| 0 |
Subject: Mowing the Astroturf
Posted by: Boldwin
- [177591411] Fri, Aug 14, 2009, 12:59
Because Pelosi and Obama just don't like astroturf, doncha know? |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 59 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 19:30
|
Oddly enuff [judging by the zeitgeist] the constitution does not say what you think it does about religion.
|
| 60 | Pancho Villa
ID: 38740229
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 20:32
|
the constitution does not say what you think it does about religion.
What do I think it says about religion, oh exalted constitutional scholar.
|
| 61 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 20:33
|
It does not say that there is a 'wall of separation'.
|
| 62 | Pancho Villa
ID: 38740229
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 20:53
|
What do phony "loyalty to Christian principles" presidential qualifications(even more important than being born in the US) have to do with a wall of separation?
|
| 63 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 21:21
|
watch out PV, in a minute he'll say you believe that all Christians should be put to death if they don't start aborting fetuses en masse.
and then he'll point to a post where you said "humpty dumpty fell off a wall" as proof.
|
| 64 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 21:31
|
Natural rights and respect for the sacredness of life are arguably christian principles tho of course the FF were freemason deists who only thot they were chrstian, so it isn't a perfect fit. I don't know where you agnostics ad evolutionists and dialectic materialists and nihilists think they come from and your upholding them indeed leaves something to be desired.
|
| 65 | Pancho Villa
ID: 38740229
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 21:53
|
I don't know where you agnostics ad evolutionists and dialectic materialists and nihilists think they come from and your upholding them indeed leaves something to be desired.
Cosmic musings. Amusing but irrelevant.
|
| 66 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 22:12
|
Not at all irrelevant when discussing the principles of the FF. It was your question so I guess the issue had some relevence.
|
| 67 | Pancho Villa
ID: 38740229
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 23:01
|
It had no relevance concerning what the Constitution says and doesn't say. You're the one accusing people of trying to overturn the Constitution and not being real Americans. To me, this is what leaves something to be desired.
|
| 68 | Boldwin
ID: 26451820
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 23:23
|
I'm curious what you think. When Obama supports killing a baby who survives an abortion and is fully outside the womb... Where do those child's constitutional and natural rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness go?
|
| 69 | Pancho Villa
ID: 38740229
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 23:32
|
Obama had nothing to do with legalized abortion. That was made by a Supreme Court decision in 1973 when Obama was 11.
Take it to the Supreme Court if you think it unconstitutional.
|
| 70 | Razor
ID: 14791320
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 23:46
|
When Obama supports killing a baby who survives an abortion and is fully outside the womb...
Honestly, what won't you say? Take a break from talking politics from a while.
|
| 71 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Sat, Aug 22, 2009, 23:52
|
lol. he's not even talking about abortion now.
he just said Obama would commit infanticide...
bwhahahaah....lol..man...dude is nucking futs...
|
| 72 | Boldwin
ID: 3779235
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 06:29
|
What a moron you are Tree. Have you forgotten that was his position as one of only a handful of senators who would not support an abortion survivors right to life?
Even with specific language in the bill explicitly ruling out any weakening of Roe V Wade he still was against "Infant Born Alive" legislation both when he was in state and federal legislatures.
|
| 73 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 09:16
|
you don't actually read your own links, do you? at least not from beginning to end.
if you're going to provide outside analysis (such as factcheck.org) as proof of something, then don't try to analyze the analysis.
i do like your continuing hypocrisy, using factcheck.org when you think it supports your side, attempting to discredit it when it doesn't.
in fact, let's discuss that.
previously, you've bashed factcheck.org and it's incestous relation to all things Annenberg, notably in this thread.
some of your words about factcheck.org:
Remember that you, PD are relying on the representations made by FactCheck.Org which is owned by and funded by...wait for it...
The Annenberg Foundation which Bill Ayers helped found and to which Bill Ayers made sure Obama was appointed chairman of.
And this proof is why anyone who questions Obamas birth record wears a tin hat.
Riiiight.
and
Anyone who believes that Factcheck.org is a sufficiently neutral party to be the countrys guarantor that Obama is a US born constitutionally qualified candidate, is a wishful thinking fool, after the material I dug up.
so, which is it. Is factcheck.org a reliable source? or one not to be trusted?
|
| 74 | Boldwin
ID: 3779235
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 20:25
|
I didn't use Factcheck. That was Newsweek Fisking Factcheck.org.
You have no reading comprehension.
|
| 75 | scoobies
ID: 417302319
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 20:32
|
fisking ???
Reprinted with permission from Factcheck.org. ???
|
| 76 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 20:40
|
I didn't use Factcheck. That was Newsweek Fisking Factcheck.org.
You have no reading comprehension.
no, i have plenty of reading comprehension. i also research my sources.
you apparently, can't read, nor do you do research. nor do you have any reading comprehension.
never mind that the byline of the article you link to is attributed to "Jess Henig | factcheck.org", a tiny bit of research shows her to be a staff writer at factcheck.org and an employee of Annenberg Public Policy Center.
there is NO fisking of any sort going on. Newsweek isn't fisking or analyzing anything.
the article you linked to from Newsweek, is verbatim the same article from Factcheck.org, by the same author, published on the same day.
