billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
QuoteThe man is an idiot that doesn't understand how our system of government works, the opportunities available to the rest of the world during the lame duck period of an outgoing President, nor our ability to stop other nuclear powers from doing things we ourselves might do in similar circumstances.
Which man?
the Al Queda guy probably has a decent understanding, but is merely directing his propaganda at the guy who will be taking over. Why waste the opportunity by lambasting the outgoing guy?
rehmwa 2
QuoteWhy waste the opportunity by lambasting the outgoing guy?
It's fun and everybody is doing it.
Further, how can they lambast the big O? He will fix everything in the first six days, and on the 7th day He will work on a cure for cancer.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
JohnRich 4
QuoteI'm nearly certain Obama isn't losing any sleep over his comments.
That's probably true. But it demonstrates the folly of some people who think that on Jan. 20th when Obamer takes office that the terrorists will somehow magically cease to hate us.
Nothing will change. The terrorists will still want to kill us.
QuoteQuoteWhy waste the opportunity by lambasting the outgoing guy?
It's fun and everybody is doing it.
Well, everyone in the US who voted against Bush is doing it. But if you're at war against the US, you focus on the new guy.
Quote
That's probably true. But it demonstrates the folly of some people who think that on Jan. 20th when Obamer takes office that the terrorists will somehow magically cease to hate us.
So who are these people that believe this, John?
Are they made of straw, perhaps?
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteI'm nearly certain Obama isn't losing any sleep over his comments.
That's probably true. But it demonstrates the folly of some people who think that on Jan. 20th when Obamer takes office that the terrorists will somehow magically cease to hate us.
Nothing will change. The terrorists will still want to kill us.
Yeah, but by then, Obama - magic dude that he is - will be calling himself "Obamer". That's real change right there.
rushmc 23
Quote>I dont know why it would be bad in this case . . .
I guess we differ there, then. I prefer news sources that don't lie.
Me too,
Tell me, which one might that be?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,120
> But it demonstrates the folly of some people who think that on Jan. 20th when
>Obamer takes office that the terrorists will somehow magically cease to hate us.
But . . . but . . . I don't understand! After all, according to the GOP, Obama IS a radical muslim terrorist. (Or at least is pals with them.) Why oh why would they hate one of their own? It makes no sense! Unless some sort of assumption about him is incorrect, of course.
>Obamer takes office that the terrorists will somehow magically cease to hate us.
But . . . but . . . I don't understand! After all, according to the GOP, Obama IS a radical muslim terrorist. (Or at least is pals with them.) Why oh why would they hate one of their own? It makes no sense! Unless some sort of assumption about him is incorrect, of course.
rushmc 23
Quote>I dont know why it would be bad in this case . . .
I guess we differ there, then. I prefer news sources that don't lie.
I am serious
Please inform me of which news sources you read that do not lie.
And I will not call mistakes lies.......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,120
>Please inform me of which news sources you read that do not lie.
Science and Nature for reporting on science. The BBC is pretty good for current events. But if you think that news organizations lying isn't bad, no reason to limit yourself to them.
Science and Nature for reporting on science. The BBC is pretty good for current events. But if you think that news organizations lying isn't bad, no reason to limit yourself to them.
rushmc 23
Quote>Please inform me of which news sources you read that do not lie.
Science and Nature for reporting on science. The BBC is pretty good for current events. But if you think that news organizations lying isn't bad, no reason to limit yourself to them.
Now billvon, where did I say or indicate that lying news orgs is not bad?
I was asking you for those orgs that you consider not to lie. Simple really.
BBC the only one?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
My point was (since you missed it) is that they all lie anyway. Why in THIS case would it be bad? No different than any other reporting done today.
So, if you have the corner on those oh so truthful news orgs, I want to know who they are. After all, we are all after the truth, right?
So, if you have the corner on those oh so truthful news orgs, I want to know who they are. After all, we are all after the truth, right?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,120
>Now billvon, where did I say or indicate that lying news orgs is not bad?
From above:
=============================
BV: Because lying about it would be bad.
R: I dont know why it would be bad in this case.
=============================
>BBC the only one?
The BBC is more accurate than most news organizations.
From above:
=============================
BV: Because lying about it would be bad.
R: I dont know why it would be bad in this case.
=============================
>BBC the only one?
The BBC is more accurate than most news organizations.
rushmc 23
Quote>Now billvon, where did I say or indicate that lying news orgs is not bad?
From above:
=============================
BV: Because lying about it would be bad.
R: I dont know why it would be bad in this case.
=============================
>BBC the only one?
The BBC is more accurate than most news organizations.
BBC it the one you trust.
Revealing IMO
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
nerdgirl 0
QuoteI did not see this one coming. I have to admit this one surprises even me
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
My first level analysis is that it demonstrates how domestic US politics (GOP v DEM debates/differences) are less important outside of the US.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
jakee 1,596
QuoteThat's probably true. But it demonstrates the folly of some people who think that on Jan. 20th when Obamer takes office that the terrorists will somehow magically cease to hate us.
Who thinks that?
(And Joan, can you please tell me why you keep misspelling his name? I have literally no idea what you're trying to achieve.)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
I guess we differ there, then. I prefer news sources that don't lie.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites