The Libs will love this... [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

ljb

07-15-2005, 10:12 AM

dave, you owe no apology. The libs invented "political correctness"
lbj, read all the posts against this war, against bush, posts saying our military targeting civilians and you will know Dave is right. We even got libs saying they're neutral. How in the hell can anyone be neutral in a war for freedom, unless you're against freedom? You libs by your rhetoric do give aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralize the troops. When you agree with over the top rhetoric by Kennedy and Durbin you are indirectly helping Al Quada.
You're offended? Why?
Lefty,
I have always been against the ill conceived invasion of Iraq. As for freedom, tell that to the parents of the 16 children that were killed by a suicide bomber a few days ago in Iraq.
I on the other hand fully supported our invasion of Afghanistan going after Osama bin forgotten. Speaking of which, Afghanistan seems to be getting sour again don't you think? Just more poor planning by the gang of four don't you think?
Yes Lefty, your grandchildren will be paying for the fiascos this administration has wrought. :(

ljb

07-15-2005, 10:14 AM

You know what ljb - when Dave put that post up I wondered if he meant you. I guess you wondered the same thing. :lol:
lsbets,
Wonder all you want but Dave has yet to prove me wrong. :D :D :D

ljb

07-15-2005, 11:21 AM

lsbets,
And furthermore: While I probably disagree with Dave on everything political, he has always posted sound logical arguments. This statement is bordering on the spin side. Something I would expect from say Lefty or Tom. So I had to call Dave on the statement and as we cann all see he has failed to respond. Nuff said?

Lefty

07-15-2005, 11:52 AM

lbj, didn't you read the news the other day about the deficit coming down and the trade gap narrowing?
Suicide bombers blow up people and somehow that's Bush's fault? This is the stuff we're fighting. Oh, did you hear about the Iraqui police catching 3 suicide bombers other day before the evil deed? And a couple weeks ago they rounded up 700 terrrorists. Don't these headlines seep into your head or do yuh wear an aluminum hat?
How many dead if Saddam still there? Would he have his nukes ready. Would he have fired a biological weapon at us by now? Glad we don't have to find out. lbj, why don't you join in hating the enemy and not Bush. It's better to be for liberty than against it. Try it, you might like it!

ljb

07-15-2005, 01:51 PM

lbj,
How many dead if Saddam still there? Would he have his nukes ready. Would he have fired a biological weapon at us by now? Glad we don't have to find out. lbj, why don't you join in hating the enemy and not Bush. It's better to be for liberty than against it. Try it, you might like it!
Lefty,The answers to these questions depend on what you believe. The Bush lie machine or the truth.
Many more Americans are daily beggining to see the truth come join us Lefty the waters fine.

lsbets

07-15-2005, 01:52 PM

ljb - you seem to be awfully defensive. Do you think people perceive you in the way Dave talked about?

ljb

07-15-2005, 02:00 PM

lsbets,
I asked a question of Dave. And I have already explained the reason for the question. "Not like Dave to make false accusations". If you can share some insight into this question, go ahead otherwise, fuhgeddaboutit.

lsbets

07-15-2005, 02:07 PM

Mighty sensitive. Did Dave's quote make you put the checkbook away? :lol:

JustRalph

07-15-2005, 02:50 PM

tell that to the parents of the 16 children that were killed by a suicide bomber a few days ago in Iraq.

The bombing's are crimes committed on the Iraqi people by terrorists who are trying to influence our governement. If you can't understand that, you are dense. Better that Saddam stuck them in a wood chipper later in life?

ljb

07-15-2005, 04:34 PM

The bombing's are crimes committed on the Iraqi people by terrorists who are trying to influence our governement.
No really ? You must have taken your smart pills this morning.

ljb

07-15-2005, 04:36 PM

Mighty sensitive. Did Dave's quote make you put the checkbook away? :lol:
So then, am I correct in assuming you have nothing to say on the topic ? :D :D :D

Lefty

07-15-2005, 08:07 PM

lbj, why would I wanta join a group of losers that have been wrong about virtually everything for a long long time?

ljb

07-15-2005, 08:47 PM

lbj, why would I wanta join a group of losers that have been wrong about virtually everything for a long long time?
Uh you have it wrong Lefty that's the group you would be leaving. :D

Tom

07-15-2005, 10:37 PM

Why am I not suprised that LJB would support terrorists who bomb little children eating candy?

ljb

07-16-2005, 06:50 AM

Why am I not suprised that LJB would support terrorists who bomb little children eating candy?
Tom,
Where in the hell are you getting this from? Rove ?

Suff

07-28-2005, 07:58 PM

Highlighting contrast

Secretariat

07-28-2005, 08:20 PM

Dave,
As a liberal, I take offense at this portion of your post. Would/could you show me one example of a liberal on this board who has shown support for Al Queda?
While most of us are upset with how Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, I do not recall anyone here supporting Al Queda.

Dave seems to me a moderate Republican. LJB, you're right here though- with the exception of Amazin, almost every liberal poster here has been supportive of the fight against Bin Laden in Afghanistan, as well as being supportive of our soldiers. The dillema of most of us was the idea to scale down Afghansitan before the job was completed and spread global democracy in the mid-East or chase down false WMD claims or whatever. Liberals have posted defenses of soldiers efforts here, we just disagree with the Iraq policy. Somehow, many Repubs here cannot understand that distinction.

As to the terroist claim, read Suff's thread. Seems the WH is changing the reference to terrorism. Frankly, i don't udnerstand it myself.

PaceAdvantage

07-29-2005, 02:16 AM

Seems the WH is changing the reference to terrorism. Frankly, i don't udnerstand it myself.

Probably something Orwellian in nature.....when in doubt, shout 1984!

boxcar

07-31-2005, 06:29 PM

A friend sent this to me:

Boxcar

************

Subject: 21 ways to be a good Liberal

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion (even partial birth abortion) on demand

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S.nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

Lefty

07-31-2005, 08:08 PM

Box, thanks for posting this. Great stuff!

doophus

07-31-2005, 10:21 PM

Thanks, Boxcar.

