obama’s pledge of “change” can be believed. He has nothing invested in the status quo.
One part of Prof. Clayson’s argument is simply revolting in character. He compares public election rallies held by Obama to those of Juan Peron and Adolph Hitler. Making that connection is both wrong and mean spirited. That it is wrong is easily proved. Just look at any film of a Peron or Hitler rally. There are military trappings and a martial spirit at those rallies that are completely absent from any gathering where Obama will speak.
And, besides, it can’t be helped that McCain (particularly without Sarah Palin) produces all the enthusiasm of a convention of undertakers.
/s/ Steve Cross
PS – I actually made it into the print in response to Prof. Clayson’s column from a week ago. You can see it at: http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/11/08/columnists/guest_column/doc491453035a8d2710624499.txt#blogcomments "
hetfield wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:50 PM:
" from the ap story regarding farrakhan in todays online edition
Farrakhan has haltingly tried to move the Nation toward traditional Islam, which considers the American movement heretical.
He has also downplayed some of the group's more controversial beliefs. The Nation of Islam has taught that whites are descended from the devil and that blacks are the chosen people of Allah.
now how is it that these blacks can preach hate over whites and are held harmless? if whites did this they would be attacked.
amazing how farrakhan and B hussein are tied at the hip and bh gets a free pass as he did with wright, ayers, rezko, and others.
rahm is one of the most radial jews in the country, and now is chief of staff on a free BH pass. while with clinton, he was on film taking a knife and thrusting it into a table while repeatedly saying 'dead' of the names of his conservative enemies.
this is hope and change? now BH is going to use executive priviledge to end further drilling. this will end our reliance on foreign oil? good guy, this newly elected oily one. "
Farrakhan has haltingly tried to move the Nation toward traditional Islam, which considers the American movement heretical.
He has also downplayed some of the group's more controversial beliefs. The Nation of Islam has taught that whites are descended from the devil and that blacks are the chosen people of Allah.
now how is it that these blacks can preach hate over whites and are held harmless? if whites did this they would be attacked.
amazing how farrakhan and B hussein are tied at the hip and bh gets a free pass as he did with wright, ayers, rezko, and others.
rahm is one of the most radial jews in the country, and now is chief of staff on a free BH pass. while with clinton, he was on film taking a knife and thrusting it into a table while repeatedly saying 'dead' of the names of his conservative enemies.
this is hope and change? now BH is going to use executive priviledge to end further drilling. this will end our reliance on foreign oil? good guy, this newly elected oily one. "
chester11 wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:18 PM:
" think wrote on Nov 9, 2008 4:10 PM:
" GM & Ford is about to show what the outdated unions do. Who you libs going to tax when there is no GM? Where you going to work? Spread the wealth and pass the sour grapes.You cut your own jobs. "
Sour grapes? This whole column is sour grapes. We cut our own jobs, huh? What's that jobless rate at now? How many thousands of jobs were promised to go overseas this last quarter? Sour grapes...pfft.
You and Clayson's boy lost, chump. Seems like you're the ones crying about it. "
" GM & Ford is about to show what the outdated unions do. Who you libs going to tax when there is no GM? Where you going to work? Spread the wealth and pass the sour grapes.You cut your own jobs. "
Sour grapes? This whole column is sour grapes. We cut our own jobs, huh? What's that jobless rate at now? How many thousands of jobs were promised to go overseas this last quarter? Sour grapes...pfft.
You and Clayson's boy lost, chump. Seems like you're the ones crying about it. "
Independent wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:30 PM:
" Now, Clayson is calling Obama a tyrant, before he takes oath?
Why does it seem like W. is the tyrant?
The point of this article is, Clayson is mad as hell. "
Why does it seem like W. is the tyrant?
The point of this article is, Clayson is mad as hell. "
jeroze wrote on Nov 9, 2008 9:31 PM:
" Words are tricky. Freedom in the economic realm and in our choices of life style, depends not on equality but on the amount of wealth power we can generate. Freedom in the religious realm depends not on equality but upon the restrictiveness or the permissiveness of our belief. Freedom in our speech depends on whether we are where nobody can hear us or whether we are in the company of narrow minded bigots.
I would think that even our compassionate conservatives would be a little uncomfortable when a CEO is rewarded for his labor in an amount that is 250 times to a 1,000 times of what the average laborer is rewarded.
When one works hard and does work conscientiously does that person deserve a living wage? with some amenities? Or does the common laborer deserve just a survival wage?
Unfortunately I must repeat my conclusion that "compassionate conservatives are conservative mostly in their compassion."
And by the way, I find very little evidence of compassion whatsoever in the the columns of this writer. "
I would think that even our compassionate conservatives would be a little uncomfortable when a CEO is rewarded for his labor in an amount that is 250 times to a 1,000 times of what the average laborer is rewarded.
When one works hard and does work conscientiously does that person deserve a living wage? with some amenities? Or does the common laborer deserve just a survival wage?
Unfortunately I must repeat my conclusion that "compassionate conservatives are conservative mostly in their compassion."
And by the way, I find very little evidence of compassion whatsoever in the the columns of this writer. "
Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:12 AM:
" About 2/3 of the way into Mr. Clayson's column he says:
"The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.
Given Obama’s background, it is highly likely that he falls into the second group, and firmly to the left of most Americans in that group."
No where in the rest of the column does Mr. Clayson firmly define what he means by this - instead he only uses very loose generalities which the reader can interpret however he chooses.
This is typical of Mr. Clayson - lay out a broad concept that his right wing fan club embraces - but don't get too specific. That way all the right wingers can agree with him but the rest of the readers can't really be too critical because they can't pin him down with any specific things he said.
Very cagey, but also quite irresponsible and wishy-washy.
Spell it out Mr. Clayson - you say Pres. Obama will worry more about equality in wages, hiring laws, even some religious areas. OK - give us some specifics. Put some "teeth" in your predictions.
I say you are wrong Mr. Clayson - and I will spell it out:
1. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law making everyone's wages equal.
2. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law that requires companies to hire anyone regardless of how unqualified they might be.
3. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign any law forbidding religions from expressing their church doctrines, or threaten their tax exempt status, even if those doctrines do not match current law.
So before Pres. Obama has even taken the oath of office, I have gone on record showing how your predictions are wrong Mr. Clayson.
Waterloo Reader - want to take any bets on whether I am more right than Mr. Clayson? "
"The other maintained that equality was more important than liberty. The far left in this group believe that equality is more important than almost anything.
Given Obama’s background, it is highly likely that he falls into the second group, and firmly to the left of most Americans in that group."
No where in the rest of the column does Mr. Clayson firmly define what he means by this - instead he only uses very loose generalities which the reader can interpret however he chooses.
This is typical of Mr. Clayson - lay out a broad concept that his right wing fan club embraces - but don't get too specific. That way all the right wingers can agree with him but the rest of the readers can't really be too critical because they can't pin him down with any specific things he said.
Very cagey, but also quite irresponsible and wishy-washy.
Spell it out Mr. Clayson - you say Pres. Obama will worry more about equality in wages, hiring laws, even some religious areas. OK - give us some specifics. Put some "teeth" in your predictions.
I say you are wrong Mr. Clayson - and I will spell it out:
1. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law making everyone's wages equal.
2. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law that requires companies to hire anyone regardless of how unqualified they might be.
3. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign any law forbidding religions from expressing their church doctrines, or threaten their tax exempt status, even if those doctrines do not match current law.
So before Pres. Obama has even taken the oath of office, I have gone on record showing how your predictions are wrong Mr. Clayson.
Waterloo Reader - want to take any bets on whether I am more right than Mr. Clayson? "
jeroze wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:56 AM:
" My last post was scrambled and unorganized. I think that Cross1242 has put a handle on the question we need to ask about this column.
cross1242 wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:06 PM:
'From whence did Prof. Clayson get his liberty vs. equality dichotomy?
We don’t know. He didn’t bother to tell us. I’ve studied political philosophy and political science for what is now approaching 50 years and it’s the first that I have heard of that supposed problem.'
My last reply was to a series of irritations that Professor Clayson has created by his random scatter gunned approach to political issues.
......and thank you Cross1242 for your great replies to the nonsense that we read in Professor Clayson's column. By the way your editorial in Friday's paper got thumbs up from my wife also. "
cross1242 wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:06 PM:
'From whence did Prof. Clayson get his liberty vs. equality dichotomy?
We don’t know. He didn’t bother to tell us. I’ve studied political philosophy and political science for what is now approaching 50 years and it’s the first that I have heard of that supposed problem.'
My last reply was to a series of irritations that Professor Clayson has created by his random scatter gunned approach to political issues.
......and thank you Cross1242 for your great replies to the nonsense that we read in Professor Clayson's column. By the way your editorial in Friday's paper got thumbs up from my wife also. "
think wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:35 AM:
" I would expect no less than the “holler than thou” group of intellects that seem to feel all others are below them and they self gratify one another here. I wonder if people who retired a few years ago from Deere at 50 really expect to get a pension and paid health care until they die at 89. Not going to happen. This is why the jobs are going over seas. Some of you people can’t stand that CEO’s are getting rich. Yes they are, but so are Bill & Hillary doing speeches and selling books. Many like Cross think people are too stupid to care for themselves and we need his guidance to get us through life. I know many of you are better writers and have law degrees and such, but how does that make you better? People like me want to be left alone and not part of your socialists/communist mentality. I’ll gladly pay some tax for items deemed in the constitution. Aid to Israel and Africa is not a part of that. We want to be left Amish (alone). Texas will be the next State to succeed from the Union and their Constitution does fall into that gray area to do so. Millions of us will not live under what we were raised to fight against all our lives. Marxism.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp "
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:48 AM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:12 AM:
"....I say you are wrong Mr. Clayson - and I will spell it out:
1. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law making everyone's wages equal.
2. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law that requires companies to hire anyone regardless of how unqualified they might be.
3. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign any law forbidding religions from expressing their church doctrines, or threaten their tax exempt status, even if those doctrines do not match current law.
So before Pres. Obama has even taken the oath of office, I have gone on record showing how your predictions are wrong Mr. Clayson.
Waterloo Reader - want to take any bets on whether I am more right than Mr. Clayson? "
1. Ridiculous. No, what he wants to do is give away tax money. Nice canard.
2. Affirmative action already does that. No need for new laws. They already exist.
3. The threats are already there. "
"....I say you are wrong Mr. Clayson - and I will spell it out:
1. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law making everyone's wages equal.
2. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law that requires companies to hire anyone regardless of how unqualified they might be.
3. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign any law forbidding religions from expressing their church doctrines, or threaten their tax exempt status, even if those doctrines do not match current law.
So before Pres. Obama has even taken the oath of office, I have gone on record showing how your predictions are wrong Mr. Clayson.
Waterloo Reader - want to take any bets on whether I am more right than Mr. Clayson? "
1. Ridiculous. No, what he wants to do is give away tax money. Nice canard.
2. Affirmative action already does that. No need for new laws. They already exist.
3. The threats are already there. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:50 AM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 9, 2008 7:38 PM:
" So we are going to bash unions and tell how they have ruined America and the companies that have them? Hilarious and pathetic all in one. Without unions we would still be a third world nation in many respects...." With unions that's where we're headed. Fat cat union CEO's only care about themselves anymore, not the members. "
" So we are going to bash unions and tell how they have ruined America and the companies that have them? Hilarious and pathetic all in one. Without unions we would still be a third world nation in many respects...." With unions that's where we're headed. Fat cat union CEO's only care about themselves anymore, not the members. "
Independent wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:55 AM:
" http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/322-11142007-1440658.html
Is this where Clayson gets his liberty vs. equality dichotomy?
Read the part about liberals branching out 200 years ago. Creepy, how similar the articles match up. "
Is this where Clayson gets his liberty vs. equality dichotomy?
Read the part about liberals branching out 200 years ago. Creepy, how similar the articles match up. "
Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:39 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:50 AM:
"Fat cat union CEO's only care about themselves anymore, not the members."
OK - name me one union CEO, or member, that was behind any of these:
1. Mortgage crisis.
2. Wall Street bailout.
3. Golden parachutes when their companies lost money under their rule.
Please - back up your accusation not just with facts, but with statistics that demonstrate how union CEO's have caused more damage to this economy and have been guilty of more greed than the CEO's of major corporations - many of them publicly traded corporations.
I'll be waiting for your detailed, fact filled response. "
"Fat cat union CEO's only care about themselves anymore, not the members."
OK - name me one union CEO, or member, that was behind any of these:
1. Mortgage crisis.
2. Wall Street bailout.
3. Golden parachutes when their companies lost money under their rule.
Please - back up your accusation not just with facts, but with statistics that demonstrate how union CEO's have caused more damage to this economy and have been guilty of more greed than the CEO's of major corporations - many of them publicly traded corporations.
