Guest Guest Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Come on already Paul, file the lawsuit. But you won't. It's not just the phrase "under God" that drives you and Matt nuts right? That's just your talking point for the moment. You really want everthing your way so start with the pledge and bring your case. And if he filed a lawsuit, you'd like that better? We see you for what you are, but you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 And if he filed a lawsuit, you'd like that better? We see you for what you are, but you don't. I'd like to see the issue settled by the courts but apparently Paul and Matt's citizenship only goes so far. That is to satisfy their own agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 I noticed on page 2 that someone had used proud american in a response. For clarification purposes, this was not me.To have Bryan claim that Paul doesn't know his facts is incredibly idiotic. As many of you are aware, there are two types of people who blog on this sight. Those who get their information from blogs tend to use the ones that fit their agenda and then there are those who actually research the issues. Paul is an attorney and I'm not. Yet I was able to get the same information that proved Patriot wrong about the Mt. Soledad issue by simply researching using Thomas.gov and going to the Supreme Court website. How many out there even have a clue as to how John Mc Cain votes on Veterans issues. Most would believe that he stands behind every Veteran. Well, in truth, both Clinton and Obama have a better voting record when it comes to Veterans than most Republicans. If you don't believe me go to www.vawatchdog.org and see for yourself. It lists the voting record of every Senator and Congressman on veteran issues. Also it is a non partisan website. With regards to the pledge of alliegence, I would recommend that each person stand in front of a mirror and recite it. And listen to the words very carefully. Especially the last part "with liberty and justice for all" Now compare that with how our Country is today. If a person chooses to stand and say the pledge he or she has that right. If they choose not to stand they have that right also. That is what is meant by a free society. We get the kind of Government we vote for. Those who choose not to vote are giving up their right to complain when things aren't going so well. What is amazing is that some people have finally awaken from their seven year sleep and are complaining about the President. When asked who they voted for to a person they say Bush. Well as I explain to them you helped pot him into office so live with the consequences. And like you Keith, people have questioned my patriotism. A true patriot doesn't have to necessarily serve in the military. A true patriot questions his government and it's actions which is what the Founders intended. They don't sit quietly by while an inept Administration fights to take more of their freedoms away. Paul and Matt La Clair fight for what true patriots fight for. It's one thing to call yourself a Patriot. But the patriot who posts on this site doesn't know the meaning of what a patriot is. How does "a proud american" breathe with his nose so far up Paul's butt ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 I noticed on page 2 that someone had used proud american in a response. For clarification purposes, this was not me.To have Bryan claim that Paul doesn't know his facts is incredibly idiotic. Well, perhaps you should consider accurately representing my claim. The claim I made is perfectly defensible considering LaClair blunders such as his recommendation of a targeted oil boycott. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=55972 His suggestion reflects an ignorance of an economic issue (oil economy) and he's going to vote partially based on that understanding (such as it is). He could have cleared up his misconception with a bit of research, as I pointed out at the time. Here's what I wrote, since you're having trouble representing it accurately: Many people (I'm tempted to include you specifically, Paul!) don't know much about the issues. And many of those people know that they don't know the issues and decline to vote as a result. In effect, they trust and hope that those who know better are making the decision at the polls. Meanwhile, some factions are pushing for as many to vote as possible as though that in itself is a good thing (voting while not knowing the issues is like reciting the pledge mindlessly, IMHO). As many of you are aware, there are two types of people who blog on this sight.Those who get their information from blogs tend to use the ones that fit their agenda and then there are those who actually research the issues. Paul is an attorney and I'm not. Yet I was able to get the same information that proved Patriot wrong about the Mt. Soledad issue by simply researching using Thomas.gov and going to the Supreme Court website. Likewise, I was able to show (using the much-respected Snopes.com) that the targeted oil boycott idea is bunkum. Paul, on the other hand, made the suggestion without apparently researching it. Which kind of person is Paul and why? How many out there even have a clue as to how John Mc Cain votes on Veterans issues. Most would believe that he stands behind every Veteran. Well, in truth, both Clinton and Obama have a better voting record when it comes to Veterans than most Republicans. If you don't believe me go to www.vawatchdog.org and see for yourself. It lists the voting record of every Senator and Congressman on veteran issues. Also it is a non partisan website. Didn't I already point out that va watchdog is basically Larry Scott? And what makes you think it is non-partisan? Another question: If good research involves going to the source then why are we going through va watchdog for information gathered by Project Vote Smart from various special interest groups? Which of the two kinds of people are you, again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 Well, perhaps you should consider accurately representing my claim. The claim I made is perfectly defensible considering LaClair blunders such as his recommendation of a targeted oil boycott.http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=55972 His suggestion reflects an