W '04
- Thread starter Steve Rupp
- Start date
C
cmondieyoung
Guest
Are you implying that you are intellectual, Comeongetalife? Your limited intellectual capacity couldn't even help you figure out how to use Seafoam. 
President Bush understands the issues and has a vision. Kerry is clueless.
For those that have some time to understand what is going on:
WW4: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
For a daily perspective: http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/
Then make your decision.
Rover people are intellectual ......
For those that have some time to understand what is going on:
WW4: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
For a daily perspective: http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/
Then make your decision.
Rover people are intellectual ......
C
Caliman
Guest
1st Amendment
I'm not a big fan of people bandying around statements such as the above; besides being a rude statement, it doesn't mean anything concrete. As a privately owned forum, the first Amendment doesn't mean squat to the person who doesn't own it. The moderators could, without breaking any laws, delete this thread (or any individual post) and that would be that. If Ruppsrover owned a forum and posted that, no one could make him delete it, but I don't think he/she owns this forum. It's the same thing with private businesses. If you work at a company and your boss tells you not to talk about politics at work (for instance), he could fire you if you started chatting up people about politics. Your "first amendment" claim is worthless in that case.
As far as the sentiment about leaving politics out of the forum, I agree.
-Caliman
Ruppsrover said:
I'm not a big fan of people bandying around statements such as the above; besides being a rude statement, it doesn't mean anything concrete. As a privately owned forum, the first Amendment doesn't mean squat to the person who doesn't own it. The moderators could, without breaking any laws, delete this thread (or any individual post) and that would be that. If Ruppsrover owned a forum and posted that, no one could make him delete it, but I don't think he/she owns this forum. It's the same thing with private businesses. If you work at a company and your boss tells you not to talk about politics at work (for instance), he could fire you if you started chatting up people about politics. Your "first amendment" claim is worthless in that case.
As far as the sentiment about leaving politics out of the forum, I agree.
-Caliman
I think its good to get other peoples opinon on politics, as long as its based on facts, and not biases, and as long as no one who knows anything about WW2 starts relating bush to the Nazis, cuz then ill get pissed. Other then that, bring on the friendly debate and issues.
S
Steve83
Guest
Relating to Nazis? How about putting a buddy's son (with no experience or training) in charge of the FCC and then applying pressure to the free press (Clear Channel) to limit the dissemenation of anti-Bush info (Howard Stern)? Whether you like Stern or not, it's obviously an attack on the 1st amendment that can't be ignored.
And the slow, but deliberate obliteration of 2nd amendment is just as scary, though not solely W's fault: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How many "fringes" are there on that right already? And if you don't consider a 3-day waiting period to be a "fringe", ask yourself how long it takes for a riot to occur. The purpose of that amendment was NOT to allow hunting or sport; it was so that the citizens could KILL THE GOVERNMENT if it got out-of-hand. (Declaration of Independence: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...") That means that the citizens must be allowed to have assault rifles, just like the government does.
What about applying religious opinions to law? Stopping stem-cell research is only one example. How far are we going to let that go before we remember why the Pilgrims left Europe?
Remember that the US government only exists for the benefit of the citizens, and NOT the other way around! It seems W has forgotten that little fact...
And the slow, but deliberate obliteration of 2nd amendment is just as scary, though not solely W's fault: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How many "fringes" are there on that right already? And if you don't consider a 3-day waiting period to be a "fringe", ask yourself how long it takes for a riot to occur. The purpose of that amendment was NOT to allow hunting or sport; it was so that the citizens could KILL THE GOVERNMENT if it got out-of-hand. (Declaration of Independence: "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...") That means that the citizens must be allowed to have assault rifles, just like the government does.
What about applying religious opinions to law? Stopping stem-cell research is only one example. How far are we going to let that go before we remember why the Pilgrims left Europe?
Remember that the US government only exists for the benefit of the citizens, and NOT the other way around! It seems W has forgotten that little fact...
I always like this one: "...How about putting a buddy's son (with no experience or training) in charge of the FCC..." People always try to say stuff like, "It's all buddies..." or "...they knew eachother when..." Like that is something bad.
So if you were elected president, wouldn't you post your friends and people you know to places that you could? Or would you just randomly select people from a pot?
