And real Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, and non-interference of the government in business.
Only from the Federal government. State governments, on the other hand, are unchecked as Libertarians don't believe the Bill of Rights applies to them.
No, I don't. But thanks for further proving my point that you wingnuts are incapable of making an argument that isn't based entirely on bullshit.
Two words: Dan Quayle.
Two words: Rev. White. We had months of non-stop coverage of a black preacher because he said "not bless America, but god damn America" with no comparable mention of McCain's lilly-white buddies Rev. Hagee (Catholic Church is an apostate church, the great whore, will be devoured by the Anti-Christ) and the unbelievably stupid Rev. Parsons:
It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492...Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America.
Um, Columbus was trying to sail to Asia, dumbass, and died without realizing he'd found a continent instead.
He was tired?
Yes, he was tired. He started off talking about primaries, paused, then finished with saying states. Go watch the clip and note how he was talking about states and primaries and obviously had a moment of verbal dyslexia. Kind of like how your president for the last 7 1/2 years talks all the time.
He's already gaffe-prone
Howitzer in a glass house. McCain constantly refers to countries that haven't existed for 15 years, called Petraus the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks Iraq has a border with Afghanistan, says Petraus travels in an unarmored Humvee when he doesn't, says you can travel safely on the streets of Iraq without body armor and then wears body armor while being protected by 100 soldiers and attack helicopters, keeps claiming Iran is training Al Queda after being corrected, thinks interests rates are low when they're at a 20 year high, and can't remember how many houses he owns. And that's off the top of my head.
So do you have any more lame BS in your arsenal, or are you tapped out?
He tends to go on the extreme about things, and doesn't show any counter-points to his documentaries.
Interesting. Are you also angry that on physics specials on Nova that they don't give counter-points from flat Earthers? How about counter-points from KKK members conflicted of murder on civil rights specials?
Balance without regard to the facts is just another form of bullshit. And on the facts, the Bush Administrations invasion of Iraq and our health care system are completely indefensible. And if you are so Concerned about counter-points, why are you starting with makers of documentaries instead of multi-billion dollar conglomerates?
Yet, wouldn't it happen that you point out Fox news because you disagree with their take on the issues?
Don't be obtuse. If it were Fox Opinion, they wouldn't get as much flack. But since they present their partisan hackery as News, they're engaging in false advertising. That and being sloppy as a matter of course.
I'm looking for a conservative to complain about Fox News, and a liberal to complain about Micheal Moore.
Ah, a lover of false equivalency. Moore backs up his viewpoints with copious amounts of research and facts whereas Fox backs up their viewpoints with 100% USDA approved disingenuous horseshit.
Huckabee, the last serious challenger in the Republican primary, dropped out on March 4th. And that's after McCain already had the nomination clinched for some time. Whereas Obama had to deal with Hillary and her backers throwing the kitchen sink at him for another 3 months...and when she dropped out, he had to jump straight into the general election. You're complaining that Obama took a week vacation after working non-stop for the better part of the year? McCain had three months off before he had to worry about direct competition again. And given the fact that Bush will have spent 3 of his 8 years as president on vacation, Republicans are firing a howitzer in a glass house on this one.
it's Obama who thinks there are 57 or 58 states
Ah, the rhetorical standards that are only brought out for Democratic candidates and *only* apply to Democratic candidates. Yes, Obama misspoke when he was exhausted and started talking about 50 states when he mean to talk about the 47 primaries he'd been in - so he said 57 states. Contrast that to McCain, who has falsely and repeatedly stated that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Queda, and continued to make the same gaffe after being corrected multiple times. Once could be a slip of a tired tongue. Twice is a serious gaffe for the man who's campaign is based around his supposed knowledge and experience. Three or more times and he's either lying (a la the Administration and "ties between Saddan and Al Queda") or he's senile.
it's Obama who is afraid to debate McCain at 10 town-hall style meetings, after saying he would debate him anywhere and anytime.
No, he didn't. Obama did say he wanted five presidential debates and more vice presidential debates, but McCain refused. Who's afraid now?
