T1B

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:37 am**

Oh, please, Marty...

Hitlary isn't going be in the mood for helping any negroes by the time the election is over. Not for at least 3-1/2 years anyhow.

Still, she'll owe some political favours to the two war-profiteering jew sentors from Kalifornia, so there'll likely be lots & lots of arms sales into the Dark Continent on her watch.

... errrr- not that that's such a bad thing

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:10 pm**

You'd have a point, but for two reasons to the contrary:

1. When Bill was in charge, they stayed the fuck OUT of the nigs slaughtering each other in Rwanda

2. The ones killing the nigs in Darfur are muzzies- intervention there could be construed as being part of the War On Terror and as such in our national interest, so I just don't see that happening.

Same story for Kenya, Chad... etc; muzzies killing Schwartzers.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:31 pm**

mvscal wrote:Odumbass doesn't have policies. He has cultists.

Don't knock it till you tried it. That strategery won me two termifications in the White House.

Sin,

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:04 pm**

Cuda wrote:
2. The ones killing the nigs in Darfur are muzzies- intervention there could be construed as being part of the War On Terror and as such in our national interest, so I just don't see that happening.

Why not? It was a Clinton that bombed Serbia for a whole lot less.

Same suit. Different tie.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:22 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Cuda wrote:
2. The ones killing the nigs in Darfur are muzzies- intervention there could be construed as being part of the War On Terror and as such in our national interest, so I just don't see that happening.

After considering it a little more carefully, Cuda is right, but for the wrong reason.

Cuda was trying to be humourous.

I think.

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:26 pm**

I hadn't considered the China angle, so there's 3 reasons instead of 2 why nothing will be done in Africa.

And Serbia is different from Darfur in one, really glaring way: Serbs are not Jigs

Posted: **Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:52 pm**

Diogenes wrote:
RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Dr. James Dobson
Talk about nutjobs.

Nothing personal, Dio, but that idiot trying to force his "moral" crusades down everyone's throat can go fuck himself. Dude makes Pat Robertson seem reasonable.
No. Dobson isn't trying to 'force' anything on anyone.

It's in our DNA as a non-profit Christian ministry who follows God by supporting, encouraging and strengthening families worldwide. And we're not an organization to rest on past efforts and accomplishments. Every day we're at work on new programs and initiatives that will help you and your family even more.

That's been our goal since 1977, when child psychologist Dr. James Dobson started a small 15-minute radio weekly broadcast. Our broadcasts now reach 220 million listeners daily, on over 7,000 stations in 160 countries. We're on the front-lines wherever legislation threatens to harm the family. We keep the printing-presses running with brochures, newsletters, magazines and books to help make sense of marriage and parenting. We've created a web and cell phone presence for immediate advice and resources. And each day we're developing new ways to help with all the new emerging technology

We're here for you. Let us help, however we can.

My bad. He's only trying to "support, strenghthen, encourage" and be "on the front-lines" for legislation that "threatends to harm the family," as he views it.

Btw, I'll admit, as a single guy who's never been married, his Web site is pretty funny, especially the choices under "What is your lifestage?"

Talk about fucking cookie-cutter. Dude's as bad as his leftist "peers" when it comes to putting people into boxes. But hey, if that shit helps those in the prescribed "lifestages" ... good for them. I guess.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:23 am**

RadioFan wrote:
It's in our DNA as a non-profit Christian ministry who follows God by supporting, encouraging and strengthening families worldwide. And we're not an organization to rest on past efforts and accomplishments. Every day we're at work on new programs and initiatives that will help you and your family even more.

That's been our goal since 1977, when child psychologist Dr. James Dobson started a small 15-minute radio weekly broadcast. Our broadcasts now reach 220 million listeners daily, on over 7,000 stations in 160 countries. We're on the front-lines wherever legislation threatens to harm the family. We keep the printing-presses running with brochures, newsletters, magazines and books to help make sense of marriage and parenting. We've created a web and cell phone presence for immediate advice and resources. And each day we're developing new ways to help with all the new emerging technology

We're here for you. Let us help, however we can.
My bad. He's only trying to "support, strenghthen, encourage" and be "on the front-lines" for legislation that "threatends to harm the family," as he views it.

That would be against said legislation. And it is the left trying to force their lunatic agenda on America, FotF just works to couter their idiocy.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:21 pm**

Diogenes wrote:That would be against said legislation. And it is the left trying to force their lunatic agenda on America, FotF just works to couter their idiocy.