I hope you would want people around you that you thought you could trust. It's called delegation. Basically, this statement says nothing more to me than you simply do not like Bush, but don't have any actual reason for the dislike.
ClearChannel, by the way, is usually spat on by the Left as a Right-wing participant in conspiracy against the Democrats.
You are right about the 2nd amendment, but how could you possibly blame those infringements on Bush? It's like trying to say that Global Warming begun the day he was sworn in! (Al Gore did say that actually.)
And finally, adult stem cells work better anyway - check out bone marrow research. Oh wait, they don't report on those successes in the press - that would imply that we don't need baby stem cells to selfishly try to extend our own lives at the expense of innocents - weather you believe they are "human" or not, they are as innocent as any kitten or puppy that everyone goes nuts about whenever someone abuses them. And I've never met a fetus with an organ donor card.
So if you were elected president, wouldn't you post your friends and people you know to places that you could? Or would you just randomly select people from a pot?
I hope you would want people around you that you thought you could trust. It's called delegation. Basically, this statement says nothing more to me than you simply do not like Bush, but don't have any actual reason for the dislike.
ClearChannel, by the way, is usually spat on by the Left as a Right-wing participant in conspiracy against the Democrats.
You are right about the 2nd amendment, but how could you possibly blame those infringements on Bush? It's like trying to say that Global Warming begun the day he was sworn in! (Al Gore did say that actually.)
And finally, adult stem cells work better anyway - check out bone marrow research. Oh wait, they don't report on those successes in the press - that would imply that we don't need baby stem cells to selfishly try to extend our own lives at the expense of innocents - weather you believe they are "human" or not, they are as innocent as any kitten or puppy that everyone goes nuts about whenever someone abuses them. And I've never met a fetus with an organ donor card.
S
Steve83
Guest
RB
How did you convince yourself that the key to that statment was "a buddy's son"? Did you totally gloss over the part about "no experience or training"? No, I wouldn't pick people randomly, but that would probably have resulted in a better choice. Nor would I engage in nepotism or use my influence to destroy the "separation of powers" or the first amendment.
Apparently you also glossed over the part about "not solely W's fault". I know he didn't start tearing up the 2nd Am., but he certainly hasn't restored or even PROTECTED it. And that's part of the president's job - remember, he's supposed to work for us.
I'm no great fan of ClearChannel either, or of most religions. But that doesn't mean I think the Constitution doesn't protect them. If EVERY media outlet and EVERY religion isn't protected equally (regardless of how much ONE person likes them), then NONE of them (...us...) are safe. Remember that's exactly how the Nazis began to take power...
I have studied some biochemistry & biology, and I disagree that adult cells are in any way more viable than embryonic stems - that would indicate that "aging" doesn't exist. But no one is out clubbing babies or kittens, so stop making it sound that way. They're talking about generating "clones" (for lack of a better name yet) that are NOT "people" (no head or brain) to harvest stems from. If your child was injured, wouldn't you like to see him/her fully restored if there's a way to do it? Or do you think it would be more humane to deny that child (or ANY citizen) the opportunity of innoculation, dental hygeine, and stem cells (all scientific advancements of the 20th century)? W thinks science is somehow "against" HIS religion and therefore "wrong" - I disagree strongly with him on that issue.
How did you convince yourself that the key to that statment was "a buddy's son"? Did you totally gloss over the part about "no experience or training"? No, I wouldn't pick people randomly, but that would probably have resulted in a better choice. Nor would I engage in nepotism or use my influence to destroy the "separation of powers" or the first amendment.
Apparently you also glossed over the part about "not solely W's fault". I know he didn't start tearing up the 2nd Am., but he certainly hasn't restored or even PROTECTED it. And that's part of the president's job - remember, he's supposed to work for us.
I'm no great fan of ClearChannel either, or of most religions. But that doesn't mean I think the Constitution doesn't protect them. If EVERY media outlet and EVERY religion isn't protected equally (regardless of how much ONE person likes them), then NONE of them (...us...) are safe. Remember that's exactly how the Nazis began to take power...
