I'm wondering the same thing?? :wtf:
Then again, there's so much bullshit floating around the net about Obama that I suppose this could just be another piece of the pile.
does obama have what it takes
- Thread starter gmaxman1212
- Start date
I'm wondering the same thing?? :wtf:
Then again, there's so much bullshit floating around the net about Obama that I suppose this could just be another piece of the pile.
This sounds nothing more than a "Texas Two-step," when all you're basically yammerin' 'bout is that you're just a stinkin' Pub Scuba...
What do you mean by "Moderate" ? Can you give an example of your Moderation on an issue? :1orglaugh
Seriously, I'd like to see what you're description of a Moderate is.
Yeah right. I'd love to know what that "slight twinge of left" you are referring to is exactly.
From what I've read in your posts you seem much more like an extreme right-winger with a twinge of mid-right and absolutely zero left.
Yes. With a good VP and cabinet.
I picked number 3.
Peace.
I picked number 3.
Peace.
You kinda of forgot prior to the late 1960's most War Presidents were Democractic:
Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. Some pretty great, quite liberal and noteworthy names in that group.
Since when is "liberal" mean not capable of being commander in chief?
I'll tell you why I don't think we will be leaving Iraq soon.
History.
We fought the Germans in WWI, which was supposed to be the war to end all wars, and then we withdrew. What happened then? The German military became more powerful and were responsible for the death of over 6 million Jews. Then we fought them again, this time WWII. When the war was over, we did not leave. We built bases all over Germany. They served as our strategic location within Europe. Same in Japan so we had Pacific bases. Then the Korean War surfaced, and now we have bases in South Korea. I guess Vietnam didn't create any bases, but we ended up fortifying Japan since it is across the water.
After Desert Storm, we withdrew (to an extent). There were no-fly zones in the North and South. The U.S. military were all around Iraq. Personally I thought it was stupid to end the blitzkrieg of Desert Storm that we started when the war was way from finished. Anyways, problems continued with sanctions and "possible" nuclear weapons. But the way I see it, it was inevitable for us to get back in there and dispose of Saddam. Unfortunately it had to be by bad intelligence. Now we're there, and if history repeats itself, we'll be building permanent bases there. The U.S. military will then have a strategic location smack-dab in the middle of the Middle East, an area which needs alot of clean-up. Just like how the bases in Germany were there while the Cold War and Communism was around.
I like porn
That doesn't make you a moderate. It makes you a typical right-wing hypocrite.
Ummm ...
What about us American Libertarians?
Allegedly we're both right and left-wing hypocrites, depending on not our viewpoint, but the person making the accusation.
Which is why most people are confused by our answers, feel we're "sitting the fence" and countless other things, when we're actually very solid in our foundation.
At what point can we American Libertarians call both the alleged Liberal-Socialists and Conservative-Capitalists hypocrites?
I mean, in our view, socialism is incompatible with freedom on a federal (and possibly state, depending on the viewpoint) scale, and conservatism is incompatible with capitalism.
I don't want a safety net and I don't want to cover irresponsible people.
I don't want the government deciding what is safe for me, because I'm a responsible and self-sufficient individual.
People say, "oh, we're helping the needy," but I look at what US federal and state governments do with their money.
Furthermore, I feel my dollar would go a lot farther funding select non-profits I believe in, and not yet another agency.
Why do alleged "conservatives" have to be hypocrites to like porn?
What about us American Libertarians?
Allegedly we're both right and left-wing hypocrites, depending on not our viewpoint, but the person making the accusation.
Which is why most people are confused by our answers, feel we're "sitting the fence" and countless other things, when we're actually very solid in our foundation.
At what point can we American Libertarians call both the alleged Liberal-Socialists and Conservative-Capitalists hypocrites?
I mean, in our view, socialism is incompatible with freedom on a federal (and possibly state, depending on the viewpoint) scale, and conservatism is incompatible with capitalism.
I don't want a safety net and I don't want to cover irresponsible people.
I don't want the government deciding what is safe for me, because I'm a responsible and self-sufficient individual.
People say, "oh, we're helping the needy," but I look at what US federal and state governments do with their money.
Furthermore, I feel my dollar would go a lot farther funding select non-profits I believe in, and not yet another agency.
This seems honestly written. A bit simplistic because part of the reason for bases was "a show of force" but we also didn't have satellite networks like we do now. We didn't build any bases in Vietnam because we left that country and the Communist regime took over. Guess what? We now trade with Vietnam. It doesn't seem very likely that they'll attack us soon, does it?
I don't dispute your chain of events recollection and our military response. My only thing to say today is that all those conflicts had an enemy we could identify on the battlefield. We can't identify "the enemy" in Iraq because we can't find a consensus, today, on who we fight. The President and the Pubs speak in generalities like "the enemy" and "insurgents" and "those who would do us harm" and "terrorists." That's it. If we held up a photo of an Al Qaeda member, a Saddam Republican Army man, an Iranian Army man, a Taliban member and "an insurgent" I wonder how many American politicians and Generals could correctly identify them?
