Edit Preferences
Logout
snesich's Comments (261)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 261
Princeton's Robert George: Sophistry Disguised as Scholarship
Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 00:51:54 in Media
“Fine. And if you want to stay intellectually consistent you'll have the state require the following of all married couples:
1) Proof that they can reproduce.
2) A binding legal agreement that they reproduce during their marriage.
Are you ready to do this?
Also, you wrote, "The couple may be infertile through no fault of their own but their procreative behavior matches that of a fertile couple so the unitive nature of the act is equivalent
TRANSLATION: "At least a man and a woman, when they have intercourse, are having the type of sex that produces a baby, whether a baby results or not. And everyone one knows that is the only God-approved type of sex. When gay people have sex, their type of sex can never produce a baby so because of that the state shouldn't allow them to get married."
Have a problem with that translation, "Sam1996", or does it sum up your "argument" pretty well?”
1) Proof that they can reproduce.
2) A binding legal agreement that they reproduce during their marriage.
Are you ready to do this?
Also, you wrote, "The couple may be infertile through no fault of their own but their procreative behavior matches that of a fertile couple so the unitive nature of the act is equivalent
TRANSLATION: "At least a man and a woman, when they have intercourse, are having the type of sex that produces a baby, whether a baby results or not. And everyone one knows that is the only God-approved type of sex. When gay people have sex, their type of sex can never produce a baby so because of that the state shouldn't allow them to get married."
Have a problem with that translation, "Sam1996", or does it sum up your "argument" pretty well?”
Sam1996 replied on Dec 26, 2009 at 15:17:48
“Yeah, you're still missing Prof. George's point. This isn't about "God-approved" sex. Prof. George is trying to establish the fact that vaginal sex acts are fundamentally distinct from homosexual acts because they unite the sexes on an organic level. Elsewhere, Prof George shows that long before gay marriage was on the table, sexual unity was seen as essential to marriage in the legal tradition. This can be most easily seen in the historic consummation requirement. If, following the marital vows, a couple engaged in other forms of sex play, but never engaged in vaginal intercourse, the marriage was viewed legally as incomplete. If either party wanted out of the marriage it was grounds for annulment, not divorce since the marriage was never completed. Recall, that this was in place not to discriminate against gays (since gay marriage was not being debated). This represented a legal recognition of the unique, unitive nature of procreative type acts.
If marriage is defined by bodily unity, then it does not discriminate against gays anymore than it discriminates against anyone who wishes to engage in any other alternative sexual lifestyle. Marriage has certain bounds and people can choose to participate in it or not.”
If marriage is defined by bodily unity, then it does not discriminate against gays anymore than it discriminates against anyone who wishes to engage in any other alternative sexual lifestyle. Marriage has certain bounds and people can choose to participate in it or not.”
Princeton's Robert George: Sophistry Disguised as Scholarship
Commented Dec 23, 2009 at 00:43:27 in Media
“And what type of person would spend his time, and his scholarly abilities focused on the "argument" that "only" a man and a woman together can have a "one-flesh union"?
Why is it so important to Robert George that our society classify certain sexual acts between consenting adults as "biologically unitive" as others as not?
All of this says so much about George and his weird obsessions. But it tells us nothing about sex or marriage.
Where does George differ in his "intellectual" ideas from the Muslim extremists when it comes to sex or marriage? Can you tell us? Or are George's views actually quite similar?”
Why is it so important to Robert George that our society classify certain sexual acts between consenting adults as "biologically unitive" as others as not?
All of this says so much about George and his weird obsessions. But it tells us nothing about sex or marriage.
Where does George differ in his "intellectual" ideas from the Muslim extremists when it comes to sex or marriage? Can you tell us? Or are George's views actually quite similar?”
billstewart replied on Dec 23, 2009 at 22:47:26
“He differs from the Muslim extremists because he only approves of a man marrying one wife, while the Muslims allow up to four (at least for most of the traditions
He's also not at all happy with marriages that can't lead to procreation (like mine - we didn't want kids, and went to the doctor to keep it that way.) Yes, some of the body parts slide together in ways that in some people can lead to pregnancy, but it's inherently non-procreative because that's how we want it. And he's and his ilk are not happy about allowing body parts to slide together in other patterns, even among married heterosexuals.”
He's also not at all happy with marriages that can't lead to procreation (like mine - we didn't want kids, and went to the doctor to keep it that way.) Yes, some of the body parts slide together in ways that in some people can lead to pregnancy, but it's inherently non-procreative because that's how we want it. And he's and his ilk are not happy about allowing body parts to slide together in other patterns, even among married heterosexuals.”