I have studied some biochemistry & biology, and I disagree that adult cells are in any way more viable than embryonic stems - that would indicate that "aging" doesn't exist. But no one is out clubbing babies or kittens, so stop making it sound that way. They're talking about generating "clones" (for lack of a better name yet) that are NOT "people" (no head or brain) to harvest stems from. If your child was injured, wouldn't you like to see him/her fully restored if there's a way to do it? Or do you think it would be more humane to deny that child (or ANY citizen) the opportunity of innoculation, dental hygeine, and stem cells (all scientific advancements of the 20th century)? W thinks science is somehow "against" HIS religion and therefore "wrong" - I disagree strongly with him on that issue.
Last edited:
K
Kyle
Guest
This is the genral forum. Meaning , its for Genral conversation. What Rupp said was pretty much on target. YOu dont want to read it. Dont. Its not lude or perverse in any way so we have never had issue with these talks.
My opinion is , not talking about it more is what got us in this mess to start with. Somewhere along the line we just kinda thought that we would elect some people and they would do the right thing. There was a time when those kinds of people were abundant. That time has come and gone unfortunately and the time of personal gain is upon us. All of them are fucked and we only keep some strange balance by having them switch off every so often. One fucks us one way and another fucks us another way. Its like a drunk bouncing back and forth between the lines but still making it down the highway. If we didnt have a left to pull us back that way when we drift to far right , we would drift off and crash and burn the same goes for the other direction. Crashing on the left or crashing on the right is still crashing either way.
Another way of looking at it is , Kerry (If elected) would never want to go bomb the living shit out of some backwards ass sand dune in the middle East , (Going by his opinion of the day anyway) . Fact is , he probably wouldnt have to. Why? Because that message was already sent clearly and the bombs already dropped. The message needed to be sent as it does every so often just to show that we will not take any shit and we have the ass to back up all the "Arogance" most countries feel we have as Americans. So Bush has helped the next president in a big way. THink about it. Kerry can bash away at what has already been done and use it to his benefit. Knowing all the while that he more then likely wont be put in that situation . Its kinda funny when you think about it but you can bet your ass Kerry is glad that its done .It helps him out on so many fronts that its funny as hell. So lets say Kerry gets in and is limp wristed the whole time and other countries start feeling froggy again. Some other candidate will come along and use that as the basis for his campaign and get in office and send the message again... I wonder what would happen if we ever had a "Perfect" president that was still alive come election time. What would the other candidates use as the basis for thier campaign ? I think the whole system would unravel........
Kyle
My opinion is , not talking about it more is what got us in this mess to start with. Somewhere along the line we just kinda thought that we would elect some people and they would do the right thing. There was a time when those kinds of people were abundant. That time has come and gone unfortunately and the time of personal gain is upon us. All of them are fucked and we only keep some strange balance by having them switch off every so often. One fucks us one way and another fucks us another way. Its like a drunk bouncing back and forth between the lines but still making it down the highway. If we didnt have a left to pull us back that way when we drift to far right , we would drift off and crash and burn the same goes for the other direction. Crashing on the left or crashing on the right is still crashing either way.
Another way of looking at it is , Kerry (If elected) would never want to go bomb the living shit out of some backwards ass sand dune in the middle East , (Going by his opinion of the day anyway) . Fact is , he probably wouldnt have to. Why? Because that message was already sent clearly and the bombs already dropped. The message needed to be sent as it does every so often just to show that we will not take any shit and we have the ass to back up all the "Arogance" most countries feel we have as Americans. So Bush has helped the next president in a big way. THink about it. Kerry can bash away at what has already been done and use it to his benefit. Knowing all the while that he more then likely wont be put in that situation . Its kinda funny when you think about it but you can bet your ass Kerry is glad that its done .It helps him out on so many fronts that its funny as hell. So lets say Kerry gets in and is limp wristed the whole time and other countries start feeling froggy again. Some other candidate will come along and use that as the basis for his campaign and get in office and send the message again... I wonder what would happen if we ever had a "Perfect" president that was still alive come election time. What would the other candidates use as the basis for thier campaign ?