After his initial weaselly response on the Russian-Georgian conflict
Ah, first Obama is presumptuous (uppity) for...giving a speech in a foreign country, and then he's "weaselly" because he doesn't try and take charge of diplomacy like McCain (you want to talk about being presumptuous!) or threaten war with Russia. It's like Obama's planned visit to the troops, when McCain had an attack ad ready no matter what choice Obama made.
was the only IL state senator to speak out on the statehouse floor against a measure that would prohibit "finishing an abortion" in the case of a botched abortion where the child was actually born alive
What a surprise, you're being completely disingenuous. Obama didn't vote against the measure because of your "finishing an abortion" canard, he voted against it because it defined a fetus as a person - a backdoor attempt to ban abortion.
and still thinks the question of when life begins is above his pay grade
Of course, if you bothered to look at his whole response, he did answer the question. But it's no surprise that idiot wingnuts pretend that the "pay grade" comment was his only response - which was an obvious reference to God.
Tho I'm sure Obama knows where his house is, too. Right next door to a convicted felon.
A pathetic Obama smear wouldn't be complete without a reference to Resko. Resko wasn't a felon when Obama bought property from him, for which Obama paid full price. And if Republicans really want to play the Associations Game, wingnuts are again firing a howitzer in a glass house. McCain is friends with Gordon Liddy, another convicted felon who advised people to shoot federal agents in the head because they might be wearing body armor. Then there's the ties between Republicans (not necessarily McCain) and lobbyists like Abramoff. And Republicans, who just can't get enough evangelical cock, nevertheless also suck up to Sun Moon's money, nevermind that he claims to be Jesus, Moses and Mohamed all wrapped up into one.
Good lord.
Good lord you concern trolls are full of shit. You couldn't make an honest argument to save your souls.
And yet you thought that immunity for Telcos was more important than social justice, patriot act abuses, guantanamo, iraq, afghanistan, healthcare, missile defence?
Yes. The other issues can be fixed, even if they take a while. Telecom immunity, on the other hand, once done can never be undone.
Actually many did. Gore supports Genetic Engineering and many environmentalists oppose GE.
Actually, no they didn't - no one is forced to eat GE crops, so at best you have a quibble. If you're an environmentalist and you vote against the most environmental candidate we've ever seen, you're a fool and a tool.
Korea and Iran are in different parts of the world. The former Yugoslavia is smack in the middle of Europe. Remember that Nixon bombed the shit out of Laos and Cambodia not because those countries were aiding North Vietnam, but because the Viet Cong was moving weapons through some of their territory. The war had to be stopped to stop the genocide and keep it from spilling over into neighboring countries - and then there's the refugee problem. You can have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war zones, trying to get into your country. So what do you do? Turn them away? Leave them to fend for themselves and have then wander with no jobs or homes? Give them all citizenship?
For the U.S., imagine if Quebec launched a war of independence and various groups started to smuggle weapons through Michigan and thousands of civilians started fleeing to Wisconsin. So yes, keeping wars away from your border is most definitely a defensive action.
Nonsense. Bush said that he'd sign the legislation of Congress put it on his desk because he KNEW that it wouldn't pass.
So when Democrats use gun control as a political issue, they're serious and must be kept out of office. When Republicans use gun control as a political issue, IOKIYAR. Thanks for proving my point that gun nuts are completely full of shit.
Randy Weaver didn't shoot anyone.
Which didn't prevent him from being charged with murder and bogus gun law violations. And again, no help from the second most powerful domestic lobby in the country.
The nice part with arguing with you wingnuts is that you are reliably wrong on...everything.
At the time, the website www.BillionairesForBushOrGore.com (now a link farm for online poker) pointed out that these similarities:
Yawn. Aside from the hyperbole, distortions and how much Gore already fit the Green Party platform, remember those lists of similarities between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations? Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. JWB shot Lincoln in a theater and ran to a warehouse. LHO shot Kennedy from a warehouse and ran to a theater. Doesn't mean they actually had anything in common.
You can try to rationalize as much as you want, but nothing changes the fact that the Greens were fools to risk throwing a close election to Bush over a solid woman rights supporting, middle class advocating, solid environmentalist like Gore.