Newsweek didn't fisk anything.
Instead, it just reprinted an article from Factcheck.org, and you in turn used that article to prove a point.
So, congrats. It's nice to see you coming around and accepting factcheck.org as a reliable source to prove or debunk something.
i guess this means you pal around with terrorists too, eh?
|
| 77 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 20:42
|
Great, tree. Now Baldwin is going to take a 4-hour hot shower to try to get rid of the feeling of accidentally using an "Annenberg" site.
|
| 78 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 20:47
|
btw tree, it gets easier. I think I'll do a second week. Dunno if I can do the poetry, but I might try my hand at it.
|
| 79 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 09:50
|
PD - looking more like it's a 12-hour hot shower, and still going...
|
| 80 | Boldwin
ID: 37522413
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 15:32
|
I went shopping for a site you peabrains would accept. When an Annenburg factotum admits that Obama was in favor of infanticide then Tree's laughing at the notion is refuted.
he just said Obama would commit infanticide...
bwhahahaah....lol..man...dude is nucking futs... He has been against 'Born Alive Infant Protection' at every level of state and federal government even when that legislation had language that explicitly disallowed using the bill as a legal argument against abortion.
When your own best argument proves my point, I'll have the confidence to link you to it.
|
| 82 | Boldwin
ID: 37522413
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 15:51
|
I will admit that when that author listed Obamna's best defense and then couldn't come up up with any proof whatsoever that he wasn't pro-infantacide, it looked like a very Obama friendly fisking, but bending over backwards to find cover for him.
For the record, the guys Obama has as leading lights guiding his 'bioethics' have written that infanticide should be allowable.Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[31] — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." - Peter Singer Wikipedia entry [don't miss his 'enlightened' defense of zoophilia while you are there]
Quoting from Peter Singer's book:From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.
Also in that book, Singer and his colleague, Helga Kuhse, suggested that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others." But no, other than seeking out this guy's advice to guide his decisions on 'quality measure' he will enact to make our life and death decisions and voting throughout his legislative career to kill infants born alive, other than that, Tree prolly has some reason to laugh at the notion that Obama is pro-infanticide.
|
| 83 | sarge33rd
ID: 17681812
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 15:55
|
But animals are self-aware...
This would fly in direct opposition to what I have always read on the topic. Animals are not 'self aware', and that fact is demonstrated when a 2 lb Chihuaha growls at and makes back down, a 150 lb dog towering 2'+ above the Chihuaha. Neither animal, knows that the other is bigger/smaller than they are because neither animal is 'self aware'.
|
| 84 | Boldwin
ID: 37522413
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 15:57
|
Tell it to the guy Obama chose as an advisor.
|
| 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 16:48
|
sarge,
Singer is a far leftie who, for the most part, is as completely ignored by the Democratic party as Ron Paul is in the GOP.
Singer, as far as I know, has never been appointed to anything by Barak Obama.
I can tell you this with utmost confidence: The wacky Right needs Peter Singer in this debate far more than moderates, the Left, or the thinking Right. Like Jeremiah Wright, the wackos are unable to attack Obama's plan on the facts so they need someone to stand in for those facts. Ergo, Peter Singer's ethical theories stand in for Obama's health insurance reform plan, since they haven't been able to find any "death panels" in the actual plan and therefore need to build them from scratch. Their camel's nose of the day is Peter Singer.
|
| 86 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Mon, Aug 24, 2009, 17:42
|
When your own best argument proves my point, I'll have the confidence to link you to it.
you didn't even KNOW you linked to it...
i won't even argue the point with you - because 95 percent of the time, whatever you're presenting, is a bunch of bunk. your argument generally consists of "disprove what i have no proof of".
the fact remains:
1. you used a source that you have previously attempted to discredit numerous times, as proof of your point.
2. you didn't know you were using that source.
3. when it was pointed out, you basically called that person (me) and idiot, and said that you really didn't use that source, but instead went to another site that "fisked" the original source.
4. when this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you went with the "oh, i knew what i was doing. i intentionally used that source so you guys couldn't discredit it."
you don't have a credible, honest, or decent bone in your body. you're lying, pompous, hate-spewing piece of crap, and if i believed in hell, i'd look forward to going just so i could see your face when you're there too.
|
| 87 | Boldwin
ID: 377302516
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 05:29
|
Astroturf for college credit..."We are looking for supporters. We're not looking for a fight. That will come later, when we have an army."
|
| 88 | Boldwin
ID: 377302516
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 11:20
|
If that isn't him expecting literal brownshirt actions, what is it?
|
| 89 | sarge33rd
ID: 17681812
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 11:22
|
poetic license? A figure of speech?
|
| 90 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 12:24
|
OMG. there really isn't much more to say other than that.
are you really so dense that you've never heard the word "army" used in a million different contexts?
Best Buy - taking over the world with their Twitter army!
