Women agree that this is a War on them or haven't you checked the poll numbers for women

It would be more accurate to say that LIBERAL women agree with these LIBERAL pundits that there is some mythical GOP "war on women". The so-called poll you reference is a single poll conducted by ABC was oversampled with LIBERAL women. The overall numbers show Obama having no significant lead (49 to 45 = insignificant) among women.

Still in denial?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_04082012.html

901. Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as (a Democrat), (a Republican), an independent or what?
Democrat Republican Independent Other (vol.) No opinion
4/18/12 34 23 34 5 3

Now - you tell me... Does 34% Democrats, 34% "Independants", and 23% Republican sound like any sort of representative sample? This poll's results were 100% unadulterated bullcrap, and they were used deliberately to reinforce the false claim that the Democrats are desperately peddling about this bogus, completely farcical "war on women". The whole "War on women" is a line of leftist propoganda that is being used as a distraction to try and talk about anything EXCEPT Barak Obama's record of failure, incompetence, and the REAL "war" in America, which is Odumbo's war on the economy with his stupid moron idiot policies.

>> ^shinyblurry:


As far as homosexuality doing no harm, I beg to differ. People who practice it have a higher rate of disease, as well as alcohol and drug abuse, depression, suicide and domestic violence. You might say that is because of discrimination, but you would be wrong. In a place like the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legalized and broadly accepted, the rates are actually worse. That's really just scratching the surface. We haven't gotten to the impact that the breakdown of traditional values and the family has on the country as a whole.


Links to back up your claims please because I have a feeling you have completely bogus or baised information. I'm sure that you believe it, but I'd like to judge those sources for myself.

So, he has a well grounded argument. Epic argument fail...

>> ^bobknight33:

You argument is as bogus as Obama birth certificate.

So are you saying that there is NO limit to the debt ceiling?
If that is the case why doesn't the government end poverty, provide free healthcare, and pick up the food tab for its citizens?

You argument is as bogus as Obama birth certificate.

You are right about money not being real since is is based on nothing except what you and I decide. But sooner or later with every increasing debt causes you and I to have a government enforced IOU which is currently around $50K for ever man woman and child. So I ask you who pays that bill?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
You're wrong.
Money isn't real. Therefore, the debt ceiling isn't either.

Can you believe they spent thousands of hours with computer experts and still didn't figure out that a document scanned to be searchable will come out with layers?

Me neither. It's either another setup, or both sides are wagging the dog.>> ^HugeJerk:

They are using the same false logic as before. When you scan an image, you don't get layers. When you scan a document as an image, you don't get layers... but when you scan a document with software that turns it into a searchable PDF, it does create layers.>> ^bobknight33:
I would gather we all have downloaded this birth certificate and looked at in in illustrator and such and have suspicion of authenticity. This is just another story that has dug deeper than you and I and have come up with more conclusive clarity that is a bogus.

They are using the same false logic as before. When you scan an image, you don't get layers. When you scan a document as an image, you don't get layers... but when you scan a document with software that turns it into a searchable PDF, it does create layers.>> ^bobknight33:

I would gather we all have downloaded this birth certificate and looked at in in illustrator and such and have suspicion of authenticity. This is just another story that has dug deeper than you and I and have come up with more conclusive clarity that is a bogus.

I would gather we all have downloaded this birth certificate and looked at in in illustrator and such and have suspicion of authenticity. This is just another story that has dug deeper than you and I and have come up with more conclusive clarity that is a bogus.

With being they case then this would indeed need to come to light and a fully open investigation should take place. For if indeed this is true than Obama could resubmit a real document and be done with it. Or on the other case if he can not prove in citizenship then he would have to step down and let Biden become president

@dystopianfuturetoday I really got to you, didn't I?

Yes, please intimidate me with your links and quoting, didn't work for the post above though, your links are totally bogus. This should be fun!

Let me start this off with an embarassing video of dystopianfuturetoday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Btw, I was talking about TheFreak. To me, he assumes authority over the truth for the experts that say the stimulus was a success. So I can't possibly disagree with them if I'm not being "willfully ignorant".

TYT's narrative was that an overzealous wanna be cop chased an African American kid down and shot him. The 911 call seems to bear that out. The cops told Zimmerman to stop running, but you can tell he continues to run because of the sound of air wooshing against the cell phone.


To me, the screams for help sound more like a child than a man. It would probably be easy to analyze the audio to determine whose voice it really was. Likewise, they could probably also take a look a Zimmerman's injuries to see if they are legit and not self inflicted after the fact. It seems unlikely to me that a small kid could (or would want to) overpower a large man. It also seems strange that Zimmerman claims the kid dissappears and then reappears out of nowhere to ambush him. And the 'do you have a problem? well you do now' line sounds fabricated, like something out of an action movie.

Zimmerman's story sounds bogus to me. He is fighting for his life, after all. I'd probably make stuff up too if I was in Zimmerman's shoes.

>> ^petpeeved:

How long until this officer begins planting drugs to save face after these bogus stops?


That's actually kind of what I was waiting for to happen in the video.

>> ^petpeeved:

How long until this officer begins planting drugs to save face after these bogus stops?


About six months after he joined the police force.

How long until this officer begins planting drugs to save face after these bogus stops?

Don't forget Toronto's bogus voter registration fraud...

@dystopianfuturetoday I guess the word Marxist still scares the bejeezus out of people.

Yes, it's more complex than an anti-commercialist screed, but then so is Marx's critique of capitalism.

Yes, by the end it's clear that this philosophy has led a band of proletariat men to wage a violent revolution against the hierarchy that enslaves them...again, just like Marx said they should.

To a younger me, the way I would have described the theme of the movie is freedom. We're not talking about bogus libertarian freedom, but that left-wing style freedom, the kind borne from the insight that "things you own end up owning you."

To a decade older me, it's not just a vague philosophy without a name anymore, it's the Marxist critique of capitalism. And the stuff at the end about violent revolution led by a charismatic (and fake!) dictator seems like a screenwriter's critique of the rest of Marxism.

It's been a while since I've seen Fight Club, but I kinda remember that Eddie Norton looked horrified at the very end, not triumphant. I think he'd finally had his dreams shattered, by the very act of realizing them.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.