I'll be waiting for your detailed, fact filled response. "
Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:42 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:48 AM:
1. Ridiculous. No, what he wants to do is give away tax money. Nice canard.
2. Affirmative action already does that. No need for new laws. They already exist.
3. The threats are already there.
So now you speak for Mr. Clayson? Or can you point out to me where he said these things in his column.
See you just proved my point, you interpreted his column and my response to it because Mr. Clayson did not make clear his views. So you therefore assume that Mr. Clayson's views align with yours. Neat trick. Shameless and gutless, but see how well it works. "
1. Ridiculous. No, what he wants to do is give away tax money. Nice canard.
2. Affirmative action already does that. No need for new laws. They already exist.
3. The threats are already there.
So now you speak for Mr. Clayson? Or can you point out to me where he said these things in his column.
See you just proved my point, you interpreted his column and my response to it because Mr. Clayson did not make clear his views. So you therefore assume that Mr. Clayson's views align with yours. Neat trick. Shameless and gutless, but see how well it works. "
timbrackett wrote on Nov 10, 2008 12:21 PM:
" nice stream of conscience, mr. clayson (you really can't refer to his tripe as a column or piece anymore, because their is no structure to be found in his writing).
however, equality=freedom, no matter how you want to spin it. "
however, equality=freedom, no matter how you want to spin it. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 12:57 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:39 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:50 AM:
"Fat cat union CEO's only care about themselves anymore, not the members."
OK - name me one union CEO, or member, that was behind any of these:
"1. Mortgage crisis." I don't know how many union members bought more house than they could afford, but what does this have to do with unions being the prime reason for the rust belt? Heavily unionized states have higher unemployment rates than right to work areas. Union membership, except government unions, is declining. Rapidly.
"2. Wall Street bailout." Let's see. Unions push their members to vote democrat. Democrats got us into this mess with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Good enough?
"3. Golden parachutes when their companies lost money under their rule." Fat cat union honchos are making a ton of money while their membership suffers.
Please - back up your accusation not just with facts, but with statistics that demonstrate how union CEO's have caused more damage to this economy and have been guilty of more greed than the CEO's of major corporations - many of them publicly traded corporations." That union fat cats caused more damage wasn't my initial point. I like how you said please, though. "
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:50 AM:
"Fat cat union CEO's only care about themselves anymore, not the members."
OK - name me one union CEO, or member, that was behind any of these:
"1. Mortgage crisis." I don't know how many union members bought more house than they could afford, but what does this have to do with unions being the prime reason for the rust belt? Heavily unionized states have higher unemployment rates than right to work areas. Union membership, except government unions, is declining. Rapidly.
"2. Wall Street bailout." Let's see. Unions push their members to vote democrat. Democrats got us into this mess with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Good enough?
"3. Golden parachutes when their companies lost money under their rule." Fat cat union honchos are making a ton of money while their membership suffers.
Please - back up your accusation not just with facts, but with statistics that demonstrate how union CEO's have caused more damage to this economy and have been guilty of more greed than the CEO's of major corporations - many of them publicly traded corporations." That union fat cats caused more damage wasn't my initial point. I like how you said please, though. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:02 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 11:42 AM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:48 AM:
1. Ridiculous. No, what he wants to do is give away tax money. Nice canard.
2. Affirmative action already does that. No need for new laws. They already exist.
3. The threats are already there.
So now you speak for Mr. Clayson?" Nope. He does quite well on his own. This is in reply to your bogus bet.
"Or can you point out to me where he said these things in his column." You are confused, aren't you.
"See you just proved my point, you interpreted his column and my response to it because Mr. Clayson did not make clear his views. So you therefore assume that Mr. Clayson's views align with yours. Neat trick. Shameless and gutless, but see how well it works. " Wrong again. I showed your bogus bet as being, well, bogus. Hard work to make you look this bad all the time. Hard hard work. "
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 10:48 AM:
1. Ridiculous. No, what he wants to do is give away tax money. Nice canard.
2. Affirmative action already does that. No need for new laws. They already exist.
3. The threats are already there.
So now you speak for Mr. Clayson?" Nope. He does quite well on his own. This is in reply to your bogus bet.
"Or can you point out to me where he said these things in his column." You are confused, aren't you.
"See you just proved my point, you interpreted his column and my response to it because Mr. Clayson did not make clear his views. So you therefore assume that Mr. Clayson's views align with yours. Neat trick. Shameless and gutless, but see how well it works. " Wrong again. I showed your bogus bet as being, well, bogus. Hard work to make you look this bad all the time. Hard hard work. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:04 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 10, 2008 12:21 PM:
" nice stream of conscience, mr. clayson (you really can't refer to his tripe as a column or piece anymore, because their is no structure to be found in his writing).
however, equality=freedom, no matter how you want to spin it. " Depends on what you mean by equality. A person who works hard, follows the rules, and succeeds deserves the fruits of his labor. One who does not should not expect equal results. "
" nice stream of conscience, mr. clayson (you really can't refer to his tripe as a column or piece anymore, because their is no structure to be found in his writing).
however, equality=freedom, no matter how you want to spin it. " Depends on what you mean by equality. A person who works hard, follows the rules, and succeeds deserves the fruits of his labor. One who does not should not expect equal results. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:07 PM:
" Cross:
"That is, of course, bunk. I think he is probably referring to the late, unlamented, Soviet Union as a place where liberty was crushed to achieve equality. But, regardless of what they tried in the USSR, about nobody (literally) is thinking about adopting their practices here...." Really? Gun control, easy divorce, centralized education, progressive taxation, centralized control of the economy are all in the communist manifesto, which the soviet union put into action. "
"That is, of course, bunk. I think he is probably referring to the late, unlamented, Soviet Union as a place where liberty was crushed to achieve equality. But, regardless of what they tried in the USSR, about nobody (literally) is thinking about adopting their practices here...." Really? Gun control, easy divorce, centralized education, progressive taxation, centralized control of the economy are all in the communist manifesto, which the soviet union put into action. "
Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:30 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:02 PM:
"Hard work to make you look this bad all the time. Hard hard work."
I'm sure it is hard work - and someday, if you keep trying (and change your views) you might actually accomplish it.
Keep trying - its fun reading your futile attempts. "
"Hard work to make you look this bad all the time. Hard hard work."
I'm sure it is hard work - and someday, if you keep trying (and change your views) you might actually accomplish it.
Keep trying - its fun reading your futile attempts. "
think wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:48 PM:
" What we just got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"
"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."Right out of the Obama play book. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"
"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."Right out of the Obama play book. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:58 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:30 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:02 PM:
"Hard work to make you look this bad all the time. Hard hard work."
I'm sure it is hard work - and someday, if you keep trying (and change your views) you might actually accomplish it.
Keep trying - its fun reading your futile attempts. "
Translation: You made my bet post look bad, but can't rebutt.
Hard work, to make you look so bad. "
" xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 1:02 PM:
"Hard work to make you look this bad all the time. Hard hard work."
I'm sure it is hard work - and someday, if you keep trying (and change your views) you might actually accomplish it.
Keep trying - its fun reading your futile attempts. "
Translation: You made my bet post look bad, but can't rebutt.
Hard work, to make you look so bad. "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:05 PM:
" This is one of the best Clayson articles I've read. Once again he has hit the nail on the head with what I believe are the correct prediction of our future under a BHO administration.
It is comical to read the angry dribble from the liberals like Phil and xdfred of Clayson's articles too. All I can say is be prepared for the "I told you so's"!
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson "
It is comical to read the angry dribble from the liberals like Phil and xdfred of Clayson's articles too. All I can say is be prepared for the "I told you so's"!
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
-Thomas Jefferson "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:26 PM:
" My appologies to xdfred. Upon review of the comment I sent, I wrongly accused xdfred as a liberal. I meant to say of Phil and cross1242. My sicere appologies to xdfred. I promise I will be more careful of my comments in the future.
Sincerely,
hfrmack "
Sincerely,
hfrmack "
xdfred wrote on Nov 10, 2008 3:45 PM:
" hfrmack wrote on Nov 10, 2008 2:26 PM:
" My appologies to xdfred. Upon review of the comment I sent, I wrongly accused xdfred as a liberal. I meant to say of Phil and cross1242. My sicere appologies to xdfred. I promise I will be more careful of my comments in the future.
Sincerely,
hfrmack "
No worries, I was pretty sure it was a mistake. "
" My appologies to xdfred. Upon review of the comment I sent, I wrongly accused xdfred as a liberal. I meant to say of Phil and cross1242. My sicere appologies to xdfred. I promise I will be more careful of my comments in the future.
Sincerely,
hfrmack "
No worries, I was pretty sure it was a mistake. "
Think wrote on Nov 10, 2008 5:26 PM:
" Freedom. Look at all those men who laid down on Omaha Beach and the rest of the dead veterans. They would roll in their graves if they came back to life and saw what they had died for. Cross most likely has become rich playing the game. So Cross your young and retired, how did you do it bud. Big law suit against a deli? ... Like this insurance scam. That’s another game I no longer play. Insurance. Rip offs. I love the 88 year old woman that drove with no license for 40 years and no insurance. She won and is back behind the wheel. You want to protect yourself from her, you buy it. She has a $500.00 rust trap and you more than likely have Mercedes. "
cross1242 wrote on Nov 10, 2008 9:40 PM:
" Think @ Nov 10, 2008 5:26 PM said, "Cross most likely has become rich playing the game. So Cross your young and retired, how did you do it bud. Big law suit against a deli?"
Actually, "Think," I'm barely making it. And the "why" in NOYB.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Actually, "Think," I'm barely making it. And the "why" in NOYB.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Independent wrote on Nov 11, 2008 1:39 AM:
" Think, if the dead service men and women roll around, it's been during the Bush empire. Not, during the president elect's tenure. "
Independent wrote on Nov 11, 2008 1:41 AM:
" I have yet to see a fact filled response, from the hard-wrong Rushies.
Happy trails to you all. "
Happy trails to you all. "
Independent wrote on Nov 11, 2008 1:45 AM:
" Compasion, abortion, free markets, and whatever Clayson makes up next week = cumbersum balderdash!
I think it's called defeat. "
I think it's called defeat. "
Independent wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:07 AM:
" What is the "game" Mr. think? Do you care to articulate or do you just want to attack cross? You do have some good points, from time to time, but you need some sleep asap, think. "
Independent wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:11 AM:
" Is Clayson wrong about Obama?
I don't know because I really don't ever know what Clayson's point is.
But, the hard-righties seem to understand every article? Yet, they fail to extrapolate coherently during the week. Why can't they expalin things clearly? "
I don't know because I really don't ever know what Clayson's point is.
But, the hard-righties seem to understand every article? Yet, they fail to extrapolate coherently during the week. Why can't they expalin things clearly? "
xdfred wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:15 AM:
" Independent wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:11 AM:
" Is Clayson wrong about Obama?
I don't know because I really don't ever know what Clayson's point is.
But, the hard-righties seem to understand every article? Yet, they fail to extrapolate coherently during the week. Why can't they expalin things clearly? " What can I say, the rest of us know how to read and write, since we didn't graduate due to social promotion. "
" Is Clayson wrong about Obama?
I don't know because I really don't ever know what Clayson's point is.
But, the hard-righties seem to understand every article? Yet, they fail to extrapolate coherently during the week. Why can't they expalin things clearly? " What can I say, the rest of us know how to read and write, since we didn't graduate due to social promotion. "
Phil wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:32 AM:
" xdfred - you are funny in how serious you take yourself. I will make one more post to you before I go back to ignoring you.
You know why you lack any sense of credibilty on these forums? Why no one believes one thing you post - other that 3 or 4 other right wing nut jobs? Cause you are all about your side winning and not about reality in the world.
You see, I don't believe everything the Democrats do is right - there are many things that have gone wrong that they are to blame for or have contributed to. Not you - it is always the liberals fault - ALWAYS.
Second, you get your "facts" from totally unreliable sources - and it shows. It is so obvious it makes you look like both a fool and a tool all at once.
A prime example of it is the financial meltdown. Everyone, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, knows Wall Street and its greed packaged in the form of Credit Derivative Swaps (thank you Phil Gramm) is the biggest piece of the problem. They also know that Fannie, Freddie and other financial institutions got in trouble by either buying up (Fannie/Freddie) or offering unregulated mortgages in the marketplace - on their own, not forced by any government programs or regulations.
Yet you keep spouting off about Barney Frank, Democrats forcing banks to make bad loans, etc., etc. Crap that if it were true at all would have resulted in much more coverage in the mainstream press or Congressional hearings - or something.
So when you say it is "Hard work to make you look so bad" - I suppose it is when you refuse to look at reality, refuse to make arguments based on facts and recorded history, get information from unreliable sources, and worry more about your side "winning" than trying to get the story correct.
You are just like Rush - only not as polished - figuring a bombastic approach and a loud bullhorn will win the day for you.
It doesn't - it hasn't - it won't - it never will.
