Mass. 2nd-grader sent home for crucifix drawing

Maybe the question becomes do you really want new members?

Yes, I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we want new members. We all want liberal members because we want to practice forensics. That we are all conservative makes it sound like an echo chamber. We are tired of that.

We are not going to police the board, however. We believe in free speech here. Maybe we should have warned you day one: we are not going to censor anybody.

I strongly suspect you have been here before and you know that. Even so, I hope you'll stay.

When Sam Cogar, for instance, says that he has a photographic memory I can attest to that. He has told me that before and provided me with examples. That is his curse in some cases. When Sam Cogar finds an inconsistency in your posts he'll take you to task. Sam Cogar is not a troll or a lurker here waiting to call you out on minor discrepancies. He has a need to reconcile the inconsistencies. I choose to humor him. I think he's earned that.

If you treat Sam Cogar with respect and dignity, I think it is safe to say that he will treat you the same way.

Why thank you OC.

I consider inconsistencies in one's verbiage the same thing as "cheatin on a test" ...... so iffen ya don't want me to be calling you a "cheater" ..... then don't be doing it.

Enough of this PC Stupidity, ........ all that it accomplishes is to exacerbate the cheating, lying and dishonesty within our culture and/or populace.

And anyone guilty of said should be reprimanded and/or have their .....



.

[flash(144,144)][/flash]

SamCogar wrote:Why thank you OC.

I consider inconsistencies in one's verbiage the same thing as "cheatin on a test" ...... so iffen ya don't want me to be calling you a "cheater" ..... then don't be doing it.

Enough of this PC Stupidity, ........ all that it accomplishes is to exacerbate the cheating, lying and dishonesty within our culture and/or populace.

And anyone guilty of said should be reprimanded and/or have their .....

.

Were you born like this or has life experience made you quirky? I plan on staying Ohio County, but I haven't been here before.

Andrea Cristobal wrote: Were you born like this or has life experience made you quirky?

You know Andrea, I was asked that very same question by an Islamic believing "suicide bomber" when I told him that what he was planning on doing was absolutely idiotic and stupid.

It is truly a pityful shame that so many of the younger generation has such a FUBAR mindset, ........ but it is an undeniable fact that everyone will have to live with the results of it, ...... and that is because, .... the younger generation are only what they were nurtured to be.

So, I wish everyone over the next 50+ years ..... iffen this culture and society lasts that long.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

I suspect you have all seen this. It is a little melodramatic and for those of you with dial-up, I apologize. It may prove too cumbersome to view.

It says, to answer Sam's ending question, that with a birth rate of 1.38 Europe will no longer be Christian or even remotely democratic within a mere 25 years. With a birth rate of 1.38 among native Europeans, it is mathematically impossible to reverse this demographic trend. In short, Europe will be Muslim by 2034. So, too, will Canada. It is for this reason the UK cannot or will not control female genitalia mutilation. They have not the will.

This is more of a reason for us to recall our troops home, become energy efficient and dependent and build a strong, defensive military.

Me thinks the younger generation is totally "hooked" on ...... Politically Correct "meth".

The more they use it ....... the more they want everyone else to use it ...... and like the "crystal meth", ........ they don't really care or even realize that the PC "meth" is totally destroying their way of life.

The Religious Right will still be fighting their Abortion War, the adament partisans will still be supporting and voting for their Party selected Candidates, the Teachers will still be demanding higher salaries and entitlements and the lowly "troughfeeders" could give a shit less what happens because they don't have much, don't want much and don't care if anyone else has anything or not.

And before enough of them realize what is actually happening ...... it will be to late to do anything about it.

SamCogar wrote:Me thinks the younger generation is totally "hooked" on ...... Politically Correct "meth".

The more they use it ....... the more they want everyone else to use it ...... and like the "crystal meth", ........ they don't really care or even realize that the PC "meth" is totally destroying their way of life.