Building bases in hostile places worked when we could identify an enemy. We can't because we defeated Saddam's Army and we seem to be nothing more than a police force who sometimes settle ethnic squabbles. That seems hardly fitting for our Military, don't you think?
My other problem with such acceptance of longterm occupation is cost. Repubs who make the argument that we have to spend hundreds of billions to rebuild Iraq but yet we need tax breaks at home and we need to not fund anything at home are going to get obliterated at the polls. Americans don't want to spend their hard earned money on another country when our home country and towns are in shambles...sorry Scuba. It's a losing argument. There's no justification to be in the Middle East anymore.
Re: Ummm ...
Senator Larry Craig
Congressman Mark Foley
Reverand Ted Haggard
Those are just 3 examples of the type of right-wing hypocrite I was referring to. People who rage against things they claim are morally reprehensible such as homosexuality or recreational drug use. Which, of course, are things they are guilty of partaking in themselves. Which is, of course, hypocritical.
The reason a republican who "likes porn" is a hypocrite is because they vote for politicians who support making things like porn illegal. Why would you support someone who condemns various aspects of your personal lifestyle? That is hypocritical.
(that libertarian stuff you were talking about is off topic as far as the exchange me and scubamike were having. although you do make a valid point)
Senator Larry Craig
Congressman Mark Foley
Reverand Ted Haggard
Those are just 3 examples of the type of right-wing hypocrite I was referring to. People who rage against things they claim are morally reprehensible such as homosexuality or recreational drug use. Which, of course, are things they are guilty of partaking in themselves. Which is, of course, hypocritical.
The reason a republican who "likes porn" is a hypocrite is because they vote for politicians who support making things like porn illegal. Why would you support someone who condemns various aspects of your personal lifestyle? That is hypocritical.
(that libertarian stuff you were talking about is off topic as far as the exchange me and scubamike were having. although you do make a valid point)
Re: Ummm ...
People took that statement out-of-context, but it's reality.
I do the same thing Larry Craig does ...
- Use the same bathroom at the three (3) airports I frequent most
- Get nervous when urinals are spaced too close together
- Put my hands on the stall separators when trying to relax
- Spread wide so it's easier to relax my bladder as well as keep my wool suit pants up
- Pick up paper from the floor by not bending my knees which increases the chance that I will rip my wool suit pants
- Liberally pick up paper from the floor so people don't accidentally trip (I've personally seen someone break their tailbone)
I invite anyone to hear the full tape. Had I been there and innocently done every thing he did, it would be arrested. Given my professional career and the damage it would do to it, I can understand how Larry Craig opted to stay out of court.
But Larry Craig did still and REPEATEDLY challenge the officer even after the officer was continuously guilty legally coercing. I mean, the officer did not drop it when Larry Craig told him "no" to the option, and refused to admit to what the officer insinuated repeatedly after the officer explained and re-explained his "opt out" of legal prosecution.
There was no way he could be "innocent" at that point, the "damage" was already done. That's why we have laws that protect people from this type of coercion.
After no less than three (3) times under "threat of prosecution," the officer could only be guilty of coercion, when Larry Craig denied knowing full well that disagreeing with the officer could land him on the front page. The media outlets that start with "I'm disappointed with you" comment did not play the three (3) preceding "discussions" where Larry Craig was confused, then just flabbergasted then just flat out couldn't get the officer to understand that he wasn't doing of the sort.
It's not just Republicans, but Democrats who pull this as well.
Unless someone individually supports certain actions, then you can go around and throw that blanket on a lot. One could totally rip Bill Clinton a new on with your own statements as one of the biggest hypocrites that have ever been in the White House. I learned that back in 1992, but it didn't sway my vote, as I didn't vote for him for other reasons (largely because he said "yes" to everything).
The Republican party used to be considered the "equal rights" party. That changed when civil rights finally "swung the pendulum" to the point that it started to turn into "special rights" which some people exploit.
If I was on a conservative board, I'd be arguing the other side as well. But since this board is more liberal, I tend to have to point this out about Democrats more.
After hearing the whole police tape, which most media outlets didn't play, I was pissed off at how our civil rights have been utterly violated. I think Larry Craig said it best, "you saw something that didn't happen."
People took that statement out-of-context, but it's reality.
I do the same thing Larry Craig does ...
- Use the same bathroom at the three (3) airports I frequent most
- Get nervous when urinals are spaced too close together
- Put my hands on the stall separators when trying to relax
- Spread wide so it's easier to relax my bladder as well as keep my wool suit pants up
- Pick up paper from the floor by not bending my knees which increases the chance that I will rip my wool suit pants
- Liberally pick up paper from the floor so people don't accidentally trip (I've personally seen someone break their tailbone)
I invite anyone to hear the full tape. Had I been there and innocently done every thing he did, it would be arrested. Given my professional career and the damage it would do to it, I can understand how Larry Craig opted to stay out of court.