Can't wait to read your responses - I have my popcorn ready - it should be great entertainment. "
You know why you lack any sense of credibilty on these forums? Why no one believes one thing you post - other that 3 or 4 other right wing nut jobs? Cause you are all about your side winning and not about reality in the world.
You see, I don't believe everything the Democrats do is right - there are many things that have gone wrong that they are to blame for or have contributed to. Not you - it is always the liberals fault - ALWAYS.
Second, you get your "facts" from totally unreliable sources - and it shows. It is so obvious it makes you look like both a fool and a tool all at once.
A prime example of it is the financial meltdown. Everyone, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, knows Wall Street and its greed packaged in the form of Credit Derivative Swaps (thank you Phil Gramm) is the biggest piece of the problem. They also know that Fannie, Freddie and other financial institutions got in trouble by either buying up (Fannie/Freddie) or offering unregulated mortgages in the marketplace - on their own, not forced by any government programs or regulations.
Yet you keep spouting off about Barney Frank, Democrats forcing banks to make bad loans, etc., etc. Crap that if it were true at all would have resulted in much more coverage in the mainstream press or Congressional hearings - or something.
So when you say it is "Hard work to make you look so bad" - I suppose it is when you refuse to look at reality, refuse to make arguments based on facts and recorded history, get information from unreliable sources, and worry more about your side "winning" than trying to get the story correct.
You are just like Rush - only not as polished - figuring a bombastic approach and a loud bullhorn will win the day for you.
It doesn't - it hasn't - it won't - it never will.
Can't wait to read your responses - I have my popcorn ready - it should be great entertainment. "
Phil wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:39 AM:
" Independent - that is the point - Clayson keeps it vague - that way:
1. You can't easily prove him wrong cause you can't pin him down too specifically.
2. His fans can agree with him by reading into it what they want it to mean. It's a form of empathy, a group mentality, and the details are left up to each individual to fill in as it meets their needs.
The terms used to describe it are wishy-washy or mealy-mouthed.
I prefer to call it journalistic cowardice. "
1. You can't easily prove him wrong cause you can't pin him down too specifically.
2. His fans can agree with him by reading into it what they want it to mean. It's a form of empathy, a group mentality, and the details are left up to each individual to fill in as it meets their needs.
The terms used to describe it are wishy-washy or mealy-mouthed.
I prefer to call it journalistic cowardice. "
hetfield wrote on Nov 11, 2008 2:32 PM:
" phil you and crossie are the ones who are laughably into each other! you write as if you are trying to win a activist position in hyde park with the one! or least you fake it just as he does.
either way, freddie and fannies failed due to barney and the rest of the liberal do-nothings. b hussein has now hired many of these same exec's that caused these huge government entitlements to fail. now he claims this is change and hope?
the left cant find a good guy to blame this on, so they go after bush. personally i agree that bush should have never pandered for this bailout. he tried for years to overregulate this outfit, only to be stimed by barney 'i have a gay outcall business in my basement' frank, and dodd. these guys are classless, as are all liberals who prmote abortion!
good bunch of these folks. they worry about starving kids in africa(geoge hussein) but they wont help babies in the US.
infanticidals!
/s/ im hetfield "
either way, freddie and fannies failed due to barney and the rest of the liberal do-nothings. b hussein has now hired many of these same exec's that caused these huge government entitlements to fail. now he claims this is change and hope?
the left cant find a good guy to blame this on, so they go after bush. personally i agree that bush should have never pandered for this bailout. he tried for years to overregulate this outfit, only to be stimed by barney 'i have a gay outcall business in my basement' frank, and dodd. these guys are classless, as are all liberals who prmote abortion!
good bunch of these folks. they worry about starving kids in africa(geoge hussein) but they wont help babies in the US.
infanticidals!
/s/ im hetfield "
MAC wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:56 PM:
" This blog is reading more and more like a transcript of 'The No Spin Zone'....verbatim. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 11, 2008 4:58 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:32 AM:
" xdfred - you are funny in how serious you take yourself. I will make one more post to you before I go back to ignoring you...." feel free to do whatever you want. Don't expect me to care one way or the other.
"You know why you lack any sense of credibilty on these forums?..." You know why you keep beating your dog?
"Why no one believes one thing you post - other that 3 or 4 other right wing nut jobs? Cause you are all about your side winning and not about reality in the world...." Why no one belives you're actually an earthling?
"...You see, I don't believe everything the Democrats do is right -..." I don't, either.
"....there are many things that have gone wrong that they are to blame for or have contributed to. Not you - it is always the liberals fault - ALWAYS...." Nope, but when republicans fall on their faces, which happens often, it's because they act like liberals.
"...Second, you get your "facts" from totally unreliable sources - and it shows. It is so obvious it makes you look like both a fool and a tool all at once...." Oh well. Impressing left wingers isn't exactly high on my bucket list, lollilop.
"...A prime example of it is the financial meltdown. Everyone, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, knows Wall Street and its greed packaged in the form of Credit Derivative Swaps (thank you Phil Gramm) is the biggest piece of the problem. They also know that Fannie, Freddie and other financial institutions got in trouble by either buying up (Fannie/Freddie) or offering unregulated mortgages in the marketplace - on their own, not forced by any government programs or regulations...." Who's getting so called facts from bogus sources? Fannie and Freddie shouldn't even exist, and those two institutions are the root cause. Sure, the banking houses saw a way to make money on more loans, even though they were high risk. Why, because government money backed them up. And all those loans drove the price of housing up, so foreclosures didn't cost the bank anything, until too many foreclosures caused housing values to drop. That old supply demand thing. Sudeenly it was a bad idea to make risky loans. Why were they made? Ask Andrew Cuomo.
And I really really admire some mook who pretends to speak for everybody. Really admirable quality. And the questions you ask, like why doesn't anybody ever believe you, etc. Laughable. Guys like me scare the socks off you because we don't follow the left wing party line. And we se through Barack Hussein Obama's facade.
Who bankrolled BHO's education? "
" xdfred - you are funny in how serious you take yourself. I will make one more post to you before I go back to ignoring you...." feel free to do whatever you want. Don't expect me to care one way or the other.
"You know why you lack any sense of credibilty on these forums?..." You know why you keep beating your dog?
"Why no one believes one thing you post - other that 3 or 4 other right wing nut jobs? Cause you are all about your side winning and not about reality in the world...." Why no one belives you're actually an earthling?
"...You see, I don't believe everything the Democrats do is right -..." I don't, either.
"....there are many things that have gone wrong that they are to blame for or have contributed to. Not you - it is always the liberals fault - ALWAYS...." Nope, but when republicans fall on their faces, which happens often, it's because they act like liberals.
"...Second, you get your "facts" from totally unreliable sources - and it shows. It is so obvious it makes you look like both a fool and a tool all at once...." Oh well. Impressing left wingers isn't exactly high on my bucket list, lollilop.
"...A prime example of it is the financial meltdown. Everyone, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, knows Wall Street and its greed packaged in the form of Credit Derivative Swaps (thank you Phil Gramm) is the biggest piece of the problem. They also know that Fannie, Freddie and other financial institutions got in trouble by either buying up (Fannie/Freddie) or offering unregulated mortgages in the marketplace - on their own, not forced by any government programs or regulations...." Who's getting so called facts from bogus sources? Fannie and Freddie shouldn't even exist, and those two institutions are the root cause. Sure, the banking houses saw a way to make money on more loans, even though they were high risk. Why, because government money backed them up. And all those loans drove the price of housing up, so foreclosures didn't cost the bank anything, until too many foreclosures caused housing values to drop. That old supply demand thing. Sudeenly it was a bad idea to make risky loans. Why were they made? Ask Andrew Cuomo.
And I really really admire some mook who pretends to speak for everybody. Really admirable quality. And the questions you ask, like why doesn't anybody ever believe you, etc. Laughable. Guys like me scare the socks off you because we don't follow the left wing party line. And we se through Barack Hussein Obama's facade.
Who bankrolled BHO's education? "
xdfred wrote on Nov 11, 2008 5:02 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:39 AM:
" Independent - that is the point - Clayson keeps it vague - that way:
1. You can't easily prove him wrong cause you can't pin him down too specifically.
2. His fans can agree with him by reading into it what they want it to mean. It's a form of empathy, a group mentality, and the details are left up to each individual to fill in as it meets their needs.
The terms used to describe it are wishy-washy or mealy-mouthed.
I prefer to call it journalistic cowardice. "
I prefer to call it lack of reading and comprehension skills. Of course, you falling all over yourself over Cross's crosseyed diatribes have nothing to do with group mentaility, or lack there of.
It escapes any logic as to why anybody would push policies with a proven track record of failure. That would be socialism. "
" Independent - that is the point - Clayson keeps it vague - that way:
1. You can't easily prove him wrong cause you can't pin him down too specifically.
2. His fans can agree with him by reading into it what they want it to mean. It's a form of empathy, a group mentality, and the details are left up to each individual to fill in as it meets their needs.
The terms used to describe it are wishy-washy or mealy-mouthed.
I prefer to call it journalistic cowardice. "
I prefer to call it lack of reading and comprehension skills. Of course, you falling all over yourself over Cross's crosseyed diatribes have nothing to do with group mentaility, or lack there of.
It escapes any logic as to why anybody would push policies with a proven track record of failure. That would be socialism. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 11, 2008 5:03 PM:
" MAC wrote on Nov 11, 2008 3:56 PM:
" This blog is reading more and more like a transcript of 'The No Spin Zone'....verbatim. "
Really? Which parts? "
" This blog is reading more and more like a transcript of 'The No Spin Zone'....verbatim. "
Really? Which parts? "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:26 PM:
" You know guys, the part of this election we just had that makes me sick to my stomach, is that the United States has been sold out to foreign interest. Barack Obama broke his promise in campaign finance reform and took in more than five times in monetary cantributions for his camaign than did McCain. And McCain only lost by 48% to 52% of the vote. Of course, we don't know where Obama's money came from completely by foreign sources, but my bet is that it is safe to say it came from some sources that we would not necessarily call our allies. (Remember, this Obama character is of the same party and tootalage as Bill Clinton and Chinese funds.)
Obama will not be my president as far as I'm concerned. Our country and presidency should NOT be bought and should NEVER BE for sale!
I find it incredible how naive our public has become in the few short years since 9/11. This is a very dangerous world we live in, and it just became more dangerous on November 4th of this year. We have serious enemies, foreign and domestic. They would love nothing more than to see the demise of our country that we all love, and of our freedoms we all enjoy. Freedoms like we have in the Constitution. Like our freedom of speech, so we can all blog like this and have our voices heard. Or to bear arms and form malitias, or to our freedoms of religion. Our country's founders developed the perfect form of government that has been defended many times over in the blood of our soldiers, and our father's soldiers. But because of the naivety of our uninformed, uneducated, and indoctrinated youth, with no sense of history of this country, is willing to throw it all away. I also blame our corrupt Main-Stream-Media for the outcome of this election. Heck, after the election, even Tom Brockaw admitted not knowing much of this man we just elected. Which is the exact point made in Clayson's article.
Now is the time when we all need to turn to prayer more than ever. Our Constitution is about to be rewritten unless we all do something about it. I stated this b4 in another thread. Obama cannot be POTUS by Constitutional law. I know it is not in the MSM, so many know nothing about this. It is now before the Supreme Court! (Wouldn't you think that would be news worthy?) Article II, Section: One of the Constitution says that: "Any one pursuant to the presidency must be a naturalized citizen." Contrary to beleif, Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, he was born in Kenya. Philip J. Berg, a Democrat Federal Attorney in the state of Pennsylvania filed a suit claiming this two weeks before the DNC Convention. Obama has not produced his actual birth certificate, or any other credetials, or even his college transcripts. To be a naturalized citizen, one has to be born in the United States or in its Territories by two parents of our national origin. To become a naturalized citizen, if one does not fall into this catogory, must go through a process to become a naturalized citizen. Obama has done neither. McCain on the other hand was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Naval Base that was sovreign territory of the United States to two parents of national origin. McCain came forth with all of his documentation, and no one desputed it. It'll be interesting to see what happens now, as history is being made as we speak. For more information and history of this case, go to www.obamacrimes.com. Remember, ALL of our elected officials and judges were sworn in with an oath to SERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility to remind them of just that! The Constitution IS a living and breathing document. It was never meant to be rewritten to suit political means of derangement. "
Obama will not be my president as far as I'm concerned. Our country and presidency should NOT be bought and should NEVER BE for sale!
I find it incredible how naive our public has become in the few short years since 9/11. This is a very dangerous world we live in, and it just became more dangerous on November 4th of this year. We have serious enemies, foreign and domestic. They would love nothing more than to see the demise of our country that we all love, and of our freedoms we all enjoy. Freedoms like we have in the Constitution. Like our freedom of speech, so we can all blog like this and have our voices heard. Or to bear arms and form malitias, or to our freedoms of religion. Our country's founders developed the perfect form of government that has been defended many times over in the blood of our soldiers, and our father's soldiers. But because of the naivety of our uninformed, uneducated, and indoctrinated youth, with no sense of history of this country, is willing to throw it all away. I also blame our corrupt Main-Stream-Media for the outcome of this election. Heck, after the election, even Tom Brockaw admitted not knowing much of this man we just elected. Which is the exact point made in Clayson's article.