That post is now enroute to (116) email addresses, all friends or relatives, in (37) different countries.

I also note that no on-board libbee has dared take any issue with the post.

Again, thanks and continue the good work.

Secretariat

08-01-2005, 06:19 PM

Box,

They were funny. Here's some more:

Things Republicans Believe:

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

"Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

"William Bennett, the man they call the moral voice of America, lost almost $8 million playing slot machines. And here is the amazing part: He still has a better economic plan than President Bush." —Jay Leno

"As you know the Republicans now control everything in Washington — the House, the Senate, Supreme Court, the White House. Well the bad news, they got no excuse. You screw up this one, it's your fault." —Jay Leno

lsbets

08-01-2005, 06:42 PM

Sec, the difference between your post and Boxcars is yours represent your warped view of Republicans, and in all too many cases, Boxcar's post represent the truth.

chickenhead

08-01-2005, 06:53 PM

I think in all too many cases they are BOTH true, boxcar's and sec's lists.

boxcar

08-01-2005, 07:02 PM

chickenhead wrote:

I think in all too many cases they are BOTH true, boxcar's and sec's lists.

You must be one conflicted individual.

Boxcar

chickenhead

08-01-2005, 07:10 PM

i'm perfectly happy...you guys are the conflicted ones :D

chickenhead

08-01-2005, 07:11 PM

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

by God that sounds like you Boxcar :lol:

Lefty

08-01-2005, 07:35 PM

Boxcar's list dealt in generalities, but right away sec had to dis a personality and his very first one on list shows that libs just can't discern the difference between immoral recreational drug use and someone who got hooked because of excruciating pain. And Rush admitted it and sought help twice and seems to have beaten it. But no kudos from libs.
And then he uses a joke by Lenno to dis Bill Bennet. Bennet played slots here in Vegas where it's legal and used his own money and money he had. So where's the immorality? Don't tell me, sec, a horseplayer is going to say gambling is immoral?
Discernment seems to be a big lib problem.

wonatthewire1

08-01-2005, 08:17 PM

boxcar

08-01-2005, 08:19 PM

Secretariat wrote:

They were funny.

Actually, they are a pretty sad commentary on Liberals -- basically because of what LSBETS essentially said, i.e. the commentary is truthful whereas as your take on "Republicans" (which is suppose you mean Conservatives)is largely contrived and, therefore, patently false. Allow me to point just a few:

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery

I assume you're alluding to Rush Limbaugh here who was addicted to legal meds (as opposed to illegal drugs for those living on another planet).

Secondly, even though he was investigated for acquiring those legal meds illegally, the investigation came up empty. Lots of allegation by liberal yo-yos, but no charges, no idictiments, no convictions -- nothing, nada, zip.

So...a "moral failing" on his part? Quite possibly. But a criminal act? Evidently, nothing the DA thought would stick.

Conversely, illegal drug use is a moral failing and a crime.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

There is no inconsistency here. The U.N. is a pathetic joke -- an institution that is morally bankrupt whose primary interest it is to cater to the whims and fancies of totalitarian states and two-bit dictators. For this reason we should get out of that commie-lovin' body.

And if the U.N. did its job properly and acted repsonsibly we wouldn't have to be doing the dirty work for them. But since Kofi & Son, Inc. was in bed with Saddam and didn't want to do anything to kill the Cash Cow -- well, someone with some moral clarity and fortitude has to pick up all the moral slack of this worthless orginization.

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Actually, this is a new twist. Usually conservative evangelical Christians are told that Jesus loves everyone and, therefore, Christians shouldn't hate homosexuals. Of course, the truth of the matter is that Jesus does love everyone and doesnt take pleasure in the death of the wicked -- but nonetheless will judge and condemn all unrepentant sinners, according to the Good Book.

The other side of the coin is that true Christians don't "hate" homos or lesbos -- at least any more than we "hate" thieves, liars, adulterers, murderers, etc. To point out that [any] act is sinful (or morally wrong for PC fanatics) doesn't equate with hartred for the perpetrator of the act. Nor for that matter does it equate with fear of the perpetrator.

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

Actually, you're condemning an awful lot of Libs who voted for Schwarzie.

Furthermore, I'm one conservative who would not have voted for him, if for no other reason -- I don't care much for fence straddlers.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

This is another new one I haven't heard. True conservatives believe that schools should stick to the basics -- you know the "Three Rs" and leave moral counselling and guidance up to the parents who brought the kiddies into the world.

Having said this, what conservatives believe about the promotion of condoms is that it promotes sex by lulling people into a false sense of security with the lie that one can have safe sex by using a condom. This is the big lie. The way to stay safe is by abstinence. Abstinence has a perfect safety record, whereas condoms do not! The use of condoms only decreases the risk -- yet I've never read or heard a liberal argue that condoms can make for "safer" sex -- just that use of them makes for "safe" sex -- in the absolute sense.

As for the rest of your gross misrepresentations and half baked truths...I will permit you to indulge (and stew) yourself in your sick fantasies.

Boxcar

wonatthewire1

08-01-2005, 08:20 PM

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

Sec, trade with Vietnam really picked up during the Clinton administration...

Big business loves cheap labor > and pollyticians love making their pals money > how else can you get great paying jobs in the private sector once the lights in Washingtoon die out?

chickenhead

08-01-2005, 08:34 PM

Boxcar, you crack me up....Sec posts a list that he says Republicans agree with, you say it's not true, it is made up, fantasy..and then go on to detail all the ways in which you agree with it....that list is not contriving a person, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU!

