WilliamK
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by WilliamK
-
-
Just like Giuliani was going to be president, and just like Obama was finished months ago. We've heard it all from you before.
Dang. You beat me to it.
-
"nothing wrong with Emanuel discussing Obama's replacement" ?? You can't be that naive to think there was no influence being exerted by Rahm.
"Talking to" does not equal "involved in shady deals". Blagojevich said of the Obama people "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation.". Not exactly a smoking gun.
Outside of the imaginations of right-wingers, there's nothing here that implicates Obama or Emanuel. You believe Obama is involved only because you wish that to be true, not because there's any evidence of it.
Take the blinders off, before this is over, Rezko and Blago will bring down Obama.Yeah, yeah. Just like Rudy Giuliani was going to win the Republican primary, Hillary Clinton was going to win the Democratic primary, the Democratic party was going to "implode" with infighting at the convention, the FBI was going to turn up a "smoking gun" tying Obama to the misdeeds of some ACORN workers, the disgruntled Hillary supporters were going to switch over to McCain in droves, the "Bradley effect" was going to give McCain an election day boost, and the selection of Sarah Palin was the "home run" that would put John McCain in the White House. A magic 8 ball is more accurate than you. But you think we're all wearing blinders or "loony" for not agreeing with your defective reasoning or your idiotic predictions.
-
FOX aired a tape of Blago making a speech right after he became Governor. In it he say's "my mother told me be honest above everything else and to always work for the people". He then went on to promise her "I won't let you down".
Any comments from the loony left about the morale character of this DEMOCRATIC Governor?
Every liberal I know thinks he's a corrupt politician who's talk of honesty has proven to be lies. Did your bigotry lead you to expect something else?
Funny how you emphasize the point that he's a Democrat. Are you not aware that the corruption of his Republican predecessor (currently known as inmate 16627-424), was a factor in getting him elected in the first place? The people who voted for him wanted something better than that. Too bad he turned out to be another scumbag.
-
I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene.
The poster is not at all hateful. It merely states their wish for reason to prevail over superstition. If you contend that regarding religion as superstition is, in itself, hateful, I would point out that it is no different from how you regard every religion but one. Unless, of course, you believe that all religions are equally valid, that Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, etc. are all real. The hatefulness you see, 2smart, is in the eye of the beholder.
How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.Do you contend that atheists don't have rights, or that there is such a thing as a right to not be offended? Freedom of religion could not exist if a person's rights were dependent on their religious beliefs. Freedom of speech could not exist if not being offended was a right.
Personally, I think it would be much better not to allow any religious displays, including atheist ones, on government properties. But if it is allowed, it has to be allowed for all or it becomes a government endorsement of religion.
-
I’ve never seen such a combination of pettiness and paranoia.
What was petty or paranoid about it? Or are you merely throwing negative adjectives at something you don't like, like a monkey flinging poo?
-
I'm curious about this a hateful religious bigot pretending to be clever, maybe one of you ignorant atheists can help me out. When your new messiah BO takes the oath of office and says the words "so help
me God", will that cause you to question your own misguided views?
There. Fixed that for you. You can thank me after you get over your initial anger at me and reflect on this intelligently. I expect that you will be able to muster neither the intelligence nor the quality of character required to do that, but I'd be happy to have you prove me wrong.
-
My own pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the principles on which it stands. I pledge allegiance to those great ideals from the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I pledge allegiance to the freedom to think for ourselves, to speak our minds, and to decide for ourselves what we believe. I pledge allegiance to governance of, by, and for the people. I pledge allegiance to the military men and women who have sacrificed and served to protect this country and to keep it free. I pledge allegiance to the non-military people who exercise that freedom and who do all of the ordinary and extraordinary work that makes our country and our society worth protecting. I pledge allegiance to those who speak out in praise and admiration of our country when it does right, and to those who speak out in dissent when it does wrong.
I do not pledge allegiance to any symbol or ritual. Nor do I agree with any efforts to require or pressure school children or anyone else to do so. Self-proclaimed patriots who do not understand the difference between nationalism and patriotism will undoubtedly think less of me for this. But that is their failing, not mine. I accept their contempt, because to win their approval would require a moral failing on my part.
-
Maybe you should feel that it's an obligation.
Maybe. But it's his place to decide that for himself, not your place to dictate it.
-
What a demented idiot you are. The intent of the pledge is not to make you a "good citizen". It is to show your love and respect to our great country and our military who fight and die to protect it.