Now is the time when we all need to turn to prayer more than ever. Our Constitution is about to be rewritten unless we all do something about it. I stated this b4 in another thread. Obama cannot be POTUS by Constitutional law. I know it is not in the MSM, so many know nothing about this. It is now before the Supreme Court! (Wouldn't you think that would be news worthy?) Article II, Section: One of the Constitution says that: "Any one pursuant to the presidency must be a naturalized citizen." Contrary to beleif, Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, he was born in Kenya. Philip J. Berg, a Democrat Federal Attorney in the state of Pennsylvania filed a suit claiming this two weeks before the DNC Convention. Obama has not produced his actual birth certificate, or any other credetials, or even his college transcripts. To be a naturalized citizen, one has to be born in the United States or in its Territories by two parents of our national origin. To become a naturalized citizen, if one does not fall into this catogory, must go through a process to become a naturalized citizen. Obama has done neither. McCain on the other hand was born in Panama, but on a U.S. Naval Base that was sovreign territory of the United States to two parents of national origin. McCain came forth with all of his documentation, and no one desputed it. It'll be interesting to see what happens now, as history is being made as we speak. For more information and history of this case, go to www.obamacrimes.com. Remember, ALL of our elected officials and judges were sworn in with an oath to SERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States. It is our responsibility to remind them of just that! The Constitution IS a living and breathing document. It was never meant to be rewritten to suit political means of derangement. "
MAC wrote on Nov 12, 2008 6:20 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Nov 11, 2008 8:26 PM:
"The Constitution IS a living and breathing document. It was never meant to be rewritten to suit political means of derangement. "
Funny....the lame duck presently in the White House once referred to it a couple of years ago as "...just a piece of paper." "
"The Constitution IS a living and breathing document. It was never meant to be rewritten to suit political means of derangement. "
Funny....the lame duck presently in the White House once referred to it a couple of years ago as "...just a piece of paper." "
hetfield wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:53 AM:
" hfr, i hope you meant the constitution is NOT a living and breathing thing. it is a legal document. and does not change with societal changes. I stole some of that, but the left thinks it is living and breathing and needs to take a nap or get some more hot milk.
it is not.
/s/ im hetfield and youre not "
it is not.
/s/ im hetfield and youre not "
timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:59 AM:
" hfrmack--i suppose it's all a matter of perspective because i feel safer now that barack obama is our president-elect than i have felt since september 10th, 2001.
as for the constitution, it plainly states that on january 20th, 2009 barack obama will be your president. if on that date you want to claim that he is not your president then i have to question your commitment to the constitution you are so passionately defending.
and there is no "case" before the supreme court. berg's case has already been thrown out of district court. berg has filed a writ of certiorari to the supreme court requesting that the case be re-opened at the district level. now, approximately 7,500 of these writs are filed with the supreme court each year, however only between 80-150 are approved. so stick to your conspiracy theory all you would like, but just because some nut job lawyer who supported hillary clinton and can't get over his sour grapes filed a legal brief with the supreme court does not mean there is a case in front of the supreme court or that he will ever even be allowed to pursue the case that has already been dismissed.
also, barack obama has provided his birth certificate. it has been authenticated by independent authorities and the hawaii board of health. there is not one shred of evidence that obama was born in kenya, and all evidence that has appeared has supported the fact he was born in hawaii and is therefore a natural-born u.s. citizen. "
as for the constitution, it plainly states that on january 20th, 2009 barack obama will be your president. if on that date you want to claim that he is not your president then i have to question your commitment to the constitution you are so passionately defending.
and there is no "case" before the supreme court. berg's case has already been thrown out of district court. berg has filed a writ of certiorari to the supreme court requesting that the case be re-opened at the district level. now, approximately 7,500 of these writs are filed with the supreme court each year, however only between 80-150 are approved. so stick to your conspiracy theory all you would like, but just because some nut job lawyer who supported hillary clinton and can't get over his sour grapes filed a legal brief with the supreme court does not mean there is a case in front of the supreme court or that he will ever even be allowed to pursue the case that has already been dismissed.
also, barack obama has provided his birth certificate. it has been authenticated by independent authorities and the hawaii board of health. there is not one shred of evidence that obama was born in kenya, and all evidence that has appeared has supported the fact he was born in hawaii and is therefore a natural-born u.s. citizen. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:13 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:53 AM:
" hfr, i hope you meant the constitution is NOT a living and breathing thing. it is a legal document. and does not change with societal changes." The only way to change the Constitution is through the amendment process. But why should self serving politicians follow the Constitution? "
" hfr, i hope you meant the constitution is NOT a living and breathing thing. it is a legal document. and does not change with societal changes." The only way to change the Constitution is through the amendment process. But why should self serving politicians follow the Constitution? "
Phil wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:19 AM:
" hfrmack - the Constitution says about the president:
"No person except a natural born Citizen,"
Now I thought conservatives, you know like Supreme Court Justice Scalia, believe in a STRICT CONSTITUTIONAL reading of such things - not an interpretive one.
In fact, hear is what was said at the time: "On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country."
So the canal zone was NOT part of the USA as far as the Constitution goes, although in 1953 Congress did allow children born there to be US citizens if at least one of their parents was a US citizen. Still, I am not sure that qualifies as a NATURAL BORN citizen like the Constitution says.
But I guess the media looked the other way on that - didn't they? The point is - you are making something out of nothing about Obama - like I just did out of McCain (even though what I list is accurate - it would be interesting to see what the STRICT CONSTITUTIONAL judges would have to say).
Meanwhile go to the link below to see that the Obama birth certificate "issue" is just the deranged idea of another set of whack-jobs - don't let yourself be pulled into that garbage.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp "
"No person except a natural born Citizen,"
Now I thought conservatives, you know like Supreme Court Justice Scalia, believe in a STRICT CONSTITUTIONAL reading of such things - not an interpretive one.
In fact, hear is what was said at the time: "On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country."
So the canal zone was NOT part of the USA as far as the Constitution goes, although in 1953 Congress did allow children born there to be US citizens if at least one of their parents was a US citizen. Still, I am not sure that qualifies as a NATURAL BORN citizen like the Constitution says.
But I guess the media looked the other way on that - didn't they? The point is - you are making something out of nothing about Obama - like I just did out of McCain (even though what I list is accurate - it would be interesting to see what the STRICT CONSTITUTIONAL judges would have to say).
Meanwhile go to the link below to see that the Obama birth certificate "issue" is just the deranged idea of another set of whack-jobs - don't let yourself be pulled into that garbage.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:31 AM:
" hetfield,
Yes, thank you for catching my typo, and I stand corrected. The Constitution IS NOT a living breathing document, and it IS a legal document, as is the part The Bill of Rights. In my hurry to wrap-up my points last night I ommitted "NOT". I hope my point was "NOT" mistaken. Thanks again!
As for MAC, I'm at a total loss as to your point of reference. Is that a quote from GWB, or something taken way out of context as usual by GWB?
hfrmack "
Yes, thank you for catching my typo, and I stand corrected. The Constitution IS NOT a living breathing document, and it IS a legal document, as is the part The Bill of Rights. In my hurry to wrap-up my points last night I ommitted "NOT". I hope my point was "NOT" mistaken. Thanks again!
As for MAC, I'm at a total loss as to your point of reference. Is that a quote from GWB, or something taken way out of context as usual by GWB?
hfrmack "
MAC wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:49 PM:
" You are right. It was out of context. The exact quote was...
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g** d***** piece of paper."
It was said during a White House meeting in Nov. 2005.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neo cons.htm
But I'm sure you'll call this 'liberal claptrap'...but give it a try. Also...you might like to follow the links. Some in here have turned out to be right, even if they were for the wrong reasons. "
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g** d***** piece of paper."
It was said during a White House meeting in Nov. 2005.
http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neo cons.htm
But I'm sure you'll call this 'liberal claptrap'...but give it a try. Also...you might like to follow the links. Some in here have turned out to be right, even if they were for the wrong reasons. "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 3:10 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:59 AM:
" hfrmack--i suppose it's all a matter of perspective because i feel safer now that barack obama is our president-elect than i have felt since september 10th, 2001.
as for the constitution, it plainly states that on january 20th, 2009 barack obama will be your president. if on that date you want to claim that he is not your president then i have to question your commitment to the constitution you are so passionately defending.
and there is no "case" before the supreme court. berg's case has already been thrown out of district court. berg has filed a writ of certiorari to the supreme court requesting that the case be re-opened at the district level. now, approximately 7,500 of these writs are filed with the supreme court each year, however only between 80-150 are approved. so stick to your conspiracy theory all you would like, but just because some nut job lawyer who supported hillary clinton and can't get over his sour grapes filed a legal brief with the supreme court does not mean there is a case in front of the supreme court or that he will ever even be allowed to pursue the case that has already been dismissed.
also, barack obama has provided his birth certificate. it has been authenticated by independent authorities and the hawaii board of health. there is not one shred of evidence that obama was born in kenya, and all evidence that has appeared has supported the fact he was born in hawaii and is therefore a natural-born u.s. citizen. "
Well Tim, I'm glad you feel safer in the fact that you'll be riding this un-sinkable ship, the "Titanic". As for me, I'm along with you for the ride. But I'm standing right next to the life boats. If this ship sinks, you'll be the first one thrown overboard. You are the naive type I referred to in my post.
As for the Writ of Certiorari, I'm aware of the dismissal in district court. But that was NOT on the merits of the case, it was on the stay of the election. A case as important as this needs to, and will be seen before the whole court. Obama will be impeached. You and Phil's dilusional "snopes.com" referenses are about as believable as "factcheck.org" (sarcasim). I say "poppicock"! The birth certificate that was posted on "The Chosen One's" web site was a forgery. Why is it that Obama claimed he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, his own sister said a differnent one in Hawaii, and his own grandmother on his father's side claims she was there when he was born in Nyrobi, Kenya? It sounds fishy to me. But it depends on what your definition of "i$" i$. The fact i$, as I stated in my post, this was no election by the people, for the people. We were $old out! "Snopes.com", "Factcheck.org", your "independent authorities", and the "Hawaii Board of Health" can all be bought, just as our presidency was.
Even a forgery can be purcha$ed at the right price, just ask Dan Rather.
Do I say conspiracy? He** yes! You Liberals wrote the book on conspiracy.
Just be prepared for the "I told you so's." "
" hfrmack--i suppose it's all a matter of perspective because i feel safer now that barack obama is our president-elect than i have felt since september 10th, 2001.
as for the constitution, it plainly states that on january 20th, 2009 barack obama will be your president. if on that date you want to claim that he is not your president then i have to question your commitment to the constitution you are so passionately defending.
and there is no "case" before the supreme court. berg's case has already been thrown out of district court. berg has filed a writ of certiorari to the supreme court requesting that the case be re-opened at the district level. now, approximately 7,500 of these writs are filed with the supreme court each year, however only between 80-150 are approved. so stick to your conspiracy theory all you would like, but just because some nut job lawyer who supported hillary clinton and can't get over his sour grapes filed a legal brief with the supreme court does not mean there is a case in front of the supreme court or that he will ever even be allowed to pursue the case that has already been dismissed.
also, barack obama has provided his birth certificate. it has been authenticated by independent authorities and the hawaii board of health. there is not one shred of evidence that obama was born in kenya, and all evidence that has appeared has supported the fact he was born in hawaii and is therefore a natural-born u.s. citizen. "
Well Tim, I'm glad you feel safer in the fact that you'll be riding this un-sinkable ship, the "Titanic". As for me, I'm along with you for the ride. But I'm standing right next to the life boats. If this ship sinks, you'll be the first one thrown overboard. You are the naive type I referred to in my post.
As for the Writ of Certiorari, I'm aware of the dismissal in district court. But that was NOT on the merits of the case, it was on the stay of the election. A case as important as this needs to, and will be seen before the whole court. Obama will be impeached. You and Phil's dilusional "snopes.com" referenses are about as believable as "factcheck.org" (sarcasim). I say "poppicock"! The birth certificate that was posted on "The Chosen One's" web site was a forgery. Why is it that Obama claimed he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, his own sister said a differnent one in Hawaii, and his own grandmother on his father's side claims she was there when he was born in Nyrobi, Kenya? It sounds fishy to me. But it depends on what your definition of "i$" i$. The fact i$, as I stated in my post, this was no election by the people, for the people. We were $old out! "Snopes.com", "Factcheck.org", your "independent authorities", and the "Hawaii Board of Health" can all be bought, just as our presidency was.
Even a forgery can be purcha$ed at the right price, just ask Dan Rather.
