As stated before, we are free to be partisan here. If it annoys you, there's a whole internet to choose from. No one is forcing you to be here.
You can be partisan and I can point it out. I'm not sure why you are critical of my exercising the same right as you. You are the agressor in that respect. You are the one who is being hypercritical of people. It's pretty annoying.
Youare the agressor in that respect.Youare the one who is being hypercritical of people. It's pretty annoying.
May I quote you?:
As stated before, we are free to be partisan here. If it annoys you, there's a whole internet to choose from. No one is forcing you to be here.
Up until now, I've enjoyed debating you Joe. But honestly, I have no desire to debate a guy who claims that aerial hunting is an automatic "NO" vote for a candidate - even when you agree with them on essentially EVERY other issue including reproductive rights, foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, and domestic policy. I don't want to start a flame war, but you're either being disingenuous, or (and I'm trying to put this politely...) your judgment is WAY out of whack. Whichever scenario is correct, I'm officially done debating you. You've proven that I've just been wasting my breath. I've never seen goalposts moved so far or so fast.
Seriously. It would be so much more pleasant if you would stop with the judging for a while.
See my above post. As it pertains to you, your wish is granted.
Like the time you said "goodbye to the forums"? Like the time you said you were "done with the podcast"? You like to judge people and then threaten to take your ball and go home. It doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe you and I don't respect your opinion.
Back to McCain - Did you see how he made a mistake with the backdrop for his acceptance speech? It was supposed to be Walter Reed Hospital. Instead, it was Walter Reed Middle School.
His speech was generally badly received. Here's what Barbara Boxer had to say:
I have seen him fight against raising the federal minimum wage 14 times.
I have seen him fight against making sure that women earn equal pay for equal work.
I have seen him fight against a women's right to choose so consistently that he received a zero percent vote rating from pro-choice organizations.
I have seen him fight against helping families gain access to birth control.
I have seen him fight against Social Security, even going so far as to call its current funding system "an absolute disgrace."
And I saw him fight against the new GI Bill of Rights until it became politically untenable for him to do so.
John McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 100 percent of the time in 2008 -- that's no maverick.
We do have two real fighters for change in this election -- their names are Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Like the time you said "goodbye to the forums"? Like the time you said you were "done with the podcast"? You like to judge people and then threaten to take your ball and go home. It doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe you and I don't respect your opinion.
Joe. Seriously. I don't want to debate you anymore. Every time you respond to me, I will post this response:
Up until now, I've enjoyed debating you Joe. But honestly, I have no desire to debate a guy who claims that aerial hunting is an automatic "NO" vote for a candidate - even when you agree with them on essentially EVERY other issue including reproductive rights, foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, and domestic policy. I don't want to start a flame war, but you're either being disingenuous, or (and I'm trying to put this politely...) your judgment is WAY out of whack. Whichever scenario is correct, I'm officially done debating you. You've proven that I've just been wasting my breath. I've never seen goalposts moved so far or so fast.
This may change. My life is not static. Nobody's life should be. But for now, the above quote will be my response to you.
Like the time you said "goodbye to the forums"? Like the time you said you were "done with the podcast"? You like to judge people and then threaten to take your ball and go home. It doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe you and I don't respect your opinion.
Joe. Seriously. I don't want to debate you anymore. Every time you respond to me, I will post this response:
Up until now, I've enjoyed debating you Joe. But honestly, I have no desire to debate a guy who claims that aerial hunting is an automatic "NO" vote for a candidate - even when you agree with them on essentially EVERY other issue including reproductive rights, foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, and domestic policy.I don't want to start a flame war, but you're either being disingenuous, or (and I'm trying to put this politely...) your judgment is WAY out of whack.Whichever scenario is correct, I'm officially done debating you. You've proven that I've just been wasting my breath. I've never seen goalposts moved so far or so fast.
This may change. My life is not static. Nobody's life should be. But for now, the above quote will be my response to you.
You've already broken your promise that you would no longer respond to me.
So you're going to start spamming the forum? Go ahead. I believe that may be a ban-able offense.
You've already broken your promise that you would no longer respond to me.
Please read my post, Joe. I said that I was done debating you.
Here is why: Up until now, I've enjoyed debating you Joe. But honestly, I have no desire to debate a guy who claims that aerial hunting is an automatic "NO" vote for a candidate - even when you agree with them on essentially EVERY other issue including reproductive rights, foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, and domestic policy. I don't want to start a flame war, but you're either being disingenuous, or (and I'm trying to put this politely...) your judgment is WAY out of whack. Whichever scenario is correct, I'm officially done debating you. You've proven that I've just been wasting my breath. I've never seen goalposts moved so far or so fast.
Why is it that the old geezers in the forum are the biggest babies? Except Thaed. You guys should learn from him.