And ljb, that other list, THAT IS YOU!

boxcar

08-01-2005, 08:55 PM

chickenhead wrote:

Boxcar, you crack me up....Sec posts a list that he says Republicans agree with, you say it's not true, it is made up, fantasy..and then go on to detail all the ways in which you agree with it....that list is not contriving a person, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU!

Hey, ChickenLittle -- in your case, you had better find a doctor to get you back on your meds; for you're turly cracked in the head. You were more lucid months ago when you were on them (and God knows you were bouncing off the walls back then!)

Boxcar

Secretariat

08-01-2005, 09:11 PM

Sec, the difference between your post and Boxcars is yours represent your warped view of Republicans, and in all too many cases, Boxcar's post represent the truth.

lol...you Repubs...fun to dish out but never can take it...I willingly said Box's posts were funny because they were...but when someone posts something about Repubs...ohhh, it is warped....maybe i should add that one....

If a Repub posts a criticism it is an astute observation revealing a cosmic truth, but when a Dem posts a criticism it is a warped point of view that illustrates their perversion of divine truth, and which should subsequently result in the institution of capital punishment upon the liberal scum to teach them to follow the family values of Bill Bennett and his slot examples for children, Newt Gingrich and his famous family values of breaking up with his wife on her cancer death bed, Rick Santorum who beleives women should stay at home, but voted against the Family Leave Act.

But the true Repub family value is to stay at home, and spend more time with your family. This is why Bush is taking his 50th vacation while President over the next five weeks. lol...

Tom

08-01-2005, 09:54 PM

Bill Bennett is one of the most hypocritical individuals on the face of the earth!

Look it up...you'd be watching horse racing like they do in Bahrain > without the benefit of mutual wagering...

Listen, both fake ideologies suck > suck the money right out of your pocket and right into theirs...one day, y'all will get it!

Why - please give specifics. You are making accusations on a decent, honorable man and I would like to hear than passing puffing. What evidence do you have?

chickenhead

08-01-2005, 10:03 PM

Hey, ChickenLittle -- in your case, you had better find a doctor to get you back on your meds; for you're turly cracked in the head. You were more lucid months ago when you were on them (and God knows you were bouncing off the walls back then!)
Boxcar

Cheap insults. I'm impressed.

Lets talk about this condom thing. I happen to agree with you about sex ed in school, at least I assume you agree with me from what you said, which is that schools have no business teaching kids about sex. I do not want any gov't employee telling my kids (when I have them) about anything regarding the birds and the bees, there is no standardized, mutually agreed upon sexuality instruction.

Regarding condoms, that is more difficult for me to say no to. Not handing them out mind you, not instruction, just availability, hang a dispenser up in the bathrooms.

Why? First, why I do not think abstinence works as a method of safe sex. I went through K-12 of a Catholic School, anstinence is what we were taught, and this wasn't that long ago, my 10 yr. reunion is this month.

First the numbers, 33 girls in my graduating class, 7 pregnant before graduation. Just let that sink in for a minute. Is that the perfect safety record of abstinence you talk about? This is a run of the mill middle class school..upper middle class for the area. We had been taught abstinence from day 1, and as soon as we hit breeding age, it became less than an after thought. For everyone. Now of course we knew AIDS, we knew pregnancy, we knew about nasty creepy crawlys...that was in everyones mind of course, but abstinence was not a viable solution. It was not even considered. Condoms themselves were optional, in part, and only in part, because they were hard to come by. No one wanted to buy them, but then where do you get them? And who really cares all that much anyway? It's not like anything bad is gonna happen to ME! It's not like you are going to POSTPONE anything if you don't happen to have one handy.

My point is that even if the teachers gave every kid a bag full of condoms every day, safe sex, safer sex, whatever you want to call it..would still be struggle. It is an ugly situation...but burying your head in the sand does not make it any better. Most kids have sex Boxcar, and lots of it.

For my own kid, regardless of whether schools have condoms or not, they will be taught abstinence, and have access to a big bowl of condoms.

boxcar

08-01-2005, 10:04 PM

Secretariat wrote:

lol...you Repubs...

I know you're not thinking about me and Repubs in that cramped, oxygen-deprived, screaming-for-air brain of yours, right? I'm a registered Independent.

fun to dish out but never can take it...I willingly said Box's posts were funny because they were...but when someone posts something about Repubs...ohhh, it is warped....maybe i should add that one....

Only you would find humor in something where none was intended. But then...what else can one do but label cold, hard, relentless facts as humor when confronted with them and no rebuttals are forthcoming?

Boxcar

lsbets

08-01-2005, 10:11 PM

Sec - when I say warped its because you look at everything through the most partisan eyes I have ever seen from someone who is not paid by either party. Case in point - your Uzbekistan thread. IMHO, you knew all about Karimov's human rights record - its been a big topic with the left for a couple of years now. Yet you disregarded that when you posted your topic with the sole intention of making Bush look bad. When the circumstances surrounding Uzbekistan were posted, you chose to disappear from yet another thread, because given the totality of the situation you probably think it is a good thing we are not helping Karimov, but to say so might mean you think Bush did something right, and you would never intentionally say anything of the sort.

There are liberals I respect and liberals I don't. Here is my distinction. I think the vast majority of self described liberals in this country want a good outcome in Iraq as quickly as possible, even if a good outcome would ultimatly make Bush look good, because if its good for the country they want to see it happen. I would put guys like Chikenhead and Suff in that category. Then there are those who want the best possible outcome in Iraq, but not yet. They do not want to see Bush get credit for anything, so if it is a choice between what is best for the country (remember, we are already there, so I am not talking about the decision to go in) and making Bush look bad, they will choose having Bush look bad. I place you and a few others in that group. And yes, there were conservatives who were the same way when it came to Clinton, and I have the same negative opinion of them.

Tom

08-01-2005, 10:45 PM

ls, talk about disappearing into another thread, I saw him in a (gasp!) handciapping thread tonight! This is REALLY going underground! :lol: :lol:

Steve 'StatMan'

08-01-2005, 11:24 PM

For what it's worth, I often enjoy reading Sec's handicapping posts, as well as many of the others posters that I may agree or disagree with in "Off Topic Land".