Eris23 replied on Dec 23, 2009 at 11:35:56
“He probably "experimented" in his youth, and this is his silly attempt at intellectualizing his repression. Seriously, this "one-flesh union" argument is the most absurd argument against homosexuality that I've heard to date. I'm actually embarrassed that this guy resides in my state and one of our finest institutions employs him.”
Senator Lieberman: The Joe I Know
Commented Dec 20, 2009 at 14:28:48 in Politics
“Oh please. What bull.
"My view of Senator Lieberman is admittedly clouded by personal friendship and gratitude.
Uh, duh!
Jim Kennedy, this piece is a patronizing piece of garbage. You choose two or three aberrant instances of Joe Lieberman doing the right thing, in a twenty year career in the Senate.
On the other side of the ledger there are hundreds and hundreds of disgusting, despicable things this man has done, or failed to do, from betraying Al Gore during the Florida recount in 2000 to worshipping at the alter of John McCain and the Republicans in 2008.
Backing Bush's war so enthusiastically that Bush actually slipped him the tongue after a Senate speech.
Shilling for big insurance companies and threatening to screw millions of average Americans so that those companies could keep their obscene profits as high as they wanted to.
Aren't you ashamed, Jim Kennedy, to be publicly carrying the water for Lieberman, still?”
"My view of Senator Lieberman is admittedly clouded by personal friendship and gratitude.
Uh, duh!
Jim Kennedy, this piece is a patronizing piece of garbage. You choose two or three aberrant instances of Joe Lieberman doing the right thing, in a twenty year career in the Senate.
On the other side of the ledger there are hundreds and hundreds of disgusting, despicable things this man has done, or failed to do, from betraying Al Gore during the Florida recount in 2000 to worshipping at the alter of John McCain and the Republicans in 2008.
Backing Bush's war so enthusiastically that Bush actually slipped him the tongue after a Senate speech.
Shilling for big insurance companies and threatening to screw millions of average Americans so that those companies could keep their obscene profits as high as they wanted to.
Aren't you ashamed, Jim Kennedy, to be publicly carrying the water for Lieberman, still?”
Strengthening the Estate Tax to Strengthen the Country
Commented Dec 17, 2009 at 19:50:07 in Politics
“Actually his grandkids are probably being raised to realize that hundreds of millions is plenty for anyone and that taxing a small piece of it is what civilized people agree to do.
Tell me, if someone offered you a billion dollars, would you bitch about having to pay taxes on it, or would you be happy for the many hundreds of millions that would still be all yours to keep?
And would you recognize that The System we all support was at least partially responsible for your ability to achieve and accumulate great wealth?
Don't you think that the people who profit from The System should pay more than the rest of us to keep The System running?”
Tell me, if someone offered you a billion dollars, would you bitch about having to pay taxes on it, or would you be happy for the many hundreds of millions that would still be all yours to keep?
And would you recognize that The System we all support was at least partially responsible for your ability to achieve and accumulate great wealth?
Don't you think that the people who profit from The System should pay more than the rest of us to keep The System running?”
Javida replied on Dec 17, 2009 at 21:12:57
“The US govt is still too inept to properly account for all tax revenue as it is. How does it justify helping itself to inheritances to squander like everything else? There is no accountability in the federal govt to justify allowing it to have 1 cent more in taxes. If anything, taxes need to be rolled back, not increased.”
Strengthening the Estate Tax to Strengthen the Country
Commented Dec 17, 2009 at 19:46:55 in Politics
“Sorry, "flacon", you're wrong.
America was not meant to be an aristocracy where a handful of very, very wealthy people are a Permanent Ruling Class because of vast wealth passed on to them from their ancestors.
The current bills will allow families to pass on the first SEVEN MILLION without any of it being subject to the Estate Tax. Most people can live on seven million...
And after that first seven million, any inheritance beyond that is still very modestly taxed. Get real.
As Mr. Gates said, if we let these billions and billions slip away, how will we average working people make it up? Do YOU want to pay more taxes? Or would you rather we just run up the National Credit Card some more?
So choose: Do the billionaires pay a fraction more or do YOU want to pay or go further into the red?”
America was not meant to be an aristocracy where a handful of very, very wealthy people are a Permanent Ruling Class because of vast wealth passed on to them from their ancestors.
