RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Cawelti
Article rated a 5
by 3
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Pay attention to opinions, not polemics
By SCOTT CAWELTI
Hardly a day slips by without my hearing or reading "that's just my opinion," as if to say don't bother to examine my statements closely, since they're just idle chatter. It's almost an apology.
But what about this: "Barack Obama has been worshipped by the media." Chatter, or a serious point? Or "Only an idiot would support Sarah Palin as a serious candidate for the presidency." Or "Democrats will turn America into a socialist country."
Since we're now blanketed by similar statements from bloggers and bloviators, opinionizing deserves special attention.
Not all opinions are created equal, nor are they endowed by their creators with facts, logic and the pursuit of effectiveness. Whole classes of opinions are designed to provoke a quick, gut-level response from either conservatives or liberals. These are called "polemics," and the vast majority of current "opinions" fall into this category.
Instead of opinions, I call them "polemics." Those three assertions with which I began are polemics, and when offered in a public forum, generate plenty of responses, meaning still more polemics. It's a form of entertainment and the anonymity of blogged responses to columns or news stories encourages bloggers to create veritable towers of babble.
None dare call them enlightening. Except for a precious thoughtful few, they're verbal pornography, designed more for arousal than for understanding.
Another class of statements, however, is based on facts, examples and logic. Such assertions deserve analysis, followed by agreement or refutation. These I would call genuine opinions, and I respect them.
Instead of the polemic "Obama has been worshipped by the media," one might assert, "Obama's ideas on the environment are similar to editorial positions of several mainstream newspapers." That's a statement that can be supported or refuted and doesn't create an immediate visceral response. It's potentially fact-based, and therefore, worth far more than two cents.
The columnists I read most often write opinions rather than polemics: Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Leonard Pitts and Kathleen Parker come to mind. But not Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity, who polemicize for profit and not much fun.
Another class of statements deserves serious attention, more so than either polemics or opinions. These are the conclusions that derive from research based on extended readings of historical events, laboratory experiments, direct observation and experience or some combination of the four.
Here is where knowledge of our world and its workings gets created and shared, and which we ignore at our peril. I call them "hypotheses" for want of a better term. Understanding hypotheses takes a good deal of energy and time, and they aren't found in the rants that pass for commentary on cable news channels or blogs.
Nor does it come from right-wing pulpits, where faith-based assertions can overwhelm common sense and logic. Though faith and religion deserve study in schools, they don't belong in political decisions or in science classrooms. That's an opinion, by the way, not a polemic. It's based on facts as I understand them, and I've written about this in detail in other columns.
Some hypotheses can be highly controversial and have become the subject of extended debates among specialists and laypeople alike: "The World Trade Center collapsed from a controlled demolition, not just from jetliners flown by terrorists." And "JFK was shot both from behind and in front, so Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone." Citizens need to take time to study the logic, facts and sources behind such hypotheses and decide where the truth lies.
Some opinions and hypotheses, to be blunt, are just plain wrong and deserve oblivion. Incidentally, in my opinion, both of those conspiracy hypotheses are wrong, based on cherry-picked or faulty evidence.
My advice: Ignore polemics unless you find them entertaining.
They're mostly just distractions. Opinions, however, are the stuff of adult conversations and deserve attention, even analysis. And valid hypotheses can make all the difference when understood and applied.
Finally, here's an opinion that I hope will prove to be a valid hypothesis: The current economic crisis will force Democrats and Republicans to put their country ahead of their political parties and cooperate on a variety of solutions. Finally.
But what about this: "Barack Obama has been worshipped by the media." Chatter, or a serious point? Or "Only an idiot would support Sarah Palin as a serious candidate for the presidency." Or "Democrats will turn America into a socialist country."
Since we're now blanketed by similar statements from bloggers and bloviators, opinionizing deserves special attention.
Not all opinions are created equal, nor are they endowed by their creators with facts, logic and the pursuit of effectiveness. Whole classes of opinions are designed to provoke a quick, gut-level response from either conservatives or liberals. These are called "polemics," and the vast majority of current "opinions" fall into this category.
Instead of opinions, I call them "polemics." Those three assertions with which I began are polemics, and when offered in a public forum, generate plenty of responses, meaning still more polemics. It's a form of entertainment and the anonymity of blogged responses to columns or news stories encourages bloggers to create veritable towers of babble.
None dare call them enlightening. Except for a precious thoughtful few, they're verbal pornography, designed more for arousal than for understanding.
Another class of statements, however, is based on facts, examples and logic. Such assertions deserve analysis, followed by agreement or refutation. These I would call genuine opinions, and I respect them.
Instead of the polemic "Obama has been worshipped by the media," one might assert, "Obama's ideas on the environment are similar to editorial positions of several mainstream newspapers." That's a statement that can be supported or refuted and doesn't create an immediate visceral response. It's potentially fact-based, and therefore, worth far more than two cents.
The columnists I read most often write opinions rather than polemics: Thomas Friedman, David Brooks, Leonard Pitts and Kathleen Parker come to mind. But not Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity, who polemicize for profit and not much fun.
Another class of statements deserves serious attention, more so than either polemics or opinions. These are the conclusions that derive from research based on extended readings of historical events, laboratory experiments, direct observation and experience or some combination of the four.
Here is where knowledge of our world and its workings gets created and shared, and which we ignore at our peril. I call them "hypotheses" for want of a better term. Understanding hypotheses takes a good deal of energy and time, and they aren't found in the rants that pass for commentary on cable news channels or blogs.
Nor does it come from right-wing pulpits, where faith-based assertions can overwhelm common sense and logic. Though faith and religion deserve study in schools, they don't belong in political decisions or in science classrooms. That's an opinion, by the way, not a polemic. It's based on facts as I understand them, and I've written about this in detail in other columns.
Some hypotheses can be highly controversial and have become the subject of extended debates among specialists and laypeople alike: "The World Trade Center collapsed from a controlled demolition, not just from jetliners flown by terrorists." And "JFK was shot both from behind and in front, so Lee Harvey Oswald could not have acted alone." Citizens need to take time to study the logic, facts and sources behind such hypotheses and decide where the truth lies.
Some opinions and hypotheses, to be blunt, are just plain wrong and deserve oblivion. Incidentally, in my opinion, both of those conspiracy hypotheses are wrong, based on cherry-picked or faulty evidence.
My advice: Ignore polemics unless you find them entertaining.
They're mostly just distractions. Opinions, however, are the stuff of adult conversations and deserve attention, even analysis. And valid hypotheses can make all the difference when understood and applied.
Finally, here's an opinion that I hope will prove to be a valid hypothesis: The current economic crisis will force Democrats and Republicans to put their country ahead of their political parties and cooperate on a variety of solutions. Finally.
More Stories from Columnists » Cawelti
hetfield wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:53 AM:
" Ok scottie, I will do what you enlighten me with. I will ignore this oped as polemic and read it ony for its entertainment value.
at the end, scottie rants about his desire for dems and pubs to work together finally! of course what he is really saying is this 'liberals will go out of their way to be friendly and partisan for the papers but in reality dont need to work with pubs at all, nor will they.' liberals also didnt need the pubs for the bailout vote either, but wanted them along to blame them for the vote. ol pelosi and dodd and barney(warning pelomic but it is true)i had a gay escort running a brothel in my basement' frank also didnt even bring the alst bailout for the auto companies to a vote because they would lose.
scott is simply saying 'if you dont agree with liberals you are lying and your comments dont count.'
way to go scottie! the public university you work for should be proud. "
at the end, scottie rants about his desire for dems and pubs to work together finally! of course what he is really saying is this 'liberals will go out of their way to be friendly and partisan for the papers but in reality dont need to work with pubs at all, nor will they.' liberals also didnt need the pubs for the bailout vote either, but wanted them along to blame them for the vote. ol pelosi and dodd and barney(warning pelomic but it is true)i had a gay escort running a brothel in my basement' frank also didnt even bring the alst bailout for the auto companies to a vote because they would lose.
scott is simply saying 'if you dont agree with liberals you are lying and your comments dont count.'
way to go scottie! the public university you work for should be proud. "
hetfield wrote on Nov 30, 2008 12:45 PM:
" Polemics (pronounced /pəˈlɛmɪks/, /poʊ-/) is the practice of disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters. As such, a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a position or theory that is widely viewed to be beyond reproach
scottie is now changing the meaning fo words to make his points. minions like philbert and crossie dont care, just spill out the same garbage.
scotties entire article should be ignored as fiction, just as his assertions that conservatives are lyers. "
scottie is now changing the meaning fo words to make his points. minions like philbert and crossie dont care, just spill out the same garbage.
