WilliamK
-
Posts
386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Articles
Media Demo
Posts posted by WilliamK
-
-
It was actually "no cattle", as applied to the little Connecticut born, prep-schooled, Ivy League educated, raised with a silver spoon in his mouth nitwit who tries to play cowboy to poor reviews.
Or as Anne Richards once said of his daddy, "he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
-
I didn't realize that the bill had riders attached which forced Obama to vote yes. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
He certainly wasn't forced. Did I suggest force? It's just a matter of weighing the positive provisions against the negative.
I don't agree with his decision on this. I do not think that the good outweighed the bad. It is, in fact, the single biggest disappointment from him as far as I'm concerned. It is also a break of his earlier promise to filibuster any bill that included telecom immunity. But that doesn't change the fact that there's a difference between a compromise and a flip-flop. Agree with it or not, this was a compromise, not a reversal of position.
-
...while Obama dreams about solar energy powering everything...
Liar.
Obama's energy plan is broad based, and includes low-emissions coal, biofuels, solar, wind, and nuclear.
-
A fascinating response.
(For the sake of brevity, I've only quoted the intelligent portion.)
-
In the case of telecom immunity, I am incensed that this was done, but you can't truly say Obama contradicted himself.
Especially since he's still opposed to telecom immunity and has vowed to try to strip that provision.
This highlights a fundamental problem with flip-flop accusations, especially as they pertain to a lawmaker's voting history. The problem is riders. Many pork-barrel or special interest provisions that would never survive a vote on their own are pushed through Congress by attaching them to more sensible legislation, thus effectively holding the main bill hostage with the ransom being the passage of the unwanted provision. A side effect of this is that it makes it easy to prove accusations of the "Senator X said he opposes Y then voted in favor of it." form, insinuating that Senator X either lied or changed position, when in reality, Senator X never changed position, but voted as he did only because he believed the other provision(s) of the bill outweighed Y. Had he voted the other way, he might have been accused of flip-flopping on some other aspect of the bill.
And riders aren't the only source of a false appearance of flip flopping. For example, let's say a particular bill gets voted down. A few months later, it reappears with some modifications to the parts that were objected to the first time. It passes. Those who voted against the first version and for the second may have that used by an opponent as the basis of a flip-flop accusation when they're running for re-election. But even though it's undeniably true that they changed their vote, it may not be true at all that they changed or lied about their position.
Because it's so easy to "prove" and virtually impossible to avoid, flip-flopping is the fall-back mud when you can't find any real mud to sling at your opponent. Unless you like being manipulated, all flip-flopping accusations should be considered immediately suspect and held to a very high standard of proof. ESPECIALLY those accusations that agree with your preconceptions and that you want to be true. Those aren't necessarily any more likely to be false, but if any of them are, they're the ones most likely to deceive you.
The most insidious lies are the ones that ring true.
-
If you want to run with this, we can. IIRC Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" had a copy of Al Gore's book "earth in the Balance" on the Environment in HIS shack, and He consistantly went after Executives and Scientists, so using your logic we can infer that anyone who likes Al Gore is a potential Luddite Bomber/terrorist....right???
An excellent point, S&O. Making assumptions about people's views based on the books they read is a very bad idea. People can and do read or keep for reference texts that they don't agree with. Many capitalists have read The Communist Manifesto, for example. And it is very common for atheists to own copies of The Holy Bible and other religious texts. Willful ignorance is not a virtue.
Same applies for magazines, movies, TV, radio, web sites, etc.
-
First of all, I did not highlite that sentance, second, I am far from a bigot, if anything I am the most liberal individual you would ever meet. This post is about leaving my hometown, not bigotry! yes I made a comment about the sales people on the ave. when I ask for help with something, they don't understand what I want, I did not say it was every store. If anyone put that comment in red it was KOTW not me. And if this isn't posted I will go to the observer.
Whoa, dude. Guest highlighted the sentence to indicate what part of your post he was talking about. KOTW didn't do it. And no one's accusing you of doing it. Guest did accuse you of bigotry, but did not suggest that anyone but himself did the highlighting.
-
The most sensible, honest post ever seen from you.
Yeah, Bryan! NEENER NEENER! I know you are, but what am I? Etc.
Good grief, Guest. Are you trying to compete with 2smart4u for childish and stupid retorts?
-
Makes Bush's approval rating of 25% look huge.
The amazing thing about Bush's 25% approval rating is not that it has sunk so low, but that it remains so high. It's just stunning that a full quarter of the US population is possessed of such profound stupidity. So tell us, 2smart, Patriot, Bushbacker, SKR, etc.; what's it like to represent the bottom half of the bottom half?
-
Congratulations, Autonomous!
Everyone, please don't reply to the negative posts on this thread. In this case, the best justice is to just let their own repugnance distinguish them. Better a few isolated turds in the pool than to fill the whole pool with turds.
-
The following is a quote from a Yale Law Professor; "The ACLU has done more than it's fair share of valuable work over the years, but
it is also saddled with an inborn and overwhelming streak of sheer idiocy, an utter lack of faith in the common sense of the American people,
and a bewildering inability (or more likely, unwillingness) to comprehend the basic decency and virtue of the American nation".
Wow ! I hope this professor has tenure. The effete leftists at Yale won't like a conservative professor speaking the truth.
Coming from a "Yale Law Professor", it seems a bit odd that the quote makes no substantive statements of any kind. It mentions not a single action of the ACLU that he finds objectionable, but is only engaging in a generalized and emotional bashing. No information content whatsoever, and not the slightest hint of reasoned argument. Could that be why this particular quote appealed to you so much that you felt compelled to share it?