The current bills will allow families to pass on the first SEVEN MILLION without any of it being subject to the Estate Tax. Most people can live on seven million...
And after that first seven million, any inheritance beyond that is still very modestly taxed. Get real.
As Mr. Gates said, if we let these billions and billions slip away, how will we average working people make it up? Do YOU want to pay more taxes? Or would you rather we just run up the National Credit Card some more?
So choose: Do the billionaires pay a fraction more or do YOU want to pay or go further into the red?”
Javida replied on Dec 17, 2009 at 21:06:54
“The bottom line is at what stage of our earnings does the federal govt dictate that it can put it's hand in our pockets? Well, it does so w/ income and sales taxes! It should not have rampant power to do so w/ anything else!”
Why We Lost Healthcare
Commented Dec 15, 2009 at 14:07:30 in Politics
“The REAL reason health care reform "failed"? (If it does---we don't actually know the final outcome yet, and gloom and doom won't help us.)
The REAL reason health care reform is currently in trouble---and could ultimately fail---is due to the inherent structural problems of the United States Senate. Specifically:
1. The dumb and useless "rule" that says, in effect, you can't pass anything without at least 60 votes. (What happened to a simple majority, like we have in our elections and everywhere else?)
2. The fact that the Senate is inherently undemocratic and unrepresentative of our voters. One illustration: the 14 smallest states have a combined population that is roughly equal to that of California alone. However, those 14 smallest states get 28 senators; California, with the same number of people gets 2.
There's a reason that the House passed a good bill in a relatively short period of time: They actually mirror the real will of the voting public. The House is far more representative of democracy. The Senate, in contrast, is where people from tiny states, representing very few voters, can thwart the will of the overwhelming majority.
Yes, Obama made mistakes with this. And so did the Democrats in the Senate. And so did progressives. There is more than enough blame to go around. And most of it is valid. But the Senate itself is rigged in favor of special interests and conservative senators from tiny, largely rural states.”
The REAL reason health care reform is currently in trouble---and could ultimately fail---is due to the inherent structural problems of the United States Senate. Specifically:
1. The dumb and useless "rule" that says, in effect, you can't pass anything without at least 60 votes. (What happened to a simple majority, like we have in our elections and everywhere else?)
2. The fact that the Senate is inherently undemocratic and unrepresentative of our voters. One illustration: the 14 smallest states have a combined population that is roughly equal to that of California alone. However, those 14 smallest states get 28 senators; California, with the same number of people gets 2.
There's a reason that the House passed a good bill in a relatively short period of time: They actually mirror the real will of the voting public. The House is far more representative of democracy. The Senate, in contrast, is where people from tiny states, representing very few voters, can thwart the will of the overwhelming majority.
Yes, Obama made mistakes with this. And so did the Democrats in the Senate. And so did progressives. There is more than enough blame to go around. And most of it is valid. But the Senate itself is rigged in favor of special interests and conservative senators from tiny, largely rural states.”
MSaxe replied on Dec 15, 2009 at 20:26:25
“It's time for California, New York, Florida, Illinois and possibly Pennsylvania to split into at least two states each just to get representation in the Senate.”
jmpurser replied on Dec 15, 2009 at 14:16:27
“Yes, we know health care reform failed. It failed the day Obama took single payer off the table. Everything else has been a squabble about who will pay how much for selling us down the river.”
A Tale of Two Obamas
Commented Dec 07, 2009 at 04:47:07 in Politics
“Good article, Robert, but I'm going to take issue with your claim that Barack Obama is "...utterl
If these groups had him "utterly captured" then why do they, overwhelmingly, despise him?
Has he failed to take directly call them out and take them down? Absolutely. But is he "in their pocket"? No, I don't think so. If that were the case, they'd be backing him and vice versa.
Am I disappointed in President Obama thus far? Sure. But people who compare him to Bush or claim he's "no different" from the Republicans just aren't playing with a full deck. Let's face it.”
If these groups had him "utterly captured" then why do they, overwhelmingly, despise him?
Has he failed to take directly call them out and take them down? Absolutely. But is he "in their pocket"? No, I don't think so. If that were the case, they'd be backing him and vice versa.
Am I disappointed in President Obama thus far? Sure. But people who compare him to Bush or claim he's "no different" from the Republicans just aren't playing with a full deck. Let's face it.”
Selena Jacobs replied on Dec 07, 2009 at 15:41:36
“Might I venture they despise him because he didn't stand up to them when he had the chance... right after the election when people would have followed him to he-ll and back? Now they don't have to give him the time of day.”