Steve 'StatMan'

08-01-2005, 11:53 PM

Abstinence never fails. People fail to abstain. Failure isn't limited to teens, either.

Secretariat

08-02-2005, 02:51 AM

Thanks Steve. I try not to ever let my Off Topic posts and Handicapping posts ever mix.

Isbets, “partisan” is in the POV of the beholder. Frankly, I find your posts quite “partisan” as well as Box’s. He may call himself an independent, but there is nothing independent about his posts. To me they are extreme.

As to the Uzbekistan thread, (which btw has no relation to this thread of late night joke postings which Box has put up, and I simply replied to) if you go back to the Uzbekistan thread and look at my post, it begins “any idea why?” My next paragraph simply states the obvious. The third paragraph is my opinion, and since the Pentagon has confimed that Uzbekistan was a “strategic point in the fight against Al Queda” as late as May 2005, I am amazed at your cross over into this thread.

My point of view is not so different from many of the posters here, and that is that the initiators of 911 are who attacked us, and that event was put in motion and masterminded by Bin Laden. (Remember the memo Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US a month before 911 and when George went on one of his 50 vacations while in the WH). I suggest you read or listen to the audio tapes of Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies. Even if you don’t agree with the politics, it is an unbeleivable account of what occurred in the situation room that day. It makes you realize who the enemy was and still is.

I supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan and wished that he’d finished the job there and used the same gusto he had when he invaded the Taliban rather than begin a global democracy campaign in Iraq. My position is not much different than Richard Clarke’s, hardly a partisan hack serving multiple party administrations, including this one. His position on the war in Iraq is pretty close to mine. And guess what we both want to win, it doesn’t just mean blindly agreeing with Bush’s poor planning and policies. In fact a returning vet from Fallujah, Hackett, is running for Congress in Ohio and doesn’t agree with Bush’s policies either. I suppose he is out of touch with what is happening over there. btw..he has said if he loses, he'll go back over even though he beleives we should not be there. Pretty courageous to fight for the preservation of your buddies even though you think the polciy is flawed.

Iraq is a mess whether you choose to beleive it or not. 1 in 3 dollars earmarked for reconstruction is going to security. Chalabi’s bodyguards were shot the other day. Five more US soldiers killed over the weekend, years after “Mission Accomplished.” And even in the determined successes such as the formation of the Iraqi constitution, it makes Islam the driving force behind the law of the land. So much for freedom of religion. It is what I feared, and that is the direction of a “cleric state”. Interestingly Bremer fought hard against Islam being a part of the interim constitution, but here it is. Bin Laden and Omar remain at large. Our allies are committed to pulling out of Iraq by the end of the year or the coming year - Poland, Italy, and even some British forces. Bush has even tried to change the terminology in describing the war. But I digress in answering yuor poitns Isbets, the thread was about defining libs and conservatives...

Aww, heck, here I thought Box posted a couple of funny jokes about liberals, and somebody said no libs would dare reply,. I reply, and lots of crying and gnashing of teeth. I thought conservatives had a better sense of humor than to get upset about a couple of late night talk show postings. Maybe not.

boxcar

08-02-2005, 10:30 AM

Steve'StatMan'BTW wrote:

Abstinence never fails. People fail to abstain. Failure isn't limited to teens, either.

You're quite right. Failure spills right over to the condoms people use because they failed to abstain.

Practiced Abstinence = 100% Safe Sex. Condom Use = ???% of Success.

Boxcar

chickenhead

08-02-2005, 10:56 AM

Practiced Abstinence = 100% Safe Sex.

What kind of double speak is this? The reason this fails to sway kids (and adults alike)...is because you say 100% SAFE SEX, and they hear 100% NO SEX. And their description is much more accurate and honest than yours.

Abstinence is not safe sex, abstinence is no sex. And while those who practice abstinence are 100% safe, considering that at least 90% of the youth utterly reject abstinence, that means your idea has protected 10% of the population at best. Now what about the other 90%? Shrug our shoulders and walk away? Ignore the problem and continue on with the same old line? You've got to do better than that.

boxcar

08-02-2005, 11:56 AM

chickenhead wrote:

What kind of double speak is this? The reason this fails to sway kids (and adults alike)...is because you say 100% SAFE SEX, and they hear 100% NO SEX. And their description is much more accurate and honest than yours.

What doublespeak? To abstain means (by definition) to consciously and deliberately refrain from engaging in some action or practice.

Abstinence is not safe sex, abstinence is no sex.

Perfect abstinence = 100% Safety. By definition abstinence is "no sex"...DUH. :rolleyes:

And while those who practice abstinence are 100% safe,

Ahh...so you have awaken and have seen the light. :rolleyes: Methinks this has been my point all along.

considering that at least 90% of the youth utterly reject abstinence, that means your idea has protected 10% of the population at best.

Out of what orifice did you pull those stats!?

Now what about the other 90%? Shrug our shoulders and walk away? Ignore the problem and continue on with the same old line? You've got to do better than that.

And you ignore the problem that condom-use is no guarantee of 100% safety.
Tell us, Brainiac, just how safe is condom-use?

Boxcar

chickenhead

08-02-2005, 12:38 PM

What doublespeak? To abstain means (by definition) to consciously and deliberately refrain from engaging in some action or practice.

Correct, therefore it is not a "SAFE" version of that action. It is a lack of that action. Abstinence is not safe sex. And the sooner those in favor of abstinence quit using stupid patronizing slogans like Practiced Abstinence=100% Safe Sex, the better.

Out of what orifice did you pull those stats!?

Experience Boxcar, and I'm being generous. The vast majority of those relatively few that are not having sex, are not abstaining, they are suffering from lack of opportunity, due to general incompetence.