scotties entire article should be ignored as fiction, just as his assertions that conservatives are lyers. "
JanInWloo wrote on Nov 30, 2008 7:29 PM:
" hetfield, where'd you get your definition? The definition I found in Merriam Websters sounds exactly like what Scott is talking about:
Main Entry:
po·lem·ic Listen to the pronunciation of polemic
Pronunciation:
\pə-ˈle-mik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French polémique, from Middle French, from polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike, hostile, from polemos war; perhaps akin to Greek pelemizein to shake, Old English ealfelo baleful
Date:
1638
1 a: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b: the art or practice of disputation or controversy —usually used in plural but singular or plural in construction2: an aggressive controversialist : disputant
— po·lem·i·cist Listen to the pronunciation of polemicist \-ˈle-mə-sist\ noun "
Main Entry:
po·lem·ic Listen to the pronunciation of polemic
Pronunciation:
\pə-ˈle-mik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French polémique, from Middle French, from polemique controversial, from Greek polemikos warlike, hostile, from polemos war; perhaps akin to Greek pelemizein to shake, Old English ealfelo baleful
Date:
1638
1 a: an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another b: the art or practice of disputation or controversy —usually used in plural but singular or plural in construction2: an aggressive controversialist : disputant
— po·lem·i·cist Listen to the pronunciation of polemicist \-ˈle-mə-sist\ noun "
hetfield wrote on Nov 30, 2008 8:21 PM:
" Not all opinions are created equal, nor are they endowed by their creators with facts, logic and the pursuit of effectiveness. Whole classes of opinions are designed to provoke a quick, gut-level response from either conservatives or liberals. These are called "polemics," and the vast majority of current "opinions" fall into this category.
this is scotties definition. where is yours JAN does it state these rebutalls are not based on fact?
instead scottie says "I call them..."
this is what b hussein does as well. I will provide change with all my clintonites and carterites. i will provide hope with bailouts and freebies for all those who dont want to work hard.
leftists! I could care less. "
this is scotties definition. where is yours JAN does it state these rebutalls are not based on fact?
instead scottie says "I call them..."
this is what b hussein does as well. I will provide change with all my clintonites and carterites. i will provide hope with bailouts and freebies for all those who dont want to work hard.
leftists! I could care less. "
timbrackett wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:57 AM:
" great article. open-minded people at the right, center or left will appreciate this column. "
Phil wrote on Dec 1, 2008 7:27 AM:
" A very good article - definitely thought provoking, yet supported with solid reasoning. You certainly don't have to agree with everything contained in it to recognize that.
Or, if you are someone who relies heavily in the use of polemics to make your arguments, or enjoys watching/reading/listening to those who do, you no doubt will have a strong disagreement with this column.
I think reading the posts made here will easily identify who those folks are. "
Or, if you are someone who relies heavily in the use of polemics to make your arguments, or enjoys watching/reading/listening to those who do, you no doubt will have a strong disagreement with this column.
I think reading the posts made here will easily identify who those folks are. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 1, 2008 12:10 PM:
" This whole article is a poor attempt at justifying ignoring the positions of persons that disagree with the liberal status quo. Just throw a label at it, and the issue is deemed irrelevant. "
Spenser wrote on Dec 1, 2008 2:01 PM:
" Typical radical liberal scam. Advance your own subjective,polemic opinion by wrapping it in the guise that youre really in favor of constructive hypothesis.
In the real world a hypothesis is educated analysis where the burden of proof is put on the individuals positing the argument;however,liberals today use their subjective opinion as hypothesis and put the onus on the skeptic to prove the negative. In other words, everybody has a subjective opinion and we can create a social construct out of a world with finite limitations. "
In the real world a hypothesis is educated analysis where the burden of proof is put on the individuals positing the argument;however,liberals today use their subjective opinion as hypothesis and put the onus on the skeptic to prove the negative. In other words, everybody has a subjective opinion and we can create a social construct out of a world with finite limitations. "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:51 PM:
" xdfred @ Dec 1, 2008 12:10 PM mentioned, "liberal status quo."
Say, what?
/s/ Steve Cross "
Say, what?
/s/ Steve Cross "
JanInWloo wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:36 PM:
" The essence of the definition is an aggressive attack aimed at a gut-level response. The definition doesn't address how facts play into it.
Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it a fact. Just because you call it a hypothesis, doesn't make you scientific. In polemics, you assume your hypothesis as a "fact" and then vigorously support it with name calling, straw man, and other assorted propaganda techniques. Evidence to the contrary is attacked. Clayson's columns are an excellent example of that sort of thing. "
Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it a fact. Just because you call it a hypothesis, doesn't make you scientific. In polemics, you assume your hypothesis as a "fact" and then vigorously support it with name calling, straw man, and other assorted propaganda techniques. Evidence to the contrary is attacked. Clayson's columns are an excellent example of that sort of thing. "
chester11 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:38 PM:
" That's projection, Spenser and although I kind of disagree with the overall tone of this column too, it's a pretty good bet that if it had been written by Clayson swapping any left language for right, the same detractors here would have been bursting to agree with the article. "
Phil wrote on Dec 2, 2008 7:13 AM:
" I have to agree with cross - what is the "liberal status quo"?
First, all we have heard since the election is the repeated propoganda line of how this is a "center-right" nation. Wouldn't THAT be the status quo (if it were accurate)?
Second, the definition of liberal contradicts the words "status quo" being attached to it. Broad minded, tolerant of change, not bound by orthodoxy - those definitions don't lend themselves to any "status quo". "
First, all we have heard since the election is the repeated propoganda line of how this is a "center-right" nation. Wouldn't THAT be the status quo (if it were accurate)?
Second, the definition of liberal contradicts the words "status quo" being attached to it. Broad minded, tolerant of change, not bound by orthodoxy - those definitions don't lend themselves to any "status quo". "
hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 AM:
" cross1242 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:51 PM:
" xdfred @ Dec 1, 2008 12:10 PM mentioned, "liberal status quo."
Say, what?
/s/ Steve Cross "
I know what the liberal status quo is; tax, spend, tax, spend, sex scandal, tax, spend, gay sex scandal, tax spend...
The left's hero, slick willie, was impeached for goodness sake! "
" xdfred @ Dec 1, 2008 12:10 PM mentioned, "liberal status quo."
Say, what?
/s/ Steve Cross "
I know what the liberal status quo is; tax, spend, tax, spend, sex scandal, tax, spend, gay sex scandal, tax spend...
The left's hero, slick willie, was impeached for goodness sake! "
Phil wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 AM:
"tax, spend, tax, spend, sex scandal, tax, spend, gay sex scandal, tax spend..."
Sounds like the last eight years of Republican rule - except you left out "war". "
"tax, spend, tax, spend, sex scandal, tax, spend, gay sex scandal, tax spend..."
Sounds like the last eight years of Republican rule - except you left out "war". "
hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:44 AM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 AM:
"tax, spend, tax, spend, sex scandal, tax, spend, gay sex scandal, tax spend..."
Sounds like the last eight years of Republican rule - except you left out "war". "
phil keeps perpetuating some myth that congress did not vote for war in iraq.
again. the left always tax, spend and engage in illicit affairs. ask slick willie. billary even sided with bill so she is involved as well.
nice 'change' "
" hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:14 AM:
"tax, spend, tax, spend, sex scandal, tax, spend, gay sex scandal, tax spend..."
Sounds like the last eight years of Republican rule - except you left out "war". "
phil keeps perpetuating some myth that congress did not vote for war in iraq.
again. the left always tax, spend and engage in illicit affairs. ask slick willie. billary even sided with bill so she is involved as well.
nice 'change' "
Spenser wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:42 PM:
" chester11 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:38 PM:
" That's projection, Spenser and although I kind of disagree with the overall tone of this column too, it's a pretty good bet that if it had been written by Clayson swapping any left language for right, the same detractors here would have been bursting to agree with the article.
I have no idea what you are talking about. "
" That's projection, Spenser and although I kind of disagree with the overall tone of this column too, it's a pretty good bet that if it had been written by Clayson swapping any left language for right, the same detractors here would have been bursting to agree with the article.