I think the whole system would unravel........Kyle
Steve- I understand your frustration with censorship and religion in the white house. I have heard all the arguments that Stern makes and this is one of my biggest issues for this election. I wouldn't say though that Bush hasn't done anything to defend the Second Ammendment. Bush chose to not resign the Assault Weapons Bill claiming that it did nothing to prevent crime. My intention with this thread was not to turn dweb into a political debate. I was merely expressing my opinioin that Bush had a great speech and maybe took some classes on public speaking
Stem cells: I'm not talking about how they may, or may not be more viable - I am saying that they are actually working. My sister in-law has been using adult bone marrow stem cells in mice to cure cancer. She gives the mouse cancer, takes it's own bone marrow stem cells, and through bone marrow stem cell therapy is curing the cancer! I know it's a long way from moving to the human stage, but it's a long way ahead of anything they have been able to do with fetal stem cells.
And just so you know, I was comparing the "compassion" people show for lost puppies etc, compared to the indifference people have for even thinking about the concept that a fetus might - just might, be.... hold on to your hats... ALIVE.
Anyway, we could talk about a lot of issues, but it comes down to this: You have two choices (in reality) in November. Look at Kerry, look at Bush. If you really hate Bush, then simply don't vote. But honestly, at least try to define Kerry before you vote for him. For instance: When they talk about his "flip-flopping" they aren't just throwing negative sounding words around - look at his record, he really is nothing but a flip-flopper, from first trying to get a deferment, to joining the reserves, to serving on a destroyer (I think), to voluteering for duty on swiftboats, to being the first person in history (not an exageration) to go home with two medals, three purple hearts and no wheel chair, to being an anti-war poster-boy, to running for senate, to never sponsoring a bill, to obstaining from every vote that has any stigma attached (leadership?), to voting for the authorization of force in Iraq, to voting against the funding of the use of force in Iraq, to running solely on his record in Vietnam, to sueing people like ClearChannel to get his record in Vietnam off the table, to ripping Bush for the "high" jobless rate that is actually lower than it was in all of the 1990's, to saying he is a "man of the people" to buying his 9th or 10 multi-million dollar estate. This is not presidential material.
And if that reasoning fails you, think of this: Have you ever met a true hero who talks about the fact that he is a hero? If you have, stay away from him.
And just so you know, I was comparing the "compassion" people show for lost puppies etc, compared to the indifference people have for even thinking about the concept that a fetus might - just might, be.... hold on to your hats... ALIVE.
Anyway, we could talk about a lot of issues, but it comes down to this: You have two choices (in reality) in November. Look at Kerry, look at Bush. If you really hate Bush, then simply don't vote. But honestly, at least try to define Kerry before you vote for him. For instance: When they talk about his "flip-flopping" they aren't just throwing negative sounding words around - look at his record, he really is nothing but a flip-flopper, from first trying to get a deferment, to joining the reserves, to serving on a destroyer (I think), to voluteering for duty on swiftboats, to being the first person in history (not an exageration) to go home with two medals, three purple hearts and no wheel chair, to being an anti-war poster-boy, to running for senate, to never sponsoring a bill, to obstaining from every vote that has any stigma attached (leadership?), to voting for the authorization of force in Iraq, to voting against the funding of the use of force in Iraq, to running solely on his record in Vietnam, to sueing people like ClearChannel to get his record in Vietnam off the table, to ripping Bush for the "high" jobless rate that is actually lower than it was in all of the 1990's, to saying he is a "man of the people" to buying his 9th or 10 multi-million dollar estate. This is not presidential material.
And if that reasoning fails you, think of this: Have you ever met a true hero who talks about the fact that he is a hero? If you have, stay away from him.
Also, Kyle's analogy of the drunk on the freeway is correct too. It's why we have a two party system. It's why sometimes, I vote Democrat! It's why it's too bad we don't have more people like Zell Miller, or FDR, Truman, or the original JFK. All men who knew what leadership was when they saw it and had to be it. They weren't perfect, but they were real Americans, not socialists dressed up like civil rights lawyers and congressmen who hijaked the movement from the Republicans. And it's why you can't vote one way or another based on a single issue. You will only get more and more dissapointed, eventually go crazy, and end up living in a van down by the river waiting for the "Eff Bee Eye!" with an AR-15 in one hand and a "potato smasher" from the local surplus store taped to your torso.