And you ignore the problem that condom-use is no guarantee of 100% safety.
Tell us, Brainiac, just how safe is condom-use?

I do not ignore any fact, what I do is admit that it is many times safer than sex without a condom. That is the central point. Is absolute safety required to make something better than the alternative of no protection?

Cars are unsafe, does that mean seatbelts are a bad idea, even though they do not mean you are infallibly protected, such as staying away from cars completely would provide?

boxcar

08-02-2005, 01:11 PM

Chicken wrote:

Correct, therefore it is not a "SAFE" version of that action. It is a lack of that action. Abstinence is not safe sex. And the sooner those in favor of abstinence quit using stupid patronizing slogans like Practiced Abstinence=100% Safe Sex, the better.

Ahh...so you don't like a dose of your own medicine, eh? I used the phrase "100% Safe Sex" to drive home the point that in contradistinction to condom-use, one can have "safe sex" (in the absolute sense) by practicing abstinence.

You don't care for patronizing slogans, but yet I've never heard a Lib object to the phrase "safe sex" when promoting condom use. This is an outright lie; for there is no such thing as safe sex! As pointed out previously, the truthful and accurate statement would be that condom use would make for SAFER sex.

Experience Boxcar, and I'm being generous. The vast majority of those relatively few that are not having sex, are not abstaining, they are suffering from lack of opportunity, due to general incompetence.

Geesh, I didn't know we had a sex expert in our midsts. (But I suspect that the only "experience" you really have is pulling things out of the air and your orifices.)

I do not ignore any fact, what I do is admit that it is many times safer than sex without a condom. That is the central point. Is absolute safety required to make something better than the alternative of no protection?

Ahh..."better", eh? Your own words condemn the liberal spin on condoms. Better doesn't equal "best". Yet, Libs advocate, support, promote and represent condom use for the sole purpose of engaging in safe sex -- as though this is the best protection against dieseases, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Yes...something might be promoted as being "best" (even when not perfect) if there were no other alternative; but this isn't the case here. The other alternative is abstinence. And abstinence is 100% risk-free -- something that promoters for condoms cannot claim!

So, sir, practice what you preach and quit patronizing and promoting condom use in the absolute terms of "safe sex", and instead promote it for the relative safety such use offers.

Cars are unsafe, does that mean seatbelts are a bad idea, even though they do not mean you are infallibly protected, such as staying away from cars completely would provide?

But the dif here is that car manufacturers generally don't adverstise their cars as being "safe" -- only as being safer. Automobile safety is a relative thing -- something that supporters of condom-use fail to recognize with the condom products they promote.

Boxcar

chickenhead

08-02-2005, 01:36 PM

So, sir, practice what you preach and quit patronizing and promoting condom use in the absolute terms of "safe sex", and instead promote it for the relative safety such use offers.

Apparently you have not read a single word I've written, for I have done nothing but this the whole time.

But the dif here is that car manufacturers generally don't adverstise their cars as being "safe" -- only as being safer. Automobile safety is a relative thing -- something that supporters of condom-use fail to recognize with the condom products they promote.

Taken from the Trojan website:

Using latex condoms each time and every time – the right way – can help reduce your risk of getting or giving an STD. During sex, using a latex condom is the only way to help protect yourself and your partner against HIV/AIDS. Condoms can help reduce your risk of pregnancy, too.

You are lost in your own fantasy land of imagined absolutes, Boxcar. The manufacturers do not claim they do anything but reduce the risk.

wonatthewire1

08-02-2005, 08:31 PM

Just to clue you in...Box is perfect and perfection need not have to be questioned > ever!

Got it?

Remember, his president has never erred in his entire life > that is the mentality that you're dealing with > best not to waste your breath > someday the truth shall enlighten :jump:

Lefty

08-02-2005, 08:53 PM

The prob. is not what the manufacturers say, but that the schools hand em out and most kids are under the illusion they are having safesex.
In my day, sex was not tght in schools and we had a lower rate of child pregnancy's and disease.

chickenhead

08-02-2005, 09:15 PM

I just like to lock horns with Boxcar once in awhile, keep him from getting too complacent. That's important at his age. ;)

Boxcar, you're all right by me, no matter what I may say to the contrary from time to time.

Suff

08-02-2005, 09:19 PM

i'm perfectly happy...you guys are the conflicted ones :D

You shoulda put a period there. These guys are loose and on the run from something. You know they know. The system calls for this ridicolousness.

If an 11 yeard old boy, with no education, living in a mud hut in Sao Paulo Brazil emmigrates to America.....Can't read, write, or socialize at the 5th , 6th or 7th grade. What do you do? Put an 11 year old like that in first grade?

American Public schools are dealing with Millions like this. They're socializing , while educating them in the very basic's in life. Reading street signs, Job Applications, Cultural norms. They require the most while getting the least in allocation of funds.

People don't understand. They denounce socialism while enacting it.

These people work at Wal-Mart and places similiar. Dunkin Donuts.

When you walk in and pay $1.29 for Toilet paper. You saved .16 cents, but say hello to the $16,000 in hopsital bills for his wife's 3rd baby.(70% have no Health coverage) ...ON our tab. Seen your health care premiums lately? Cost of a bandaid? There's your socialism boys.

Suff

08-02-2005, 09:24 PM

Or do what they suggested in another thread. Put him in the 7th grade where he belongs. Algerbra, computer science and so forth. You'll Watch him fail miserably..... then label him a failure and send him out to the world.

My Vote.... No. Better way.

boxcar

08-03-2005, 12:24 AM

chickenhead wrote:

Apparently you have not read a single word I've written, for I have done nothing but this the whole time.

Actually, I have; and I'm still hard-pressed to find anything in your words that even remotely hint at the idea that condom use makes for relatively safe sex.