Do I say conspiracy? He** yes! You Liberals wrote the book on conspiracy.
Just be prepared for the "I told you so's." "
xdfred wrote on Nov 12, 2008 4:35 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:59 AM:
" hfrmack--i suppose it's all a matter of perspective because i feel safer now that barack obama......" That's what's important, the Timbracket feel safe. The Virginia Tech students felt safer, too, before Cho opened up on them. They felt safer because a measure allowing CCW on campus was defeated.
"...as for the constitution, it plainly states that on january 20th, 2009 barack obama will be your president...." What Constitution are you reading? Where does it say that?
"....and there is no "case" before the supreme court. berg's case has already been thrown out of district court...." Not because of merit, but becuase the court claims berg has no standing to bring up the case, which is ludicrous, becuase every citizen has standing on this matter.
"...barack obama has provided his birth certificate...." No he didn't. Someone else coughed one up.
"....it has been authenticated by independent authorities and the hawaii board of health...." Nope. Also, the so called certificate does not refer to him as a negro, which was common practice at the time.
"...there is not one shred of evidence that obama was born in kenya, and all evidence that has appeared has supported the fact he was born in hawaii and is therefore a natural-born u.s. citizen. " His grandmother claimed otherwise. Funny how she kicked the bucket after he ran off and paid her a visit. "
" hfrmack--i suppose it's all a matter of perspective because i feel safer now that barack obama......" That's what's important, the Timbracket feel safe. The Virginia Tech students felt safer, too, before Cho opened up on them. They felt safer because a measure allowing CCW on campus was defeated.
"...as for the constitution, it plainly states that on january 20th, 2009 barack obama will be your president...." What Constitution are you reading? Where does it say that?
"....and there is no "case" before the supreme court. berg's case has already been thrown out of district court...." Not because of merit, but becuase the court claims berg has no standing to bring up the case, which is ludicrous, becuase every citizen has standing on this matter.
"...barack obama has provided his birth certificate...." No he didn't. Someone else coughed one up.
"....it has been authenticated by independent authorities and the hawaii board of health...." Nope. Also, the so called certificate does not refer to him as a negro, which was common practice at the time.
"...there is not one shred of evidence that obama was born in kenya, and all evidence that has appeared has supported the fact he was born in hawaii and is therefore a natural-born u.s. citizen. " His grandmother claimed otherwise. Funny how she kicked the bucket after he ran off and paid her a visit. "
timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
hetfield wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:13 PM:
" tim wrote
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
and where idiocy runs rampant, especially from top down. "
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
and where idiocy runs rampant, especially from top down. "
guyosx wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:53 PM:
" Who are you "so called Americans" who wishes to see the destruction of this nation? Are you really that upset that your candidate didn't win the election, or are you brain washed by the hype brought up in this column?
We as Americans, real Americans should be looking for ways to bring about the change WE want in our lives. That is what this country is all about. All of this “Conservative vs. Liberals “nonsense is really starting to get on my last nerve. Need I remind you we are all in this together? Like Mr. President-Elect said we are not a collection of red states and blue states we are the United States. STOP with this hate rhetoric.
I am proud to have helped elect Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
I however have never been the one to back down or walk away from a debate. All of these social and economical issues some of you clam will be “cursed” with the election of Mr. Obama is looking at the past 8 years. Mr. Obama has not had the opportunity to even move into the White House without you blaming him for the Bush failed policies. I believe the real issues are the color of his skin and the oddness of his name. You “conservative Christian, right winged republicans, straight white American males or females” somehow feel you have lost YOUR country when in reality it was never just YOUR country. Americans are not one race or color or religion or even sex, orientation, social status, or personal beliefs. We are a product of the world influent by each other.
In direct regards to creative and elegant yet complete bogus column I’ll simply represent what the intelligent Phil already stated
1. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law making everyone's wages equal.
2. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law that requires companies to hire anyone regardless of how unqualified they might be.
3. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign any law forbidding religions from expressing their church doctrines, or threaten their tax exempt status, even if those doctrines do not match current law.
Hopeful the uninformed xdfred will not interrupt with his classic ignorant counter clams.
p.s. xdfred what you suggested about Mr. Obama and his grandmother is absolutely heartless as well as thoughtless; great job at being you.
Mr. Guyosx "
We as Americans, real Americans should be looking for ways to bring about the change WE want in our lives. That is what this country is all about. All of this “Conservative vs. Liberals “nonsense is really starting to get on my last nerve. Need I remind you we are all in this together? Like Mr. President-Elect said we are not a collection of red states and blue states we are the United States. STOP with this hate rhetoric.
I am proud to have helped elect Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
I however have never been the one to back down or walk away from a debate. All of these social and economical issues some of you clam will be “cursed” with the election of Mr. Obama is looking at the past 8 years. Mr. Obama has not had the opportunity to even move into the White House without you blaming him for the Bush failed policies. I believe the real issues are the color of his skin and the oddness of his name. You “conservative Christian, right winged republicans, straight white American males or females” somehow feel you have lost YOUR country when in reality it was never just YOUR country. Americans are not one race or color or religion or even sex, orientation, social status, or personal beliefs. We are a product of the world influent by each other.
In direct regards to creative and elegant yet complete bogus column I’ll simply represent what the intelligent Phil already stated
1. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law making everyone's wages equal.
2. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign, any law that requires companies to hire anyone regardless of how unqualified they might be.
3. Pres. Obama will not propose, nor sign any law forbidding religions from expressing their church doctrines, or threaten their tax exempt status, even if those doctrines do not match current law.
Hopeful the uninformed xdfred will not interrupt with his classic ignorant counter clams.
p.s. xdfred what you suggested about Mr. Obama and his grandmother is absolutely heartless as well as thoughtless; great job at being you.
Mr. Guyosx "
think wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:32 PM:
" Actually electing a Socialist is a good thing. In four years the Congress will go back to the Republicans who will have learned their lessons. We will get something done about immigration and forget the nanny state. Just wait until Brad Pitt and his kind get that extra 12 million tax bill. That is if the US is still standing as an union. "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 8:37 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
No really Tim, it is okay for you to admit when you are out of your league.
Espescially when you miss my point by a long shot, question my credability, and twist my analgy. Maybe you'd be in better company if you blogged on some looney Libral columnists' page.
But, let me try to paint a clearer picture for you, (I'm sorry I don't have any crayons for you).
But if this Titanic ship sinks, we ALL LOSE! You more than me when I hit you with all of the "I told you so's!" You don't have to look very far into Liberal party history to draw that conclusion. If you would like me to give you those examples, I'll have to go out and buy a box of crayons to draw those pictures for you to understand.
How long can you tread water?!?!? "
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
No really Tim, it is okay for you to admit when you are out of your league.
Espescially when you miss my point by a long shot, question my credability, and twist my analgy. Maybe you'd be in better company if you blogged on some looney Libral columnists' page.
But, let me try to paint a clearer picture for you, (I'm sorry I don't have any crayons for you).
But if this Titanic ship sinks, we ALL LOSE! You more than me when I hit you with all of the "I told you so's!" You don't have to look very far into Liberal party history to draw that conclusion. If you would like me to give you those examples, I'll have to go out and buy a box of crayons to draw those pictures for you to understand.
How long can you tread water?!?!? "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:27 PM:
" Hey MAC,
I tried looking at the url you provided, but it wouldn't open for me.
Double check to see if it is correct.
My guess to your example of the GWB quote might have been refering to
"Club Gittmo". Correct me if I'm wrong. But was that when the Lib's were trying to give terrorist Constitutional & Geneva Convention Rights to these animals right off of the battle field? If so, then your argument is as moote as Tim's. -Sorry.
-hfrmack "
I tried looking at the url you provided, but it wouldn't open for me.
Double check to see if it is correct.
My guess to your example of the GWB quote might have been refering to
"Club Gittmo". Correct me if I'm wrong. But was that when the Lib's were trying to give terrorist Constitutional & Geneva Convention Rights to these animals right off of the battle field? If so, then your argument is as moote as Tim's. -Sorry.
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 10:42 PM:
" MAC wrote on Nov 12, 2008 2:49 PM:
" You are right. It was out of context. The exact quote was...
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g** d***** piece of paper."
It was said during a White House meeting in Nov. 2005.
Curiosity is killing me...is that the same "g** d***" quote as Reverend Wright?!?!? From the "mentor" of the "Chosen One" who for twenety years "never" heard this kind of language from his pastor? "
" You are right. It was out of context. The exact quote was...
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g** d***** piece of paper."
It was said during a White House meeting in Nov. 2005.
Curiosity is killing me...is that the same "g** d***" quote as Reverend Wright?!?!? From the "mentor" of the "Chosen One" who for twenety years "never" heard this kind of language from his pastor? "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 12, 2008 11:25 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
Hey Tim,
It is also nice to see that you are up on so many details about this case, like which grandmother, and knowing about the Writ of Certiorari.
You must be worried.
Don't worry, good ALWAYS prevails over evil.
hfrmack "
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
Hey Tim,
It is also nice to see that you are up on so many details about this case, like which grandmother, and knowing about the Writ of Certiorari.
You must be worried.
Don't worry, good ALWAYS prevails over evil.
hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:22 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world...
That's a great place for you!
hfrmack "
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world...
That's a great place for you!
hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:27 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world...
You said it, I didn't...
hfrmack "
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world...
You said it, I didn't...
hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:30 AM:
" timbrackett - no offense meant, but I think you have it backwards. hfrmack, xdfred, et. al., are the ones living in a naive little world.
Look at what is still going on in the economy, etc. Yet these folks will blame the liberals, Democrats, and every other demon they can find - without of course ever looking at their own party, their own ideology. No - they are NEVER to blame. If only everyone would just do it their way the world would be fine!
I've got news for you folks - you have had 8 years of opportunity to do it your way. If it hasn't happened by now, its your own fault and the fault of those who supposedly share your beliefs and values. You want to turn on somebody - turn on them.
American voters kicked you and your ideology to the curb - for good reason. And all your screaming "socialism" until your lungs burn and you are hoarse isn't going to change that. You and your "team" had their opportunity - and for whatever reasons - of their own making - they totally BLEW IT.
This is NOT Obama's mess, yet he and the Democrats will have the job of cleaning it up.
At least have the common decency to see what is proposed in detail before you pre-judge (which you will anyway) the outcome.
Finally, to use the argument so many of you on the right did whenever your policies were criticized, I will ask you the question (admittedly a phony, cowardly question - but you asked it anyway) you asked everyone who opposed you: Why do you hate America? "
Look at what is still going on in the economy, etc. Yet these folks will blame the liberals, Democrats, and every other demon they can find - without of course ever looking at their own party, their own ideology. No - they are NEVER to blame. If only everyone would just do it their way the world would be fine!
I've got news for you folks - you have had 8 years of opportunity to do it your way. If it hasn't happened by now, its your own fault and the fault of those who supposedly share your beliefs and values. You want to turn on somebody - turn on them.
American voters kicked you and your ideology to the curb - for good reason. And all your screaming "socialism" until your lungs burn and you are hoarse isn't going to change that. You and your "team" had their opportunity - and for whatever reasons - of their own making - they totally BLEW IT.
This is NOT Obama's mess, yet he and the Democrats will have the job of cleaning it up.
At least have the common decency to see what is proposed in detail before you pre-judge (which you will anyway) the outcome.
Finally, to use the argument so many of you on the right did whenever your policies were criticized, I will ask you the question (admittedly a phony, cowardly question - but you asked it anyway) you asked everyone who opposed you: Why do you hate America? "
xdfred wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:32 AM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:30 AM:
"..I've got news for you folks - you have had 8 years of opportunity to do it your way. If it hasn't happened by now, its your own fault and the fault of those who supposedly share your beliefs and values. You want to turn on somebody - turn on them...." Definately. So called republicans acting like democrats had a lot to do with these problems. But nobody had 8 years. Congressional and senate democrats obstructed at every opportunity for 6 years and ran the show for the last two. Congress writes the laws. As much as you want it now, our president is not a dictator and definatley not a ruler, as BHO claims to be.
"...This is NOT Obama's mess, yet he and the Democrats will have the job of cleaning it up...." And given his track record and rhetoric, what he proposes will make it worse. Raising taxes in a weak economy makes it worse.
"...At least have the common decency to see what is proposed in detail before you pre-judge (which you will anyway) the outcome...." That's another issue. What detail? And the tax threats kept chaninging depending on the audience and the calender.
"....Finally, to use the argument so many of you on the right did whenever your policies were criticized, I will ask you the question (admittedly a phony, cowardly question - but you asked it anyway) you asked everyone who opposed you: Why do you hate America? " Who asked that question? I would ask that question to Ward Churchill, Rev Wright, Ayers, Mz Obama. That's who I would ask that to. "
"..I've got news for you folks - you have had 8 years of opportunity to do it your way. If it hasn't happened by now, its your own fault and the fault of those who supposedly share your beliefs and values. You want to turn on somebody - turn on them...." Definately. So called republicans acting like democrats had a lot to do with these problems. But nobody had 8 years. Congressional and senate democrats obstructed at every opportunity for 6 years and ran the show for the last two. Congress writes the laws. As much as you want it now, our president is not a dictator and definatley not a ruler, as BHO claims to be.