Funny that with a boatload of potential Supreme Court seats possibly opening up in the next 8 years that Dobson is taking a position that almost certainly guarantees that a Democrat will win in November and that Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

You stupid fucking sheeple are being played and you don't even know it.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:55 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Diogenes wrote:That would be against said legislation. And it is the left trying to force their lunatic agenda on America, FotF just works to couter their idiocy.
Funny that with a boatload of potential Supreme Court seats possibly opening up in the next 8 years that Dobson is taking a position that almost certainly guarantees that a Democrat will win in November and that Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

To begin wiht, it is unlikely it would be overturned anytime soon anyway. It would take at least a 6-3 or 7-2 majority before the members who agreed that it was an obvious wrong decision would go in the face of Stare Decisis. Dobson obviously believes that the differences in the RINO's and Dems picks would be minimal. And the only thing that guarantees a Dem victory is nominatining a Candidate who can only win Blue state primaries.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:52 pm**

BSmack wrote:Funny that with a boatload of potential Supreme Court seats possibly opening up in the next 8 years that Dobson is taking a position that almost certainly guarantees that a Democrat will win in November and that Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

Fwiw, from the Republican Party's standpoint, abortion is best used as a wedge issue to try to drive certain groups (Catholics and some Protestants) away from the Democratic Party. It's therefore in their best interests to talk a good game about reversing Roe v. Wade, but refrain from doing anything real to advance that objective.

You stupid fucking sheeple are being played and you don't even know it.

Yep. You would think they'd catch on after more than a quarter century of this, but I guess not. Barnum was right.

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:04 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:. It's therefore in their best interests to talk a good game about reversing Roe v. Wade, but refrain from doing anything real to advance that objective.

So what you're saying is the GOP would break-up if the abortion issue were handed back to the states?

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:15 am**

Diogenes wrote:That would be against said legislation.

To even have "legislation" in the first few paragraphs in the "About" section of FOF makes it political, imo.

Diogenes wrote:And it is the left trying to force their lunatic agenda on America, FotF just works to couter their idiocy.

Maybe. But if what you say is true, it is the FAR left they are addressing, not mainstream America.

Btw, Dio, I fully realize you live in Kalifornia, and I'm in Oklahoma. We've discussed this before ... there are some royally fucked up laws there, and there's some seriously ignorant and paranoid culture here. You have to understand that Dobson is the norm here, for a lot of people.

But hey, nothing like going backward, instead of forward. As I said, Dobson is the norm here, with both hypocrites and true believers, and pretty much has been for decades. That's gotten this state pretty far, wouldn't you say?

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:15 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:That would be against said legislation.
To even have "legislation" in the first few paragraphs in the "About" section of FOF makes it political, imo.

No mare political than MLK Jr. And he did most of his campaigning from the pulpit. The basic point is that if the 1st Amendment was interpreted for the press the same as it is towards people of faith, they'd be shutting down any newspaper that criticized the government. "Seperation of Chuch and State' was designed to protect the former from the latter, as opposed to the current back-assward paradigm.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:50 am**

Diogenes wrote:The basic point is that if the 1st Amendment was interpreted for the press the same as it is towards people of faith, they'd be shutting down any newspaper that criticized the government. "Seperation of Chuch and State' was designed to protect the former from the latter, as opposed to the current back-assward paradigm.

I understand what you're saying, only I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from, given I'm LIVING in the Land of Huckabee, and Dobson.

"People of faith," would pretty much describe Oklahoma and Arkansas, as far as Dobson is concerned, no?

As I asked, that's worked out pretty well, hasn't it?

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:58 am**

Btw, Dio, it seems to me, BSmack is right. Under a Dobson-"inspired" administration, I'd probably be among the many "subversives" for even DARING to QUESTION THE WORD OF GOD, ONLINE.

That is, if it was past my appointed bedtime, according to my prescribed "lifestage."

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:05 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:The basic point is that if the 1st Amendment was interpreted for the press the same as it is towards people of faith, they'd be shutting down any newspaper that criticized the government. "Seperation of Chuch and State' was designed to protect the former from the latter, as opposed to the current back-assward paradigm.
I understand what you're saying, only I have absolutely no idea where you are coming from, given I'm LIVING in the Land of Huckabee, and Dobson.