Taken from the Trojan website:

Geesh, Chick, what would you expect a condom manufactuerer to say on his labels? :rolleyes: If a company wasn't truthful in its labeling, don't you think it would be leaving itself open to all kinds of lawsuits? :rolleyes:

But this doesn't change the fact that the social engineers in this country (of which the Public School system, for example, has no shortage) promotes condom use in terms of "safe sex". Take a look at this site below -- The Coalition for Positive Sexuality:

http://www.positive.org/JustSayYes/safesex.html

Meanwhile the STDS site is internally conflicted. In the very first paragraph, they tell you why "safe sex" is important. But then in the next paragraph the yo-yos concede that the only way to be "100% certain of never getting an STD" is never to have sex at all. In that same paragraph they talk about "reducting the risk".

But then in the next paragraph, they go right back to talking about "safe sex practices". :rolleyes:

http://www.stdservices.on.net/std/prevention/Default.htm

Brooklyn College is far more bolder in its statements about "safe sex". After all, its target audience is college kids. While there is place on their "safe sex" page that talks about how safety is a "relative" thing, it does so only in the context of "life-threatening" diseases -- never in the terms of all the other nasty diseases that can still wreak havoc, pain, discomfort, humiliation, etc. upon one's life. I suppose BC probably considers these "non life-threatening" diseases to be mere annoyances, inconveniences -- or perhaps worse yet -- acceptable prices to pay for frolics in the hay.

http://pc.brooklyn.cuny.edu/SAFESEX.HTM

But all is not well with condom users, as pointed out on this site:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/safesex.html

[b]You are lost in your own fantasy land of imagined absolutes, Boxcar. The manufacturers do not claim they do anything but reduce the risk[b].

Yes...we know what the "manufacturers" claim. And also know what the liberal hedonists and nihilists teach our kids about "safe sex" when promoting condom use.

Boxcar

Secretariat

08-03-2005, 12:33 AM

I have a question for those who tune into Limbaugh. Is it really true he referred to Paul Hackett, the Marine who ran for the vacate Congressional seat in Ohio as a "staff puke". Before I launch into a diatribe, I just want to know if this gutless chickenhawk who got out of Vietnam by having a boil lanced on his ass, actuall has the gall to call a Marine who went into Fallujah to try to bridge the peace a "staff puke."

Lefty, I know you listen to the addict. Is it true?

Lefty

08-03-2005, 11:48 AM

sec, don't get to listen to him much anymore since i head to the racebook these days about the time he comes on. I seriously doubt that he said it.
But let's surmise he did say it. If he did, it would be in the context of politics and not the man's bravery. Don't you liberals keep saying you don't like the war, the politics of the war, but support the troops? I think we can applaud any man's bravery without endorsing his politics.
But, I don't think he said it.

Lefty

08-03-2005, 12:50 PM

sec, listening to Rush today and he said a guy called yesterday and said this guy did a disservice to the marines by calling Bush a S.O.B. and other names. He then said Hackett was a laison officer. And rush, blurted, something like "Oh, a staff puke." Evidently a pretty commen term for such laison guys.

boxcar

08-03-2005, 01:40 PM

Secretariat wrote:

Lefty, I know you listen to the addict. Is it true?

Ohh...such intolerance! Where is the Liberal compassion and understanding? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

lsbets

08-03-2005, 01:46 PM

Lefty, that would be a common term among those who have earned the right to use such a term. Even if Hackett never left his base, he was stationed in Ramadi. I came as close to getting killed when I spent a couple of nights at the Marine HQ base in Ramadi as I did on any convoy I had been ambushed on. Hell, my wife and I chose my daughter's middle name - Faith - after a mortar round came in at 0500 in the motor pool where we were sleeping next to our trucks. The round landed so close the concussion from the blast blew me out of my cot. The night before a mortar round came in about 50 meters from the MWR building where I was watching a Yankees/Red Sox game, and tore a guys leg up pretty good. Ramadi can be a pretty friggin dangerous place, even for "staff pukes." Disagree with the guys politics as much as you want, I certainly do, but don't try to diminish his service by making him seem like someone who was not in harms way. He may not have been knocking down doors to chase the bad guys, but everyone over there plays a valuable role in the fight. I wasn't knocking down doors either, all I did was run convoys all over the place, and we didn't go looking for the bad guys, they came looking for us, but everyone of my soldiers performed in an exemplary manner, and I find it an insult to them that a (fortunately very small) number of people have tried to diminish Hackett's service - because when you do, you diminish the service of countless others in support roles. This guy didn't pull a Kerry, he didn't come home and libel Iraq veterans. Hell, read his site, he says one of the things I've been saying - that too many liberals want us to fail in Iraq because Bush is the President. He's right on that, and I wish those folks would look in the mirror and evaluate themselves when they see that statement coming from a Dem.

I don't care one way or the other about Rush, but if he did say that, even in an attempt at humor, I also really don't feel like listening to people try to justify the remark. Its kind of like family - if a military guy called him a staff puke, I'd probably laugh and agree (Lord knows I did my fair share of complaining about staff guys and Army lawyers), but once it gets outside of the family, them's fighting words.

lsbets

08-03-2005, 01:49 PM

Lefty, I know you listen to the addict. Is it true?

And Sec, when you say things like that, all you really do is make yourself look like a buffoon.

Lefty

08-03-2005, 01:58 PM

lsbets, He did say it. He blurted it out. I know what you mean but this Hackett guy has called Bush names in the past and in this election he tried to run on his coattails. Well, nobody's perfect, even Rush.
Once again, thanks for your service.

Secretariat

08-03-2005, 04:24 PM

lsbets, He did say it. He blurted it out. ... Well, nobody's perfect, even Rush....Once again, thanks for your service.

So he did say it. Thanks Lefty, I appreciate your honesty. What a f*ing hypocrite the addict is. He somehow manages to denigrate the service of soldiers if they are Democrats, but if he is Republican they are honorable heros.

