Artful Dodger: An eye opener for me was when someone told me she didn't like what Rush had to say, then immediately "qualified" that statement by saying she never listened to him. This was about 20 or so years ago, but I remember it very clearly. I was too stunned to ask her the obvious question... if she never listened to him, then how could she know that she didn't agree with him?

The reason it was an eye opener for me is because Rush was always telling his listeners that liberals disagree with him but never listen to his show. At that time I believed most of what he said, but at the same time I also believed some of his claims were greatly exaggerated. Since then I've discovered he doesn't exaggerate at all, about anything. Anything he has said about the liberal mindset has proven to be true.

I'm not calling her a liar, but she nearly quoted him word for word... a pretty neat trick for someone who never heard him say that. The truth of the matter is she really did not listen to his show, so she obviously got her information about him from other sources... and somewhere in that strange chain of information sharing there had to have been someone who actually listened to him, because otherwise how could any of them know they didn't agree with him? It sounds just as bizarre to me now as it did then. So never mind Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny or any other made up fantasy... as far as fantasies go they don't compare to the inner workings of the mind of liberal "realists". LoL

Artful Dodger: [ ...one has to wonder why someone would quote wiki as a primary source. ]

One reason is whenever someone does a google search wiki almost always pops up at or near the top of the list, so it's an easy source to access. I've used wiki but only after reading the information first. Sometimes it's okay, and sometimes it's like you said... slanted.

When wiki first started up it was hailed as "the peoples" source, because almost anyone could contribute to it. A few years ago it was so easy to do that almost anyone could submit info (that made it into the data base) as long as it looked legit, or looked scholarly. It didn't take much to get past the gatekeepers and they didn't have time to verify everything coming in... and they weren't exactly the scholarly types anyway, if you know what I mean. I still get a kick out of some of the things I read there, because sometimes it will read like a poorly written college paper.


...and I'm being charitable when I say "college".

I didn't watch the first debate, but I want to see the second one. Obama can't afford to phone this one in, so I'm curious to see what his strategy will be. He has to at least appear confident, that alone should be enough to inspire confidence in the supporters who don't know or understand the issues. Sad, but true.

Obama believed he had won the first debate shortly after it was over. Wow... I pity the poor fool who had to tell the president otherwise. LoL

Artful Dodger: If wiki tipped to the right instead of the left then you already know what you would be hearing... nothing but complaints about wiki. But I have to assume playing politics with facts and logic is an appropriate game for anyone to play at this (the politics) board.

A few years back I read where someone intentionally submitted false information to see if wiki did any fact checking. The information was accepted, and it wasn't until a reader noticed something screwy that it was removed.

Artful Dodger: Looking at the New Yorker cover page, 53% of the voters see Romney talking to an empty chair...

The other 47% see Obama sitting in that chair.



This is your brain... this is your brain on liberalism.
Any questions?

Übergeek 바둑이: [ Watching the debate two days ago, I was struck by some things. First, Americans have turned the entire electoral process into a reality TV show... ]

Seriously, you are just now understanding this? This realisation didn't strike you when seeing phony debates on news programs where only one side was represented, or in campaign adds tailored to fit only one narrative? The debate between Romney and Obama was the first time we Americans have been treated to something that didn't look like a phony reality show, but now you recognise how the media has been mostly just putting on a show?

I'm not surprised by this new found "revelation" of yours, I'm just surprised at how easy you make it for booger eating gubbers like me to see through such a thin veil of deception.

mckinley Nowhere do you say why the South wanted to secede from the Union, which is all I wanted to know from the get go.

You started off with me by making fun of my belief in God, then wanted information from me but not willing to give any, and now her feelings are hurt because someone isn't being nice to her. And your first post to me was a suggested Bible reading that didn't really help when I was making a point about vacuous scientific theories. Then I learn how little you actually know or even care about Bible teaching.

I don't know how you can take anything Jesus said seriously and still think abortion is no worse than soldiers fighting in a war. Jesus told Roman soldiers to not complain about their wages, and his highest praise was to a Roman centurion commander, saying he had not seen such faith in all of Israel. In regard to children he said it was better to do yourself in than to offend (harm) one of these little ones. Where do you see him condemning soldiers or being indifferent towards children, or lumping the two together as though one is no worse than the other?

You do not need to feel scared or flattered. I have no interest in flattering an elitist snob, and the only reason you have for feeling "scared" is if someone sees through your so called candy coated exterior.

Artful Dodger: I didn't watch the debate last night, and it was for the same reason I didn't watch either of the conventions. I already know which one wants to win a contest and which one wants to do the job.

The media was upset that Obama didn't bring up the 47% comment by Romney... well duh, of course he didn't bring that up, because it's a phony argument that can only work in campaign adds and among their own people. It wouldn't work in a face to face debate with no teleprompter, and the opposing candidate standing right there ready to answer the phony charge.

What did the media expect? Romney would have nailed Obama over that, and Obama knows it. But the media now thinks Obama is not following through on the work they did to prop him up and keep him in a favorable light. Again, another "Well duh" to the media genius king makers and another "Well what did you geniuses expect?" It was a face to face debate, and Obama was left dangling because you weren't there to cover and lie for him, and to prop him up... because that is not the purpose of a debate.

Now some are saying, Well, the debate is no big deal, because most people have already made up their minds... LoL I can't argue with that!

(V): I really don't care what you do or don't do, so your complaint has no merit. You can continue tossing out fake bombs and straw man dolls as your answers, and at the same time demand reasonable responses to anything conservatives say. Does that make you a hypocrite? Of course not! You have the right to not say anything sensible when you have nothing sensible to say, so why would anyone complain about that?

Artful Dodger: "You and I are so much alike it's scary!"

You know what I think is scary? I used to wonder why you got frustrated so easily and called people idiots and morons... now I'm getting frustrated and wanting to do the same.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's because they are stupid. I think the intellectual baby talk and moronic reasoning is just a cover for intellectual dishonesty... because who in their right mind actually thinks saving babies is the same as 'saving' soldiers?

Saving soldiers from what, from being ripped from their mothers wombs? Or how about this, saving babies by not giving them guns and sending them into war before they are born...???

Oh wait, I get it now! Of course! Saving soldiers from being arbitrarily aborted. How could I have missed the connection... woof woof sniff sniff lick lick woof bark sniff lick.

(V): Iamon lyme: [ Because no-one on this board is obliged to answer any question if they choose not to. ]

Have you read any of your own past posts? I distinctly remember you demanding Dan and I to answer you, and we weren't even involved in the discussion. It was about abortion. I answered you, not because I had to but because I wanted to, and then you chose to ignore the answer. Of course people have the right to respond or to not respond, so other than proving how transparently hypocritical you can be, you have made no other point here.

Apparently I'm taking unfair advantage by remembering what some of you have said. So I appologize for disrespectively taking the time to think about what you've said, instead of simply reacting like a barking dog...

woof woof, what's that? what's that over there? Oh, gotta pee! what's that woof woof, what's that over there, what's that, gotta pee, sniff sniff, hey man that's good stuff, what's that over there? woof woof sniff sniff gotta pee again what's that over there?

Artful Dodger: LoL Bite you where? You're nothing but bone... not even skin and bone. No matter where they bite, all they'll get is a mouthful of bone... you gonna keep that pic up until after Halloween?

But I applaud your strategy. By keeping responses down to only two words, you've insured their minds don't have time to wander before you've finished your message.

Repeating words and phrases over and over again but never explaining what they mean is intellectual baby talk. And taking one word or phrase out of context and ragging on and on about it is intellectually moronic.

Passionately reading lines from a teleprompter or repeating lines that have been memorized is called "acting". Passion is an emotion you feel because you believe in what you are saying. If you need to fake passion to get your point across, then you don't really understand (or care about) the issues.

If all you can think about is winning, and persuading others to vote for your candidate, then all you doing is watching a "beauty contest" and hoping your contestant wins the prize.

The presidency is not a prize. It's a job. If you go out to get a job, and you get the job, you did not win a prize... and you will actually be expected to perform some sort of useful work for whoever hired you.

mckinley: [ You can remember a post from July but not September. ]

If I didn't remember the post from September, then I wouldn't have asked what you meant.

[ I said people weren't fighting because slavery was immoral. ]

Yep, that's what I remember you saying.

[ I don't think I'm vague. ]

Nope, that was clear enough.

[ I thought I was respecting ppl's intelligence. ]

So why not respect mine? All I wanted to know was if the war was not about morality, and slavery not an issue, why was there a war to begin with?

When Ubber compared abortion to war and guns, I explained why I believe those are different issues. And I explained to you my own limited understanding of why there was a war between the North and South. I respected your intelligence by explaining my position, so why can't you respect my intelligence by answering one simple question?