"...This is NOT Obama's mess, yet he and the Democrats will have the job of cleaning it up...." And given his track record and rhetoric, what he proposes will make it worse. Raising taxes in a weak economy makes it worse.
"...At least have the common decency to see what is proposed in detail before you pre-judge (which you will anyway) the outcome...." That's another issue. What detail? And the tax threats kept chaninging depending on the audience and the calender.
"....Finally, to use the argument so many of you on the right did whenever your policies were criticized, I will ask you the question (admittedly a phony, cowardly question - but you asked it anyway) you asked everyone who opposed you: Why do you hate America? " Who asked that question? I would ask that question to Ward Churchill, Rev Wright, Ayers, Mz Obama. That's who I would ask that to. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:34 AM:
" guyosx wrote on Nov 12, 2008 7:53 PM:
"...p.s. xdfred what you suggested about Mr. Obama and his grandmother is absolutely heartless as well as thoughtless; great job at being you..."
Given Barack Hussein Obama's record of throwing his baggage, like rev Wright and ACORN, under the bus, it is a valid consideration. Sorry it offends your touchy feely sensibilities. But she could easily have been Vince Fostered. "
"...p.s. xdfred what you suggested about Mr. Obama and his grandmother is absolutely heartless as well as thoughtless; great job at being you..."
Given Barack Hussein Obama's record of throwing his baggage, like rev Wright and ACORN, under the bus, it is a valid consideration. Sorry it offends your touchy feely sensibilities. But she could easily have been Vince Fostered. "
cubbies08 wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:26 PM:
" It is great entertainment reading this blog. Everyone is brilliant and their opinion is the correct one. I bet if we all sat down together we would probably find out that in the end we are very similar and want the same things for ourselves and our families. A stable economy, a sound military to protect our freedoms, access to healthcare, freedom of choices, and the ability to practice our faiths. Unions at one time were great. Now they are a burden to the balance sheets and bottom lines of corporate america. You have guys at GM making $70K+/year putting lug nuts on a tire. Throw in their healthcare expenses and they are probably making over $100k. The unions and pensions are killing the airline industry as well. Yes CEO compensation in this country is ridiculous. I haven't met a CEO yet that was worth millions in salary and I never will. "
hetfield wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:18 PM:
" Phil:"Why do you hate America? "
Huh? you leftists hate america! you want a franco-american socialist system. you want a euro-coward military program. you want asian-kill babies moraless babymakers.
how can an ideology so quick to kill unborns say the good guys hate america? you hate america phil! you and the rest of your hippee, dope smoking, red-eyed toad-loving greenie freaks eating tofu out west. you leftists support welfare over hard work. you see evil in anyone who wants to make a profit in business. you leftists need big brother to come in and tuck you in at night then steal your covers!
no phil, you leftys hate america, love europe and want to sleep with terorrists instead of getting the courage to fight them "
Huh? you leftists hate america! you want a franco-american socialist system. you want a euro-coward military program. you want asian-kill babies moraless babymakers.
how can an ideology so quick to kill unborns say the good guys hate america? you hate america phil! you and the rest of your hippee, dope smoking, red-eyed toad-loving greenie freaks eating tofu out west. you leftists support welfare over hard work. you see evil in anyone who wants to make a profit in business. you leftists need big brother to come in and tuck you in at night then steal your covers!
no phil, you leftys hate america, love europe and want to sleep with terorrists instead of getting the courage to fight them "
cf_liberal wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:12 PM:
" "Without labor, nothing has value." Abe Lincoln.
If you are against unions you are against the American worker. Blaming the American worker is balderdash.
Without equality there is no freedom. What I see is Clayson claiming is that if he can't own slaves then Clayson's freedom to own slaves is violated. Conservatives should pull their heads out of the darkness and see the light of equality and freedom. "
If you are against unions you are against the American worker. Blaming the American worker is balderdash.
Without equality there is no freedom. What I see is Clayson claiming is that if he can't own slaves then Clayson's freedom to own slaves is violated. Conservatives should pull their heads out of the darkness and see the light of equality and freedom. "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:42 PM:
" Well timbrackett, thank you for conceding so graciously. And I'm sorry I made you the recipient of both barrels. But you painted such an easy bullseye on yourself with your comments, I couldn't resist. I love to debate with people of equal intellectual caliber. You seemed to be the closest in this blog. I would guess that you are probably a 20-25 year old with a political science education that was indoctrinated into your beliefs with no real world experience. There may be "hope" for you yet. Yea, I'm throwing you the life preserver because that is the Christian in me. If you come back with something smart-a**, I'm cutting the rope. I hope you will concede as graciously when Congress throws out Obama's electorates in the Electoral College process for the Presidential nomination and awards the next closest in electorates to John McCain. I'm almost positive that this will be the decision of the Supreme Court at this point, and how it will play out.
As for Phil, I'm sorry, but your argumentitive points are so lame, my 12 year old daughter could embarass you in a debate. I purposely have not been replying directly to your argumentative points as not to humiliate you in front of all of your friends. It would be so easy, I could do it, (as Rush would say), "with half my brain tied behind my back".
xdfred, you're the man!!! You have the right cause in your heart! It is obvious! Keep fighting the "Right" fight! Please take no offense, but make sure you have all of your facts straight before debating some of these liberal clowns.
MACK,
??????????????????????????????
think,
Yea, I agree with your point of let's wait and see, but I'm really worried if we have the time to wait, before it is too late.
cf_liberal,
Wow!!! Did you come up with that all by yourself?!?!? Good for you!!! Abraham Lincoln was one of my favorite, if not the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen. He was also a "Republican" President. I'm glad to see you admire him too!!!
Do you have a job? I do too! I work for a small business owner. I don't know where your point was coming from, or where you intended to go with it, but I like the word "balderdash"! Unions ARE one of the biggest problems with our work force today.
guyosx,
Where is the "Twigh-Light Zone" music?!?!?
As far as I can see here amung us bloggers, no one wants to see the demise of this country.
Sergeant Friday: "Just the facts, Ma'am".
I see you are another "Obama-nut-job" Socialist. What's the matter, was the Liberal columnists' blog page too boring for you? I'd think it would be exitcing!...you know, with all of the gay marriage talk, and killing unborn babies, and no-new drilling, bashing coal mines, keeping our borders open, bring our troops home, close "Gittmo" you know, all of that "politically correct" stuff...(sarcasim).
It's been fun guys! I'm probably done bloging for the week. I look forward to Clayson's article next Sunday. I might re-appear then in his blog if it is interesting. I'll keep reading and watching for everyone's replies. Have a great week!
-hfrmack "
As for Phil, I'm sorry, but your argumentitive points are so lame, my 12 year old daughter could embarass you in a debate. I purposely have not been replying directly to your argumentative points as not to humiliate you in front of all of your friends. It would be so easy, I could do it, (as Rush would say), "with half my brain tied behind my back".
xdfred, you're the man!!! You have the right cause in your heart! It is obvious! Keep fighting the "Right" fight! Please take no offense, but make sure you have all of your facts straight before debating some of these liberal clowns.
MACK,
??????????????????????????????
think,
Yea, I agree with your point of let's wait and see, but I'm really worried if we have the time to wait, before it is too late.
cf_liberal,
Wow!!! Did you come up with that all by yourself?!?!? Good for you!!! Abraham Lincoln was one of my favorite, if not the greatest Presidents this country has ever seen. He was also a "Republican" President. I'm glad to see you admire him too!!!
Do you have a job? I do too! I work for a small business owner. I don't know where your point was coming from, or where you intended to go with it, but I like the word "balderdash"! Unions ARE one of the biggest problems with our work force today.
guyosx,
Where is the "Twigh-Light Zone" music?!?!?
As far as I can see here amung us bloggers, no one wants to see the demise of this country.
Sergeant Friday: "Just the facts, Ma'am".
I see you are another "Obama-nut-job" Socialist. What's the matter, was the Liberal columnists' blog page too boring for you? I'd think it would be exitcing!...you know, with all of the gay marriage talk, and killing unborn babies, and no-new drilling, bashing coal mines, keeping our borders open, bring our troops home, close "Gittmo" you know, all of that "politically correct" stuff...(sarcasim).
It's been fun guys! I'm probably done bloging for the week. I look forward to Clayson's article next Sunday. I might re-appear then in his blog if it is interesting. I'll keep reading and watching for everyone's replies. Have a great week!
-hfrmack "
hetfield wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:24 PM:
" cf_liberal wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:12 PM:
" "Without labor, nothing has value." Abe Lincoln.
If you are against unions you are against the American worker. Blaming the American worker is balderdash.
Without equality there is no freedom. What I see is Clayson claiming is that if he can't own slaves then Clayson's freedom to own slaves is violated. Conservatives should pull their heads out of the darkness and see the light of equality and freedom. "
oh, i see! Only Unionized workers are worth their weight! dont equate american workers with unionized workers, they are ALOT better than that.
man, CF sure does have a lot of leftists residing or representing her. handouts, freebies, pay for no work; welcome to the Socialist States of America! No thanks. "
" "Without labor, nothing has value." Abe Lincoln.
If you are against unions you are against the American worker. Blaming the American worker is balderdash.
Without equality there is no freedom. What I see is Clayson claiming is that if he can't own slaves then Clayson's freedom to own slaves is violated. Conservatives should pull their heads out of the darkness and see the light of equality and freedom. "
oh, i see! Only Unionized workers are worth their weight! dont equate american workers with unionized workers, they are ALOT better than that.
man, CF sure does have a lot of leftists residing or representing her. handouts, freebies, pay for no work; welcome to the Socialist States of America! No thanks. "
Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:47 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:42 PM:
"I purposely have not been replying directly to your argumentative points as not to humiliate you in front of all of your friends. It would be so easy, I could do it, (as Rush would say), "with half my brain tied behind my back".
That's OK - go ahead and try. xdfred and hetfield try - pathetically - but at least they try. Since you are a Rush disciple it is very doubtful you could do any better since you have to use his talking points - meaning garbage - but maybe you are different and come up with a few on your own.
Hey give it a shot - maybe you can actually find a fact or figure or something that lends credibility to your arguments. All the others have is bile and hubris - and warped views of history and reality - but you have to fight with the weapons you have - no matter how feeble they are. "
"I purposely have not been replying directly to your argumentative points as not to humiliate you in front of all of your friends. It would be so easy, I could do it, (as Rush would say), "with half my brain tied behind my back".
That's OK - go ahead and try. xdfred and hetfield try - pathetically - but at least they try. Since you are a Rush disciple it is very doubtful you could do any better since you have to use his talking points - meaning garbage - but maybe you are different and come up with a few on your own.
Hey give it a shot - maybe you can actually find a fact or figure or something that lends credibility to your arguments. All the others have is bile and hubris - and warped views of history and reality - but you have to fight with the weapons you have - no matter how feeble they are. "
Newswatcher wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:13 AM:
" Just watched the "Jonestown" special last night on TV.
Jim Jones wanted a society to stand for equality. All money given to him, he'd disburse it. Plus you could sleep with anyone, male, female, whatever. If you disagreed with him, you were beaten in front of everyone else. No freedom of speech, no way to leave, and he called this "Socialism".
His charisma was captivating and he charmed the lives right out of poor blacks, confused whites and all of their children fell victim.
If you didn't see this special, I would highly suggest you look for a repeat of it on CNN.
Socialism would be disasterous for the USA. It is completely counter to what our founding fathers came here for.
Freedom to be successful is what you should have here in the USA.
Not Freedom to spread what you earn to any and all who don't put forth the hard work to earn their own dollars.
Jonestown. Socialism, equality. Wow, what a concept. What a disaster! "
Jim Jones wanted a society to stand for equality. All money given to him, he'd disburse it. Plus you could sleep with anyone, male, female, whatever. If you disagreed with him, you were beaten in front of everyone else. No freedom of speech, no way to leave, and he called this "Socialism".
His charisma was captivating and he charmed the lives right out of poor blacks, confused whites and all of their children fell victim.
If you didn't see this special, I would highly suggest you look for a repeat of it on CNN.
Socialism would be disasterous for the USA. It is completely counter to what our founding fathers came here for.
Freedom to be successful is what you should have here in the USA.
Not Freedom to spread what you earn to any and all who don't put forth the hard work to earn their own dollars.
Jonestown. Socialism, equality. Wow, what a concept. What a disaster! "
Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:42 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:18 PM:
"how can an ideology so quick to kill unborns say the good guys hate america?"
We "good guys" don't hate America - its you and your fellow "good guys".
There you go again, dividing our country and our people, implying only folks who think and act like you are the "good guys" who "love" their country.