I suspect that this professor (granting you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he actually exists and that he is what you claim he is) would have had more substantive things to say in support of those remarks in the context from which you pulled that quote. But far be it from you to be drawn to anything that might contain, or demand, actual thought.
-
Still trying to force your beliefs down the throats of those who don't conform to your ideals I see.You've never been interested in having a discussion with anyone on this board it's either your way or the highway. when will you ever stop riding juniors coat tail and have an original thought of your own.
Post a thoughtful response, and you'll have your thoughtful discussion.
How is it that you blame the poor level of discourse on the poster of the one and only thoughtful and level-headed post on this thread, while you and all other detractors have produced not a single post above the level of personal bashing?
-
Barack Hussain Obama is suspected of being a Taliban spy planted in the U.S. Congress . Michelle is believed to be a man (also a Taliban spy).
Yeah! And that's not the half of it. He eats babies! With a pitchfork! And he pretends to help little old ladies cross the street only to abandon them in the middle just as the light changes! And he KICKS PUPPIES!!!!!!!!! I swear it's all true. My mother's neighbor's gardener's friend's nephew's youth pastor read it somewhere.
p.s.
I also heard that his barber is a PHILATELIST! And he's not even Mormon! Pretty scary to think that someone running for president would be associated with one of THEM.
-
“We'll abide by the Court's decision,” said Bush. “That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a deeply divided Court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented, and their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”
Bush has decried "legislating from the bench", but here he encourages and lauds exactly that. The Supreme Court's job is not to make decisions "based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security", or about anything else. Their job is to put their concerns and biases aside and interpret the Constitution as faithfully as they can. If that leads to a decision that has undesirable consequences, then it's the legislative branch's job to fix the law, not the court's job to twist it to their liking.
Prominent republicans often claim to want "strict constitutionalists" on the SC. They lie. What they clearly want is judges who will toe the right wing line in preference to what the Constitution says.
John McCain is a decent enough fellow. But he's made clear his intent to appoint right-leaning judges should the opportunity arise, and it likely will. That's a very good reason to vote for Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. Republicans will continue tossing the phrase "strict constitutionalist" around, but you're not going to get a genuine one appointed by John McCain.
-
The real truth is revealed in his books. Read them and then think long and hard before you vote.
Good suggestion. Have you read them?
-
.......THANK YOU BILL MOYERS FOR EXPOSING AN EXPLOITATIVE AMERICAN MEDIA DEADENDER FOR THE MALIGNANCY THAT HE IS!!
Mr. Barry's help is appreciated, but O'Reilly is quite capable of soiling his image all by himself, as can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oNAagbLuXQ&hl=en
In this clip, O'Reilly claims that Moyers has accused him of threatening dissenters. This is true, in a sense. But it was pretty clear that what Moyers meant by dissent being "risky" was the risk of being publicly painted as unpatriotic or worse. The much more sinister sounding phrase, "threatening dissenters", is O'Reilly's words, not Moyers', and carries connotations well outside the bounds of what Moyers pretty obviously meant. O'Reilly then shows a clip in which Moyers uses a short clip from O'Reilly, in which O'Reilly is doing exactly that, equating dissent with being unpatriotic. O'Reilly then accuses Moyers of having taken him out of context, and in a stunningly disingenuous attempt to convince us of this, O'Reilly shows a longer clip in which the surrounding context not only doesn't change the meaning of the part Moyers had quoted, but actually reinforces it. Then he makes a second attempt at the same thing, again showing a clip where Moyers quotes him, followed by a longer clip with context that again doesn't change the meaning of the part Moyers quoted (though at least it doesn't reinforce it this time). After this despicable performance, this sack of garbage, O'Reilly, goes on to call Moyers a "charlatan", and "not honest", and displays some impressive belligerence towards one of his guests, obviously losing his temper a bit and raising his voice.
Did Bill O'Reilly actually think he was helping his case with that performance? Are there people out there who are so devoid of reason that it could actually work?
How dare that sack of garbage call Bill Moyers a charlatan. O'Reilly isn't worthy to lick the mud off the bottoms of Bill Moyers' shoes.
-
-
OK I will try this one more time to see if it is posted. Who cares, these two people and those that have responded to them have ruined Kearny on the Web. And before you all start I know I just responded to this thread, for the first and last time.Please all of you go away and give us back our message board .PLEASE!!!! And since my first post was not posted I guess I am guilty of posting twice if this is posted!
This is a moderated forum. Posts only appear after the moderator reads and posts them. This usually happens 1 to 3 times a day at unpredictable times.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
-
-
You'd still have to run your refrigerator, heat and cool your house.
The relevance of that depends on how much of that comes from imported petroleum vs. coal, hydro, nuclear, methane, etc. I don't think it's much. I'm not aware of any diesel or gasoline power plants beyond the scale of backup generators for hospitals and such.
Even if we undertake a real renewable energy initiative, significant solar and wind power generation are years, if not decades, away. Nuclear? Where?? It's safe, but not 100% secure (with dire consequences if there is an accident) and what do you do with the nuclear waste, which will continue to radiate for thousands of years to come? If the choice is nuclear versus $8 a gallon at the pump, my personal choice is the $8.For the near term, electric cars will mostly be powered by coal, as that is already the dominant fuel for electric power generation. It's not perfect by any means, but we don't have to import it from countries who want to kill us, and it still may be less pollution per mile traveled than burning gasoline in an automobile engine at less than 15% efficiency and no ability to carry around the massive emission reduction measures that are possible for a stationary power plant.
It's all about the vehicles. Other than that, we're mostly energy independent already.
McCain and other right wing hypocrites exposed
in Kearny
Posted
What do you mean? The UpTighties are always constrictive.