Artful Dodger: Was that too easy, or did I tip my hand with the hint?

I thought of this tonight, as I was puttering around the house. I do that a lot, I putter around and think about things like that. putt putt putt putt putt... and sometimes with puttering sound effects, thanks to the sort of food I to eat... what was I talking about? Oh yeah, so anyway it occurred to me that if I bet on Obama and win, I'll at least have a bit more to fall back on when Obama fulfills his promise to finish the job... *shudder*. If Romney wins I lose the bet, but in the long run I'll have more than if I won betting on Obama. As weird this sounds, it's actually not a bad idea. I wonder if anyone else is thinking the same thing, or plans on doing it for the same reason?

putt putt putt putt putt putt putt... oops. Dang it!!

Artful Dodger: LoL The Winner! What? So now boxing referees are on strike? Sheesh!

There is no way the cartoonist could have drawn and published that so soon after the debate... he knew the fix was in. lol

By the way, if I was going to bet on who wins the election, the smartest bet I could make would be to bet that Obama wins. You're a smart feller, so can you tell me why I might want to do that? I'll give you one hint... there is a financially logical reason for making that kind of bet.

mckinley: [ Should I be flattered or scared? ;) ]

I wouldn't know.

"Chipping away" at you? Okay then, next time you say something like the south didn't lose because of morality, they lost because they ran out supplies, instead of trying to get you to clarify I'll just offer my heartfelt condolences and say something like...

"Well darn it, if you didn't run out of supplies then maybe you could of won that war. It's darn shame, especially since you had to give up using a cost efficient and hard working work force, people who worked for practically nothin' whether they wanted to or not."


By the way, you don't don't need to feel flattered or scared. I'm not the sort of riff raff you need to be at all concerned about, one way or the other.

My butt doesn't always hurt, but when it does...

The Col: LOL Hey, the 60's just called, and they want you give their mind altering drugs back... if there are any left to give back.

You and (V) have never missed an opportunity to prove how much you both respect women. So how's that working out for you?

The Col: I'm not calling you a nazi. I suppose I could have used an example that wasn't so emotionally charged, but the example still fits becuase the point was about "education". I forgot how reactive you liberals are. I try telling them one thing and all they can hear is something else.

Tossing out a word like ignorant does not mean you are educated. And being educated does not mean you have been taught well. So try growing a pair (of brain lobes) before reacting instead of reflecting. Think you can do that?

rod03801: "It's not even worth having a discussion with you."

Half the time it looks like he is tossing words willy nilly out onto the page... and it's supposed to be our responsibilty to make sense of it. I'm not so good at guessing games, that's why I've given up talking to him.

The Col: "I can only hope that you haven't discouraged a child from this education..."

You are hoping I haven't discouraged a child from what education? From teaching them all about how to have safe sex? Ignorance isn't just about not knowing, it is also about not understanding what you think you know. The word "education" is another one of those magic words that liberals like to use... Education good, ignorance bad. Right wingers bad. Me like education. Me not be ignorant... me have education.

Nazis weren't ignorant either... they knew what they wanted and used "education" of young people as one of their tools for getting what they wanted. So much for the power of yer magic word, eh?

You would have had no success in persuading any my kids to your point of view. I made sure no adult would be able to simply toss out "magic words" to turn their heads. I told them in no uncertain terms, if an adult tells you it's okay to do something you know is wrong, you do not have to believe them or be intimidated by them simply because they are adults... even if that adult is me. It was that last part that made them sit up and take notice, because then it was clear to them that some things are not right no matter who says it.

Übergeek 바둑이: Oh yeah, I almost forgot... abortion is also now seen as a safety net for teenagers who want to have sex, but for some unexplainable reason the contraception didn't work. So there's another "good" reason abortion should be legal and stay that way. Only a "right winger" would want to take away anyone's safety net.

My wife and I both used contraceptives after we were married, so I have no idea except in your own imagination where you get the idea that "right wingers" are against contraception. I remember joking to my wife that we could have named the first three of our kids after the contraception that didn't work. If we had done that then the first one's name would have been The Sponge. The only method that DID work was when we were going at it during that short period of time when she wasn't fertile. So in other words, we could have called our fifth child The Rhythm Method. And YOU want to encourage kids to use birth control?

Hey, Ubber intellect, wake up!!! You're dreaming!!!

Übergeek 바둑이: If you think sex education is a way to make sex safer for kids then you should talk to their parents, but in my experience the parents are the last people "left wingers" want to talk to. They have to talk to them, but they would prefer only talking to their kids. Kids are the same way... they prefer talking to one another than to adults.