ignorance of an economic issue (oil economy) and he's going to vote partially based on that understanding (such as it is). He could have cleared up his misconception with a bit of research, as I pointed out at the time. Here's what I wrote, since you're having trouble representing it accurately: Many people (I'm tempted to include you specifically, Paul!) don't know much about the issues. And many of those people know that they don't know the issues and decline to vote as a result. In effect, they trust and hope that those who know better are making the decision at the polls. Meanwhile, some factions are pushing for as many to vote as possible as though that in itself is a good thing (voting while not knowing the issues is like reciting the pledge mindlessly, IMHO). Likewise, I was able to show (using the much-respected Snopes.com) that the targeted oil boycott idea is bunkum. Paul, on the other hand, made the suggestion without apparently researching it. Which kind of person is Paul and why? Didn't I already point out that va watchdog is basically Larry Scott? And what makes you think it is non-partisan? Another question: If good research involves going to the source then why are we going through va watchdog for information gathered by Project Vote Smart from various special interest groups? Which of the two kinds of people are you, again? He doesn't make up the voting records of the Congress and Senate. So it doesn't matter what his name is. The facts are what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 How does "a proud american" breathe with his nose so far up Paul's butt ??? The same way you breath with your head up your's. The only difference is you like the view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 I'd like to see the issue settled by the courts but apparently Paul and Matt's citizenship only goes so far. That is to satisfy their own agenda. Then why don't you file a lawsuit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted June 5, 2008 Report Share Posted June 5, 2008 Now lets take it easy on Keith he's a smoker. He takes in alot of carbon monoxide and his brain is starved for oxygen. But it's ok for him to force his habit on non-smokers. Please tell how I am forcing my habit on non-smokers. BE specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 The same way you breath with your head up your's. The only difference is you like the view. Then you don't like your view. Try wearing dark glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 He doesn't make up the voting records of the Congress and Senate. No, and he doesn't even report on them personally. He just borrows reporting from elsewhere. So it doesn't matter what his name is. The facts are what they are. You skipped some questions (probably just to prove you're not ducking anything?). Why do you think Larry is non-partisan? Which type of person is Paul, given that he blurted out that brilliant targeted boycott plan without running it by Snopes.com or some other investigatory process? Which type of person are you, given that you go to (and recommend) a tertiary source for voting record information? And here's a new one: Have you considered apologizing for taking my comment out of context? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 Then why don't you file a lawsuit? Because I'm satisfied with the pledge as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 Then you don't like your view. Try wearing dark glasses. Is this adding something to the discussion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 Please tell how I am forcing my habit on non-smokers. BE specific. Now come on Keith you know that you're for no restrictions on smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 Because I'm satisfied with the pledge as it is. Matthew will graduate in a couple of weeks, at which time he won't have standing any more. Even if they had filed four years ago, the case wouldn't have reached the US Supreme Court by now, which is the only court that really matters. As the Newdow case showed, it's very hard to get a case like this before the US Supreme Court. Besides, maybe they don't want to bring a lawsuit. You don't get to decide which battles Matthew takes on. You're being a jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 Now come on Keith you know that you're for no restrictions on smoking. No restrictions in terms of a mandate for a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS! Which begs an answer to a question reaised by Doug Stanhope. If second hand smoke is so dangerous then how come no one is addicted to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted June 6, 2008 Report Share Posted June 6, 2008 No, and he doesn't even report on them personally. He just borrows reporting from elsewhere.You skipped some questions (probably just to prove you're not ducking anything?). Why do you think Larry is non-partisan? Which type of person is Paul, given that he blurted out that brilliant targeted boycott plan without running it by Snopes.com or some other investigatory process? Which type of person are you, given that you go to (and recommend) a tertiary source for voting record information? And here's a new one: Have you considered apologizing for taking my comment out of context? 1. Larry has never claimed to be of any party. He simply reports of happenings in the VA. He doesn't invent the stories. And the part of his site that references votes concerning Veteran Issues are true and accurately reflected. 