idrankwhat 0 #51 October 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteGotta get it somewhere else. My dad's a member of the Clergy and he didn't get one. He still thinks for himself. Is that one of the old religious denominations??? Only the Evangelicals get them.. or didnt you get that memo... and if you are really special you get it directly from GOD on when to go start wars of convienience so you can protect GOD's OIL from the evil doers Damn it, Presbyterians are always left out of the loop. As it says in the Bible, "Blessed only are those followers who are able to secure a major media contract". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #52 October 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote I know what he said. I know exactly what he said. Your quotes (the parts you posted anyway) are entirely correct. The assurtions and context you put them in however are bullshit. Pure bullshit. I know that doesn't matter to you. I know you don't listen. I do and the context and his meaning have been totally hijacked by you for your own agenda. Sad but so be it........... Here's something that is in context. Here's something else.[/reply How federal spending has climbed since 2001 Updated 4/3/2006 1:25 AM By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have increased spending substantially since Bush took office in 2001 (Story, 1A). In those five years, spending has risen faster than at any time since the Vietnam War. Here are eight of the ways that happened: Pumping up the Pentagon "We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge." — President Bush, Jan. 20, 2001 The president came to office pledging to bolster the nation's defenses, and he has kept his word. Spending on defense has risen an average of 8% a year, far surpassing President Reagan's buildup after adjusting for inflation. Most of that money has little to do with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives such as Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, defend the spending as needed after years of budget cuts under President Clinton. Others say Congress should take a closer look at such large increases. "One wonders what that's used for, if it's not for fighting the war," says Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. Leaving no child behind "We're going to spend more on our schools, and we're going to spend it more wisely." — President Bush upon signing the No Child Left Behind law Jan. 8, 2002 For the past five years, Republicans have increased K-12 education spending by an average of 7% annually. The increase was greatest early in the administration and has declined every year since. Conservatives, who recall the days when Republicans threatened to abolish the Education Department, decry the new spending. "If Republicans stand for anything, if they stand for limited government at all, they should stand against programs like this," says Cato Institute budget expert Stephen Slivinski. The White House argues it has reduced funding since 2002, and education interest groups agree. "It's like a ski slope — downhill," says Edward Kealy of the Committee for Education Funding. Protecting the homeland "My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security."— President Bush, Jan. 29, 2002 Before the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government spent slightly more than $20 billion annually on homeland security. Since then, the figure has soared to about $50 billion. "We've increased our security appropriations funding at a truly incredible rate these past few years," says House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa. "And I'd imagine if we had to do it all again, we would." Many conservatives say homeland security budgets have been bloated by spreading money to small communities that are unlikely terrorist targets and by unrelated projects. Veronique de Rugy, a budget expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, refers to that as "congressional hornswoggling." Helping recession's victims "For so many in our country — the homeless and the fatherless, the addicted — the need is great."— President Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 In June of 2003, the nation's unemployment rate hit 6.3%, its highest level during Bush's presidency. The impact of the recession on millions of Americans caused anti-poverty spending to increase, as did outreach efforts and program expansions. Over five years, spending on food stamps has risen 84% and Medicaid 49%. Pence says that type of spending causes constituents to say, " 'What are you guys doing? You guys are outspending Democrats!' " This year, Congress trimmed $39 billion over five years from benefit programs. The White House wants to go further "to prevent severe economic and fiscal consequences for our children and grandchildren," says Scott Milburn of the White House Office of Management and Budget. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW PRESIDENTS COMPARE ON SPENDING Average annual change in spending for each category. All figures have been adjusted for inflation: Overall federal spending On defense On K-12 education Johnson 6% 5% 31% Nixon-Ford 3% -6% 3% Carter 4% 3% 1% Reagan 3% 4% 0% G.H.W. Bush 2% -4% 5% Clinton 2% -2% 3% G.W. Bush 5% 8% 7% Source: Office of Management and Budget -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fighting two wars "Today, I'm sending the Congress a wartime supplemental appropriations request of $74.7 billion, to fund needs directly arising from the Iraqi conflict and our global war against terror."— President Bush, March 25, 2003 The initial investment for the Iraq war has since grown to nearly $400 billion, though not all that money has been spent. The money has been approved in "supplemental" budgets — without offsetting taxes or spending cuts — and added to the federal deficit. "We're in a war, and that's expensive," Gregg says. De Rugy says Bush should have made tradeoffs. "He wanted to fight a war, but he wasn't willing to offset the cost of the war by cutting somewhere else," she says. Creating a drug benefit "Medicare will pay for prescription drugs, so that fewer seniors will get sick in the first place."