Sad - divisive - and anti-American. So hetfield - why do you hate 53% of Americans? "
"how can an ideology so quick to kill unborns say the good guys hate america?"
We "good guys" don't hate America - its you and your fellow "good guys".
There you go again, dividing our country and our people, implying only folks who think and act like you are the "good guys" who "love" their country.
Sad - divisive - and anti-American. So hetfield - why do you hate 53% of Americans? "
Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:59 AM:
" xdfred - by the way, your so called argument that the current group of Republicans goofed up because they acted like liberals is a lie and a cop out.
Keeping in mind that the only administration in the last 28 years that didn't grow the deficit was run by a Democrat - that Republican presidents have signed off on budgets that have grown the national debt from $1 Trillion to $11 Trillion - let's see some specifics on how exactly the past 8 years the Republicans in charge acted like liberals?
Did they do all those things you oppose like:
- Enact more restrictions on guns?
- Allow more abortions?
- Decrease the defense budget?
- Pass the international treaty restricting greenhouse gases?
- Give unions more power?
What exactly did they do?
Oh and also, this past two years, the Republicans set a record for the number of fillibusters. So which party is blocking the others bills? "
Keeping in mind that the only administration in the last 28 years that didn't grow the deficit was run by a Democrat - that Republican presidents have signed off on budgets that have grown the national debt from $1 Trillion to $11 Trillion - let's see some specifics on how exactly the past 8 years the Republicans in charge acted like liberals?
Did they do all those things you oppose like:
- Enact more restrictions on guns?
- Allow more abortions?
- Decrease the defense budget?
- Pass the international treaty restricting greenhouse gases?
- Give unions more power?
What exactly did they do?
Oh and also, this past two years, the Republicans set a record for the number of fillibusters. So which party is blocking the others bills? "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:21 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:42 PM:
"...xdfred, you're the man!!! You have the right cause in your heart! It is obvious! Keep fighting the "Right" fight! Please take no offense, but make sure you have all of your facts straight before debating some of these liberal clowns..." Thanks. I wish I had all day like this liberals do, or a puppet master like moveon.org or daily kos to get my info from. "
"...xdfred, you're the man!!! You have the right cause in your heart! It is obvious! Keep fighting the "Right" fight! Please take no offense, but make sure you have all of your facts straight before debating some of these liberal clowns..." Thanks. I wish I had all day like this liberals do, or a puppet master like moveon.org or daily kos to get my info from. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:40 AM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:59 AM:
" xdfred - by the way, your so called argument that the current group of Republicans goofed up because they acted like liberals is a lie and a cop out.
Keeping in mind that the only administration in the last 28 years that didn't grow the deficit was run by a Democrat - that Republican presidents have signed off on budgets that have grown the national debt from $1 Trillion to $11 Trillion - let's see some specifics on how exactly the past 8 years the Republicans in charge acted like liberals?" You just proved it yourself! What a doorknob! Excessive government spending is a liberal philosophy. With half my brain tied behind my back, as Rush says.
"...Did they do all those things you oppose like:
- Enact more restrictions on guns?" No, but they didn't get rid of any, either, except the D.C. gun ban.
- Allow more abortions?" Yes.
- Decrease the defense budget?" No.
- Pass the international treaty restricting greenhouse gases?" What treaty?
- Give unions more power?" Didn't put them in their place, either, nor investigated the criminal element involved.
Republicans also did nothing about illegal immigration, nor did they make the tax rates not expire in 2010, which the rates are scheduled to do. So now we get a federal income tax increase and no one has to do anything. Need more? "
" xdfred - by the way, your so called argument that the current group of Republicans goofed up because they acted like liberals is a lie and a cop out.
Keeping in mind that the only administration in the last 28 years that didn't grow the deficit was run by a Democrat - that Republican presidents have signed off on budgets that have grown the national debt from $1 Trillion to $11 Trillion - let's see some specifics on how exactly the past 8 years the Republicans in charge acted like liberals?" You just proved it yourself! What a doorknob! Excessive government spending is a liberal philosophy. With half my brain tied behind my back, as Rush says.
"...Did they do all those things you oppose like:
- Enact more restrictions on guns?" No, but they didn't get rid of any, either, except the D.C. gun ban.
- Allow more abortions?" Yes.
- Decrease the defense budget?" No.
- Pass the international treaty restricting greenhouse gases?" What treaty?
- Give unions more power?" Didn't put them in their place, either, nor investigated the criminal element involved.
Republicans also did nothing about illegal immigration, nor did they make the tax rates not expire in 2010, which the rates are scheduled to do. So now we get a federal income tax increase and no one has to do anything. Need more? "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:42 AM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:42 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:18 PM:
"how can an ideology so quick to kill unborns say the good guys hate america?"
We "good guys" don't hate America - its you and your fellow "good guys".
Yes you do. Always knocking our country here and abroad. Insulting the president at every turn. Trying to destroy the family and marriage. Trying to disarm the law abiding and empower the criminal and terrorist. You losers hate America. If you didn't, why turn it upside down? "
" hetfield wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:18 PM:
"how can an ideology so quick to kill unborns say the good guys hate america?"
We "good guys" don't hate America - its you and your fellow "good guys".
Yes you do. Always knocking our country here and abroad. Insulting the president at every turn. Trying to destroy the family and marriage. Trying to disarm the law abiding and empower the criminal and terrorist. You losers hate America. If you didn't, why turn it upside down? "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:43 AM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:59 AM:
"..Oh and also, this past two years, the Republicans set a record for the number of fillibusters. So which party is blocking the others bills?..." And what happened during the first 6 years? Who blocked or tried to block every judicial nomination? "
"..Oh and also, this past two years, the Republicans set a record for the number of fillibusters. So which party is blocking the others bills?..." And what happened during the first 6 years? Who blocked or tried to block every judicial nomination? "
hetfield wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:46 AM:
" phil! come on my minion! i dont hate 53% of america. i just think you have been suckered, bamboozled, misled, lied to and are now marching to the river, just like the pied piper of hyde park has led you to. take some advice. put on your life jacket now, because in few months you are going to need it!
godspeed to you phil. try not to have a kinipshon(sp) again today as you may throw a clot or something. "
godspeed to you phil. try not to have a kinipshon(sp) again today as you may throw a clot or something. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:19 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928 "
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928 "
timbrackett wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:15 PM:
" hfrmack--you got it wrong. i went to a very religious church-school (pentecostal church, baptist curriculum) k-12. if there was any indoctrination, it was in the far right, christian conservative philosophy. "
Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:25 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:40 AM:
"You just proved it yourself! What a doorknob! Excessive government spending is a liberal philosophy."
I'm a doorknob? You claim to support a party and ideology that has controlled the White House 20 of the last 28 years, yet you turn around and point out how they are acting like liberals!
That's rich. Did you support McCain? Bush II? Bush I? Reagan? Newt and his gang? Hassert and Lott? Yet all of them went "liberal" on you?
By the way, it appears that one thing has been proven over the last 28 years - that is excessive government spending is a CONSERVATIVE philosophy.
You are right about one thing - you are only using half a brain (Rush uses less than that - but the drugs are probably behind that).
While you admit you can't trust your own leaders that you vote for - yet you sit here and pillor Obama and the Dems.
Seems to me if you can't trust your side maybe you should try finding a new group. That our your side doesn't really know what its philosophy actually is.
You have just successfully argued against the very movement and ideology you support!
My work with you is done - whose next. "
"You just proved it yourself! What a doorknob! Excessive government spending is a liberal philosophy."
I'm a doorknob? You claim to support a party and ideology that has controlled the White House 20 of the last 28 years, yet you turn around and point out how they are acting like liberals!
That's rich. Did you support McCain? Bush II? Bush I? Reagan? Newt and his gang? Hassert and Lott? Yet all of them went "liberal" on you?
By the way, it appears that one thing has been proven over the last 28 years - that is excessive government spending is a CONSERVATIVE philosophy.
You are right about one thing - you are only using half a brain (Rush uses less than that - but the drugs are probably behind that).
While you admit you can't trust your own leaders that you vote for - yet you sit here and pillor Obama and the Dems.
Seems to me if you can't trust your side maybe you should try finding a new group. That our your side doesn't really know what its philosophy actually is.
You have just successfully argued against the very movement and ideology you support!
My work with you is done - whose next. "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:57 PM:
" equality does not equal freedom......plain and simple.
equality is about equal treatment, freedom is about having control over your own life.
the point is, and as we have seen, we are moving towards a totalitarian society in efforts to become an equal society...ie, the exact opposite of a free society.
that is what clayson's point is regardng. the promotion of equality isn't wrong, but the fact remains to create a equal society, a group is placed in higher regard than another....so how is that equality? "
equality is about equal treatment, freedom is about having control over your own life.
the point is, and as we have seen, we are moving towards a totalitarian society in efforts to become an equal society...ie, the exact opposite of a free society.
that is what clayson's point is regardng. the promotion of equality isn't wrong, but the fact remains to create a equal society, a group is placed in higher regard than another....so how is that equality? "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:57 PM:
" newswatcher,
I missed the program, but know the history and the story. Hence the term: "Don't be a kool-aid drinker".
Good post! "
I missed the program, but know the history and the story. Hence the term: "Don't be a kool-aid drinker".
Good post! "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:01 PM:
" remember, equality of outcome is very different than equality of opportunity....
total equality of outcome is the objective of socialism...
so i'd like to have someone elaborate how we aren't moving towards increased equality of outcome? ie progressive tax rate for those who don't understand the concept.
i would tend to agree that freedom could be directly linked to equality of opportunity...but not outcome. "
total equality of outcome is the objective of socialism...
so i'd like to have someone elaborate how we aren't moving towards increased equality of outcome? ie progressive tax rate for those who don't understand the concept.
i would tend to agree that freedom could be directly linked to equality of opportunity...but not outcome. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:34 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:25 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:40 AM:
"You just proved it yourself! What a doorknob! Excessive government spending is a liberal philosophy."
"..I'm a doorknob? You claim to support a party and ideology that has controlled the White House 20 of the last 28 years, yet you turn around and point out how they are acting like liberals!..." Earth to doorknob. I don't support any party. Voted against Obama, against Kerry, and against Gore. That's it.
"...By the way, it appears that one thing has been proven over the last 28 years - that is excessive government spending is a CONSERVATIVE philosophy...." Nope. FDR, LBJ, and Carter took care of that deal. "
" xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:40 AM:
"You just proved it yourself! What a doorknob! Excessive government spending is a liberal philosophy."
"..I'm a doorknob? You claim to support a party and ideology that has controlled the White House 20 of the last 28 years, yet you turn around and point out how they are acting like liberals!..." Earth to doorknob. I don't support any party. Voted against Obama, against Kerry, and against Gore. That's it.
"...By the way, it appears that one thing has been proven over the last 28 years - that is excessive government spending is a CONSERVATIVE philosophy...." Nope. FDR, LBJ, and Carter took care of that deal. "
xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 3:08 PM:
" wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:01 PM:
" remember, equality of outcome is very different than equality of opportunity....
total equality of outcome is the objective of socialism...
so i'd like to have someone elaborate how we aren't moving towards increased equality of outcome? ie progressive tax rate for those who don't understand the concept.
i would tend to agree that freedom could be directly linked to equality of opportunity...but not outcome. "
If we're looking for equality, why not tax everyone at a flat rate, every dollar earned? That's about as equal as you can get, isn't it? "
" remember, equality of outcome is very different than equality of opportunity....
total equality of outcome is the objective of socialism...
so i'd like to have someone elaborate how we aren't moving towards increased equality of outcome? ie progressive tax rate for those who don't understand the concept.
i would tend to agree that freedom could be directly linked to equality of opportunity...but not outcome. "
If we're looking for equality, why not tax everyone at a flat rate, every dollar earned? That's about as equal as you can get, isn't it? "
cf_liberal wrote on Nov 14, 2008 4:18 PM:
" Union workers are no better than nonunion workers. No worse either. Union workers are just paid better. When workers are paid better small businesses do better. In the last eight years the wages of blue collar workers has declined. Because of that decline in income many small businesses have gone out of business. You reap what you sow.
Yes, there are liberals in Cedar Falls. What a great observation!
Socialism bad? Remember that the next time you drive on the highway or local street. Remember that when you expect that snow plow to come and plow your street. Remember that when you send your products and/or services out to the market place. Above all, remember that when you collect your Social Security benefit.
If you truly don't believe in "Socialism" send the money back to the Treasury when you start receiving your S.S. checks. Stay off the roads that taxes (socialism) paid for. Stop going to church as Christ was also a socialist (take care of the poor and needy) and your church is a socialist organization.
Why do blue collar workers vote Republican? Why would you want to vote against your interests? The answer is simple. Blue collar workers that vote Republican are just plain stupid. Republicans hate the working class. They say so everyday. "
Yes, there are liberals in Cedar Falls. What a great observation!