"People of faith," would pretty much describe Oklahoma and Arkansas, as far as Dobson is concerned, no?

As I asked, that's worked out pretty well, hasn't it?

It's worked out better in areas with minimal hostility to religion than places like Kali. And personally I don't care what Dobson, King or the Right Rev Wright want to push politically.

Of course, I wonder how many Obama supporters know that their guru's 'spiritual advisor' is a huge Farrahkahn fan. Or would care.

And no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof still means keep your fucking government away from my Church/bible class/whatever. No matter how some anti-American atheist vermin want to misinterpret it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:07 am**

RadioFan wrote:Btw, Dio, BSmack is right. Under a Dobson-"inspired" administration, I'd probably be among the many "subversives" for even DARING to QUESTION THE WORD OF GOD, ONLINE.

Link?

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:20 am**

Diogenes wrote:It's worked out better in areas with minimal hostility to religion than places like Kali.

No. "It" hasn't worked out better, because Oklahoma and Arkansas fucking SUCK. There's your link. Tell me you knew?

Last time I checked, the battle out here, was for non-interference by religion in the public schools -- in terms of biology classs, for starters -- NOT the other way around.

Shit, maybe we could switch dwellings or something. You'd fucking LOVE it here, Dio. Bible-thumping asshats, galore. You'd be going door-to-door in no time, bro.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:28 am**

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:It's worked out better in areas with minimal hostility to religion than places like Kali.
No. "It" hasn't worked out better, because Oklahoma and Arkansas fucking SUCK. There's your link. Tell me you knew?

Last time I checked, the battle out here, was for non-interference by religion in the public schools -- in terms of biology classs, for starters -- NOT the other way around.

They aren't still teaching non-scientific dogma like Darwinism in H.S. bio? I missed that. Of course, just one more reason for school choice.

RadioFan wrote:Shit, maybe we could switch dwellings or something. You'd fucking LOVE it here, Dio. Bible-thumping asshats, galore. You'd be going door-to-door in no time, bro.

How's the high-tech market? not that the locals would hate me any less there, trust me.

And I still don't know where B_Suck got his documentation as to Dobson espousing a coercive theocracy. Unless appointing originalist jurists is that scary a proposition.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 am**

Scientific dogma is an oxymoron, Dio, by definition.

Diogenes wrote:How's the high-tech market?

The high-tech market here sucks, unless you mean call centers, of course. After all, technology is scary and EVIL, and could lead to porn. Call centers are GOOD. They AREN'T about the Internet, nor porn.

RACK keeping the masses in their place, both spiritually AND economically.

Sin,

Dobson's Oklahoma.

Btw, RACK Wal-Mart. Now there's a Christian company, especially when it comes to its workers.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:41 am**

RadioFan wrote:Scientific dogma is an oxymoron, Dio, by definition.

Which is why I refered to it as non-scientific dogma.

RadioFan wrote:
Diogenes wrote:How's the high-tech market?
The high-tech market here sucks, unless you mean call centers, of course. After all, technology is scary and EVIL, and could lead to porn.

Oh well. Maybe Tejas.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:50 pm**

Cuda wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:. It's therefore in their best interests to talk a good game about reversing Roe v. Wade, but refrain from doing anything real to advance that objective.
So what you're saying is the GOP would break-up if the abortion issue were handed back to the states?

Not break up, but they'd probably become a more or less permanent minority, at least at the federal level.

Posted: **Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:34 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Cuda wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:. It's therefore in their best interests to talk a good game about reversing Roe v. Wade, but refrain from doing anything real to advance that objective.
So what you're saying is the GOP would break-up if the abortion issue were handed back to the states?
Not break up, but they'd probably become a more or less permanent minority, at least at the federal level.

If there was even a shread of reality to that proposition, the Dems wouldn't be trying to obstruct and filibuster any srtict constructionalist judges that come before them in the Senate. Unless they are actually that clueless.

Or maybe it's just you.

Posted: **Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:25 pm**

You're talking about the party that once nominated Walter Mondale for President. Yes, they are that clueless.

Not to mention disorganized.

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:33 am**

There's a Democrat Behind Door No. 1, 2 and 3
by Ann Coulter

A few more primary wins and B. Hussein Obama will be able to light up a cigarette during a televised speech and still get the nomination. It looks like the only thing that can stop him now is an endorsement from Al Gore.