Thaed's a freakin genious. Keep in mind, Joe and I have careers that are adversarial. At some point, it just seeps into your blood. Thaed was smart enough to avoid that.
It's become clear to me that Joe and I can no longer debate civilly. That's why I've decided to call it quits. I just hope that he agrees and finally has enough of his snipes. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time sitting by idly while he still responds to me. (thus the above comment) That's why I'm truly hoping that he'll respect my desire to end any debate with him - by making it mutual.
I really don't like posting in the political topics, but since it's not really about politics, I just gotta throw my two cents in.
This is becoming worse and worse to read.
This is the FRC Forums. One of the best places I've ever been online. There are so many cool people with interesting things to say. I really enjoy sitting here and just reading everyone's comments and opinions. Yet, when it comes to topics about politics, it seems to be that everyone loses all of their intelligence when you argue in here. One person makes the other upset, then attacks, then attacks back, avoiding certain points to make sure that they don't look stupid, which then makes it worse. Why does this happen? Why do you guys just lose it here? Maybe it's an adult thing, and I'm just not old enough to get it, but I really wish it wasn't like this.
... when it comes to topics about politics, it seems to be that everyone loses all of their intelligence when you argue in here. One person makes the other upset, then attacks, then attacks back, avoiding certain points to make sure that they don't look stupid, which then makes it worse...
Remember when McCain said that the government shouldn't bail out banks? Well, now he supports bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I guess the whole "free market" is okay for everyone else, but if you're a BIG entity, you can count on being bailed out.
McCain is now the man of James Dobson and Tony Perkins. The “no surrender†warrior surrendered to the agents of intolerance not just by dumping his pal for Palin but by moving so far to the right on abortion that even Cindy McCain seemed unaware of his radical shift when being interviewed by Katie Couric last week.
That ideological sellout, unfortunately, was not the worst leadership trait the last-minute vice presidential pick revealed about McCain. His speed-dating of Palin reaffirmed a more dangerous personality tic that has dogged his entire career. His decision-making process is impetuous and, in its Bush-like preference for gut instinct over facts, potentially reckless.
Remember when McCain said that the government shouldn't bail out banks? Well, now he supportsbailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.I guess the whole "free market" is okay for everyone else, but if you're a BIG entity, you can count on being bailed out.
1) Both Obama and McCain support bailing out the mortgage giants. 2) To publicly support bailing out banks can lead to those banks taking unnecessary risks because they see a safety net if they fail. 3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both created via government charters and their complete failure would have a drastic effect on the economy. 4) All positions can change when the underlying reasons for that position change. To ignore changes and stick to your original position is just stupid.
I'm becoming more and more interested in why Palin attended five different colleges in six years. I wish someone would investigate that a little further. That's very strange. On top of taking six years to obtain an undergrad degree, the jumping around is very suspicious.
Why is it that the old geezers in the forum are the biggest babies? Except Thaed. You guys should learn from him.
Yeah, I mean how dare they argue about issues like hunting. Seriously, they should be arguing about the best berry for hours only to find out that the definition of berry differs greatly from what most call berries and thereby waste hours of time. Scott, you of all people cannot cast stones about arguing about anything and everything.
Yeah, I mean how dare they argue about issues like hunting.
I have acquired some opinions about hunting from having lived in the backwoods of KY for many years. I have actually been on hunting trips (I never shot at anything), and I know that many people like hunting as a hobby. That's fair. I can't imagine why they would like it, but I don't begrudge them the opportunity.
The type of hunting that Palin and Cheney participate in however, is unnecessarily cruel. Their participation makes me believe that they are cruel people. Their political policies confirm that they are cruel people. I have no respect for a person who is that cruel and I won't vote for someone whom I perceive as being that cruel.
I really think it is abhorrent to hunt for sport. If someone has to hunt to feed themselves (they either can't afford or can't get to store bought meat), then I am fine with them hunting any animal that is not in danger, considered a companion animal (horses or dogs for example - depending on the culture), or of higher intelligence (dolphins, certain primates, etc.). If someone can afford a helicopter ride, then they can afford chicken... there is no need for them to hunt, so they are just getting off on destruction. As for population control, there are many humane, affordable options. That being said, the hunting issue for Palin is my least problem with her.
I'm becoming more and more interested in why Palin attendedfive different colleges in six years.I wish someone would investigate that a little further. That's very strange. On top of taking six years to obtain an undergrad degree, the jumping around is very suspicious.
That being said, the hunting issue for Palin is my least problem with her.
Don't get me wrong. There are many, many reasons not to vote for her. The hunting reason stands out for me because it sums up and distills all of her shortcomings and how unworthy of power she is into a simple reason anyone should be able to understand.