I have no idea what you are talking about. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:08 PM:
" Spenser wrote on Dec 2, 2008 12:42 PM:
" chester11 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:38 PM:
" That's projection, Spenser and although I kind of disagree with the overall tone of this column too, it's a pretty good bet that if it had been written by Clayson swapping any left language for right, the same detractors here would have been bursting to agree with the
proof positive why you leftys are supporting heir clayson. "
" chester11 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 9:38 PM:
" That's projection, Spenser and although I kind of disagree with the overall tone of this column too, it's a pretty good bet that if it had been written by Clayson swapping any left language for right, the same detractors here would have been bursting to agree with the
proof positive why you leftys are supporting heir clayson. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:40 PM:
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. "
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:37 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:40 PM:
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. " Translation: Our views are based on whatever we say the facts are. "
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. " Translation: Our views are based on whatever we say the facts are. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:38 PM:
" cross1242 wrote on Dec 1, 2008 6:51 PM:
" xdfred @ Dec 1, 2008 12:10 PM mentioned, "liberal status quo."
Say, what?..."
Liberal status quo.
/s/ Not Steve Cross. Not by a long shot. Thank God. "
" xdfred @ Dec 1, 2008 12:10 PM mentioned, "liberal status quo."
Say, what?..."
Liberal status quo.
/s/ Not Steve Cross. Not by a long shot. Thank God. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:50 PM:
" xdfred:
You had some typos in your statement.
Instead of the word "our" you should have typed "My", and instead of the word "we" you should have typed "I". "
You had some typos in your statement.
Instead of the word "our" you should have typed "My", and instead of the word "we" you should have typed "I". "
hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 2:52 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:40 PM:
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. "
another translation. liberals are always right, because our great psuedo intellect tells us we are! and b hussein says we are so...'
uh, what about killing 800,000 innocent babies a year Frankie? it is ok to support that? "
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. "
another translation. liberals are always right, because our great psuedo intellect tells us we are! and b hussein says we are so...'
uh, what about killing 800,000 innocent babies a year Frankie? it is ok to support that? "
Phil wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:05 PM:
" hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:44 AM:
"again. the left always tax, spend and engage in illicit affairs"
You mean like Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and the latest GOP poster boy of family values Vito Fossella:
"The GOP's grasp on the so-called "moral values" issue likewise went up in roaring flames, with Rep. Vito Fossella of Staten Island the poster child — his morals were once so perfect that he refused to be seen with his gay sister, and now he's a national joke, bounced after being caught drunk driving and having unprotected, babymaking sex with a married Air Force officer."
Gee, I didn't know they were liberals - could have fooled me. "
"again. the left always tax, spend and engage in illicit affairs"
You mean like Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and the latest GOP poster boy of family values Vito Fossella:
"The GOP's grasp on the so-called "moral values" issue likewise went up in roaring flames, with Rep. Vito Fossella of Staten Island the poster child — his morals were once so perfect that he refused to be seen with his gay sister, and now he's a national joke, bounced after being caught drunk driving and having unprotected, babymaking sex with a married Air Force officer."
Gee, I didn't know they were liberals - could have fooled me. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:22 PM:
" hetfield: No and I don't support abortion. See some of us view each individual situation and do what is right. (not just always support a left or right narrow-minded view) "
hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 4:11 PM:
" more like these:
John Burton (D-CA) former California Senate Pro Tempore - accused of sexual harassment by a female employee at his charity organization (2008)
Kwame Kilpatrick (D-MI) Detroit Mayor - extramarital affair with his Chief-of-Staff, Christine Beatty. Racy text messages between them uncovered by the press contradicted their sworn denials of an affair. Also alleged to have stayed at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, NC with a woman named Carmen Slowsky, who was not his wife (2008)
Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) New York Governor - went through a prostitution service called Emperors Club VIP where he allegedly met with a prostitute in a Washington, D.C. hotel. He was linked to the prostitution ring by a wiretap of his cell phone. No charges were filed. (2008)
Paul J. Morrison (D-KS) Kansas Attorney General - after an extramarital affair with an office administrator, he was charged with sexual harassment and claims that he pressured her to obtain sensitive information about district attorney Phill Kline and several other investigations at the district attorney's office. He resigned January 31, 2008
Marc Dann (D-OH) Ohio Attorney General - after sexual harassment charges were brought against staffers Leo Jennings and Anthony Gutierrez, Dann admitted he too had an affair with a staff member. Resigned May 14, 2008
John Edwards Senator (D-NC) Former 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate - admitted to an extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter while his wife was battling cancer, but denies that he fathered Hunter's child (August 8, 2008)
Tim Mahoney (D-FL) Mahoney admitted in October 2008 of having an affair with congressional aide and later campaign staffer Patricia Allen. When Allen threatened to sue for sexual harassment Mahoney paid her $122,000. Mahoney is also under FBI investigation for preferential treatment he may have given to Martin County in the amount of $3.4 million in hurricane funds
vito was in there. but clearly the leftys are having more than just abortion on their conscience. note. these are from this year, philbert or who shall now be called Frodo. "
John Burton (D-CA) former California Senate Pro Tempore - accused of sexual harassment by a female employee at his charity organization (2008)
Kwame Kilpatrick (D-MI) Detroit Mayor - extramarital affair with his Chief-of-Staff, Christine Beatty. Racy text messages between them uncovered by the press contradicted their sworn denials of an affair. Also alleged to have stayed at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, NC with a woman named Carmen Slowsky, who was not his wife (2008)
Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) New York Governor - went through a prostitution service called Emperors Club VIP where he allegedly met with a prostitute in a Washington, D.C. hotel. He was linked to the prostitution ring by a wiretap of his cell phone. No charges were filed. (2008)
Paul J. Morrison (D-KS) Kansas Attorney General - after an extramarital affair with an office administrator, he was charged with sexual harassment and claims that he pressured her to obtain sensitive information about district attorney Phill Kline and several other investigations at the district attorney's office. He resigned January 31, 2008
Marc Dann (D-OH) Ohio Attorney General - after sexual harassment charges were brought against staffers Leo Jennings and Anthony Gutierrez, Dann admitted he too had an affair with a staff member. Resigned May 14, 2008
John Edwards Senator (D-NC) Former 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate - admitted to an extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter while his wife was battling cancer, but denies that he fathered Hunter's child (August 8, 2008)
Tim Mahoney (D-FL) Mahoney admitted in October 2008 of having an affair with congressional aide and later campaign staffer Patricia Allen. When Allen threatened to sue for sexual harassment Mahoney paid her $122,000. Mahoney is also under FBI investigation for preferential treatment he may have given to Martin County in the amount of $3.4 million in hurricane funds
vito was in there. but clearly the leftys are having more than just abortion on their conscience. note. these are from this year, philbert or who shall now be called Frodo. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:07 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 3:22 PM:
" hetfield: No and I don't support abortion. See some of us view each individual situation and do what is right. (not just always support a left or right narrow-minded view) "
many many times i have posted my belief that if you support candidates who support abortion, then you indeed do support abortion. not pro-choice, or pro-idontwanttobebothered or any such nonsense. it is simple. you cant be a little bit pregnant, no pun intended. liberals are abortionists, simple as that.
for the record i am not a republican, but an independent. I am however a conservative. anti-abortion, anti-big government, seems simple enough. "
" hetfield: No and I don't support abortion. See some of us view each individual situation and do what is right. (not just always support a left or right narrow-minded view) "
many many times i have posted my belief that if you support candidates who support abortion, then you indeed do support abortion. not pro-choice, or pro-idontwanttobebothered or any such nonsense. it is simple. you cant be a little bit pregnant, no pun intended. liberals are abortionists, simple as that.
for the record i am not a republican, but an independent. I am however a conservative. anti-abortion, anti-big government, seems simple enough. "
Phil wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:26 AM:
" So candidates from both parties have extra-marital affairs - no surprise there.
However hetfield makes a point of claiming this is what the "liberals" do - as well as tax and spend.
Funny - conservatives do all these same things - yet stand on their soap boxes claiming they are the ones who practice morals and family values. They claim to be the party of fiscal restraint yet grow the deficit from $1 trillion to $11 trillion. They claim to be pro-life yet don't really do anything about it except appoint a judge here and there (yet if they want to overturn your constitutional right to habeus corpus they can pass all kinds of laws) and they support the murder of our own citizens through the death penalty. And they restrict foreign aid to the point that groups aren't permitted to hand out or talk about BIRTH CONTROL, let alone abortion.
Basically phony conservatives/moralists have no real values that they won't spend one minute bragging about and the next minute breaking. They have no problem holding a position they believe to be one of their core values while they hold another position that totally contradicts the first one.
There are some real conservatives - they do exist - people who love their country and their god and know how and when to keep the lines drawn between the two without losing their dignity in either situation.
Wish we would see some of them posting here. "
However hetfield makes a point of claiming this is what the "liberals" do - as well as tax and spend.