You know what sex education actually does? It encourages kids who are already thinking about sex to go do it, and how many horny teenage boys do you think have the self restraint to stop and put on a condom? Kids are not adults, and you can't expect them to think or act like responsible adults. Unless those adults are "left wingers", then life can be a never ending party as far as those kids are concerned.

Übergeek 바둑이: I know about the various things the "left wing" wants to accomplish. And I know how on the surface they all sound like good things, but frankly I don't believe most "left wingers" even if they are sincere have actually thought any of it through.

The reality of gun control, limiting or banning hand guns, is that you cannot count on criminals to obey any restrictions on gun ownership. Taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens does not take guns out the hands of criminals... empowering criminals by disarming everyone else does not reduce the chance of violent crime occurring. That should be obvious, but apparently it isn't in the minds of (your words, not mine) "left wingers". What do intend to defend yourself with if confronted by an armed bandit in the middle of the night, as you are you are laying in bed in your own home? A pillow? Or perhaps the ability to talk to him using your powers of intellectual persuasion? The best you could hope for is being laughed at before he does what he came to do... and that's assuming he only came to take some of your stuff.

Iamon lyme: "People like [me] who were active...

Aliens live in a universal economy. It's called fic-tion-al per-spec-tive.

People who don't have much to do and very little money look at this from a per-son-al per-pec-tive.

People like who were active but are now retired see this from an a-mused per-spec-tive.

Übergeek 바둑이: I was talking about abortion. You seem to want to lump a lot of things together and compare them to abortion, as though they are all the same things. War, guns, death penalty, self defense... you didn't bring up euthanasia, but I suspect you don't have a problem with that.

To say abortions don't just happen willy nilly is naive. Most abortions are not performed because of rape or incest or for the life of the mother, or for any other justifiable sounding reason. Those were the reasons given when pro abortion lobbyists were working to legalize abortion. They even assured everyone that those would be the only reasons someone could get an abortion, and there would be no abortions on demand.

Well what do you know, surprise surprise, the joke is on us... because everyone knows that most abortions are done simply because someone doesn't want a baby. They want to do what it takes to make a baby, but they don't want the baby. And they don't want to simply give the baby up for adoption. That would spare the life of the child, but at the same time would be a terrible inconvenience and emotionally draining.

mckinley: "I still haven't decided who I want for president."..."I said that back in July. Do you have that post saved or something? I had to do a word search. What I meant is self explanatory"

I remembered it was the first thing you said, so I did a search to make sure I wasn't mistaken. The reason I remember it is because to me it means you either voted for Obama four years ago, or four years ago you were not yet old enough to vote. All I know about you is you are old enough to drive and are from the south.

I'm not sure if you are aware of just how self explanatory that statement was. If I had said I don't know who I'll be voting for until I mark the ballot this November, then that too would be self explanatory.

rod03801: I suspect pictures with short captions will make more of an impression than anything I can say. *sigh*

I'm probably wasting ink doing all of my talkingusing only words.

Iamon lyme: Ugh. Okay, maybe not so much... what was I thinking?

I don't care what anyone says, I think she's a cutie.

Artful Dodger: LOL You know, there could be someone at this board who believes there really are soldier squirrels... and is now covering his most precious possession with both hands.

Typing is hard enough using only one finger, but how is he supposed to type any messages now?. With his nose?

Übergeek 바둑이: I suspect you will want to come back to complain that I didn't answer your question... here was your question:

"If you are a person who supported any of these wars, do you have blood in your hands? Is believing in war different from believing in abortion?"

If you want to draw comparisons between war and abortion you are not helping the pro abortionist argument. Wars are usually fought for one of two reasons. Depending on which side you are looking at, wars are fought to get something or to defend something. Sometimes both sides are aggressors who are out to get something, but you'll never see two defenders going at it... why would they?

If I ever support a war effort, then that support would fall to the defenders side. Anything wrong with that? If so, then according to you the little girl who killed two guys breaking into her home has blood on her hands too.

And since you are comparing abortion to war then let me ask you who you believe the aggressor is. Is it the baby, or the adult(s)? What are adults who kill babies defending, their right to not take care of a defenseless little person, or maybe the abortionist's right to earn a living?

Adults can defend themselves if they need to. Babies can't. If you can convince me that babies are not completely defenseless and have done something (anything) to deserve being killed, then you might have a valid argument.