Gore is always lunging into a movement just as it has passed its prime -- the Internet, Howard Dean, global warming, trying to talk black when he campaigns at a black church. He probably bought a big house a few months ago. Gore is such a supremely unlikable human being, he even subverted the mainstream media's affection for liberalism during the 2000 election.

And my brave little Hillary needs a bold move after the Potomac primaries this week. If she can't trick Gore into endorsing Obama, she may have to divorce Bill.

Hillary is, shockingly enough, the most conservative candidate among the top three presidential candidates.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell once remarked that his people would rather vote for Beelzebub than Hillary Clinton.

He didn't mention John McCain.

Pat Buchanan says if McCain is the nominee, the Republican Party will lose its soul. I'm more worried about the Republican Party losing its mind.

Republicans are doing what the Democrats tried in 2004 with John Kerry. In a state of despair, Democrats dumped the legitimate leader of their party, Howard Dean, for a candidate they deemed "electable." Kerry served in Vietnam! Republicans: Conniving has never been our strong suit. Honor is our strong suit.

Sen. John McCain's claim to being a Republican comes down to two factors:

(1) He was a POW -- I know that because he mentions it more often than John Kerry told us that he served in Vietnam.

And (2) he has a relatively conservative voting record compared to, say, Maxine Waters.

I note that there were hundreds of POWS in Vietnam. We can't make them all president. If we're just going to pick one, how about one who doesn't want to shut down Guantanamo and give amnesty to 20 million illegal immigrants? Hey, didn't Duncan Hunter serve in Vietnam? Why, yes, I believe he did!

Moreover, it's crazy to imagine that military service makes one qualified to be president. Everyone knows the true test of presidential leadership is an ability to cry on cue. Another point for my Hillary.

To be sure, McCain has a relatively conservative voting record -- but only relative to Republicans who have to get elected in places like Vermont. Relative to Republicans from conservative Arizona, McCain's voting record is abominable.

We keep hearing about McCain's "lifetime" rating from the American Conservative Union being 82.3 percent. But McCain has been a member of Congress for approximately 400 years, so that includes his votes on the Spanish-American War. His more current ratings are not so hot.

In 2006 -- the most recent year for which ratings are available -- McCain's ACU rating was 65. That year, the ACU rating for the other senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl, was 97. Even Chuck Hagel's ACU rating was 75, and Lindsey Graham's was 83.

Since 1998, only four Republican senators have had worse ACU scores than John McCain -- and none were from Goldwater country: Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. The last time McCain ranked this far down in his class, he was at the Naval Academy.

In fact, McCain and Romney are mirror opposites: As Romney had to tailor his conservative views to the liberal voters of Massachusetts, McCain has had to tailor his liberal views to the conservative voters of Arizona. While Romney's record in a liberal bastion is as bad as it will ever be, McCain's record from a conservative bastion is as good as it will ever be. Which isn't very good.

In the immortal words of -- well, me, actually: Always choose a strong conservative from a blue state over a lukewarm conservative from a red state.

Bob Dole from Kansas had a pretty good voting record, too. But no one fully believed he believed it. Another feather in his cap was that he didn't burden voters with a "Straight Talk Express," a means of conveyance even more useless and idiotic than an electric car.

Even McCain's supporters on the Spaghetti-Spined Express know he can't be trusted on social issues like abortion. I notice how everyone seems to agree that of course Rudy Giuliani's voters would go to McCain.

Why would that be? On the two seminal issues of our time other than abortion -- taxes and the war on terrorism -- the two could not be more different.

Rudy cut taxes in New York City and, as a presidential candidate, proposed the biggest tax cut in U.S. history.

McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts twice.

Rudy supports torturing terrorists -- or using "enhanced interrogation techniques," as they say, announcing in one of the debates: "I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they could think of."

McCain is hysterical about pouring water down terrorists' noses and campaigns to shut down Guantanamo.

He demands that no terrorist interrogation be "degrading" -- perhaps recalling how not degrading it was for people in the upper floors of the Twin Towers to have to leap to their deaths rather than be burned alive on Sept. 11.

So why is it obvious to everyone that Rudy would endorse McCain?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:22 am**

Diogenes wrote:Oh well. Maybe Tejas.

Pretty much. Though you'd likely have to put up with the leftists in Austin or Dallas. :wink:

At least they sell real beer there past 9 p.m. and in grocery stores, cold.

T1B

McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???

Re: McRINO could have been a Dem???