Socialism bad? Remember that the next time you drive on the highway or local street. Remember that when you expect that snow plow to come and plow your street. Remember that when you send your products and/or services out to the market place. Above all, remember that when you collect your Social Security benefit.
If you truly don't believe in "Socialism" send the money back to the Treasury when you start receiving your S.S. checks. Stay off the roads that taxes (socialism) paid for. Stop going to church as Christ was also a socialist (take care of the poor and needy) and your church is a socialist organization.
Why do blue collar workers vote Republican? Why would you want to vote against your interests? The answer is simple. Blue collar workers that vote Republican are just plain stupid. Republicans hate the working class. They say so everyday. "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 14, 2008 4:40 PM:
" wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:57 PM:
" equality does not equal freedom......plain and simple.
equality is about equal treatment, freedom is about having control over your own life.
the point is, and as we have seen, we are moving towards a totalitarian society in efforts to become an equal society...ie, the exact opposite of a free society.
that is what clayson's point is regardng. the promotion of equality isn't wrong, but the fact remains to create a equal society, a group is placed in higher regard than another....so how is that equality? "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:01 PM:
" remember, equality of outcome is very different than equality of opportunity....
total equality of outcome is the objective of socialism...
so i'd like to have someone elaborate how we aren't moving towards increased equality of outcome? ie progressive tax rate for those who don't understand the concept.
i would tend to agree that freedom could be directly linked to equality of opportunity...but not outcome. "
wcf reader,
Amen! Great intellectual points! I see that you see the genious in Clayson's article too!
I'd like to see Phil give intellectual answers to your questions, if that is possible.
Care to elaborate, Phil?
-hfrmack "
" equality does not equal freedom......plain and simple.
equality is about equal treatment, freedom is about having control over your own life.
the point is, and as we have seen, we are moving towards a totalitarian society in efforts to become an equal society...ie, the exact opposite of a free society.
that is what clayson's point is regardng. the promotion of equality isn't wrong, but the fact remains to create a equal society, a group is placed in higher regard than another....so how is that equality? "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 1:01 PM:
" remember, equality of outcome is very different than equality of opportunity....
total equality of outcome is the objective of socialism...
so i'd like to have someone elaborate how we aren't moving towards increased equality of outcome? ie progressive tax rate for those who don't understand the concept.
i would tend to agree that freedom could be directly linked to equality of opportunity...but not outcome. "
wcf reader,
Amen! Great intellectual points! I see that you see the genious in Clayson's article too!
I'd like to see Phil give intellectual answers to your questions, if that is possible.
Care to elaborate, Phil?
-hfrmack "
cf_liberal wrote on Nov 14, 2008 5:11 PM:
" " wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:57 PM:
" equality does not equal freedom......plain and simple.
equality is about equal treatment, freedom is about having control over your own life.
How can you have freedom or the control over your own life if you are not treated equally?
Are you advocating unequality as freedom for all?
Sounds like fascism to me. Hitler would be proud. "
" equality does not equal freedom......plain and simple.
equality is about equal treatment, freedom is about having control over your own life.
How can you have freedom or the control over your own life if you are not treated equally?
Are you advocating unequality as freedom for all?
Sounds like fascism to me. Hitler would be proud. "
Independent wrote on Nov 14, 2008 8:19 PM:
" cf_liberal, thank you for bringing wcf reader back to reality. "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:14 PM:
" CF Liberal....am i advocating inequality as freedom for all?
why would you think that.
i tend to be an individualist and view liberty/freedom as the ability of one to chose their own decisions...ie, equality of outcome or wealth redistribution is an opposing view.
however, others view liberty/freedom as equality of outcome/wealth. I don't, so take it what it is.
i say, you have equal opportunity to make our ways through life, and i don't believe its the govts right or role to make the choices in my life and make up for the shortcomings that we all have so that we all equal.
apply the rights afforded to me and other citizens of the united states equally....but don't take away my civil liberties to equalize outcome....thats not freedom. "
why would you think that.
i tend to be an individualist and view liberty/freedom as the ability of one to chose their own decisions...ie, equality of outcome or wealth redistribution is an opposing view.
however, others view liberty/freedom as equality of outcome/wealth. I don't, so take it what it is.
i say, you have equal opportunity to make our ways through life, and i don't believe its the govts right or role to make the choices in my life and make up for the shortcomings that we all have so that we all equal.
apply the rights afforded to me and other citizens of the united states equally....but don't take away my civil liberties to equalize outcome....thats not freedom. "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:15 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Nov 14, 2008 11:19 AM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928 "
WAY TO GO xdfred!!! OUT OF THE PARK LINK!!! YaHoo!!! I warned you liberals, now here come the "I TOLD YOU SO'S"!!! Can you say, President-Elect McCain?!?!?
"Our Liberties We Prize, And Our Rights We Will Maintain"
-hfrmack "
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM:
" whatever. hfrmack still doesn't know the facts behind these legal challenges. and xdfred doesn't even know what grandmother made the claim obama was born in kenya.
it really doesn't matter. you guys lost. your party lost. and your party will be losing for quite some time.
i suppose i'll just stay in my naive little world where facts trump innuendo and pragmatism trumps ideology. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928 "
WAY TO GO xdfred!!! OUT OF THE PARK LINK!!! YaHoo!!! I warned you liberals, now here come the "I TOLD YOU SO'S"!!! Can you say, President-Elect McCain?!?!?
"Our Liberties We Prize, And Our Rights We Will Maintain"
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 14, 2008 9:21 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 14, 2008 12:15 PM:
" hfrmack--you got it wrong. i went to a very religious church-school (pentecostal church, baptist curriculum) k-12. if there was any indoctrination, it was in the far right, christian conservative philosophy. "
I see, rebelous youth, huh?
Well, I hope you learned your lesson.
Nice debating you!
-hfrmack "
" hfrmack--you got it wrong. i went to a very religious church-school (pentecostal church, baptist curriculum) k-12. if there was any indoctrination, it was in the far right, christian conservative philosophy. "
I see, rebelous youth, huh?
Well, I hope you learned your lesson.
Nice debating you!
-hfrmack "
Independent wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:52 PM:
" wcf reader your generalizations rival Prof. Clayson.
Hatefield, xdfried, wcf misreader and newschanger! Has Rush told you about Obama (that's Barrack Hussien Obama, Hatefield). He has a plan to give America back to the Native American Indians and you will have to live on the Reservation? "
Hatefield, xdfried, wcf misreader and newschanger! Has Rush told you about Obama (that's Barrack Hussien Obama, Hatefield). He has a plan to give America back to the Native American Indians and you will have to live on the Reservation? "
hfrmack wrote on Nov 15, 2008 11:10 PM:
" Phil wrote on Nov 14, 2008 7:47 AM:
" hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:42 PM:
"I purposely have not been replying directly to your argumentative points as not to humiliate you in front of all of your friends. It would be so easy, I could do it, (as Rush would say), "with half my brain tied behind my back".
That's OK - go ahead and try. xdfred and hetfield try - pathetically - but at least they try. Since you are a Rush disciple it is very doubtful you could do any better since you have to use his talking points - meaning garbage - but maybe you are different and come up with a few on your own.
Hey give it a shot - maybe you can actually find a fact or figure or something that lends credibility to your arguments. All the others have is bile and hubris - and warped views of history and reality - but you have to fight with the weapons you have - no matter how feeble they are. "
No, really Phil, you don't want any part of me, trust me. Did you see how badly I took apart your buddy, timbrackett? I didn't even have 1/4 of my brain tied behind my back. What makes you think you are ready for the BIG leagues? timbrackett is w-a-a-a-y out of your league. You are just a loud mouth cheerleader with holes the size of Texas in all of your arguments. What kills me is your "anger". Why so angry? Your guy won, didn't he? (At least for now).
I know you are trying to suck me in, but it's not going to work. (At least not for now). When I determine you need a "spanking", I'll chime in. You won't even know what hit you!
-hfrmack "
" hfrmack wrote on Nov 13, 2008 9:42 PM:
"I purposely have not been replying directly to your argumentative points as not to humiliate you in front of all of your friends. It would be so easy, I could do it, (as Rush would say), "with half my brain tied behind my back".
That's OK - go ahead and try. xdfred and hetfield try - pathetically - but at least they try. Since you are a Rush disciple it is very doubtful you could do any better since you have to use his talking points - meaning garbage - but maybe you are different and come up with a few on your own.
Hey give it a shot - maybe you can actually find a fact or figure or something that lends credibility to your arguments. All the others have is bile and hubris - and warped views of history and reality - but you have to fight with the weapons you have - no matter how feeble they are. "
No, really Phil, you don't want any part of me, trust me. Did you see how badly I took apart your buddy, timbrackett? I didn't even have 1/4 of my brain tied behind my back. What makes you think you are ready for the BIG leagues? timbrackett is w-a-a-a-y out of your league. You are just a loud mouth cheerleader with holes the size of Texas in all of your arguments. What kills me is your "anger". Why so angry? Your guy won, didn't he? (At least for now).
I know you are trying to suck me in, but it's not going to work. (At least not for now). When I determine you need a "spanking", I'll chime in. You won't even know what hit you!
-hfrmack "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 15, 2008 11:43 PM:
" thanks for your input independent....you add so much to the conversation!
love the name calling...its so mature....keep it up. every conversation needs to have the closed minded hypocrite comments you provide......wow "
love the name calling...its so mature....keep it up. every conversation needs to have the closed minded hypocrite comments you provide......wow "
wcf reader wrote on Nov 15, 2008 11:48 PM:
" independent and cf liberal must be part of the mainstream media...don't think the same way they do...try and discredit by any means possible, including name calling and that's about all they can do...oh yeah, make false assumptions that are simply ridiculous..
good work, i'm proud of you! you add so much intellectualism to the conversation..... "
good work, i'm proud of you! you add so much intellectualism to the conversation..... "
hetfield wrote on Nov 16, 2008 12:49 AM:
" Independent wrote on Nov 14, 2008 10:52 PM:
" wcf reader your generalizations rival Prof. Clayson.
Hatefield, xdfried, wcf misreader and newschanger! Has Rush told you about Obama (that's Barrack Hussien Obama, Hatefield). He has a plan to give America back to the Native American Indians and you will have to live on the Reservation? "
incontinant, you sir, have the cranial capacity of a squirrel, or a small rodent. b hussein has no plans to give anyone anything, other then entitlement programs, and some of the ill-gotten gains for spreading it around.
the fecal matter that you sporadically spew from the hole in your face on a daily basis, is enough to make one dizzy. i really suggest some antacids or something. "
" wcf reader your generalizations rival Prof. Clayson.
Hatefield, xdfried, wcf misreader and newschanger! Has Rush told you about Obama (that's Barrack Hussien Obama, Hatefield). He has a plan to give America back to the Native American Indians and you will have to live on the Reservation? "
incontinant, you sir, have the cranial capacity of a squirrel, or a small rodent. b hussein has no plans to give anyone anything, other then entitlement programs, and some of the ill-gotten gains for spreading it around.
the fecal matter that you sporadically spew from the hole in your face on a daily basis, is enough to make one dizzy. i really suggest some antacids or something. "
timbrackett wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:42 PM:
" yes phil. i am out of my league here. cause i don't play semi-pro ball. much like the chicago white sox will never come to waterloo and play the waterloo bucks, i don't need to debate here anymore. i'm sticking to the blogs that have real debates with real facts, not name-calling, racial slurs, half-truths and outright lies.
i will still comment here from time to time as i see fit, but i'll reserve my debating for those who are interested in making this country a better place instead of making their political faction a better base. "
i will still comment here from time to time as i see fit, but i'll reserve my debating for those who are interested in making this country a better place instead of making their political faction a better base. "
hetfield wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:53 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Nov 16, 2008 10:42 PM:
" yes phil. i am out of my league here. cause i don't play semi-pro ball. much like the chicago white sox will never come to waterloo and play the waterloo bucks, i don't need to debate here anymore. i'm sticking to the blogs that have real debates with real facts, not name-calling, racial slurs, half-truths and outright lies.
i will still comment here from time to time as i see fit, but i'll reserve my debating for those who are interested in making this country a better place instead of making their political faction a better base. "
bamm, out a' here. "
" yes phil. i am out of my league here. cause i don't play semi-pro ball. much like the chicago white sox will never come to waterloo and play the waterloo bucks, i don't need to debate here anymore. i'm sticking to the blogs that have real debates with real facts, not name-calling, racial slurs, half-truths and outright lies.
i will still comment here from time to time as i see fit, but i'll reserve my debating for those who are interested in making this country a better place instead of making their political faction a better base. "
bamm, out a' here. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
jeroze wrote on Nov 9, 2008 8:21 AM:
Today's column I will file often.
It will be filed under, 1. Sour Grapes 2. Bigotry 3. Childishness 4. Obfuscation 5. Stupidity 6. Unpatriotic 7. Unamerican 8. Uninformed 9. Obstinatcy 10. Tantrum. "