MarionWatts replied on Dec 07, 2009 at 06:22:45
“Fanned and faved.
It would be mete to point out that some people who compare the President to Bush have their own cleverly contrived agenda, and others who do so are unwitting tools of the former.
http://emi
http://mys
It would be mete to point out that some people who compare the President to Bush have their own cleverly contrived agenda, and others who do so are unwitting tools of the former.
http://emi
http://mys
Arianna, Jesse Ventura And Ben Stein Discuss Afghanistan On Larry King Live (VIDEO)
Commented Dec 01, 2009 at 12:36:57 in Politics
“None of the support for the occupation of Afghanistan is well thought out.
Who would actually believe that terrorists need a “host country” to provide “training camps” for them---and without that, they won’t be able to plot anything else against us. It’s idiocy.
But for the small elite that controls the dialogue and has the power, the reasons for staying in Afghanistan are very similar to those we heard for staying in Vietnam, forty years ago. “But we’ll look weak if we withdraw.” “The world won’t trust us anymore.” “America will no longer be perceived as being in charge.” “Our rivals will then begin testing our resolve everywhere in the world.”, blah blah blah blah blah.
The arguments in both cases come down to “But it will be so embarrassing if we withdraw before everyone agrees that we’ve officially won!” along with “And think of the bloodbath that will ensue if we depart!”
The song remains the same. But, we now have Barack Obama instead of Richard Nixon in the White House. Will Obama keep these two wars going forever, or will he do the right thing in the long run? I’m hoping that down the road he’s now going to be able to say to the Powers That Be, “Look, I gave you the troops you begged for in 2009 and it didn’t work. Now, I’m going to start a phased withdrawal
Who would actually believe that terrorists need a “host country” to provide “training camps” for them---and without that, they won’t be able to plot anything else against us. It’s idiocy.
But for the small elite that controls the dialogue and has the power, the reasons for staying in Afghanistan are very similar to those we heard for staying in Vietnam, forty years ago. “But we’ll look weak if we withdraw.” “The world won’t trust us anymore.” “America will no longer be perceived as being in charge.” “Our rivals will then begin testing our resolve everywhere in the world.”, blah blah blah blah blah.
The arguments in both cases come down to “But it will be so embarrassing if we withdraw before everyone agrees that we’ve officially won!” along with “And think of the bloodbath that will ensue if we depart!”
The song remains the same. But, we now have Barack Obama instead of Richard Nixon in the White House. Will Obama keep these two wars going forever, or will he do the right thing in the long run? I’m hoping that down the road he’s now going to be able to say to the Powers That Be, “Look, I gave you the troops you begged for in 2009 and it didn’t work. Now, I’m going to start a phased withdrawal
Chopin replied on Dec 02, 2009 at 23:04:06
“Many young and middle age Americans don't have enough sense of history and objective curiosity to see through the Afghanistan War policy. If one does a systematic side-by-side comparison of between Af and Vietnam, there's more than enough similarities to make the outcome overall tragic outcome predictable. When LBJ went into Vietnam, his words, mindset, policies, had enough similarities to Obama's today. He started out sending in substantial "trainers and advisors", ended up with over half million troops. He went in to propup corrupt, rickety SVietnamese generals, then instituted "strategic hamlets", eventually resorted to mass B52 carpet bombing and countryside defoliation campaigns with carcinogenic defoliant agentorange. Eventually, within less than 4years, LBJ was a defeated shell of aman, and renounced running for secondterm.
Listen to what NVietnames Gen Giap said, (paraphrased) "They (Americans) cannot win, because we're fighting for our country, they're invaders+ foreign occupiers.
Listen to what NVietnames Gen Giap said, (paraphrased) "They (Americans) cannot win, because we're fighting for our country, they're invaders+ foreign occupiers.
POTUS2008 replied on Dec 01, 2009 at 12:42:43
“except this is the country that allowed attacks to be launched against us by UBL. we didn't seek this confrontation, but we must face it. either we give up and let the terrorists win or we fight for our right to party.”
Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance
Commented Nov 26, 2009 at 15:31:38 in Politics
“The main reason I still support Barack Obama is the enemies he's created on the far-right.
When I read the vile, vicious and unhinged attacks against him, I become more inclined to support President Obama, simply to let these disgusting "tea party" types know that we reject their messages of hate and violence.