2. Paul is a person who expresses opinions that many people agree with and several don't. He is articulate and expresses his views. Simply beause he doesn't use blogs in all of his references doesn't make him wrong. And, he is teaching his son to fight for what he believes is wrong. Many don't share that view becaue it doesn't fit their particular view point. I am the type of person that looks at what people say on this sight and who they quote as a source. If I don't agree with them, I use various websites that link to the Government like the Congress and Senate or Thomas.gov. I use ask.com because I find it easier to get the information. Also, I will link to the Supreme Court periodically to see what cases are pending if there is a particular issue on this site like the Mt. Soledad case. I don't particularly us blogs as a reference because I find that depending on which one a person sites as I said depends on the persons view and who is funding them. If you notice, I don't always respond to everything you say because if I can't find information that is opposite of what you say than I can't criticize you. With regards to your last comment, I would ask you the same question. Have you ever offerred me an apology. It works both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 1. Larry has never claimed to be of any party. He simply reports of happenings in the VA. He doesn't invent the stories. And the part of his site that references votes concerning Veteran Issues are true and accurately reflected. Larry has never claimed to be of any party? Is he your dad or something? How well do you know the guy? FYI not claiming party affiliation does not necessarily indicate non-partisanship. Or did you already know that and lead your argument off with that point anyway? You appeared to use the assurance that the site was non-partisan as the assurance to readers that the site was true and accurately reflected reality. Have we come full circle in just two steps? 2. Paul is a person who expresses opinions that many people agree with and several don't. He is articulate and expresses his views. Simply beause he doesn't use blogs in all of his references doesn't make him wrong. And, he is teaching his son to fight for what he believes is wrong. Many don't share that view becaue it doesn't fit their particular view point. Nice dance, there. Paul was wrong about the targeted oil company boycott. Even if he had been able to find a "blog" to support him he would have been wrong. I am the type of person that looks at what people say on this sight and who they quote as a source. If I don't agree with them, I use various websites that link to the Government like the Congress and Senate or Thomas.gov. So you knew that Paul was full of it when he advocated the targeted boycott? Why didn't you pipe up sooner? I use ask.com because I find it easier to get the information. Also, I will link to the Supreme Court periodically to see what cases are pending if there is a particular issue on this site like the Mt. Soledad case. I don't particularly us blogs as a reference because I find that depending on which one a person sites as I said depends on the persons view and who is funding them. If you notice, I don't always respond to everything you say because if I can't find information that is opposite of what you say than I can't criticize you. I haven't been keeping track of the posts of mine that you have read but haven't bothered to challenge, FWIW. Do you see any problem at all with the voting record presentation that Larry reproduced, or do you think it speaks accurately for itself? With regards to your last comment, I would ask you the same question. Have you ever offerred me an apology. It works both ways. What do you suggest I should apologize to you over? At least I had the courtesy to provide an example for your consideration. Should I apologize for overlooking the fact that you don't always find something to disagree with in my posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 No restrictions in terms of a mandate for a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS! Which begs an answer to a question reaised by Doug Stanhope. If second hand smoke is so dangerous then how come no one is addicted to it? I agree that private businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves, but Stanhope's line is retarded. Addiction is not correlated with health risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 I agree that private businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves, but Stanhope's line is retarded. Addiction is not correlated with health risk. Maybe, but it was still funny as hell when he said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted June 7, 2008 Report Share Posted June 7, 2008 No restrictions in terms of a mandate for a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS! Which begs an answer to a question reaised by Doug Stanhope. If second hand smoke is so dangerous then how come no one is addicted to it? Why would it raise that question? Are dangerous things necessarily addictive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 Maybe, but it was still funny as hell when he said it. It must have been one of those "had to be there" things. In the retelling, it just sounds moronic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 Why would it raise that question? Are dangerous things necessarily addictive? The point was that if someone ingested enough second hand smoke for it to actually cause damage then it's entirley plausible that they would have become addicted to it just like smokers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamK Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 The point was that if someone ingested enough second hand smoke for it to actually cause damage then it's entirley plausible that they would have become addicted to it just like smokers Nonsense. For the argument to work, the premise must have at least some indication of being actually true, not merely in the realm of possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 8, 2008 Report Share Posted June 8, 2008 The point was that if someone ingested enough second hand smoke for it to actually cause damage then it's entirley plausible that they would have become addicted to it just like smokers Um, no? The smoke isn't what makes cigarettes addictive, it's the nicotine, and only the person sucking on the cigarette gets that. The above is not plausible at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 9, 2008 Report Share Posted June 9, 2008 Matthew will graduate in a couple of weeks, at which time he won't have standing any more. Even if they had filed four years ago, the case wouldn't have reached the US Supreme Court by now, which is the only court that really matters. As the Newdow case showed, it's very hard to get a case like this before the US Supreme Court.Besides, maybe they don't want to bring a lawsuit. You don't get to decide which battles Matthew takes on. You're being a jerk. Yaeh right, now the excuses start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.