Funny - conservatives do all these same things - yet stand on their soap boxes claiming they are the ones who practice morals and family values. They claim to be the party of fiscal restraint yet grow the deficit from $1 trillion to $11 trillion. They claim to be pro-life yet don't really do anything about it except appoint a judge here and there (yet if they want to overturn your constitutional right to habeus corpus they can pass all kinds of laws) and they support the murder of our own citizens through the death penalty. And they restrict foreign aid to the point that groups aren't permitted to hand out or talk about BIRTH CONTROL, let alone abortion.
Basically phony conservatives/moralists have no real values that they won't spend one minute bragging about and the next minute breaking. They have no problem holding a position they believe to be one of their core values while they hold another position that totally contradicts the first one.
There are some real conservatives - they do exist - people who love their country and their god and know how and when to keep the lines drawn between the two without losing their dignity in either situation.
Wish we would see some of them posting here. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:26 AM:
" hetfield; You are too simplistic.
There has never been a person who I voted for that I agreed with on all issues. What if both are for drilling off the coast of Alaska, and I am against it? I still am going to vote. What if both are pro-choice? I am not, but I still am going to vote. Should abortion be the only issue that determines how we vote? no "
There has never been a person who I voted for that I agreed with on all issues. What if both are for drilling off the coast of Alaska, and I am against it? I still am going to vote. What if both are pro-choice? I am not, but I still am going to vote. Should abortion be the only issue that determines how we vote? no "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:30 AM:
" xdfred: When you did a translation of what I said, you are doing exactly what you acuse liberals of. You take my words and get to determine what I really said. Translation: In other words you get to determine the facts.
GOT YOU! "
GOT YOU! "
xdfred wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:05 PM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:26 AM:
" So candidates from both parties have extra-marital affairs - no surprise there...." Agreed, but the difference is, when liberals stray, they get a huge pass from the media. Conservatives are usually forced to resign. Feel free to consider this a polemic, or look at the facts. "
" So candidates from both parties have extra-marital affairs - no surprise there...." Agreed, but the difference is, when liberals stray, they get a huge pass from the media. Conservatives are usually forced to resign. Feel free to consider this a polemic, or look at the facts. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:05 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:30 AM:
" xdfred: When you did a translation of what I said, you are doing exactly what you acuse liberals of. You take my words and get to determine what I really said. Translation: In other words you get to determine the facts.
GOT YOU! " Oh boy! Got me!
What exactly did you mean, then? "
" xdfred: When you did a translation of what I said, you are doing exactly what you acuse liberals of. You take my words and get to determine what I really said. Translation: In other words you get to determine the facts.
GOT YOU! " Oh boy! Got me!
What exactly did you mean, then? "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:21 PM:
" xdfred:
There you go again, thinking you get to decide what is fact and what isn't. "
There you go again, thinking you get to decide what is fact and what isn't. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:30 PM:
" My integrity does not allow me the luxury of suporting abortion or abortionists. If there were ever be a conservative who supports abortion, I would either not vote for them, not vote for that position or write in a better choice.
It is my opinion that if a candidate supported this insidious act but they were the best candidate available I would be a hypocrit for voting for them.
It is no surprise that most conservatives by definition do not support a false right to choose to kill a baby. Conservatives are staunch supporters of the constitution and as such live the words 'life, liberty and the pursuit..' This completely flies in the face of liberalism who thinks the consititution changes daily and now means 'abortion, federal law, and government interference...'
Actually, it is very simple, but ultimately very right indeed. "
It is my opinion that if a candidate supported this insidious act but they were the best candidate available I would be a hypocrit for voting for them.
It is no surprise that most conservatives by definition do not support a false right to choose to kill a baby. Conservatives are staunch supporters of the constitution and as such live the words 'life, liberty and the pursuit..' This completely flies in the face of liberalism who thinks the consititution changes daily and now means 'abortion, federal law, and government interference...'
Actually, it is very simple, but ultimately very right indeed. "
dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:52 PM:
" So why is there legal abortion? The Supreme Court has been and is mostly conservative. "
Phil wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:30 PM:
" Many conservative politicians proclaim their opposition to abortion.
I believe they are personally against the practice, but politically they accept the reality of it, or don't care. Other than the most conservative congressional districts they know it is political suicide to vote against such a ban. They know the majority of Americans don't want a ban on the practice.
That is why you don't see bills introduced every session of Congress to overturn the practice followed by long debates and floor "fights".
The truth is they want the courts - you know via activist judges - to overturn or limit it because they are too gutless to do so themselves.
So vote for them if you really think it matters. The truth is you are voting for a lie, a ruse, for people who don't have the guts or character to admit their real beliefs.
Or you can vote for people who will try to do things to prevent unwanted pregnancies so abortions are necessary.
Meanwhile the anti-abortion politicians keep stringing their base along election after election, just so they can get votes, for an issue they know they will never have to be held accountable for.
I don't know which is worse - the arrogance of the so-called anti-abortion politicians or the ignorance of those who vote for them. After 35 years you would think they would have wised up by now. "
I believe they are personally against the practice, but politically they accept the reality of it, or don't care. Other than the most conservative congressional districts they know it is political suicide to vote against such a ban. They know the majority of Americans don't want a ban on the practice.
That is why you don't see bills introduced every session of Congress to overturn the practice followed by long debates and floor "fights".
The truth is they want the courts - you know via activist judges - to overturn or limit it because they are too gutless to do so themselves.
So vote for them if you really think it matters. The truth is you are voting for a lie, a ruse, for people who don't have the guts or character to admit their real beliefs.
Or you can vote for people who will try to do things to prevent unwanted pregnancies so abortions are necessary.
Meanwhile the anti-abortion politicians keep stringing their base along election after election, just so they can get votes, for an issue they know they will never have to be held accountable for.
I don't know which is worse - the arrogance of the so-called anti-abortion politicians or the ignorance of those who vote for them. After 35 years you would think they would have wised up by now. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 3, 2008 4:30 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:52 PM:
" So why is there legal abortion? The Supreme Court has been and is mostly conservative. "
Million dollar question. I remain skeptical of any judge who is takes an oath to make decisions not based on political ideology(although all liberals do) but instead are obligated to abide by(not rewrite) the US Constitution.
I find most troubling this quote from Jane Roe herself, speaking about her two liberal attorneys who represented her;
"Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:
“ It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes. "
Taken from wiki.
At the time, McCorvey was tying to abort her baby which she claimed to have been a result of rape. The courts should have either created some precendent for rape or left this matter to state rights. (let me say by leaving it up to state rights, while giving abortion some constitutionality, would still not make the act morally correct.) McCorvey now is anti-abortion.
I find the act disgusting, moraless and, on a far lesser scale, unconstitutional. I find those who support abortion and those who support candidates who support abortion equally offensive. "
" So why is there legal abortion? The Supreme Court has been and is mostly conservative. "
Million dollar question. I remain skeptical of any judge who is takes an oath to make decisions not based on political ideology(although all liberals do) but instead are obligated to abide by(not rewrite) the US Constitution.
I find most troubling this quote from Jane Roe herself, speaking about her two liberal attorneys who represented her;
"Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:
“ It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes. "
Taken from wiki.
At the time, McCorvey was tying to abort her baby which she claimed to have been a result of rape. The courts should have either created some precendent for rape or left this matter to state rights. (let me say by leaving it up to state rights, while giving abortion some constitutionality, would still not make the act morally correct.) McCorvey now is anti-abortion.
I find the act disgusting, moraless and, on a far lesser scale, unconstitutional. I find those who support abortion and those who support candidates who support abortion equally offensive. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:24 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:52 PM:
" So why is there legal abortion? The Supreme Court has been and is mostly conservative. " It wasn't when Roe V Wade was concocted and was the beginning of the end of legislatures actually writing the laws of the land per the Constitution. But Congress has not acted to strike down Roe v Wade and no lawsuits have made it to the new court yet. "
" So why is there legal abortion? The Supreme Court has been and is mostly conservative. " It wasn't when Roe V Wade was concocted and was the beginning of the end of legislatures actually writing the laws of the land per the Constitution. But Congress has not acted to strike down Roe v Wade and no lawsuits have made it to the new court yet. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:27 PM:
" dfrank5775 wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:40 PM:
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. "
Again, what is an open minded view of the facts. Sounds to me like it means what I said, that your open mindedness allows for pretty much anything. "
" hetfield;
Your right. Not all opinion are created equal. Yours are not based on facts, but your narrow-minded warped view of the world.