When about 1/4 of the country is hoping for the death of President Obama, his spouse and his kids, it's time for people of decency and sanity to say "ENOUGH" and push back.
Barack Obama has disappointed me in many, many ways. He's far from what I was hoping for. But he's still literally a thousand times better than the alternative would have been.
And to desert him completely
When I read the vile, vicious and unhinged attacks against him, I become more inclined to support President Obama, simply to let these disgusting "tea party" types know that we reject their messages of hate and violence.
When about 1/4 of the country is hoping for the death of President Obama, his spouse and his kids, it's time for people of decency and sanity to say "ENOUGH" and push back.
Barack Obama has disappointed me in many, many ways. He's far from what I was hoping for. But he's still literally a thousand times better than the alternative would have been.
And to desert him completely
Tackora replied on Nov 26, 2009 at 21:32:30
“President Obama has joinned forces with Presidential Candidate Obama's enemies.”
Awake-and-Sing replied on Nov 26, 2009 at 17:28:25
“"appealing to him directly and pushing him in a progressive direction"
-----------------
Sorry. That's no longer an option. The President is completely in cahoots with the corporations.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses. "Hoping" the President will someday become the person he pretended to be during the campaign won't change anything and only delays the inevitable reckoning with reality. Progressives need to play hardball and stand up TO this corporatist President instead of standing up WITH him hoping against hope he'll some day be the person we thought we was. De-nial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Only the diehard Obamaniacs grasping for excuses to believe that the President is still the person they hero-worshiped during the campaign would be fooled by another irrelevant speech.”
-----------------
Sorry. That's no longer an option. The President is completely in cahoots with the corporations.
Sometimes you have to cut your losses. "Hoping" the President will someday become the person he pretended to be during the campaign won't change anything and only delays the inevitable reckoning with reality. Progressives need to play hardball and stand up TO this corporatist President instead of standing up WITH him hoping against hope he'll some day be the person we thought we was. De-nial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Only the diehard Obamaniacs grasping for excuses to believe that the President is still the person they hero-worshiped during the campaign would be fooled by another irrelevant speech.”
State Dinner Menus of Eras Past: Aspic, Hot Dogs, and Boiled Mutton
Commented Nov 26, 2009 at 14:16:24 in Style
“"Liberals" this, "Liberals" that...is that all you have?
Like many of your ilk and limited perspective, "liberals" seem to be an obsession with you.
There have been other groups in the past, obsessed with "certain people" who are supposedly responsible for any and all bad things in the world. And, the belief was, "If only we could make those bad people go away for good..."
Do you realize that spewing out "liberals" is actually just name-calling, coming from a person like you?
Might as well call those you disagree with "poopyheads"; it's on the same level and means as much.
It's apparently impossible for you to get past your little "liberal" fixation. Sorry about that.”
Like many of your ilk and limited perspective, "liberals" seem to be an obsession with you.
There have been other groups in the past, obsessed with "certain people" who are supposedly responsible for any and all bad things in the world. And, the belief was, "If only we could make those bad people go away for good..."
Do you realize that spewing out "liberals" is actually just name-calling, coming from a person like you?
Might as well call those you disagree with "poopyheads"; it's on the same level and means as much.
It's apparently impossible for you to get past your little "liberal" fixation. Sorry about that.”
Tea Partiers Punked, Prankster Calls For Ousting Of "European Immigrants" (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 17, 2009 at 13:10:43 in Politics
“Brilliant!
Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine which he would do in big arenas. He say, "Everyone repeat after me: I have a mind of my own." (Audience repeats dutifully.
Very hilarious. And this reminds me of it. The difference is, back in the 70's, when Martin did this routine, the audience quickly realized they were in on the joke. I didn't get that sense with this crowd of clueless dolts.”
Reminds me of the old Steve Martin routine which he would do in big arenas. He say, "Everyone repeat after me: I have a mind of my own." (Audience repeats dutifully.
Very hilarious. And this reminds me of it. The difference is, back in the 70's, when Martin did this routine, the audience quickly realized they were in on the joke. I didn't get that sense with this crowd of clueless dolts.”
The Big Surprise Moment During the Oprah/Palin Interview
Commented Nov 17, 2009 at 12:43:47 in Media
“Could Oprah have asked Sarah Palin even ONE tough question?
For instance, it would have been good to hear Oprah ask, "Sarah, would you now like to apologize for saying that Barack Obama is 'palling around with terrorists'? Were you told to say that by your handlers, or did you think it up yourself?"”