I've never considered wealth to be the determining factor in being an elitist. It is more of an attitude that you know best in all matters, and turn your nose up at others and their opinions.
Whoosh. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
On the subject of the 57 states thing...I saw a clip of the speech on YouTube (too lazy to look the link up), and he definitely said it more than once.
Moron? I see you are prone to firing a howitzer in a glass house.
Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam
No, that was Ford after Congress refused to grant more war funding.
Escalated?
Yes, escalated. He bombed Cambodia and Laos, two countries not involved with the war, to try and stop the Viet Cong from traveling through their territory.
That being said, I'm actually sure that many wealthy people out there, that own > 4-5 homes, probably don't really keep up with how many they actually own.
Sure, sure. But if you can't remember how many homes you own and then accuse your opponent of being an elitist, you're firing a howitzer in a glass house.
Oh, no doubt the Dems play to the "center" (the right wing) waaay to much, but that doesn't change the fact that Nader voters were stark raving idiots. They didn't have anything against Gore remotely close to Obama's cave on telecom immunity. In 2008 you can make the case that blatant stomping on the Constitution makes Obama an unacceptable candidate. You didn't have that in 2000.
What about Nader voters? They're not responsibile for the crappy campain that Gore ran, for the fraud that gave Florida to Bush, nor for the inaction of Democratic senators who let it pass.
No, they're just responsible for being complete fucking morons. Refusing to vote for the guy who lines up with you on a mere 75% of the issues (and would at least be receptive to the other 25%) because he's not pure enough for you, and risking the election going to the guy 100% opposed to everything you believe in is asinine.
You've got that backwards. Being a Yale graduate is not much compared to being the head of the Harvard Law Review.
What's Obama done in comparison to -that-? Nothing, really. I mean, he becomes a state legislature, and blah blah blah blah
How to Market Obama to Your Republican Friends. A Republican lays out reasons why Republicans should vote for Obama, and cites issues like Obama working to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R., brought major transparency with The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and more. Try reading it, but feel free to keep spouting your cute little theories. I enjoy playing Jerry to your George Castanza.
Well Reagan and Clinton were both governors and therefore had experience in a executive position at state level. They had budgets, local legislation, environmental agencies, defense, basically a mini-version of the US government (without the currency). They also had to work with other states and negotiate over limited resources and regional concerns (eg. water rights, pollution, etc.)
All of which Congress has to deal with as well.
No, but he has way more experience in foreign relations, economic policies, national security, campaign finance reform, than Obama.
No, he doesn't. Take his repeated false statements that Shiite Iran was training Sunni Al Queda. Or his comments on the economy: that it's doing well when it's not, that inflation is low when it's at a high, etc. On national security, McCain has gotten everything *wrong*, from invading Iraq to warmongering on Iran. McCain might experienced at something, but none of the above issues. Except maybe the campaign finance laws he's currently breaking that he helped to pass, including the one that bears his name.
Face it beating up on McCain with these lame attacks
Lame attacks? Just go to youtube and you'll see McCain destroying himself. Just watch his clips from 93 and 94 where he insists we *must* get out of Somalia and Haiti.
He turned his back on Campaign Finance Reform when he became drunk with the large amount of campaign contributions (remember in the beginning he pledged to use public funding like McCain).
Yes, that is quite lame. Obama never obligated himself to take public financing, as opposed to McCain, who did. And why should Obama hobble himself with public financing when McCain is violating McCain-Fiengold?
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, no kidding. I voted Bush twice simply because I liked the alternatives even less.
Hows that torture, warrantless spying, Iraq quagmire and doubling of the national debt working out for you?
And real Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, and non-interference of the government in business.
Only from the Federal government. State governments, on the other hand, are unchecked as Libertarians don't believe the Bill of Rights applies to them.
assume they have been bought and sold so many times
Then Biden's been doing a pretty poor job on that front, as he has a low income level for a Senator with three decades in DC.
You have a very short memory
No, I don't. But thanks for further proving my point that you wingnuts are incapable of making an argument that isn't based entirely on bullshit.