When one is required to say it, it accomplishes none of that. In fact, it flies in the face of the very idea of freedom that it is supposed to honor. The meaning of the pledge is diminished by making it mandatory.
If that's too much for you to understand then join Paul in turning his back on the flag. Paul thinks we'll all become Nazis if we love our country and stand and recite the pledge.Paul has said nothing at all against saying the pledge or loving our country. That idea is entirely your own fabrication.
Keep this point in mind; Paul is the type of person that was led off to the gas chambers by the millions in WWll without as much as a whimper of resistance. If his Land of Oz mentality is attractive to you then by all means have a large glass of Kool-Aid and join him.What a bizarrely twisted mind it must take to make this statement against one of the very few people who IS willing to take a stand and not just follow everyone else, while it is you who advocates going along with the mass mentality.
-
I'm curious, if you practice religion without a god, what or who do you pray to? Do you pray to Mother Nature, hug trees or just drink a lot of Kool-Aid while you sing Kumbaya?
When did "pray" become a required part of the definition of "religion"?
-
Not many from the Clinton administration, you're joking right?
It's all very preliminary, but of the names that have emerged so far, and of the subset of those that I either am familiar with or have checked, former Clinton appointees are a distinct minority.
You'll have to do your own research. Here's a list to get you started. Google a reasonable sampling of the individual names and you'll find that the majority are not former Clinton administration people: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/a...istration_jobs/
Or just keep posting in complete ignorance. Suit yourself.
-
That's only one definition. Look at the others.
I'm sure he's fully aware of the other definitions. This is not a problem of knowledge, but of honor. He knows the truth, but chooses to speak falsely anyway.
-
In a forum that is SUPPOSED to be about the Town of Kearny, on the entire first page there are only THREE threads that have anything to do with the Town. All of the things that are going on, and nobody seems to give a damn about the town, they'd rather bash each other over politics instead. No wonder the town, and the cuntry is spiralling down the toilet.
Then start a relevant topic, or join an existing one. By bashing other people's choice of topics, you're just adding to the noise, and contributing nothing that's of any value to anyone, not even yourself.
-
Are all of Paul's multiple personalities atheist or are one or more Christian?
Are all of yours morons?
-
I'd really like to believe that Obama will actually get done what he said he would. Currently he seems like he is just recycling the Clinton administration.
What did you expect him to do? Recycle the Bush I, Bush II, or Reagan administrations? Considering that many of his cabinet candidates are not from the Clinton administration, and that a fair number are Republicans, it's pretty obvious that he isn't recycling anything. He's building the Obama administration.
-
None of the posts here are grown up or responsible except his.
You obviously meant that as sarcasm, but it doesn't work for you. It contains a large nugget of truth, and your own posts illustrate that nugget.
-
I've seen polls that split the approval ratings between Dems and Reps in Congress and the Dems are about 10 points ahead of Reps. However, they don't get more than 50%.
I think more interesting than which rates higher is that separately, Reps and Dems both get higher approval ratings than Congress as a whole, and individual Senators and Representatives usually rate higher than their party. Congress is suffering from bad synergy. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.
If the Democrats gain enough to be able to push past at least most Republican opposition, I think it will improve Congresses overall approval rating simply because then at least one party's voters will feel like their interests are being represented, whereas right now, hardly anyone feels that way. But with the country having such hard partisan division, Congress is unlikely to achieve a 50% approval no matter who's in control or what they do. That would require a shift in the views and attitudes of voters, not just a change in Congress.
-
The closer we get to the election, the more outrageous the right wing becomes. They'll stop at nothing. No lie will go unspoken.
I would prefer a calmer and more deliberative election. These buffoons make it impossible, and it's fed straight from the top of the ticket all the way down.
The Republican party has become a party of slash-and-burn extremists. They must be defeated.
A friend of my wife's got a call yesterday with a recorded message saying that due to higher than usual turnout, voting was being extended to two days this year, and that Republicans could vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday. It's a tired old trick leftover from previous elections. The friend saw right through it, of course, as would most people. But in a close race, a success rate of only a percent or two could potentially steal an election. So, cliche though this trick may be, someone's still trying it. There have been news reports of this and similar dirty tricks going on at various places around the country, the vast majority of them designed to favor Republicans.
-
You're saying he must have been aware.
No. Quite the opposite. I'm pretty sure his point was to show that the claims that Obama knew and is guilty of some kind of criminal complicity are implausible because if he had, he could surely have done something more effective than just letting the problem sit there for his opponents to trot out just before election day.