For instance, it would have been good to hear Oprah ask, "Sarah, would you now like to apologize for saying that Barack Obama is 'palling around with terrorists'? Were you told to say that by your handlers, or did you think it up yourself?"”
MarianneEvans11 replied on Nov 17, 2009 at 13:27:08
“I loved her answer re: Katie Couric asking Palin was books or publications she read...Pal
Who Caused the End of the Cold War?
Commented Nov 11, 2009 at 13:50:31 in World
“Really, Chubbster? Can you tell us exactly how Ronald Reagan was the "essential reason" for this?
Do you have anything other than some meaningless platitudes and recycled and discredited GOP bromides?”
Do you have anything other than some meaningless platitudes and recycled and discredited GOP bromides?”
Who Caused the End of the Cold War?
Commented Nov 11, 2009 at 13:46:06 in World
“Q: Who caused the end of the Cold War?
A: The Beatles
It's only becoming clear now. Seriously. Look at this:
http://www
A: The Beatles
It's only becoming clear now. Seriously. Look at this:
http://www
Screens, Everywhere
Commented Oct 15, 2009 at 13:29:45 in Media
“Good article, Lisa. And I agree. Screens are far too ubiquitous these days. I especially dislike how screens have invaded virtually every place that used to be relatively quiet---where you could have a few minutes to yourself to think, read, reflect, even talk with the human beings around you.
Remember when you could actually discuss the baseball game in between innings? Now, God forbid we have one nanosecond without something on the screen to "entertain" us. Airport lounges are the worst. Most stores always have a TV blaring somewhere.
However, there are subtle, but effective ways to fight back. I purchased one of these recently. It's been good to have. I recommend it highly: http://www
Remember when you could actually discuss the baseball game in between innings? Now, God forbid we have one nanosecond without something on the screen to "entertain" us. Airport lounges are the worst. Most stores always have a TV blaring somewhere.
However, there are subtle, but effective ways to fight back. I purchased one of these recently. It's been good to have. I recommend it highly: http://www
A Business Lesson for Health Care Reform
Commented Oct 14, 2009 at 00:22:02 in Politics
“Actually, what makes you think that the Baucus bill will make sure we die with more money in our bank accounts? I think it will do just the opposite.
It will force us to buy crappy policies from big insurance companies who will then refuse to pay for our coverage or honor our claims when we get very sick or injured.
I think that will mean less money at the end of our lives. Not more. Oh, it will mean terrible care as well.”
It will force us to buy crappy policies from big insurance companies who will then refuse to pay for our coverage or honor our claims when we get very sick or injured.
I think that will mean less money at the end of our lives. Not more. Oh, it will mean terrible care as well.”
19 More Advertisers Ditch Glenn Beck
Commented Oct 08, 2009 at 13:34:54 in Media
“Good work, James. But be careful; keep this up and Glenn Beck will accuse YOU of being a "communist" too!
Whenever Beck dislikes someone, he'll call them a "racist" or a "communist". Does this also apply to all of the companies that no longer want to sponsor Beck?”
Whenever Beck dislikes someone, he'll call them a "racist" or a "communist". Does this also apply to all of the companies that no longer want to sponsor Beck?”
chazmanr replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 15:36:47
“He can't do that, because they still advertise on Faux. If he starts going after the advertisers that have dropped him, but not Faux, Faux will pull the plug Corkie.”
Gun Show Undercover
Commented Oct 08, 2009 at 13:20:07 in New York
“You're right. It's all ACORN's fault, no matter what the issue.
Now, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, ACORN!!! It's ALL their fault!!! Everyone knows the Republicans would win every single election if ACORN didn't exist!!!”
Now, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, ACORN!!! It's ALL their fault!!! Everyone knows the Republicans would win every single election if ACORN didn't exist!!!”
Aaror replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 13:41:47
“Amusingly enough, Republicans would win most elections in the absense of some laws-well, consistutional amendments anyway.
Without women's sufferage and Black voting, the Dems would be a much smaller party, hence the Republicans trying to put Pelosi "in her place."”
Without women's sufferage and Black voting, the Dems would be a much smaller party, hence the Republicans trying to put Pelosi "in her place."”
Gun Show Undercover
Commented Oct 08, 2009 at 13:17:28 in New York
“So tell us, in detail, how you could defeat the government with your own private arsenal.
Be specific please. Think it out and describe it exactly. Tell us how you'd "beat them".”