Our opinions are based on an open-minded view of the facts. "
Again, what is an open minded view of the facts. Sounds to me like it means what I said, that your open mindedness allows for pretty much anything. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:28 PM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 3, 2008 2:30 PM:
" Many conservative politicians proclaim their opposition to abortion.
I believe they are personally against the practice, but politically they accept the reality of it, or don't care. Other than the most conservative congressional districts they know it is political suicide to vote against such a ban. They know the majority of Americans don't want a ban on the practice.
That is why you don't see bills introduced every session of Congress to overturn the practice followed by long debates and floor "fights".
The truth is they want the courts - you know via activist judges - to overturn or limit it because they are too gutless to do so themselves.
So vote for them if you really think it matters. The truth is you are voting for a lie, a ruse, for people who don't have the guts or character to admit their real beliefs.
Or you can vote for people who will try to do things to prevent unwanted pregnancies so abortions are necessary.
Meanwhile the anti-abortion politicians keep stringing their base along election after election, just so they can get votes, for an issue they know they will never have to be held accountable for.
I don't know which is worse - the arrogance of the so-called anti-abortion politicians or the ignorance of those who vote for them. After 35 years you would think they would have wised up by now. "
frodo again takes a wrong turn trying to pass go. he thinks it is ok to just abandon one's integrity and beliefs for political office.
frodo, abortion is wrong. you even said you were against it. the differnce is that my integrity allows me to support those who dont think killing babies ok, while you claim to not support murder, but support those who support murder.
Integrity over hypocrisy is always the best course. "
" Many conservative politicians proclaim their opposition to abortion.
I believe they are personally against the practice, but politically they accept the reality of it, or don't care. Other than the most conservative congressional districts they know it is political suicide to vote against such a ban. They know the majority of Americans don't want a ban on the practice.
That is why you don't see bills introduced every session of Congress to overturn the practice followed by long debates and floor "fights".
The truth is they want the courts - you know via activist judges - to overturn or limit it because they are too gutless to do so themselves.
So vote for them if you really think it matters. The truth is you are voting for a lie, a ruse, for people who don't have the guts or character to admit their real beliefs.
Or you can vote for people who will try to do things to prevent unwanted pregnancies so abortions are necessary.
Meanwhile the anti-abortion politicians keep stringing their base along election after election, just so they can get votes, for an issue they know they will never have to be held accountable for.
I don't know which is worse - the arrogance of the so-called anti-abortion politicians or the ignorance of those who vote for them. After 35 years you would think they would have wised up by now. "
frodo again takes a wrong turn trying to pass go. he thinks it is ok to just abandon one's integrity and beliefs for political office.
frodo, abortion is wrong. you even said you were against it. the differnce is that my integrity allows me to support those who dont think killing babies ok, while you claim to not support murder, but support those who support murder.
Integrity over hypocrisy is always the best course. "
wcf reader wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:39 PM:
" the hypocrisy is that everyone on here claiming that clayson is guilty of polemics is guilty themselves.......
the entire problem is that it takes a non-bias person to determine what opinions are more relevant than the others, and because most of the time we don't know a persons qualifications and knowledge regarding a subject, its impossible to tell if their opinion are as scott says, more relevant.
the fact that scott says in his "opinion" the columnists he reads write more opinion pieces rather than coulter and hannity who take part in polemics is naive. who is he to say one of these poeple's opinions is more relevant than the other? they all offer opinions based on hypothesis they have made from the information they have gathered....
seems like scott is setting up a slippery slope for censorship...i doubt he would like someone telling him his opinion isn't relevant. the fact remains, the entire piece was his opinion that people should ignore polemics...the hypocrisy is laughable. "
the entire problem is that it takes a non-bias person to determine what opinions are more relevant than the others, and because most of the time we don't know a persons qualifications and knowledge regarding a subject, its impossible to tell if their opinion are as scott says, more relevant.
the fact that scott says in his "opinion" the columnists he reads write more opinion pieces rather than coulter and hannity who take part in polemics is naive. who is he to say one of these poeple's opinions is more relevant than the other? they all offer opinions based on hypothesis they have made from the information they have gathered....
seems like scott is setting up a slippery slope for censorship...i doubt he would like someone telling him his opinion isn't relevant. the fact remains, the entire piece was his opinion that people should ignore polemics...the hypocrisy is laughable. "
wcf reader wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:55 PM:
" here's a great example of what the article is talking about...if i say i don't believe global warming is occurring as al gore hypothesis in his movie....i'm relegated to a 'naysayer', although there is ample evidence to prove otherwise.
for one to question the validity of the research is merited and appropriate, to say anyone who doesn't agree with the findings is in the back pocket of corporate america/big oil is engaging in polemics....many of you are clearly guilty.
just for the record, if i and other questioners are in the back pocket of big oil/etc., who's pocket are you in? do you even know...because if you can believe one gropu has agenda it will do whatever it takes to promote, you have to believe its counterpart will and does the same....another day.
clearly the earth warms and cools and a regions climate is constant change, by definition. for anyone to say that the earth can't change from where it is now is defying physics...again another day. "
for one to question the validity of the research is merited and appropriate, to say anyone who doesn't agree with the findings is in the back pocket of corporate america/big oil is engaging in polemics....many of you are clearly guilty.
just for the record, if i and other questioners are in the back pocket of big oil/etc., who's pocket are you in? do you even know...because if you can believe one gropu has agenda it will do whatever it takes to promote, you have to believe its counterpart will and does the same....another day.
clearly the earth warms and cools and a regions climate is constant change, by definition. for anyone to say that the earth can't change from where it is now is defying physics...again another day. "
jeroze wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:07 AM:
" Calwelti's column includes this quote:
"Though faith and religion deserve study in schools, they don't belong in political decisions or in science classrooms. That's an opinion, by the way, not a polemic. It's based on facts as I understand them, and I've written about this in detail in other columns."
Since we have this comment about religious statements and their relationship to opinion and polemics, it seems fitting to reflect on another theological practice called Apolegetics. This is not a list of apologies for the way we believe or opinions we have. This refers to simply stating your belief in an attractive manner without becoming polemical.
This is something that many bloggers have not practiced. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have apologetics in letters to the editor and in blogging? I think that is what SCOTT CAWELTI's column is describing as a more helpful approach. I appreciate the column and those who take it to heart... "
"Though faith and religion deserve study in schools, they don't belong in political decisions or in science classrooms. That's an opinion, by the way, not a polemic. It's based on facts as I understand them, and I've written about this in detail in other columns."
Since we have this comment about religious statements and their relationship to opinion and polemics, it seems fitting to reflect on another theological practice called Apolegetics. This is not a list of apologies for the way we believe or opinions we have. This refers to simply stating your belief in an attractive manner without becoming polemical.
This is something that many bloggers have not practiced. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have apologetics in letters to the editor and in blogging? I think that is what SCOTT CAWELTI's column is describing as a more helpful approach. I appreciate the column and those who take it to heart... "
Phil wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:14 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:28 PM:
"....the differnce is that my integrity allows me to support those who dont think killing babies ok, while you claim to not support murder, but support those who support murder.
Integrity over hypocrisy is always the best course. "
Every one you have voted for supports "killing babies" (your words).
They tacitly support it by not doing anything to oppose it - you are simply to blind or ignorant to see it.
In addition, by not supporting programs and organizations that try to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which leads to fewer abortions - they make the abortion problem worse. So you are duped again.
If you see that as integrity, well that's a unique way to define it.
Speaking of integrity, I would say the name calling you do in your posts is beneath you, but in reality it's not. It is you - it defines who you are and the fact that when you know you can't win your argument you think that name calling gives your argument an air of superiority, of strength. "
"....the differnce is that my integrity allows me to support those who dont think killing babies ok, while you claim to not support murder, but support those who support murder.
Integrity over hypocrisy is always the best course. "
Every one you have voted for supports "killing babies" (your words).
They tacitly support it by not doing anything to oppose it - you are simply to blind or ignorant to see it.
In addition, by not supporting programs and organizations that try to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which leads to fewer abortions - they make the abortion problem worse. So you are duped again.
If you see that as integrity, well that's a unique way to define it.
Speaking of integrity, I would say the name calling you do in your posts is beneath you, but in reality it's not. It is you - it defines who you are and the fact that when you know you can't win your argument you think that name calling gives your argument an air of superiority, of strength. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:58 AM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 4, 2008 8:14 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:28 PM:
"....the differnce is that my integrity allows me to support those who dont think killing babies ok, while you claim to not support murder, but support those who support murder.
Integrity over hypocrisy is always the best course. "
Every one you have voted for supports "killing babies" (your words).