Artful Dodger: "The Civil War was so long ago I don't even remember it happening."

I wouldn't be surprised if some people are still fighting that war. "The war is over great great grandpa, and I don't even know why I'm talking to you about it because you died a long time ago."

There are times I feel like I'm talking to people who believe brains are fertilizer for their hair. One day when I was walking to work a white racist stopped to talk to me, and he assumed I would agree with him because we are both white. Then half a block down the street from him a black guy stops me to complain about me enslaving his people. At that point I coudn't take it anymore, so I told him that I freed all of my slaves over 15 years ago and got them all jobs at the buggy whip factory... he thought I was just as insane as the white guy thought I was for not agreeing with him.

Übergeek 바둑이: She asked me a loaded question, and probably didn't expect me to answer. I don't care if it was intended as a rhetorical question or not, liberals have their own way of showing aggression and I have my own way of dealing with it. So sue me.

Your question is even sillier than hers, but I'll answer it anyway... yes, I believe there are wars and I believe there are abortions. Hey, you asked.


I don't get to decide who is a real person and who isn't, that's for liberals to decide. Slaves weren't real people, so it was okay for biggots to have them as slaves. Jews were not real people, so it was okay for the nazis to abuse and kill them. And today (according to liberals) babies are not real people... until they manage to get outside of the womb, then they magically become real people. So the little guber better hurry to get outta there, before someone decides to kill him/her. Until he/she pops outta there, he/she is not a real person... according to liberals like you.

mckinley: [ "I didn't say slavery had nothing to do with the war. I said it was about economics and not morals." ]

The only way that can make sense is if you meant the war was lost because of economics, and not because of morality. I assumed you were talking about why there was a war to begin with.

No one in the North is judging y'all for losing the civil war. lol

Those knickers twisting in the wind yet?

The Col: Children do have all the answers. I know this because I was once a children myself. You wouldn't know it looking at me now (Don't look at me!) but it's true.

Adulthood had more heachaches waiting for me than I had ever guessed. It never occurred to me that anything I did would ever come back to haunt me, until it started coming back to haunt me. The guy who wrote Amazing Grace had more coming back to haunt him than I ever did, but he turned out okay. So maybe I'll be okay too... that's the sort of thing I will invest my hope in. I won't "hope" because of some cheesy political campaign slogan, because that kind of emotional pandering is about as empty as it gets.

The Col: It's not an easy transition. Everyone likes the idea of having rights and freedoms reserved for adults, and most can't wait to be old enough to have and exercise those rights. And then (why only then?) we find out about the other side of that coin... dare I say it?


*responsibility*

mckinley: We've had two Democratic presidents in 34 years."

Doesn't matter if all or none were Democrats. There are reasons why people vote the way they do, and those reasons have little to do with how many times a Republican or Democrat has won an election.

"It isn't going to go away and there are pro choice Republicans too."

There are pro abortion Independents and pro life Democrats as well. Party affiliation is only relevant when you look at what your party as a whole favors and what it opposes. The Democratic party as a whole and Democrats in general favor abortion over the pro life position. But if you are in the minority opinion among your peers, then there is nothing unusual about that.

Take a little trip back in time, and ask yourself how many people probably believed slavery wasn't going to go away either. The legality of abortion or slavery isn't the issue. The issue should be (if you are a Christian) is it okay in the eyes of God to end the life of a child regardless of the childs stage of development.

There were Christian slaves and Christian slave owners during St Pauls life, but I seriously doubt there were any Christians who thought it was okay to kill a child.

"Do I have blood on my hands if I vote Democratic?"

If you support abortion then yes, at least indirectly if not directly, you have blood on your hands. You are not only responsible for what you do, but also responsible for what you encourage other people to do.



Being an adult sucks, doesn't it?

mckinley: Also, what did you mean when you first said you didn't know who you wanted for president?

If you are a Democrat and will vote for the Democratic candidate, then does it really matter who you want for president? And if you give Obama another four years to continue doing what he has been doing, do you believe your Southern economy will fare better under Obama than with Romney? Does party loyalty trump any and all other considerations? It doesn't with me.

I don't care what the candidates call themselves, I care about what they will do once they are in office... and Obama has already answered that question for me. A few years down the road if someone complains to me that he has made the US a laughing stock in the eyes of the world, and has irreversibly crippled our economy and our ability to defend ourselves from our enemies, all I'll be able to say is "I didn't vote for him."