Two words: Dan Quayle.
Two words: Rev. White. We had months of non-stop coverage of a black preacher because he said "not bless America, but god damn America" with no comparable mention of McCain's lilly-white buddies Rev. Hagee (Catholic Church is an apostate church, the great whore, will be devoured by the Anti-Christ) and the unbelievably stupid Rev. Parsons:
Um, Columbus was trying to sail to Asia, dumbass, and died without realizing he'd found a continent instead.
He was tired?
Yes, he was tired. He started off talking about primaries, paused, then finished with saying states. Go watch the clip and note how he was talking about states and primaries and obviously had a moment of verbal dyslexia. Kind of like how your president for the last 7 1/2 years talks all the time.
He's already gaffe-prone
Howitzer in a glass house. McCain constantly refers to countries that haven't existed for 15 years, called Petraus the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thinks Iraq has a border with Afghanistan, says Petraus travels in an unarmored Humvee when he doesn't, says you can travel safely on the streets of Iraq without body armor and then wears body armor while being protected by 100 soldiers and attack helicopters, keeps claiming Iran is training Al Queda after being corrected, thinks interests rates are low when they're at a 20 year high, and can't remember how many houses he owns. And that's off the top of my head.
So do you have any more lame BS in your arsenal, or are you tapped out?
Damned kids.
He tends to go on the extreme about things, and doesn't show any counter-points to his documentaries.
Interesting. Are you also angry that on physics specials on Nova that they don't give counter-points from flat Earthers? How about counter-points from KKK members conflicted of murder on civil rights specials?
Balance without regard to the facts is just another form of bullshit. And on the facts, the Bush Administrations invasion of Iraq and our health care system are completely indefensible. And if you are so Concerned about counter-points, why are you starting with makers of documentaries instead of multi-billion dollar conglomerates?
Yet, wouldn't it happen that you point out Fox news because you disagree with their take on the issues?
Don't be obtuse. If it were Fox Opinion, they wouldn't get as much flack. But since they present their partisan hackery as News, they're engaging in false advertising. That and being sloppy as a matter of course.
I'm looking for a conservative to complain about Fox News, and a liberal to complain about Micheal Moore.
Ah, a lover of false equivalency. Moore backs up his viewpoints with copious amounts of research and facts whereas Fox backs up their viewpoints with 100% USDA approved disingenuous horseshit.
it's Obama who needs a week-long vacation
Huckabee, the last serious challenger in the Republican primary, dropped out on March 4th. And that's after McCain already had the nomination clinched for some time. Whereas Obama had to deal with Hillary and her backers throwing the kitchen sink at him for another 3 months...and when she dropped out, he had to jump straight into the general election. You're complaining that Obama took a week vacation after working non-stop for the better part of the year? McCain had three months off before he had to worry about direct competition again. And given the fact that Bush will have spent 3 of his 8 years as president on vacation, Republicans are firing a howitzer in a glass house on this one.
it's Obama who thinks there are 57 or 58 states
Ah, the rhetorical standards that are only brought out for Democratic candidates and *only* apply to Democratic candidates. Yes, Obama misspoke when he was exhausted and started talking about 50 states when he mean to talk about the 47 primaries he'd been in - so he said 57 states. Contrast that to McCain, who has falsely and repeatedly stated that Shiite Iran is training Sunni Al Queda, and continued to make the same gaffe after being corrected multiple times. Once could be a slip of a tired tongue. Twice is a serious gaffe for the man who's campaign is based around his supposed knowledge and experience. Three or more times and he's either lying (a la the Administration and "ties between Saddan and Al Queda") or he's senile.
it's Obama who is afraid to debate McCain at 10 town-hall style meetings, after saying he would debate him anywhere and anytime.
No, he didn't. Obama did say he wanted five presidential debates and more vice presidential debates, but McCain refused. Who's afraid now?