-
Listening to this, I just assumed someone was imitating Palin's voice, but it's not! Palin actually stayed on the phone with this prankster for more than five minutes, and didn't figure out he was goofing on her --- not even after he said how hot his wife was in bed! He was saying ridiculous things that were completely unprofessional, and she completely bought it.
Listen to this recording. It's nearly beyond belief that a VP candidate could be so completely snowed. This isn't funny. Any competent candidate would have figured this out.
What's she going to do if some other clown calls in and tells her that nuclear missiles are headed toward the US? A potential president has to have more smarts than that.
I thought it must be a Palin impersonator at first too. But the McCain campaign's own statement about it confirms that it was genuine:
Governor Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie.To be fair, it did seem that she didn't understand some of the more absurd bits through the thick accent, or if she did, may have thought she misheard, so just responded politely without being quite sure what she was responding to. Not that that's entirely good, but it's not as bad as if she had fully understood everything the caller had said but still didn't catch on to the prank. For example, I seriously doubt she would have responded to the "Nailin Pailin" comment the way she did if she had really understood what had been said, even if it really had been Sarkozy saying it. In addition to the thick accent, it's also worth considering that the recording we have all heard is recorded from the pranksters' end of the call. The audio quality of the pranksters' voices is almost certainly better in the recording than what Palin actually heard on the phone.
On the other hand, it was pretty obvious that she well understood the part about hunting, and that in itself should have been absurd enough to clue her in. I can cut her some slack for not understanding some things, but that is only a partial excuse. She really did display a serious lack of healthy skepticism and critical thinking ability. Those are characteristics that I believe are critically important for the position she's applying for.
What also strikes me as significant is that she seemed to be starstruck. She was like a 1960's school girl who just met Elvis. I can understand that speaking with someone as important as Sarkozy would be pretty awe inspiring, but someone who's aspiring to be a major world leader herself should be respectful, but above that kind of celebrity swooning. That may well be what crippled her reasoning enough to not catch on to the prank. That doesn't bode any better for her ability to deal with real foreign leaders than for fake ones.
-
Obama had to know about her illegal status.
Why is that, Guest? Do you have anything to back that up other than your desire to believe it?
If this is found out to be true, Obama could be indicted for aiding and abetting an illegal alien trying to avoid deportation.That assessment is Based on what, Guest? Your imagination? According to an Associated Press article:
Onyango's refusal to leave the country would represent an administrative, noncriminal violation of immigration law, meaning such cases are handled outside the criminal court system.Outside of Republican fantasy land, there's no reason to suspect that Obama knew, and no criminal act involved except possibly on the part of those who leaked it.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVVj5Sj...FtqRIAD946VV1O0
An elderly woman seeking asylum. Some criminal.
-
Why? It is no secret that the Huffington Post is biased in its opinions, but it has a good record when it comes to the accuracy of its facts. If you believe otherwise, I challenge you to prove it rather than merely asserting it.
Biased in it's opinions but accurate with the facts? Please.
It looks like Guest isn't up to the challenge.
-
Obama's "I was unaware" answer is no longer believable.
Given that he has only met her a few times, and that disclosing that kind of information is illegal (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...110102187.html), I doubt you could make any credible argument that he should have known about it.
Face it, 2smart, your belief that he should have known has no basis in anything outside of your own prejudice. How much do you know about your aunts and uncles? My family is spread out enough that I've never met some of mine, and don't know all of their names. And that's only "spread out" within a single country.
-
The dirt's starting to stick.
in Kearny
Posted
Yes, but the significance of that question will depend in part on how blatant Blagojevich's solicitation was. If Blago played it smart, it would have been indirect enough to be easily deniable and not particularly damning by itself, even though it might take on some significance in light of other evidence.
It's all pure speculation at this point, as we all know next to nothing about what's on the tapes. One very significant item that is NOT speculation, though, is the one you pointed out above. That Fitzgerald, who does know what's on the tapes, has flat-out stated (not hinted, not implied) that Obama is not implicated.
And yet, KOTW's very own village idiot (I don't mean you, Extinguisher) is confident, though he has not the tiniest shred of evidence, and even though he is in complete ignorance of any of the information that Fitzgerald has at his disposal, that Fitzgerald is wrong about that. If 2Smart ever gets one of his goofy predictions right, it is more likely the result of pure chance than actually having reasoned correctly.