They tacitly support it by not doing anything to oppose it - you are simply to blind or ignorant to see it.
In addition, by not supporting programs and organizations that try to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which leads to fewer abortions - they make the abortion problem worse. So you are duped again.
If you see that as integrity, well that's a unique way to define it.
Speaking of integrity, I would say the name calling you do in your posts is beneath you, but in reality it's not. It is you - it defines who you are and the fact that when you know you can't win your argument you think that name calling gives your argument an air of superiority, of strength. "
Frodo, I know what I stand for, I also know that millions of babies aborteed each yar are not on my conscience. You have said before that you sleep fine at night knowing that. That shows me more about you than anything else you post.
You also state that who I vote for are also for abortion? Frodo, how do you know you I vote for? This is just another liberal trick to make it appear as if conservatives are hypocrits, when in fact it is the dark side, the left side, which talk from both sides of their mouths.
Perhaps you chose a wrong career? instead of IT maybe you should have gone into psychiatry. You seem to know a great deal about people with whom you do not know.
Me? I know liberals all too well. Check those folks who took out loans they could not afford. Liberals. Take those folks who made it possible for those folks to take out homes they could not afford. Liberals. Take those folks the folks hire to file bankruptcy. Liberals. Take those folks who make it so easy to file for bankruptcy thus ensuring professions for those who file bankruptcy. Liberals.
above all take those folks who are employed by those who grant abortions. Liberals.
Hey, kiss a frog, I dont know, but it is what it is. if it is green and lives in a pond. well... "
" hetfield wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:28 PM:
"....the differnce is that my integrity allows me to support those who dont think killing babies ok, while you claim to not support murder, but support those who support murder.
Integrity over hypocrisy is always the best course. "
Every one you have voted for supports "killing babies" (your words).
They tacitly support it by not doing anything to oppose it - you are simply to blind or ignorant to see it.
In addition, by not supporting programs and organizations that try to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which leads to fewer abortions - they make the abortion problem worse. So you are duped again.
If you see that as integrity, well that's a unique way to define it.
Speaking of integrity, I would say the name calling you do in your posts is beneath you, but in reality it's not. It is you - it defines who you are and the fact that when you know you can't win your argument you think that name calling gives your argument an air of superiority, of strength. "
Frodo, I know what I stand for, I also know that millions of babies aborteed each yar are not on my conscience. You have said before that you sleep fine at night knowing that. That shows me more about you than anything else you post.
You also state that who I vote for are also for abortion? Frodo, how do you know you I vote for? This is just another liberal trick to make it appear as if conservatives are hypocrits, when in fact it is the dark side, the left side, which talk from both sides of their mouths.
Perhaps you chose a wrong career? instead of IT maybe you should have gone into psychiatry. You seem to know a great deal about people with whom you do not know.
Me? I know liberals all too well. Check those folks who took out loans they could not afford. Liberals. Take those folks who made it possible for those folks to take out homes they could not afford. Liberals. Take those folks the folks hire to file bankruptcy. Liberals. Take those folks who make it so easy to file for bankruptcy thus ensuring professions for those who file bankruptcy. Liberals.
above all take those folks who are employed by those who grant abortions. Liberals.
Hey, kiss a frog, I dont know, but it is what it is. if it is green and lives in a pond. well... "
Newswatcher wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:59 AM:
" On the local left: it's Fred Abraham, Scott Cawelti, Donna Wood and now ugh, Steve Cross (who bullies his way into the Courier columns via 'guest opinion') VS. Dennis Clayson on the right.
The left has their opinion, which they deem as 'truth'. Dennis has his opinion, which the Left deems as polemics or lies.
How about trying this on: You have your opinion, I have mine. Hate should be reserved for those who want to destroy us (Radical Islamic Terrorists and Iran). When you name call, it lowers you to a childs game. Independent and Chester are masters at this, it only weakens their arguments because they come across as anything but clear-thinking adults.
Let's not bully each other here, it's getting us all nowhere, fast.
Wouldn't you agree that the low blows are really hitting back at yourself, not improving any problem we have.
Differing opinions are important and healthy for our country. Hate for those who have differing opinions is not.
Passion? Yes, but not hate.
Calling Polemics on your opposition only flashes the mirror on yourself. "
The left has their opinion, which they deem as 'truth'. Dennis has his opinion, which the Left deems as polemics or lies.
How about trying this on: You have your opinion, I have mine. Hate should be reserved for those who want to destroy us (Radical Islamic Terrorists and Iran). When you name call, it lowers you to a childs game. Independent and Chester are masters at this, it only weakens their arguments because they come across as anything but clear-thinking adults.
Let's not bully each other here, it's getting us all nowhere, fast.
Wouldn't you agree that the low blows are really hitting back at yourself, not improving any problem we have.
Differing opinions are important and healthy for our country. Hate for those who have differing opinions is not.
Passion? Yes, but not hate.
Calling Polemics on your opposition only flashes the mirror on yourself. "
timbrackett wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:06 PM:
" Independent wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:00 PM:
" Hatefield is a polemic! LOL!!!
Copy and paste that. "
independent cracks me up. "
" Hatefield is a polemic! LOL!!!
Copy and paste that. "
independent cracks me up. "
jeroze wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:32 PM:
" We are reading polemical blogs about abortion. Has anyone done a study as to how the Bush administration has effected the number of abortions over against the number of abortions during the Clinton administration? "
Phil wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:44 PM:
" hetfield - you know liberals all too well?
You don't even know yourself.
And every time you post you prove it over and over again. "
You don't even know yourself.
And every time you post you prove it over and over again. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:32 PM:
" How the left deals with polemics it doesn't like. First Joe the Plumber....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82639 "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82639 "
hetfield wrote on Dec 4, 2008 3:16 PM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:44 PM:
" hetfield - you know liberals all too well?
You don't even know yourself.
And every time you post you prove it over and over again. "
Frodo, again you are wrong. I dont know why you even try. Another indpendentlynumb man-love? anyways, I dont know how you can possibly find fault in my beliefs. I dont suport abortion. Period. Liberals who vote for liberals do. Period.
Enough said. But it wont stop you from saying something else like 'oh, you are just saying that.' or 'you are confused. stop working like the rest of us and let the messiah help you.' or 'just start drinking. the nightmares dont come that often.'
I know what I believe. I also know what liberals believe or say they believe. Their actions speak loudly. "
" hetfield - you know liberals all too well?
You don't even know yourself.
And every time you post you prove it over and over again. "
Frodo, again you are wrong. I dont know why you even try. Another indpendentlynumb man-love? anyways, I dont know how you can possibly find fault in my beliefs. I dont suport abortion. Period. Liberals who vote for liberals do. Period.
Enough said. But it wont stop you from saying something else like 'oh, you are just saying that.' or 'you are confused. stop working like the rest of us and let the messiah help you.' or 'just start drinking. the nightmares dont come that often.'
I know what I believe. I also know what liberals believe or say they believe. Their actions speak loudly. "
timbrackett wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:53 AM:
" hetfield--keep sticking to the politics of the past on the issue of abortion and we'll see where it gets you. has roe v. wade been overturned yet? "
Phil wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:13 AM:
" hetfield - you are so funny, and so sad.
As you said in a post under the Clayson column, you won't stop posting. I know that, I have always known that. The other people who post here know that.
Enough talking to you as an adult - time to talk to you as the adolescent you are.
Your posts prove every point Cawelti made in his column - plus some more. Polemic - that's you. Name caller - that's you (what name will you have for me next week - Lucifer?) Change the subject - you. Blanket labels of people - you.
Actually I've raised teenagers - their arguments are better thought out - and more mature - than yours. Go ahead, call me another name, pretend you know who I am and what I do. Keep proving what all of us who post here already know about you - yet you yourself don't even see.
You think you have integrity because you are against abortion. Another adolescent view. You are against abortion - fine, that's your right and I have no problem with that. You think that gives you integrity - you have no clue what the word means.
You are right, I don't know who you vote for - and you don't know who I vote for. I know this though - if ANYONE you voted for in the last 35 years has been elected to state or national office - they are tacitly pro-abortion. They haven't done one thing to stop it and they won't. So call them whatever name you want - that's seems to be a specialty of yours - but they are no different than anyone I have voted for in that respect. "
As you said in a post under the Clayson column, you won't stop posting. I know that, I have always known that. The other people who post here know that.
Enough talking to you as an adult - time to talk to you as the adolescent you are.
Your posts prove every point Cawelti made in his column - plus some more. Polemic - that's you. Name caller - that's you (what name will you have for me next week - Lucifer?) Change the subject - you. Blanket labels of people - you.