After his initial weaselly response on the Russian-Georgian conflict
Ah, first Obama is presumptuous (uppity) for...giving a speech in a foreign country, and then he's "weaselly" because he doesn't try and take charge of diplomacy like McCain (you want to talk about being presumptuous!) or threaten war with Russia. It's like Obama's planned visit to the troops, when McCain had an attack ad ready no matter what choice Obama made.
was the only IL state senator to speak out on the statehouse floor against a measure that would prohibit "finishing an abortion" in the case of a botched abortion where the child was actually born alive
What a surprise, you're being completely disingenuous. Obama didn't vote against the measure because of your "finishing an abortion" canard, he voted against it because it defined a fetus as a person - a backdoor attempt to ban abortion.
and still thinks the question of when life begins is above his pay grade
Of course, if you bothered to look at his whole response, he did answer the question. But it's no surprise that idiot wingnuts pretend that the "pay grade" comment was his only response - which was an obvious reference to God.
Tho I'm sure Obama knows where his house is, too. Right next door to a convicted felon.
A pathetic Obama smear wouldn't be complete without a reference to Resko. Resko wasn't a felon when Obama bought property from him, for which Obama paid full price. And if Republicans really want to play the Associations Game, wingnuts are again firing a howitzer in a glass house. McCain is friends with Gordon Liddy, another convicted felon who advised people to shoot federal agents in the head because they might be wearing body armor. Then there's the ties between Republicans (not necessarily McCain) and lobbyists like Abramoff. And Republicans, who just can't get enough evangelical cock, nevertheless also suck up to Sun Moon's money, nevermind that he claims to be Jesus, Moses and Mohamed all wrapped up into one.
Good lord.
Good lord you concern trolls are full of shit. You couldn't make an honest argument to save your souls.
And yet you thought that immunity for Telcos was more important than social justice, patriot act abuses, guantanamo, iraq, afghanistan, healthcare, missile defence?
Yes. The other issues can be fixed, even if they take a while. Telecom immunity, on the other hand, once done can never be undone.
The party was for Bush Dogs. And while Obama and Biden have had some terrible votes (FISA, bankruptcy bill respectively) neither is a Bush Dog.
Actually many did. Gore supports Genetic Engineering and many environmentalists oppose GE.
Actually, no they didn't - no one is forced to eat GE crops, so at best you have a quibble. If you're an environmentalist and you vote against the most environmental candidate we've ever seen, you're a fool and a tool.
Korea and Iran are in different parts of the world. The former Yugoslavia is smack in the middle of Europe. Remember that Nixon bombed the shit out of Laos and Cambodia not because those countries were aiding North Vietnam, but because the Viet Cong was moving weapons through some of their territory. The war had to be stopped to stop the genocide and keep it from spilling over into neighboring countries - and then there's the refugee problem. You can have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing war zones, trying to get into your country. So what do you do? Turn them away? Leave them to fend for themselves and have then wander with no jobs or homes? Give them all citizenship?
For the U.S., imagine if Quebec launched a war of independence and various groups started to smuggle weapons through Michigan and thousands of civilians started fleeing to Wisconsin. So yes, keeping wars away from your border is most definitely a defensive action.
Their is no way I would fail alot of English, irregardless of the fact that its inconcivable two.
Nonsense. Bush said that he'd sign the legislation of Congress put it on his desk because he KNEW that it wouldn't pass.
So when Democrats use gun control as a political issue, they're serious and must be kept out of office. When Republicans use gun control as a political issue, IOKIYAR. Thanks for proving my point that gun nuts are completely full of shit.
Randy Weaver didn't shoot anyone.
Which didn't prevent him from being charged with murder and bogus gun law violations. And again, no help from the second most powerful domestic lobby in the country.
The nice part with arguing with you wingnuts is that you are reliably wrong on...everything.
Of course it was defensive. Stopping a civil war in your backyard is defending your stability and security.
At the time, the website www.BillionairesForBushOrGore.com (now a link farm for online poker) pointed out that these similarities:
Yawn. Aside from the hyperbole, distortions and how much Gore already fit the Green Party platform, remember those lists of similarities between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations? Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy. Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln. JWB shot Lincoln in a theater and ran to a warehouse. LHO shot Kennedy from a warehouse and ran to a theater. Doesn't mean they actually had anything in common.