The Florida Breast Health Initiative - taking over the world, while talking about their tits!
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity - taking over the world, while talking about coal!
|
| 91 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 13:45
|
Also, I'm shocked and appalled. This is clearly the first time in the history of civilization where people can get college credit for doing something outside of the classroom!!!!!!!111!!!!111!!1!!!!!!!!
This is a horrid idea and I blame Stalin and Obama.
|
| 92 | Boldwin
ID: 377302516
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 14:13
|
Would you be all for it if the protesters getting the government checks were controlled by Karl Rove?
|
| 93 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 15:19
|
Would you be all for it if the protesters getting the government checks were controlled by Karl Rove?
so, no one got college credit for working for White House under Bush? (remember, he was the president, not Rove)
|
| 94 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 15:42
|
"Would you be all for it if the protesters getting the government checks were controlled by Karl Rove?"
I wouldn't be making hysterical posts on the Internet about it, that's for sure.
Short answer, though: yes. Seriously. I think someone should get the same amount of credit for working with Michelle Bachman as with Al Franken, even though I think Michelle Bachman is clearly clinically insane.
|
| 95 | Boldwin
ID: 377302516
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:23
|
Why pretending to represent americans by giving the false impression that great numbers were willing to voluntaily show up and protest is worth a plug nickel is beyond me.
In other words, you think uncle sam should be able to hold me at gun point, rob me, so he can pay people who disagree with me, to deceive the public and pass laws harmful to me.
What a stand up guy you are.
|
| 96 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:30
|
The fundamental misconception you have is that they aren't PRETENDING to support anything. They really are supporting it. Just because you don't like what they are supporting (which is perfectly fine) you think they're un-American mindless commie bastards.
The fact that you can't handle that simple fact, and then feel the need to take a personal shot at me on the way out, shows what a mindless dittohead piece of subhuman excrement you really are.
|
| 97 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:31
|
As for this mindless drivel "In other words, you think uncle sam should be able to hold me at gun point, rob me, so he can pay people who disagree with me, to deceive the public and pass laws harmful to me." Go to hell. It's not happening, it's not true, and you're a piece of shit for even saying it. You don't like it, go to hell.
|
| 98 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:33
|
mindless dittohead piece of subhuman excrement
i am going to catalog this one. it's probably the best insult i've ever seen on this board.
|
| 99 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:34
|
Alas, he doesn't believe in Hell.
Baldwin has a limited imagination. He somehow doesn't see how he is being played.
|
| 100 | sarge33rd
ID: 17681812
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:41
|
one of many dichotomies, leaving me scratching my head in bewilderment over various religions.
If one concedes that there is a heaven; then it follows there must be a hell. There is an up for each down, and in for each out, a heads for every tails, etc etc etc. Good and evil; neither concept has much meaning, without the other to use as opposition to it. Heaven/Hell...same-same.
|
| 101 | Boldwin
ID: 377302516
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:46
|
If they support it anyway, why should I be forced to pay them to further laws I don't want? If they are paid and bussed in they are astroturf anyway, btw.
|
| 102 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:48
|
I've seriously had enough of his garbage. I'm calling for a support group to just ignore his incoherent ramblings. Someone please stop me if you see me bothering to care about anything he says, and I'll try to do the same for you.
|
| 103 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 17:56
|
With a few lapses in restraint, we are mostly all there with DW.
Baldwin used to be able to maintain a coherent discussion. I think his brain has since been scrambled by Whirled-Nut-Daily, as well as the bile the corporate nasties have been in order to keep their frenzied army spewing nonsense to keep their monopolies in place.
|
| 104 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Aug 26, 2009, 18:01
|
DW, would you drop me an email when you get a chance? Thanks.
|
| 105 | Bauxman
ID: 40713275
Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 06:13
|
If you want any credibility as a mod, PD, you'd have one of your fire side chats with Tree and Sarge too.
|
| 106 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 10:58
|
I do not think that email was what you think it was.
|
| 107 | Tree
ID: 41371322
Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 11:41
|
PD - if it was what you emailed about last week, i'm in. the last few posts in the GOP Direction thread are the final straw for me.
|
| 108 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 11:50
|
Private emails are for private communication, BM. There's a reason I don't put it on the boards. I don't mean for it to sound harsh, but the mere fact that a mod asks for an email from a member doesn't mean anything, really.
I sympathize with DW's frustration (though I don't condone his resulting posts that clearly flow from that). I'd prefer a more fact-based board with the personality-trashing toned down a bit, but it is hardly my board to say, and it isn't like I'm out of the fray myself. There's a reason I titled the one thread "health care debates" rather than just "health care reform" as it seemed to me that the focus was going to be on the debates themselves rather than the underlying issues.
Anyway, it isn't easy tree, especially the first day or so. But if you can do it, good for you.
sarge, I emailed you, too. Do you have a new email address? The other one didn't bounce, so let me know if you are in a new place.
|
| 109 | tree on the treo
ID: 257282712
Thu, Aug 27, 2009, 13:28
|
lol..boy are you ever right, pd...
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|