Actually I've raised teenagers - their arguments are better thought out - and more mature - than yours. Go ahead, call me another name, pretend you know who I am and what I do. Keep proving what all of us who post here already know about you - yet you yourself don't even see.
You think you have integrity because you are against abortion. Another adolescent view. You are against abortion - fine, that's your right and I have no problem with that. You think that gives you integrity - you have no clue what the word means.
You are right, I don't know who you vote for - and you don't know who I vote for. I know this though - if ANYONE you voted for in the last 35 years has been elected to state or national office - they are tacitly pro-abortion. They haven't done one thing to stop it and they won't. So call them whatever name you want - that's seems to be a specialty of yours - but they are no different than anyone I have voted for in that respect. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:24 AM:
" Here you go, Phil. I know you're a big Malkin fan. Please point out any polemics.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/12/05/truthers_to_the_left_of_me,_truthers_to_the_right "
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/12/05/truthers_to_the_left_of_me,_truthers_to_the_right "
xdfred wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:32 AM:
" Have another one, Phil. Polemics galore.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/12/05/mixing_it_up_with_left-wingers "
http://townhall.com/Columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/12/05/mixing_it_up_with_left-wingers "
hetfield wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:18 AM:
" so now frodo says all politicians are actually abortionists! good one. I know the left would love to think that, but in reality(the left hates reality) it is not true.
again I do not support abortion. Liberals not only support abortion but want to puclicly fund it. (see national health care)
no thanks.
integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
uh. i dont know what i have said or shown that is not the definition of integrity as far as the insidious act of abortion.
you folks on the left have a firm adherence to no morals or values when it comes to killing innocent babies for some reason.
I dont know how to make it more plain as that.
but of course, i'm a small child of lesser intellect than the psuedo-intellects on these boards.
whatever "
again I do not support abortion. Liberals not only support abortion but want to puclicly fund it. (see national health care)
no thanks.
integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
uh. i dont know what i have said or shown that is not the definition of integrity as far as the insidious act of abortion.
you folks on the left have a firm adherence to no morals or values when it comes to killing innocent babies for some reason.
I dont know how to make it more plain as that.
but of course, i'm a small child of lesser intellect than the psuedo-intellects on these boards.
whatever "
xdfred wrote on Dec 5, 2008 11:23 AM:
" hetfield wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:18 AM:
" ......you folks on the left have a firm adherence to no morals or values when it comes to killing innocent babies for some reason...." And it's curious that whenever anyone discusses abortion with left wingers, they usually, if not always, change the subject to the death penalty and hyper inflated war casualties. Must be one of them there polemics. "
" ......you folks on the left have a firm adherence to no morals or values when it comes to killing innocent babies for some reason...." And it's curious that whenever anyone discusses abortion with left wingers, they usually, if not always, change the subject to the death penalty and hyper inflated war casualties. Must be one of them there polemics. "
MAC wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:56 PM:
" hetfield...I don't think anyone in here considers you to be a small child....though many agree you often post like one. "
timbrackett wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:25 PM:
" ok, one last attempt. we'll see if hetfield can get it this time.
i am pro-life. my integrity on this matter shows through in many ways, including my opposition to the death penalty. however when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty, i do not let those two issues alone control my voting (often my beliefs on these issues are supported by opposing politicians in any given political contest).
i still agree with the words of george w. bush during is 2000 campaign when asked if he supported overturning roe v. wade. he said hearts needed to be changed on the issue before roe v. wade was overturned because the nation was not ready for roe v. wade to be overturned. that is how i stand politically on the issue of abortion.
as someone who is pro-life, i was encouraged by the fact that the DNC allowed a pro-life politician to speak at their national convention this year. because here in the adult world, that's what we do. we go to places where our message may not be popular because we believe in our message. and in the adult world when someone has something to say that we don't agree with, we show enough respect to listen to what they have to say without labeling, spewing hate-filled rhetoric or lumping everyone into a black/white category of those who agree 100% with me and those who don't. "
i am pro-life. my integrity on this matter shows through in many ways, including my opposition to the death penalty. however when it comes to the issues of abortion and the death penalty, i do not let those two issues alone control my voting (often my beliefs on these issues are supported by opposing politicians in any given political contest).
i still agree with the words of george w. bush during is 2000 campaign when asked if he supported overturning roe v. wade. he said hearts needed to be changed on the issue before roe v. wade was overturned because the nation was not ready for roe v. wade to be overturned. that is how i stand politically on the issue of abortion.
as someone who is pro-life, i was encouraged by the fact that the DNC allowed a pro-life politician to speak at their national convention this year. because here in the adult world, that's what we do. we go to places where our message may not be popular because we believe in our message. and in the adult world when someone has something to say that we don't agree with, we show enough respect to listen to what they have to say without labeling, spewing hate-filled rhetoric or lumping everyone into a black/white category of those who agree 100% with me and those who don't. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:35 PM:
" Hey Phil, Obama's former pals speak out:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82774
Polemics? We report, you decide. "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82774
Polemics? We report, you decide. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:18 PM:
" timbrackett wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:25 PM:
"....i still agree with the words of george w. bush during is 2000 campaign when asked if he supported overturning roe v. wade. he said hearts needed to be changed on the issue before roe v. wade was overturned because the nation was not ready for roe v. wade to be overturned. that is how i stand politically on the issue of abortion...." A cop out if there ever was one. GWB biggest mistake has been to make nice to the other side. Also, who determined the country was ready for Roe vs. Wade in the first place? The people never got a chance to vote on the issue. That in and of itself is reason for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. It's unConstitutional. "
"....i still agree with the words of george w. bush during is 2000 campaign when asked if he supported overturning roe v. wade. he said hearts needed to be changed on the issue before roe v. wade was overturned because the nation was not ready for roe v. wade to be overturned. that is how i stand politically on the issue of abortion...." A cop out if there ever was one. GWB biggest mistake has been to make nice to the other side. Also, who determined the country was ready for Roe vs. Wade in the first place? The people never got a chance to vote on the issue. That in and of itself is reason for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. It's unConstitutional. "
1x2x3q wrote on Dec 5, 2008 3:01 PM:
" keep posting hetfield, i enjoy reading them. your words seem to be exactly as i feel. i love this country. thank you again. "
Newswatcher wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:39 PM:
" tim, someone who is wholeheartedly pro-life and not just conveniently saying so, would never vote for Obama, who wants to life the ban on late term abortions, no matter what the reason.
You evidently did not do your homework on this guy. His free-reign stand on any abortion at anytime for anyone may very well be the most horrible and destructive of any candidate in the history of the POTUS. It's frightening for those of us who are truly honestly pro-life. "
You evidently did not do your homework on this guy. His free-reign stand on any abortion at anytime for anyone may very well be the most horrible and destructive of any candidate in the history of the POTUS. It's frightening for those of us who are truly honestly pro-life. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 5, 2008 5:23 PM:
" According to Barack Hussein Obama, our Constitution should be treated as a polemic. There's actually an amendment process, but he doesn't want to bother with it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729 "
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729 "
chester11 wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:10 PM:
" Newswatcher wrote on Dec 5, 2008 4:39 PM:
" tim, someone who is wholeheartedly pro-life and not just conveniently saying so, would never vote for Obama, who wants to life the ban on late term abortions, no matter what the reason."
When did Obama claim that he was going to do this?
Please advise. Please post FACTUAL information that Barack Obama has expressed the desire to lift the ban on late term abortions. Thanks! "
" tim, someone who is wholeheartedly pro-life and not just conveniently saying so, would never vote for Obama, who wants to life the ban on late term abortions, no matter what the reason."
When did Obama claim that he was going to do this?
Please advise. Please post FACTUAL information that Barack Obama has expressed the desire to lift the ban on late term abortions. Thanks! "
Independent wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:31 PM:
" Your right Phil, Hatefried doesn't even like himself, let alone know himself. "
Independent wrote on Dec 5, 2008 8:35 PM:
" Chester11, newswatcher still wants to eat at Pickerman's and have his digital pitures developed at Walden Photo.
Does that tell you anything? "
Does that tell you anything? "
Newswatcher wrote on Dec 5, 2008 10:20 PM:
" chester, don't tell me you don't know about Obama's support of the FOCA and how he said it's the first thing he would enact as POTUS.
Are you living in a box?
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/dec/05/letter-abortion-law-could-be-harmful-women/ "
Are you living in a box?