Be specific please. Think it out and describe it exactly. Tell us how you'd "beat them".”
beelzabubbleboy replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 18:15:16
“what a stupid, stupid question.
please tell me how we would defeat them without em? in detail please.”
please tell me how we would defeat them without em? in detail please.”
FirstShirt replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 14:35:20
“Don't know, but guessing it would be easier with your weapon in your hand instead of your "gun". Military know the difference.”
GibsonSG replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 14:17:41
“Here's how I would do it. You, and a bunch of your little brother's high school friends, take off for the mountains in your pickup truck. Then you practice simple guerrilla combat tactics in a series of hit and run raids. The most important thing is to have a cool name for your group. Something like, 'Wolverines'.
Seriously though, when the citizenry does finally rise up, guns will only be half of the weapons used. Let's not forgot how wide open our computer networks are. Cyberwarfare will definitely play a huge part in the revolution.”
Seriously though, when the citizenry does finally rise up, guns will only be half of the weapons used. Let's not forgot how wide open our computer networks are. Cyberwarfare will definitely play a huge part in the revolution.”
bobrobthomas replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 14:13:58
“How do you defeat the massive advantage of "the Government?" Silly question. Have you been watching the news for the last eight years? In Iraq, roughly 40,000 badly armed and totally unguided citzens fought the entire United States Military to a virtual stand still for nearly four years.
Military arms are not that dificult to acquire. A simple .22 bolt action rifle with a "pop bottle silencer" and 4X scope can easily hit a police officer or soldier in the face from 100 yards. Instant well armed "insurgent
Military arms are not that dificult to acquire. A simple .22 bolt action rifle with a "pop bottle silencer" and 4X scope can easily hit a police officer or soldier in the face from 100 yards. Instant well armed "insurgent
Sivispacemparabellum replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 13:40:46
“I for one wouldnt even entertain the idea of revealing any detailed ideas about how civilians could fight the US Govt , since I dont believe its wise to tell your plans to your enemy . But history is rife with examples of poorly trained and armed civilian populations fighting Govt forces or Militaries successfully. Vietnam and the Afghans fighting the Soviets are just two examples from relatively recent history that come to mind.
The Jews in the Warsaw Ghettos held off an entire company of the SS and Wermacht in WW II with inferior weapons, seriously outnumbered and very little ammunition for over a month”
The Jews in the Warsaw Ghettos held off an entire company of the SS and Wermacht in WW II with inferior weapons, seriously outnumbered and very little ammunition for over a month”
Gun Show Undercover
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 19:53:26 in New York
“Yeah, you're absolutely right. You're just brilliant: Did you know that? What flawless logic. You've obviously thought this out completely.
So, now tell us how having a few guns in your possession is going to help you defeat the military forces and police departments if they decide to come get you or any other citizen?
We await your specific response. Tell us how you and your guns will defeat an army or SWAT team that is absolutely determined to get you.
Do you think you can succeed where David Koresh and his huge arsenal failed?
So tell us, in detail, how you'd win against them.”
So, now tell us how having a few guns in your possession is going to help you defeat the military forces and police departments if they decide to come get you or any other citizen?
We await your specific response. Tell us how you and your guns will defeat an army or SWAT team that is absolutely determined to get you.
Do you think you can succeed where David Koresh and his huge arsenal failed?
So tell us, in detail, how you'd win against them.”
bbhack replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 09:19:38
“Most people who worry about out-of-control government are not worried that the miltary will turn against the population. Same with *most* local and *most* state police. When the police respect and fear those they work for, it's hard to imagine they would follow illegal orders to seize and arrest and kill. Plus, the reality is that the numbers don't work at all in the favor of the police when it comes to mass revolt.
Now, if it turns out that the military would turn against the population with tanks and all other things in the armory, then all bets are off. Who is the paranoid in that scenario?”
Now, if it turns out that the military would turn against the population with tanks and all other things in the armory, then all bets are off. Who is the paranoid in that scenario?”
LindaCat replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 00:15:35
“Just in - President Ahmadinejad declares the American Revolution a hoax!!”
fignew replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 20:13:12
“Just look at what some of the Iraqis and Afghanis are doing: They've managed to fight a well funded, high tech military operation.”
EndRacismNow replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 20:01:40
“Did I say that I as an individual can stop the military and SWAT team?
My point is that if the Jews in Germany had weapons they could have at least stood up for themselves. I'd rather die fighting then being sent to camps.