The Religious Right will still be fighting their Abortion War, the adament partisans will still be supporting and voting for their Party selected Candidates, the Teachers will still be demanding higher salaries and entitlements and the lowly "troughfeeders" could give a shit less what happens because they don't have much, don't want much and don't care if anyone else has anything or not.

And before enough of them realize what is actually happening ...... it will be to late to do anything about it.

Truly I am scratching my head at this one. Do you believe that there is no political correctness among Republicans?

[flash(89,107)][/flash]

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Truly I am scratching my head at this one. Do you believe that there is no political correctness among Republicans?

[flash(89,107)][/flash]

To be asking such a question in reference to my above Post ....... I can see why you would be needing to "scratch your head".

Don't think that is going to be of much help though.


.

SamCogar wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Truly I am scratching my head at this one. Do you believe that there is no political correctness among Republicans?

[flash(89,107)][/flash]

To be asking such a question in reference to my above Post ....... I can see why you would be needing to "scratch your head".

Don't think that is going to be of much help though.

.

Ah Sam I do get a kick out of you. How funny can you be? You talk about the right still fighting their abortion war but not that there is any kind of 'political correctness' among Republicans. I would say however that being a moderate Republican is like being an endangered species. Only Olympia Snowe in the grand state of Maine where independance flies with grace can a moderate Republican exist. Mainers don't pay attention to Rush, or Glenn or Sarah. Is there not right now a politically correct way of being considered Republican and one that is not Sam? Are moderates not being pushed from the party? The Palin/Beck/Limbaugh brand might not be considered at the top of the heap at the moment, but it was the last eight years. The 'meth' is cooked by whatever party is in power and will change accordingly. But within the Republican Party they have their version of what is politically correct and what is not.

[flash(48,144)][/flash]

AC,

Perhaps in some circles, but I find more tolerance of dissent among those on the right than left, but my sample is likely skewed.

You ARE correct, to be sure, that a consistent standard should be applied and if something is wrong for the Dems, it is wrong for the Republicans. I would put reckless spending and deficits on that list.

What bugs me is that what happens regularly is a legitimate argument is made against Democratic politics, and the response is "well Bush (or the Republicans) did it, too." That is a slight of hand that is ridiculous. First, since when did "bush did it" become a Democratic 'pro' argument? But more to the point, it is no defense of policy that your opponents have engaged in the same action.

Republican: This Congress is spending too much money and the deficit is skyrocketing


Democrat: Yes, but Reagan/Bush 41/Bush 43 had huge deficits as well.

Republican (often acting like a dumbass:) Well that was because of the cold War/Sept 11th/recession

Republican (what they should say) Does Reagan having done something make it right? Bush 43?

I would agree that here many liberals are intolerant. But there are conservatives here who are also intolerant. Would the Republicans accept into their party a pro-abortion,gay marriage supporter? I don't believe so.

I also think that Republicans focus on the past to chastise Democrats. 'DEMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BIG SPENDERS. LOOK AT MEDICAID, LOOK AT SS, LOOK AT MEDICARE. There was a lot of that when Bush was in office too. Blaming the other side isn't the best course but there is a lot of it that goes around.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:'DEMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BIG SPENDERS. LOOK AT MEDICAID, LOOK AT SS, LOOK AT MEDICARE.

You FINALLY got something right.

Good for you Miss moderate.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:I would agree that here many liberals are intolerant. But there are conservatives here who are also intolerant. Would the Republicans accept into their party a pro-abortion,gay marriage supporter? I don't believe so.

I also think that Republicans focus on the past to chastise Democrats. 'DEMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN BIG SPENDERS. LOOK AT MEDICAID, LOOK AT SS, LOOK AT MEDICARE. There was a lot of that when Bush was in office too. Blaming the other side isn't the best course but there is a lot of it that goes around.

Andrea, you have more excuses for the dastardly actions of the Democrats ........ than General Nutrition Corp. has vitamin pills and supplements.

.