Limpballs is a disgusting piece of human flesh, a slime, a man who lacked the guts to serve his own country, but pontificates and vomits his words in an attempt to slander servicemen who are not affiliated with the party he worships. He's got to be the most disgusting vermin that ever walked on this earth. .There...got it out....I just have no respect for that lump of shit.

lsbets

08-03-2005, 04:47 PM

He's got to be the most disgusting vermin that ever walked on this earth. .There...got it out....I just have no respect for that lump of shit.

Really? Most disgusting huh? Wow, I could probably rattle off 100 names I would have thought you would think are more disgusting. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, hell how about Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro (you do think Castro is a bad guy, right?) .......

Secretariat

08-03-2005, 04:59 PM

Granted Isbets, i should have said "one" of the most disgusting slimes to walk the earth. The man does nothing but foment hatred.

JustRalph

08-03-2005, 06:30 PM

Granted Isbets, i should have said "one" of the most disgusting slimes to walk the earth. The man does nothing but foment hatred.

yeah, and he beats you guys into the ground 5 days a week. He is responsible for a big chunk of the conservative wave in this country. I hear him a little thru the week. I don't have time to listen all the time. I used to listen more, but can't nowadays. I heard a 21 year old kid call in the other day, and a 17 year old who said they are conservatives who have listened to Rush since they were single digits....that would have been unheard of 10 years ago. .....the Rush army is just now coming up Sec. His true influence will be felt in the coming years when these kids get to the 30-40 year old mark. Call him what you will..........he has consistently whipped liberal ass for 18 years now. Interesting icon, even with his faults.............

Lefty

08-03-2005, 07:33 PM

Rush is the guy who first give us the conservative voice on the airwaves, and we knew we were not alone. Now that voice has gotten so strong it's virtually drowning out the liberal voice.
Sec, hard to tell from your ambiguous post how you really feel about the guy...
If the libs hate him; he's doing it right.

chickenhead

08-03-2005, 08:04 PM

You know I have never listened to Rush...I would like to some time, but he isn't on here, at least not when I'm driving.

This is totally off topic, but I've always thought it's interesting how we have these little cultural groups that are isolated from one another due to the different media they imbibe.

I get Glen Beck, the who's looking out for you guy, and Michael Savage. Don Imus, Rush, Art Bell...I've never listened to any of these guys, but I know that lot's of people do...and I always wonder what I'm missing out on...and I wonder about all the people who aren't listening to what I listen to, and wonder if they're missing out on it.

This cultural thing really opens up once you seperate out by race, but you certainly don't have to to see it. I asked a whole bunch of white people I know if they knew who Tavis Smiley was, none of them did. Depends on where you live of course, but if you live in area without many blacks, or don't know any, you probably have no clue. I'm not sure you could find a black person doesn't know who Tavis Smiley is. Which is funny to me, how different all of our reality's really are. What and who we know and don't know. Big overlapping chunks of reality, but no one person a member of all.

I think we all manage to get along pretty well, all things considered. The ties that bind us, bind us pretty well.

Suff

08-03-2005, 08:49 PM

I've made this point once before in cyrptic ways and I'm sure it was misunderstood.

When I said... How many Ralph Naders will Oral Roberts College gives us?

Isbets said I sounded like a fool.
There are distinct geographic differences in America. When you magnify that over 220 countrys in the World, the world is full of various ways of governing.

What's important is the free expression of ideas. What Promotes free thinking?

Affirmative action sure does. Gave you Clarence Thomas. And Thomas is against Affirmative Action. I think thats great. That's why I paid his Tuition. But where's the Liberal Brain wash? We sure gave you a free thinking man there. He has differnet ideas for equality? I'm all ears.

What about your new Nominee? Roberts not only Harvard Law... But Harvard College! For those not in the know... Haaaaarvard college is the real Liberal Arts wing of Harvard University. Plenty of Arts and Science's. Shakespeare, Rowing club, private society. He was here at least 7 years....DC next. Gave you another free thinker there. +Catholic. ( I thought H-vard was anti- religion secular demons)

How about the fact that 27% of all C-level executives in Fortune 500 companies are harvard grads? Many registered republicans. That's a whole bunch of free thinkers we gave you there.

Bill Orielly. Boston University and Harvard! When BU was the LIBERAL ARTS GIANT OF COMM AVE!!! Ask PA. :lol: :D :D PA was educated BU... ..we handed you another free thought man in PA.

We gave you your PREZ!!! 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justice's!!!

We're not the brainwashers. you are.

Secretariat

08-03-2005, 08:53 PM

Sec, hard to tell from your ambiguous post how you really feel about the guy...

Ambiguous? Well, then I'll use language that Limpballs disciples are familiar with. He's a "radio puke".

JustRalph

08-03-2005, 09:34 PM

Ambiguous? Well, then I'll use language that Limpballs disciples are familiar with. He's a "radio puke".

Sec, just so you know, "Staff Puke" and some other like phrases were popular when I was in the service over 20 years ago.........it is military parlance for those who work office jobs or day shift hours etc.........(at least it was back then) so Rush wasn't off the reservation with his comments........he was speaking to those familiar with the phrase.......which he tends to do often......and he usually gets hammered for it. I don't think he cares..........

Tom

08-03-2005, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Secretariat
He's got to be the most disgusting vermin that ever walked on this earth. .There...got it out....I just have no respect for that lump of shit.

Come on Sec, the election is over.....leave Howard Dea alone.:lol:

boxcar

08-04-2005, 12:00 AM

lsbets wrote:

And Sec, when you say things like that, all you really do is make yourself look like a buffoon.

Leave the poor guy alone, already. Buffoonery is one of the very few things at which he excels.

Boxcar

Secretariat

08-04-2005, 03:27 AM

betchatoo

08-04-2005, 07:30 AM

lsbets

08-04-2005, 07:56 AM

Isbets is the only one who had the decency to call the boil on the ass draft dodger for his denigrating remark. Most of you run to the slime slinging radio puke's defense. It illustrates how you'd defend anything if it has a right wing bent. Sad. Attack me, fine, but don't defend this sick man's actions.