Koresh and his followers were butchered by the government for having legal weapons even though they invited the ATF to inspect their weapons multiple times. Waco is a great example of government tyranny.
http://vid
My point is that if the Jews in Germany had weapons they could have at least stood up for themselves. I'd rather die fighting then being sent to camps.
Koresh and his followers were butchered by the government for having legal weapons even though they invited the ATF to inspect their weapons multiple times. Waco is a great example of government tyranny.
http://vid
Gun Show Undercover
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 19:46:26 in New York
“Will the media give this "hidden camera" expose as much coverage as the ACORN thing? Or not?”
bobfeld replied on Oct 08, 2009 at 15:33:20
“Not a chance. The media is owned by 4 conservative corporations.”
Gun Show Undercover
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 14:43:36 in New York
“Okay, mainstream media: Will you give this undercover video as much coverage as the little "anti-ACORN" videos last month?
What's more important: that a few incompetent, obtuse ACORN workers gave out dumb advice or that weapons designed to kill dozens of people within seconds can be easily obtained by the mentally ill or criminal among us, in direct violation of the law?”
What's more important: that a few incompetent, obtuse ACORN workers gave out dumb advice or that weapons designed to kill dozens of people within seconds can be easily obtained by the mentally ill or criminal among us, in direct violation of the law?”
AndyWright68 replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 15:11:05
“All gun control laws are unconstitutional and should be abolished.”
Hank007 replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 15:10:55
“Half the ACORN vids are of grown-ups humoring white kids in silly costumes.”
dezzertguy replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 14:57:11
“The MSM evaded coverage of ACORN. They do not often go against the Obama Administration. Only now is coverage starting to turn. I hope this gets real coverage.”
Decision Day For Democrats: Poll Shows Path to Healthcare Reform
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 11:53:57 in Politics
“And where did "gdogs" study survey research and statistics? On the back of a matchbook, no doubt.
You don't know what you're talking about. Do you, gdogs? Kind of dense, aren't you?”
You don't know what you're talking about. Do you, gdogs? Kind of dense, aren't you?”
gdogs replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 12:38:05
“Sorry, do you actually have something to counter with besides name calling? And to answer your question ATM.”
Obama Is "Incompetent" and the U.S. Is a "Madhouse": An Exclusive Interview With Gore Vidal
Commented Oct 07, 2009 at 01:11:14 in Entertainment
“I have always loved Gore Vidal. I consider him brilliant and right on the mark with virtually everything.
However, I didn't know until tonight of Gore's admiration and friendship with the person who deliberately murdered other human beings in Oklahoma City, and used the pathetic excuse that he was making some sort of twisted, bizarre "political statement". (I don't like to say or write the names of such people.)
I'm as shocked as Vidal was when he learned that his old family friend, Henry Cabot Lodge, was a principal backer of the 1954 coup in Guatemala. It's awful to hear.
But I still like Gore Vidal. Always will. A remarkable human being and American. He's wrong about Barack Obama, however. There's more to that story. And that story is still unfolding. And Vidal's words have less authenticity and authority for me, after reading his very disappointing and well, disgusting words about the Oklahoma City killer of children.”
However, I didn't know until tonight of Gore's admiration and friendship with the person who deliberately murdered other human beings in Oklahoma City, and used the pathetic excuse that he was making some sort of twisted, bizarre "political statement". (I don't like to say or write the names of such people.)
I'm as shocked as Vidal was when he learned that his old family friend, Henry Cabot Lodge, was a principal backer of the 1954 coup in Guatemala. It's awful to hear.
But I still like Gore Vidal. Always will. A remarkable human being and American. He's wrong about Barack Obama, however. There's more to that story. And that story is still unfolding. And Vidal's words have less authenticity and authority for me, after reading his very disappointing and well, disgusting words about the Oklahoma City killer of children.”
lenzorizzo replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 03:47:18
“There's more to the OK bombing than even Vidal seems to be aware of.”
Humanistic replied on Oct 07, 2009 at 03:13:27
“Regarding mass murderer McVeigh, what is most shocking was Vidal's concurrence that the bombing of the Federal Building was a justifiable act, based on the so-called invasion of the Branch Davidian complex being seen as a violation of the Constitution. This is insanity!”
America Digs Deeper Into Debt
Commented Oct 05, 2009 at 19:40:07 in Business
“It appears that Michael makes a smaller return when his clients buy bonds instead of other items.”
1 - 25 of 261