— President Bush, Dec. 8, 2003 The new Medicare drug benefit, passed in 2003 and implemented this year, will cost about $797 billion over 10 years. Proponents of the law include fiscal conservatives such as Nussle, who says it "finally updated Medicare to include prescription drugs." Critics contend it will saddle taxpayers with an additional $8 trillion in unfunded IOUs over 75 years. "As bad as the last five years have been, it's going to get even worse the next five years," says Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Serving the nation's veterans "We have increased funding for our veterans more in four years than the previous administration did in eight years."— President Bush, Aug. 16, 2004 Spending on veterans has increased faster under President Bush than at any time since the Vietnam War. Like homeland security, it is strongly supported by Democrats as well as Republicans. Among the reasons for the increase: The veterans health care system is adding hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who came from the National Guard and Reserves are eligible for two years of health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. That system was opened up several years ago to veterans with higher incomes whose illnesses or injuries did not stem from their military service. Greater numbers of veterans from prior conflicts have signed up for disability and pension benefits. Bailing out the Gulf Coast "Yesterday I signed a $10.5 billion emergency aid package to fund our ongoing relief efforts. This is a down payment on what will be a sustained federal commitment to our fellow citizens along the Gulf Coast."— President Bush, Sept. 3, 2005 The costs of hurricanes Katrina and Rita have reached about $100 billion and are being added to the deficit. Calls from conservatives for spending reductions elsewhere have gone largely unheeded. "It's our moral obligation to assist our fellow Americans," Milburn says. Former House majority leader Dick Armey, chairman of the conservative interest group FreedomWorks, says such emergency appropriations "become handy little excuses" for the rise in federal spending."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #53 October 27, 2006 QuoteQuote It seemed pretty well sourced to me. Of course I took more than a "quick look." Feel free to post evidence of any false or misleading statements the article may have made. If you can discredit every point the article makes, then you might even be justified in your unsubstantiated claim that "investigations [were] done and nothing [was] found of any significance." Feel free to post the exact number of votes that were tainted. If you can prove that every vote purported to be tainted, actually WAS tainted, then you might even be justified in your claim that the Rolling Stones story was accurate... I already supplied evidence to refute your claim. The article cited its sources very well. Feel free to address it. If you (or anyone else) cannot discredit it, we must assume there was merit to the author's claims.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #54 October 27, 2006 QuoteNothing wrong with deficit spending as long as it's an investment that produces a return. I seriously doubt even you would disagree that deficit spending on a home or education is good fiscal policy. - Deficit spending to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat IS, IMO, bad fiscal policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #55 October 29, 2006 Ms Curic requested that Rush send her some info on his position on Fox's add. The following is what he sent her. She used one sentence Imagine that. I really don't think you care in any event but the following does put his position in context. Rush's E-mail to Katie Couric October 26, 2006 Thanks, Katie, I'll try to make it simple: I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as POLITICAL spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism. But when anyone enters the POLITICAL arena of ideas they forfeit the right to be challenged on their participation and message. I have not met Mr. Fox, do not know him. I have admired his work in film and TV and his appearances on Letterman were howlers. I have nothing personal against him. But I believe his implication that only Democrats want to cure disease(s) is irresponsible (as I believed about John Edwards assuring voters Christopher Reeve would walk if only John Kerry were elected). I think this is ultimately cruel and gives people who suffer these terrible afflictions false hope. As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results. Michael's TV spots mislead and misinform on this. (You might ask him about the gene therapy research at a Chicago hospital which has produced encouraging results on Parkinson's patients. A VIRUS is inserted in the gene, which is then inserted in the brain. The Michael J. Fox Foundations has committed $1.9 million to further research on this...story from earlier this month.) I did NOT mock or make fun of Mr. Fox. I have seen him many times on TV but never have I seen him as he appears in the ads. I read from his own book that he will not take his medications before certain appearances (Senate, 1999) in order to illustrate the ravages of Parkinson's, which I understand and applaud. So the concept of manipulating meds has been stated by Mr. Fox, which is what caused me to question his appearance in his ads. He is stumping for Democrats, in the political arena, and is therefore open to analysis and criticism as we all are. His suffering is NOT fair game and I am sorry if people drew that conclusion about my comments, but I believe this happens precisely because NO criticism of victims is ever allowed, at all, which as I say is the Democrat strategy in putting them forward."