Don't get me wrong. There are many, many reasons not to vote for her. The hunting reason stands out for me because it sums up and distills all of her shortcomings and how unworthy of power she is into a simple reason anyone should be able to understand.
Oh, my write off is usually when your a hardcore creationist...
Don't get me wrong. There are many, many reasons not to vote for her. The hunting reason stands out for me because it sums up and distills all of her shortcomings and how unworthy of power she is into a simple reason anyone should be able to understand.
Oh, my write off is usually when your a hardcore creationist...
Mine is when a candidate says his econmic policy is based on "fairness" and not economics.
Don't get me wrong. There are many, many reasons not to vote for her. The hunting reason stands out for me because it sums up and distills all of her shortcomings and how unworthy of power she is into a simple reason anyone should be able to understand.
Oh, my write off is usually when your a hardcore creationist...
Well, she has that going for her too, of course. She has so many negatives it's very hard to imagine anyone voting for her.
I'm becoming more and more interested in why Palin attendedfive different colleges in six years.I wish someone would investigate that a little further. That's very strange. On top of taking six years to obtain an undergrad degree, the jumping around is very suspicious.
I'm becoming more and more interested in why Palin attendedfive different colleges in six years.I wish someone would investigate that a little further. That's very strange. On top of taking six years to obtain an undergrad degree, the jumping around is very suspicious.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest).
Funny... outside observers don't see conservative vs liberal in the US. They see very conservative vs not so conservative, and the liberal end of the political spectrum and press sitting empty.
Comments
You are the agressor in that respect. You are the one who is being hypercritical of people. It's pretty annoying.
Two words.
Seriously. It would be so much more pleasant if you would stop with the judging for a while.
Back to McCain - Did you see how he made a mistake with the backdrop for his acceptance speech? It was supposed to be Walter Reed Hospital. Instead, it was Walter Reed Middle School.
His speech was generally badly received. Here's what Barbara Boxer had to say: Source.
Up until now, I've enjoyed debating you Joe. But honestly, I have no desire to debate a guy who claims that aerial hunting is an automatic "NO" vote for a candidate - even when you agree with them on essentially EVERY other issue including reproductive rights, foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, and domestic policy. I don't want to start a flame war, but you're either being disingenuous, or (and I'm trying to put this politely...) your judgment is WAY out of whack. Whichever scenario is correct, I'm officially done debating you. You've proven that I've just been wasting my breath. I've never seen goalposts moved so far or so fast.
This may change. My life is not static. Nobody's life should be. But for now, the above quote will be my response to you.
So you're going to start spamming the forum? Go ahead. I believe that may be a ban-able offense.
Here is why:
Up until now, I've enjoyed debating you Joe. But honestly, I have no desire to debate a guy who claims that aerial hunting is an automatic "NO" vote for a candidate - even when you agree with them on essentially EVERY other issue including reproductive rights, foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, and domestic policy. I don't want to start a flame war, but you're either being disingenuous, or (and I'm trying to put this politely...) your judgment is WAY out of whack. Whichever scenario is correct, I'm officially done debating you. You've proven that I've just been wasting my breath. I've never seen goalposts moved so far or so fast.
Let it go already.
It's become clear to me that Joe and I can no longer debate civilly. That's why I've decided to call it quits. I just hope that he agrees and finally has enough of his snipes. I'll be the first to admit that I have a hard time sitting by idly while he still responds to me. (thus the above comment) That's why I'm truly hoping that he'll respect my desire to end any debate with him - by making it mutual.
This is becoming worse and worse to read.
This is the FRC Forums. One of the best places I've ever been online. There are so many cool people with interesting things to say. I really enjoy sitting here and just reading everyone's comments and opinions. Yet, when it comes to topics about politics, it seems to be that everyone loses all of their intelligence when you argue in here. One person makes the other upset, then attacks, then attacks back, avoiding certain points to make sure that they don't look stupid, which then makes it worse. Why does this happen? Why do you guys just lose it here? Maybe it's an adult thing, and I'm just not old enough to get it, but I really wish it wasn't like this.
Frank Rich on McCain:
2) To publicly support bailing out banks can lead to those banks taking unnecessary risks because they see a safety net if they fail.
3) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both created via government charters and their complete failure would have a drastic effect on the economy.
4) All positions can change when the underlying reasons for that position change. To ignore changes and stick to your original position is just stupid.
The type of hunting that Palin and Cheney participate in however, is unnecessarily cruel. Their participation makes me believe that they are cruel people. Their political policies confirm that they are cruel people. I have no respect for a person who is that cruel and I won't vote for someone whom I perceive as being that cruel.
That being said, the hunting issue for Palin is my least problem with her.
The daily polling at gallup now shows McCain in the lead for all that is worth.