But Larry Craig did still and REPEATEDLY challenge the officer even after the officer was continuously guilty legally coercing. I mean, the officer did not drop it when Larry Craig told him "no" to the option, and refused to admit to what the officer insinuated repeatedly after the officer explained and re-explained his "opt out" of legal prosecution.
There was no way he could be "innocent" at that point, the "damage" was already done. That's why we have laws that protect people from this type of coercion.
After no less than three (3) times under "threat of prosecution," the officer could only be guilty of coercion, when Larry Craig denied knowing full well that disagreeing with the officer could land him on the front page. The media outlets that start with "I'm disappointed with you" comment did not play the three (3) preceding "discussions" where Larry Craig was confused, then just flabbergasted then just flat out couldn't get the officer to understand that he wasn't doing of the sort.
But fucking interns (no, I'm not talking about Bill Clinton) and utterly violating countless federal employment and statuatory rape laws is not illegal? Honestly, I've seen a number of Democrats pull the "righteous" non-sense themselves only to see their word turn to dust when their own, alleged "morality" was exposed.
It's not just Republicans, but Democrats who pull this as well.
No, it's guilt-by-association and a staple foundation of McCarthyism.
Unless someone individually supports certain actions, then you can go around and throw that blanket on a lot. One could totally rip Bill Clinton a new on with your own statements as one of the biggest hypocrites that have ever been in the White House. I learned that back in 1992, but it didn't sway my vote, as I didn't vote for him for other reasons (largely because he said "yes" to everything).
It has everything to do with it. I've seen Democrats be racists while liberals. I've seen Democrats take morality stances against others while not applying them to themselves.
The Republican party used to be considered the "equal rights" party. That changed when civil rights finally "swung the pendulum" to the point that it started to turn into "special rights" which some people exploit.
If I was on a conservative board, I'd be arguing the other side as well. But since this board is more liberal, I tend to have to point this out about Democrats more.
angelfire1972
Banned
probably not
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
^who the hell has tried to make porn illegal?
which politicians?
other than child porn I havn't heard of any proposed laws to limit any form of porn by republicans or democrats.
which politicians?
other than child porn I havn't heard of any proposed laws to limit any form of porn by republicans or democrats.
Prof, I'm starting to wonder if you're really a Libby or just an arguer. You can't be serious about what you just wrote about Larry Craig. Seriously dude. He pleaded Guilty to Disorderly Conduct steming from a lewd act in a public restroom. He stated he'd resign from the Senate and then backtracked and flipflopped. This doesn't sound like the actions of an innocent man, does it? Does this sound like conduct befitting a Senator of the United States? Rules are meant to be followed, Prof, moreso by public servants.
Sorry Prof, but given the Catholic Priest scandal...any whiff of Male Master/Boy Servant "sex shenanigans" can not be tolerated, especially by the Pubs who care so much about "higher morale standards."
Some Democrats used to be racists. They were located in the South and they were called "Dixiecrats." Today, they're called "Reagan Democrats." The Libby party has a much more checkered history when it comes to racist leadership. Maybe you need to read your party's literature a little closer and look at your party's membership a little closer. Perhaps the white horses and crosses smelling of gas might be an indicator of something...:dunno:
Sorry Prof, but given the Catholic Priest scandal...any whiff of Male Master/Boy Servant "sex shenanigans" can not be tolerated, especially by the Pubs who care so much about "higher morale standards."
Some Democrats used to be racists. They were located in the South and they were called "Dixiecrats." Today, they're called "Reagan Democrats." The Libby party has a much more checkered history when it comes to racist leadership. Maybe you need to read your party's literature a little closer and look at your party's membership a little closer. Perhaps the white horses and crosses smelling of gas might be an indicator of something...:dunno:
Here is a link to one example:
http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=248591
Senator Sam Brownback (R) has held at least three different seperate senate hearings on why he thinks the Justice Department should prosecute pornographers for obsenity. I guess he’d rather outlaw your Freeones than fight terrorism. We won’t even touch the possible underlying psychological reasons for his porn fixation…
Seriously Prof Voluptuary, Larry Craig plead guilty to that shit. If he wasn't guilty he should have fought the allegations in court. I'm sure, as a U.S. Senator he was aware of this and had access to adaquite legal cousel.
And I realize that there are hypocrites in the democratic party as well. No need for the lecture.
And I realize that there are hypocrites in the democratic party as well. No need for the lecture.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Yep. I see.
I hate to be soo off topic.
But after reading that I guess I would agree to laws making it harder for minors to access, plus limit blind solicitations much more.
I hate to be soo off topic.
But after reading that I guess I would agree to laws making it harder for minors to access, plus limit blind solicitations much more.
I'm for outlawing blind solicitations as well.
As for making it harder for minors to access porn. I think that is the responsibility of parents. We don't need more government regulation in order to do something that parents should be doing for themselves. There is plenty of "pornblocking" software available. As well as other measures they can take to keep their kids from going to websites like w w w . 2 girls 1 cup . c o m
Similar threads