Actually I haven't seen any excuse making. I see a lot of 'blaming the Dems' for all the nation's problems when it has been Repubs who have held the Presidency and Congress for the majority of the last 30 years. No mention from you however Sam about the 'Bridge to nowhere', and numerous other 'pork barrel projects' that the Repubs are just as guilty of being involved in.

AC,

Are you familiar with the practice of logrolling and the fact that Bush did not have a line-item veto?

The offending Senator, Ted Stevens, is where, today, exactly?

Not in office actually. Log rolling however isn't something I am very familiar with however. The line item veto didn't last very long did it? I don't know though that he would have used it even if he had.

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Actually I haven't seen any excuse making. I see a lot of 'blaming the Dems' for all the nation's problems when it has been Repubs who have held the Presidency and Congress for the majority of the last 30 years. No mention from you however Sam about the 'Bridge to nowhere', and numerous other 'pork barrel projects' that the Repubs are just as guilty of being involved in.

This wasn't really close so I'll have to give this one to Sam for using wit and a fantastic metaphor while Andrea had to resort to blaming Republicans for Democratic actions AND for screwing up the facts. While Republicans have held the Presidency for the bulk of the past 30 years, Democrats held the HOR (where spending originates) for the majority of the time of the past 30 years and Congress has been evenly split for that time period. Given that when Republicans did hold the Senate, they did so with a very slim majority meaning they couldn’t ram though their agenda as Democrats have giving the clear advantage to Democrats meaning they have controlled Congress for the bulk of the past 30 years.

Advantage-Cogar

Aaron wrote:

Andrea Cristobal wrote:Actually I haven't seen any excuse making. I see a lot of 'blaming the Dems' for all the nation's problems when it has been Repubs who have held the Presidency and Congress for the majority of the last 30 years. No mention from you however Sam about the 'Bridge to nowhere', and numerous other 'pork barrel projects' that the Repubs are just as guilty of being involved in.

This wasn't really close so I'll have to give this one to Sam for using wit and a fantastic metaphor while Andrea had to resort to blaming Republicans for Democratic actions AND for screwing up the facts. While Republicans have held the Presidency for the bulk of the past 30 years, Democrats held the HOR (where spending originates) for the majority of the time of the past 30 years and Congress has been evenly split for that time period. Given that when Republicans did hold the Senate, they did so with a very slim majority meaning they couldn’t ram though their agenda as Democrats have giving the clear advantage to Democrats meaning they have controlled Congress for the bulk of the past 30 years.

Advantage-Cogar

Ah Aaron, you are so predictable. I am sure Sam and I can have our 'disagreements' without you attempting to instigate them as you have been. Just another sign of an immature soul who depends on rancor to make their points though they don't succeed. I agree that the HOR was in Dem hands for a long time. But from Clinton's first term to 2006, (twelve straight years) it was held by Republicans. How many measures do you think were passed during that time?

Why did you use false facts in your attempt to make your point?

89

AC,

Logrolling is the practice of trading votes in Congress, aka, buying off someone's vote. It just recently happened when Landrieux and Nelson were bought off. I cannot even begin to say how disappointed I am with Ben Nelson. Not on his vote for universal health insurance, but his vote for a bill that presumes to be unrepealable. No one can claim to be a moderate after supporting such filth.

Back to Bush, since he did not have the line-item veto, the bridge to nowhere (the result of Ted Stevens asserting himself in an evil, foolish game) was part of a greater bill that Bush had two choices on: sign the whole thing, or veto the whole thing (ok technically he could have done nothing and after 10 days--Sundays excepted--it would either have become law or if Congress had adjourned it would have been a pocket veto, but let's not get bogged down on this just yet).

Bush had two viable options:) sign it, including the bridge, or veto it all, bridge and everything else. Now he should have vetoed the darn thing and taught congress a lesson. I am disappointed that he didn't.

That having been said, Congress spends money, and only Congress. Presidents do not have the "power of the purse" to appropriate funds, at least not yet. The Bridge to Nowhere came from Congress, not the President.

If he had taken a principled stand however, would he not have vetoed it?