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #56 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteNothing wrong with deficit spending as long as it's an investment that produces a return. I seriously doubt even you would disagree that deficit spending on a home or education is good fiscal policy. - Deficit spending to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat IS, IMO, bad fiscal policy. Iraq surrendered their sovereignty in 1991. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #57 October 29, 2006 QuoteIraq surrendered their sovereignty in 1991. Only after they got "off the reservation" of doing what we wanted them to do.... and invaded Kuwait the year before... From Wikipedia the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #58 October 30, 2006 Wikipedia ? Now that is funny And I get lambasted for sourcing from NewMax "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #59 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIraq surrendered their sovereignty in 1991. Only after they got "off the reservation" of doing what we wanted them to do.... and invaded Kuwait the year before... From Wikipedia the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". This is totally irrelevent to the fact that Iraq surrendered in 1991, as an alternative to Bush Sr. running troops all the way to Bagdad. (which in hindsight, would have saved us a lot of hassle). That surrender included terms which Hussein did not live up to later, resulting in later attacks by Clinton, and then the second war by Bush Jr. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #60 October 30, 2006 Sorry I quoted something not on your approved reading list by Herr Lush Rimjob. That information is even to be found on right wing sites... perhaps you can go find something to dispute it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #61 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote It seemed pretty well sourced to me. Of course I took more than a "quick look." Feel free to post evidence of any false or misleading statements the article may have made. If you can discredit every point the article makes, then you might even be justified in your unsubstantiated claim that "investigations [were] done and nothing [was] found of any significance." Feel free to post the exact number of votes that were tainted. If you can prove that every vote purported to be tainted, actually WAS tainted, then you might even be justified in your claim that the Rolling Stones story was accurate... I already supplied evidence to refute your claim. The article cited its sources very well. Feel free to address it. If you (or anyone else) cannot discredit it, we must assume there was merit to the author's claims. Lighten up, Francis... if you can demand that someone be able to refute EVERY point in the article before he can be believed, then don't whine over someone demanding you prove every "tainted" vote was actually tainted...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #62 October 30, 2006 QuoteMs Curic requested that Rush send her some info on his position on Fox's add. The following is what he sent her. She used one sentence Imagine that. I really don't think you care in any event but the following does put his position in context. I understand what you folks are trying to say but it's still bullshit. Basically the assertion is that handicapped people are supposedly immune from criticism so he, and you, are saying "fuck that". So then you criticize him for the sake of criticizing him. Nothing is said about his views but the critique takes the form of a personal attack. "He's letting people see how ravaging his disease is so he's a lib loving asshole and should not be tolerated because he's deceiving you by not masking his symptoms". "We must bring him down personally and ignore any debate on his argument". I hate deliberately misleading ad hominem arguments designed to distract from the subject of the debate. Rush may have some interesting angles to add to an argument but that represents about 5% of what comes out of his mouth. Listening to the other 95% and trying to put it in "context" isn't worth the time and, more often that not, it does a disservice to his listeners by throwing away any chance for rational discourse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #63 October 30, 2006 QuoteLighten up, Francis... if you can demand that someone be able to refute EVERY point in the article before he can be believed, then don't whine over someone demanding you prove every "tainted" vote was actually tainted... Sorry. I didn't mean to apply logic to the argument. Carry on. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #64 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteMs Curic requested that Rush send her some info on his position on Fox's add. The following is what he sent her. She used one sentence Imagine that. I really don't think you care in any event but the following does put his position in context. I understand what you folks are trying to say but it's still bullshit. Basically the assertion is that handicapped people are supposedly immune from criticism so he, and you, are saying "fuck that". So then you criticize him for the sake of criticizing him. Nothing is said about his views but the critique takes the form of a personal attack. "He's letting people see how ravaging his disease is so he's a lib loving asshole and should not be tolerated because he's deceiving you by not masking his symptoms". "We must bring him down personally and ignore any debate on his argument". I hate deliberately misleading ad hominem arguments designed to distract from the subject of the debate. Rush may have some interesting angles to add to an argument but that represents about 5% of what comes out of his mouth. Listening to the other 95% and trying to put it in "context" isn't worth the time and, more often that not, it does a disservice to his listeners by throwing away any chance for rational discourse. See, I was right. You don't care. Your irrational emotionalizm outranks cohernt thought. (IMO) And one again, you obviously do not and have not listened to him cause if you did you could not make some of the statments above"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #65 October 30, 2006 Quote See, I was right. You don't care. Your irrational emotionalizm outranks cohernt thought. (IMO) And one again, you obviously do not and have not listened to him cause if you did you could not make some of the statments above You couldn't be more wrong. Listen every day? No, I can't stomach it. Occasionally? Yes. Why is it so hard to conceive that someone might listen to him AND think that his program is crap? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #66 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuote See, I was right. You don't care. Your irrational emotionalizm outranks cohernt thought. (IMO) And one again, you obviously do not and have not listened to him cause if you did you could not make some of the statments above You couldn't be more wrong. Listen every day? No, I can't stomach it. Occasionally? Yes. Why is it so hard to conceive that someone might listen to him AND think that his program is crap? Not hard at all. I know that all will not agree with him nor do I expect them to. That being said however does not change the fact that your statements about him could be only lies or out of ignorance of his program. I have been listening to him since the mid 90's. I found him by acident. What drew me to his show was somebody on the air saying what I also believed (and doing a much better job of it) and countering the fricking drive by media BS (which I had come to despise for non political reasons)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #67 October 30, 2006 QuoteBasically the assertion is that handicapped people are supposedly immune from criticism so he, and you, are saying "fuck that". So then you criticize him for the sake of criticizing him. Nothing is said about his views but the critique takes the form of a personal attack. I've said why his views are bullshit. I Didn't just say he's a buttdumpling just for the sake of it.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #68 October 30, 2006 Quote Not hard at all. I know that all will not agree with him nor do I expect them to. That being said however does not change the fact that your statements about him could be only lies or out of ignorance of his program. I have been listening to him since the mid 90's. I found him by acident. What drew me to his show was somebody on the air saying what I also believed (and doing a much better job of it) and countering the fricking drive by media BS (which I had come to despise for non political reasons) Been tuning in occasionally since Gulf War I. Back then I attributed it to just a strange form of entertainment by an egotistical buffoon. Is he still taking credit for the success of Snapple Then I started to realize that people were listening to him seriously and I saw the ditto heads bobbing up and down on his TV show. Then the politicians started to stoop to his level in their dialog. But don't let me imply that it was Rush's doing. I blame more of that on Gingrich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #69 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteLighten up, Francis... if you can demand that someone be able to refute EVERY point in the article before he can be believed, then don't whine over someone demanding you prove every "tainted" vote was actually tainted... Sorry. I didn't mean to apply logic to the argument. Carry on. That's the problem, you didn't. "You can't refute every point, so you're not qualified to comment" isn't logic.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #70 October 31, 2006 Quote "You can't refute every point, so you're not qualified to comment" isn't logic. Here you are incorrect. I offered an article with many examples and many cited sources. You claimed the article had no merit (paraphrased). In order for that to be true, you must be able to demonstrate that it has NO merit by disproving ALL the points. If you cannot disprove all the points, you must logically concede that the article could have SOME merit. Your argument is basically saying: Some items A do not have property B, therefore no items A have property B. This is illogical. Nevermind the fact that no one in this thread has disproven any of the points made in the article.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #71 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuote "You can't refute every point, so you're not qualified to comment" isn't logic. Here you are incorrect. I offered an article with many examples and many cited sources. You claimed the article had no merit (paraphrased). In order for that to be true, you must be able to demonstrate that it has NO merit by disproving ALL the points. If you cannot disprove all the points, you must logically concede that the article could have SOME merit. Your argument is basically saying: Some items A do not have property B, therefore no items A have property B. This is illogical. Nevermind the fact that no one in this thread has disproven any of the points made in the article. Try again - it was Sundevil that responded to you originally, not me. Sundevil *did* dispute some of the information in the article, to which you made your now infamous reply of having to dispute ALL the points of the article before he would be qualified to comment. I merely turned your "logic" back around to your topic.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #72 October 31, 2006 QuoteTry again - it was Sundevil that responded to you originally, not me. Sundevil *did* dispute some of the information in the article, to which you made your now infamous reply of having to dispute ALL the points of the article before he would be qualified to comment. I merely turned your "logic" back around to your topic. Actually, Sundevil claimed some points could be refuted, but failed to offer any sources that actually refuted said points. You merely tried to sidestep logic. As I said, feel free to refute the points of the article, but without refuting all the points you cannot claim the article is completely without merit.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #73 October 31, 2006 Nobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #74 October 31, 2006 QuoteNobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have. Care to link to the post in which I claimed the article is completely without merit?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #75 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteNobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have. Care to link to the post in which I claimed the article is completely without merit? That would be here, I believe...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 3 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #53 October 27, 2006 QuoteQuote It seemed pretty well sourced to me. Of course I took more than a "quick look." Feel free to post evidence of any false or misleading statements the article may have made. If you can discredit every point the article makes, then you might even be justified in your unsubstantiated claim that "investigations [were] done and nothing [was] found of any significance." Feel free to post the exact number of votes that were tainted. If you can prove that every vote purported to be tainted, actually WAS tainted, then you might even be justified in your claim that the Rolling Stones story was accurate... I already supplied evidence to refute your claim. The article cited its sources very well. Feel free to address it. If you (or anyone else) cannot discredit it, we must assume there was merit to the author's claims.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #54 October 27, 2006 QuoteNothing wrong with deficit spending as long as it's an investment that produces a return. I seriously doubt even you would disagree that deficit spending on a home or education is good fiscal policy. - Deficit spending to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat IS, IMO, bad fiscal policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 October 29, 2006 Ms Curic requested that Rush send her some info on his position on Fox's add. The following is what he sent her. She used one sentence Imagine that. I really don't think you care in any event but the following does put his position in context. Rush's E-mail to Katie Couric October 26, 2006 Thanks, Katie, I'll try to make it simple: I believe Democrats have a long history of using victims of various things as POLITICAL spokespeople because they believe they are untouchable, infallible. They are immune from criticism. But when anyone enters the POLITICAL arena of ideas they forfeit the right to be challenged on their participation and message. I have not met Mr. Fox, do not know him. I have admired his work in film and TV and his appearances on Letterman were howlers. I have nothing personal against him. But I believe his implication that only Democrats want to cure disease(s) is irresponsible (as I believed about John Edwards assuring voters Christopher Reeve would walk if only John Kerry were elected). I think this is ultimately cruel and gives people who suffer these terrible afflictions false hope. As of now there is NO EVIDENCE that embryonic stem cells even hold promise, while other approaches, such as adult stem cells, already have yielded results. Michael's TV spots mislead and misinform on this. (You might ask him about the gene therapy research at a Chicago hospital which has produced encouraging results on Parkinson's patients. A VIRUS is inserted in the gene, which is then inserted in the brain. The Michael J. Fox Foundations has committed $1.9 million to further research on this...story from earlier this month.) I did NOT mock or make fun of Mr. Fox. I have seen him many times on TV but never have I seen him as he appears in the ads. I read from his own book that he will not take his medications before certain appearances (Senate, 1999) in order to illustrate the ravages of Parkinson's, which I understand and applaud. So the concept of manipulating meds has been stated by Mr. Fox, which is what caused me to question his appearance in his ads. He is stumping for Democrats, in the political arena, and is therefore open to analysis and criticism as we all are. His suffering is NOT fair game and I am sorry if people drew that conclusion about my comments, but I believe this happens precisely because NO criticism of victims is ever allowed, at all, which as I say is the Democrat strategy in putting them forward."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteNothing wrong with deficit spending as long as it's an investment that produces a return. I seriously doubt even you would disagree that deficit spending on a home or education is good fiscal policy. - Deficit spending to invade a sovereign nation that poses no threat IS, IMO, bad fiscal policy. Iraq surrendered their sovereignty in 1991. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #57 October 29, 2006 QuoteIraq surrendered their sovereignty in 1991. Only after they got "off the reservation" of doing what we wanted them to do.... and invaded Kuwait the year before... From Wikipedia the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #58 October 30, 2006 Wikipedia ? Now that is funny And I get lambasted for sourcing from NewMax "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIraq surrendered their sovereignty in 1991. Only after they got "off the reservation" of doing what we wanted them to do.... and invaded Kuwait the year before... From Wikipedia the American Ambassador in Iraq, April Glaspie, asked the Iraqi high command to explain the military preparations in progress, including the massing of Iraqi troops near the border. The American ambassador declared to her Iraqi interlocutor that Washington, "inspired by the friendship and not by confrontation, does not have an opinion” on the disagreement which opposes Kuwait to Iraq, stating "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She also let Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". This is totally irrelevent to the fact that Iraq surrendered in 1991, as an alternative to Bush Sr. running troops all the way to Bagdad. (which in hindsight, would have saved us a lot of hassle). That surrender included terms which Hussein did not live up to later, resulting in later attacks by Clinton, and then the second war by Bush Jr. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #60 October 30, 2006 Sorry I quoted something not on your approved reading list by Herr Lush Rimjob. That information is even to be found on right wing sites... perhaps you can go find something to dispute it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #61 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote It seemed pretty well sourced to me. Of course I took more than a "quick look." Feel free to post evidence of any false or misleading statements the article may have made. If you can discredit every point the article makes, then you might even be justified in your unsubstantiated claim that "investigations [were] done and nothing [was] found of any significance." Feel free to post the exact number of votes that were tainted. If you can prove that every vote purported to be tainted, actually WAS tainted, then you might even be justified in your claim that the Rolling Stones story was accurate... I already supplied evidence to refute your claim. The article cited its sources very well. Feel free to address it. If you (or anyone else) cannot discredit it, we must assume there was merit to the author's claims. Lighten up, Francis... if you can demand that someone be able to refute EVERY point in the article before he can be believed, then don't whine over someone demanding you prove every "tainted" vote was actually tainted...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #62 October 30, 2006 QuoteMs Curic requested that Rush send her some info on his position on Fox's add. The following is what he sent her. She used one sentence Imagine that. I really don't think you care in any event but the following does put his position in context. I understand what you folks are trying to say but it's still bullshit. Basically the assertion is that handicapped people are supposedly immune from criticism so he, and you, are saying "fuck that". So then you criticize him for the sake of criticizing him. Nothing is said about his views but the critique takes the form of a personal attack. "He's letting people see how ravaging his disease is so he's a lib loving asshole and should not be tolerated because he's deceiving you by not masking his symptoms". "We must bring him down personally and ignore any debate on his argument". I hate deliberately misleading ad hominem arguments designed to distract from the subject of the debate. Rush may have some interesting angles to add to an argument but that represents about 5% of what comes out of his mouth. Listening to the other 95% and trying to put it in "context" isn't worth the time and, more often that not, it does a disservice to his listeners by throwing away any chance for rational discourse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #63 October 30, 2006 QuoteLighten up, Francis... if you can demand that someone be able to refute EVERY point in the article before he can be believed, then don't whine over someone demanding you prove every "tainted" vote was actually tainted... Sorry. I didn't mean to apply logic to the argument. Carry on. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #64 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteMs Curic requested that Rush send her some info on his position on Fox's add. The following is what he sent her. She used one sentence Imagine that. I really don't think you care in any event but the following does put his position in context. I understand what you folks are trying to say but it's still bullshit. Basically the assertion is that handicapped people are supposedly immune from criticism so he, and you, are saying "fuck that". So then you criticize him for the sake of criticizing him. Nothing is said about his views but the critique takes the form of a personal attack. "He's letting people see how ravaging his disease is so he's a lib loving asshole and should not be tolerated because he's deceiving you by not masking his symptoms". "We must bring him down personally and ignore any debate on his argument". I hate deliberately misleading ad hominem arguments designed to distract from the subject of the debate. Rush may have some interesting angles to add to an argument but that represents about 5% of what comes out of his mouth. Listening to the other 95% and trying to put it in "context" isn't worth the time and, more often that not, it does a disservice to his listeners by throwing away any chance for rational discourse. See, I was right. You don't care. Your irrational emotionalizm outranks cohernt thought. (IMO) And one again, you obviously do not and have not listened to him cause if you did you could not make some of the statments above"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #65 October 30, 2006 Quote See, I was right. You don't care. Your irrational emotionalizm outranks cohernt thought. (IMO) And one again, you obviously do not and have not listened to him cause if you did you could not make some of the statments above You couldn't be more wrong. Listen every day? No, I can't stomach it. Occasionally? Yes. Why is it so hard to conceive that someone might listen to him AND think that his program is crap? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #66 October 30, 2006 QuoteQuote See, I was right. You don't care. Your irrational emotionalizm outranks cohernt thought. (IMO) And one again, you obviously do not and have not listened to him cause if you did you could not make some of the statments above You couldn't be more wrong. Listen every day? No, I can't stomach it. Occasionally? Yes. Why is it so hard to conceive that someone might listen to him AND think that his program is crap? Not hard at all. I know that all will not agree with him nor do I expect them to. That being said however does not change the fact that your statements about him could be only lies or out of ignorance of his program. I have been listening to him since the mid 90's. I found him by acident. What drew me to his show was somebody on the air saying what I also believed (and doing a much better job of it) and countering the fricking drive by media BS (which I had come to despise for non political reasons)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #67 October 30, 2006 QuoteBasically the assertion is that handicapped people are supposedly immune from criticism so he, and you, are saying "fuck that". So then you criticize him for the sake of criticizing him. Nothing is said about his views but the critique takes the form of a personal attack. I've said why his views are bullshit. I Didn't just say he's a buttdumpling just for the sake of it.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #68 October 30, 2006 Quote Not hard at all. I know that all will not agree with him nor do I expect them to. That being said however does not change the fact that your statements about him could be only lies or out of ignorance of his program. I have been listening to him since the mid 90's. I found him by acident. What drew me to his show was somebody on the air saying what I also believed (and doing a much better job of it) and countering the fricking drive by media BS (which I had come to despise for non political reasons) Been tuning in occasionally since Gulf War I. Back then I attributed it to just a strange form of entertainment by an egotistical buffoon. Is he still taking credit for the success of Snapple Then I started to realize that people were listening to him seriously and I saw the ditto heads bobbing up and down on his TV show. Then the politicians started to stoop to his level in their dialog. But don't let me imply that it was Rush's doing. I blame more of that on Gingrich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteLighten up, Francis... if you can demand that someone be able to refute EVERY point in the article before he can be believed, then don't whine over someone demanding you prove every "tainted" vote was actually tainted... Sorry. I didn't mean to apply logic to the argument. Carry on. That's the problem, you didn't. "You can't refute every point, so you're not qualified to comment" isn't logic.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #70 October 31, 2006 Quote "You can't refute every point, so you're not qualified to comment" isn't logic. Here you are incorrect. I offered an article with many examples and many cited sources. You claimed the article had no merit (paraphrased). In order for that to be true, you must be able to demonstrate that it has NO merit by disproving ALL the points. If you cannot disprove all the points, you must logically concede that the article could have SOME merit. Your argument is basically saying: Some items A do not have property B, therefore no items A have property B. This is illogical. Nevermind the fact that no one in this thread has disproven any of the points made in the article.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #71 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuote "You can't refute every point, so you're not qualified to comment" isn't logic. Here you are incorrect. I offered an article with many examples and many cited sources. You claimed the article had no merit (paraphrased). In order for that to be true, you must be able to demonstrate that it has NO merit by disproving ALL the points. If you cannot disprove all the points, you must logically concede that the article could have SOME merit. Your argument is basically saying: Some items A do not have property B, therefore no items A have property B. This is illogical. Nevermind the fact that no one in this thread has disproven any of the points made in the article. Try again - it was Sundevil that responded to you originally, not me. Sundevil *did* dispute some of the information in the article, to which you made your now infamous reply of having to dispute ALL the points of the article before he would be qualified to comment. I merely turned your "logic" back around to your topic.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #72 October 31, 2006 QuoteTry again - it was Sundevil that responded to you originally, not me. Sundevil *did* dispute some of the information in the article, to which you made your now infamous reply of having to dispute ALL the points of the article before he would be qualified to comment. I merely turned your "logic" back around to your topic. Actually, Sundevil claimed some points could be refuted, but failed to offer any sources that actually refuted said points. You merely tried to sidestep logic. As I said, feel free to refute the points of the article, but without refuting all the points you cannot claim the article is completely without merit.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 October 31, 2006 Nobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #74 October 31, 2006 QuoteNobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have. Care to link to the post in which I claimed the article is completely without merit?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 October 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteNobody has said the article is completely without merit... only you have. Care to link to the post in which I claimed the article is completely without merit? That would be here, I believe...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