You can try to rationalize as much as you want, but nothing changes the fact that the Greens were fools to risk throwing a close election to Bush over a solid woman rights supporting, middle class advocating, solid environmentalist like Gore.
I've never considered wealth to be the determining factor in being an elitist. It is more of an attitude that you know best in all matters, and turn your nose up at others and their opinions.
Whoosh. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
On the subject of the 57 states thing...I saw a clip of the speech on YouTube (too lazy to look the link up), and he definitely said it more than once.
Naturally. So naturally, I'm not buying it.
Moron? I see you are prone to firing a howitzer in a glass house.
Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam
No, that was Ford after Congress refused to grant more war funding.
Escalated?
Yes, escalated. He bombed Cambodia and Laos, two countries not involved with the war, to try and stop the Viet Cong from traveling through their territory.
Moron.
Not really....Obama repeated it over and over again....
If by "repeated" you mean "once", then yes.
That being said, I'm actually sure that many wealthy people out there, that own > 4-5 homes, probably don't really keep up with how many they actually own.
Sure, sure. But if you can't remember how many homes you own and then accuse your opponent of being an elitist, you're firing a howitzer in a glass house.
Oh, no doubt the Dems play to the "center" (the right wing) waaay to much, but that doesn't change the fact that Nader voters were stark raving idiots. They didn't have anything against Gore remotely close to Obama's cave on telecom immunity. In 2008 you can make the case that blatant stomping on the Constitution makes Obama an unacceptable candidate. You didn't have that in 2000.
You made an unsourced statement without any attribution.
Actually I did. Just how stupid are you? Try reading. it. again.
What about Nader voters? They're not responsibile for the crappy campain that Gore ran, for the fraud that gave Florida to Bush, nor for the inaction of Democratic senators who let it pass.
No, they're just responsible for being complete fucking morons. Refusing to vote for the guy who lines up with you on a mere 75% of the issues (and would at least be receptive to the other 25%) because he's not pure enough for you, and risking the election going to the guy 100% opposed to everything you believe in is asinine.
The other impressive thing he did while stateside was stick up for a cadet who was being hazed, against someone who outranked him.
That's not much compared to Bill Clinton:
You've got that backwards. Being a Yale graduate is not much compared to being the head of the Harvard Law Review.
What's Obama done in comparison to -that-? Nothing, really. I mean, he becomes a state legislature, and blah blah blah blah
How to Market Obama to Your Republican Friends. A Republican lays out reasons why Republicans should vote for Obama, and cites issues like Obama working to secure loose nukes in the former U.S.S.R., brought major transparency with The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and more. Try reading it, but feel free to keep spouting your cute little theories. I enjoy playing Jerry to your George Castanza.
Well Reagan and Clinton were both governors and therefore had experience in a executive position at state level. They had budgets, local legislation, environmental agencies, defense, basically a mini-version of the US government (without the currency). They also had to work with other states and negotiate over limited resources and regional concerns (eg. water rights, pollution, etc.)
All of which Congress has to deal with as well.
No, but he has way more experience in foreign relations, economic policies, national security, campaign finance reform, than Obama.
No, he doesn't. Take his repeated false statements that Shiite Iran was training Sunni Al Queda. Or his comments on the economy: that it's doing well when it's not, that inflation is low when it's at a high, etc. On national security, McCain has gotten everything *wrong*, from invading Iraq to warmongering on Iran. McCain might experienced at something, but none of the above issues. Except maybe the campaign finance laws he's currently breaking that he helped to pass, including the one that bears his name.
Face it beating up on McCain with these lame attacks
Lame attacks? Just go to youtube and you'll see McCain destroying himself. Just watch his clips from 93 and 94 where he insists we *must* get out of Somalia and Haiti.
He turned his back on Campaign Finance Reform when he became drunk with the large amount of campaign contributions (remember in the beginning he pledged to use public funding like McCain).
Yes, that is quite lame. Obama never obligated himself to take public financing, as opposed to McCain, who did. And why should Obama hobble himself with public financing when McCain is violating McCain-Fiengold?