Actually Sec, your words make it pretty tempting to defend Limbaugh. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other about him, but you guys HATE him. And you hate him for his success. For the fact that he has a huge audience, and a signifigant portion of his audience is not hard core righties, but everyday people. Why do they listen? Because a lot of people find him entertaining. I've been listening to Air America a little bit the last two weeks to get a feel for them. I know why they can't get ratings- they are hateful and condescending. There is no appeal in that message. While Limbaugh might cross a line everynow and then, most of his parody and humor is grounded in the truth, which makes it funny and is part of its appeal. The stuff on Air America is so far disconnected from the truth the station only appeals to the hardcore lefty true believers. They will never draw a mass audience if they don't change, but what do they do? Instead of looking inward, they project out, with hate and anger. And in radio they project out to Rush - because they know they will never have his success.

Secretariat

08-04-2005, 11:45 AM

Isbets,

I don't know about Air America because it is not available in my area. But Rush is, and I have listened to him on occasion and find myself nauseated afterwards. Not because of his radio success, but because of his intolerance, hypocrisy, inaccuracies, and radical ideology. More power to him that he is finacially successful. He can buy more drugs that way.

He epitomizes the chickenhawk, a man who is ready to criticize anything for partisan purposes, and salute "republican" soldiers while denigrating "democratic" ones. I've no time for that horseshit. Especially from a coward who was afraid to serve.

Lefty

08-04-2005, 11:55 AM

Bill Clinton. Begged out of the military. You libs loved him. Movie stars that get hooked on recreational drugs, get cght go into rehab; libs love them.
But you have no time for a man who got hooked on painkillers and sought help twice and finally seemes to have kicked it.
He denigrates people for their politics and not their military service.
Unlike the "pukes" in the mainstream media he does not claim to be objective. He says exactly what he is and if you don't like it you don't hafta listen. Compared to the left, he is a "fuzzball" I've never heard invectives come out of his mouth that routinely comes from the left's. People like Harry Reid call the president a loser in front of a class of schoolchildren! And youre upset by Limbaugh?

Suff

08-04-2005, 01:40 PM

sought help twice

Three times. Not two. Three rehabs. So regardless of the circumstances surrounding his opium dependence, the fact is, he was given multiple opportunities to address it.

So if I use his (and yours) approach to these issues, he should be in prison. Because over the years he has blasted people who take what America has to offer and abuse it.

People that receive the luxury of multiple treatments and don't follow the prescribed treatment are responsible for the results.

NoDayJob

08-04-2005, 02:35 PM

He epitomizes the chickenhawk, a man who is ready to criticize anything for partisan purposes, and salute "republican" soldiers while denigrating "democratic" ones. I've no time for that horseshit. Especially from a coward who was afraid to serve.

I think the guy is as committed to his belief system as you are. All talking heads get their ratings by how much 198920 they can stir up. I wouldn't give you a dime for a carload of them. I put them in the same catagory as ALL politicians--- strictly 100% 221121219892051819.

I wonder, with his former weight problem, do you think the military would have accepted him? In 1950 when I was in the service, if you weighed more than 280 pounds or were over 6',6" you were out.

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

Lefty

08-04-2005, 06:53 PM

suff, he should be in prison for using prescribed medications? He addressed his problem; he finally beat it. Huzzah! And he didn't miss work, hats off to him.
You prob blve Clinton shouldn't be in jail for committing perjury, but Rush should be in jail for using presctibed meds> I'm aghast. Even your reveredACLU was on his side.

Tom

08-04-2005, 08:37 PM

I am worried Sec might overheat and blow up. Maybe we should glue some heat tiles on him.

Sec, you ever listen to Air America? Be honest - you hear EXACTLY the same crap you hear from Rush but from the left side. And you know it.
Talk about taking the low road - remember Howard Dean? How Ted Kennedy - listen to any of the absololute crap this ding bat spews out? Moveon.org is not just as vile? Micheal Moore is not the epitomy of a lying bastard whose personal agenda is to triwst the facts and spin things to make people look bad? Check his credicility - there are only about 600 Al Qeda memebers world-wide? You buy that one?

Get a life, dear boy - neither side has a monopoly on partisan crap. The only difference is Rush does it with style and flare, and you guys are just steamed that he was not destroyed by the drug stuff. You cannot imagine that he came through it.

boxcar

08-06-2005, 05:23 PM

As a Gleason character Ralph Cramden used to say..."Ah...how sweet it is..."

A noted liberal, who just happens to be the Executive Editor of the NYT, finally got around to pleading "guilty as charged" to bias charges in his rag -- something all objective-oriented, critically-thinking and fair-minded people (meaning 99.44% of all Conservatives :) ) have known and been broadcasting from rooftops to the world now for many, many moons. This is pretty big news considering what Rag is making this confession -- yet, not too many other Liberal Rags want to touch this revealing story. (I suppose this is just too much FYI for their liking). Nothing like "fair and balanced reporting". :rolleyes:

Here is the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/mt20050806.shtml

Now...to demonstrate just how deep this liberal bias runs, we must turn to another story. This one deals with reporting on Bush's recent remarks about Intelligent Design and its place, as an alternative view to Evolution, in the school system. The Times made a "Freudian slip" by misquoting Dr. Stepehn C. Meyer -- a proponent of I.D.

This is what the reporter wrote:

"We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biblical origins."

But the problem here is that Meyer didn't say "biblical" -- he said "biological origins".

For the full story, see:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20050805.shtml

If revenge is sweet, then I submit that vindication is even sweeter. The Sound of Truth is so very sweet and soothing to Conservatives' ears. But I couldn't even begin to imagine how many Donkeys must be having excriuciating earaches at this bit of news.

Boxcar