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/dec/05/letter-abortion-law-could-be-harmful-women/ "
chester11 wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:24 AM:
" Newswatcher - that bill is not designed to expand abortions, it's designed to push back against the Bush ban. So that states like South Dakota can't ban abortions across the board. Obama himself said he is "completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life.”
But it's a push back against lobbyists trying to get a full on abortion ban. The bill's language is structured to protect the mother and allow her safe access to have an abortion well before late term.
The right wants to slant it though into the absurd precipice that officials will run around the country forcing abortions.
Now, to be honest with you, I can understand the right's concerns with FOCA. I really can. But they're taking parts of it out of context. No President would have any support on offering carte blanche availability of late term abortions. And I am 100% certain that Barack Obama does not want that. It's a right wing construct.
What he would like to do is expand education about the issue, rather than expecting teenagers with natural sexual feelings to just remain "abstinent" with no other options. "
But it's a push back against lobbyists trying to get a full on abortion ban. The bill's language is structured to protect the mother and allow her safe access to have an abortion well before late term.
The right wants to slant it though into the absurd precipice that officials will run around the country forcing abortions.
Now, to be honest with you, I can understand the right's concerns with FOCA. I really can. But they're taking parts of it out of context. No President would have any support on offering carte blanche availability of late term abortions. And I am 100% certain that Barack Obama does not want that. It's a right wing construct.
What he would like to do is expand education about the issue, rather than expecting teenagers with natural sexual feelings to just remain "abstinent" with no other options. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 6, 2008 10:09 AM:
" chestercheetah posts 'But it's a push back against lobbyists trying to get a full on abortion ban. The bill's language is structured to protect the mother and allow her safe access to have an abortion well before late term.'
LOL...see, chester has just made my point! leftists are not concerned about the baby, only about the mothers acceptance to kill her baby. this allows the left to pander to weak minded women (mz wood?) who think their wants come before their babies.
sick, twisted, demented and, really, quite sad.
I will now only refer to liberals, leftists and democrats as abortionists. I think the left would agree that this term is alot more PC than baby killers.
agree, disagree, complacent? Who cares. (well, except for those who believe life should be protected in it's most innocent state. Then I care. Conservatives for 'life, liberty and the pursuit!') "
LOL...see, chester has just made my point! leftists are not concerned about the baby, only about the mothers acceptance to kill her baby. this allows the left to pander to weak minded women (mz wood?) who think their wants come before their babies.
sick, twisted, demented and, really, quite sad.
I will now only refer to liberals, leftists and democrats as abortionists. I think the left would agree that this term is alot more PC than baby killers.
agree, disagree, complacent? Who cares. (well, except for those who believe life should be protected in it's most innocent state. Then I care. Conservatives for 'life, liberty and the pursuit!') "
Oboy wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:04 AM:
" So Hetfield, where does "still born" and "miscarriage" fit into your perfect opinion? You are playing God and are "sick,twisted,demented and, really, quite sad." "
Newswatcher wrote on Dec 6, 2008 2:09 PM:
" The FOCA is also to force Catholic or other Religious Hospitals to perform abortion.
That is just SICK~!
Bishops have said they will close the doors of the Catholic Hospitals before they will do that.
Then where will we be?
Oh, the Gov't can buy them and have their Gov't Doctors kill the unborn whose mothers are told the baby is just a clump of cells.
I didn't make this up either. It's out there, google FOCA and learn about it. It's Obama's first priority - those words came right out of his mouth.
It's astonishing that so many Catholics voted for Obama, they obviously didn't know he is behind this.
Chester, Obama has never stated his belief on abortion - he dances around it every time he's asked. Google the interview with Rick Warren. Obama doesn't say anything that will come back and bite him on this, but he does plan to push this FOCA bill through ASAP and that shows his true opinion. "
That is just SICK~!
Bishops have said they will close the doors of the Catholic Hospitals before they will do that.
Then where will we be?
Oh, the Gov't can buy them and have their Gov't Doctors kill the unborn whose mothers are told the baby is just a clump of cells.
I didn't make this up either. It's out there, google FOCA and learn about it. It's Obama's first priority - those words came right out of his mouth.
It's astonishing that so many Catholics voted for Obama, they obviously didn't know he is behind this.
Chester, Obama has never stated his belief on abortion - he dances around it every time he's asked. Google the interview with Rick Warren. Obama doesn't say anything that will come back and bite him on this, but he does plan to push this FOCA bill through ASAP and that shows his true opinion. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 6, 2008 3:01 PM:
" Oboy wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:04 AM:
" So Hetfield, where does "still born" and "miscarriage" fit into your perfect opinion? You are playing God and are "sick,twisted,demented and, really, quite sad." "
I did not know abortionists considered miscarriages as murders? they dont, at least i hope not. you can choose to kill, and abortionists think it is legal to so.
/s/ untethered to the worries of abortionists. "
" So Hetfield, where does "still born" and "miscarriage" fit into your perfect opinion? You are playing God and are "sick,twisted,demented and, really, quite sad." "
I did not know abortionists considered miscarriages as murders? they dont, at least i hope not. you can choose to kill, and abortionists think it is legal to so.
/s/ untethered to the worries of abortionists. "
chester11 wrote on Dec 6, 2008 4:52 PM:
" There is not a chance, on God's green Earth, that Barack Obama would enact legislation forcing any health care provider to perform an abortion against his religious convictions. None. Zero. The bill is written with a vague opening that anti-abortion alarmists have latched onto.
I told you NW, I don't blame people for being a little concerned about it, but it would be political suicide to execute a ridiculous provision like that and it's not going to ever happen. Even "I" would picket on the day that that happened.
But it won't. "
I told you NW, I don't blame people for being a little concerned about it, but it would be political suicide to execute a ridiculous provision like that and it's not going to ever happen. Even "I" would picket on the day that that happened.
But it won't. "
Oboy wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:47 PM:
" Hetfield, my drift is, "Poor women" can only afford an abortion, "wealthy families" can afford a medical miscarriage. In your opinion, who is weak minded? Rich or Poor? Does the "morning after Pill" produce an abortion or a miscarriage? "
timbrackett wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:39 PM:
" some of you are proving my point. telling me i am not pro-life because i don't agree with you is exactly why roe v. wade has never been overturned. the us v. them mentality hasn't worked for the past 35 years and it still isn't working.
keep the faith though, because maybe if we continue to fight the way you guys fight maybe in another 35 years roe v. wade will be overturned. "
keep the faith though, because maybe if we continue to fight the way you guys fight maybe in another 35 years roe v. wade will be overturned. "
hetfield wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:46 PM:
" Oboy wrote on Dec 6, 2008 9:47 PM:
" Hetfield, my drift is, "Poor women" can only afford an abortion, "wealthy families" can afford a medical miscarriage. In your opinion, who is weak minded? Rich or Poor? Does the "morning after Pill" produce an abortion or a miscarriage? "
oboy, i challenge you to submit proof of one wealthy family who has done this?
timbrackett wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:39 PM:
" some of you are proving my point. telling me i am not pro-life because i don't agree with you
tim I am not saying you are an abortionist because you disagree with me. I am saying that anyone who supports abortionists, are abortionists. this is not my opinion, just fact. "
" Hetfield, my drift is, "Poor women" can only afford an abortion, "wealthy families" can afford a medical miscarriage. In your opinion, who is weak minded? Rich or Poor? Does the "morning after Pill" produce an abortion or a miscarriage? "
oboy, i challenge you to submit proof of one wealthy family who has done this?
timbrackett wrote on Dec 6, 2008 11:39 PM:
" some of you are proving my point. telling me i am not pro-life because i don't agree with you
tim I am not saying you are an abortionist because you disagree with me. I am saying that anyone who supports abortionists, are abortionists. this is not my opinion, just fact. "
timbrackett wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:36 PM:
" hetfield--circular logic wins every time. i suppose i'm an abortionist. once again, your superior debating skills have won the day.
now that i realize i'm an abortionists, i'm starting to regret all the time and money i have donated to pro-life causes. in hindsight, maybe those resources could have been used differently. "
now that i realize i'm an abortionists, i'm starting to regret all the time and money i have donated to pro-life causes. in hindsight, maybe those resources could have been used differently. "
Oboy wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:43 PM:
" hetfield, "i challenge you etc, etc," Well I challenge you to a duel with squirt guns at 10 feet. So you can say, my brothers bigger than you. Then I say I have more brothers than you. Than you say my dads bigger than yours. Than I say my dad is your dads boss and then the bell rings and recess is over. Grow up. "
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
|
cross1242 wrote on Nov 30, 2008 11:41 AM:
Nice job Scott!
/s/ Steve Cross "