What is it about gleeful diffusion interjected in particular that ruffles you? Playful banter when you have a room fulla straight men on subjects most are unqualified to argue, well, it's fair game and all-Often a hearty remedy for absolutism of any kind is a valve tweaked a few degrees right or left-Absolution comes later

Unless Darken is signing my paycheck, I answer however I damned well please. And my side business selling straw men, well, I didn't build that, Obama did.

Many on that list are Obama 'accomplishments' only for leftists.


Ears didn't end anything in Iraq, it was already happening when he took office.

He had nothing to do with Moammar and would support whoever came out on top.

The stimulus, particularly the bank bailouts, did nothing except put us in greater debt.

The Chevy Volt is a failure.

Government takeover of healthcare?...I only wish ALL the new taxes Obamacare will hit us with would happen at once, so the oblivious can experience the rotten deal and betrayal of Constitution.

FDA regulating tobacco? Another step backwards from ending Drug Prohibition.

The two UNqualified affirmative action judges added to Supreme Court.

Billions lost to green jobs scams/putting the kibosh on the Keystone pipeline.

...and so forth.

Obama running on his record? Go right ahead. It's why he's where he's at today.


>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^quantumushroom:
An "enraged" Maddow doesn't bother me in the slightest, nor is her blather worth commenting on.
It's just nice to see the left dick-punched with their own tactics, the righty version of lib lies like "trickle-down" and "tax cuts for the rich" (and calling everyone a racist).
You all think Obama has a record worth running on? Let him know. Cause even he don't believe it.
"Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama's claims about "creating jobs" with one plain and inescapable fact — "there hasn't been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office." Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost."
>> ^DarkenRahl:
Do you EVER respond to the actual video and/or discussion? You must have a side business selling straw men.
>> ^quantumushroom:
The FORMER big three networks were all liberally-biased for decades (and are still in denial about it).
It's a miracle there are as many righties as there are, with leftists controlling government schools and hollywood.
The internet has saved this nation from the former "fourth estate" who betrayed and murdered real journalism to stump for taxocrats.
There's something wrong when FOX holds one point of view but ALL THE OTHER networks parrot the same line of socialist claptrap.
Oh, I almost forgot. Man-made global warming--or even plain global warming, continues to be a sham.
And fk castro.
THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE RIGHT HAS SPOKEN!



So the answer to @DarkenRahl 's question is...no.
It cracks me up that the right thinks Obama isn't or can't run on his record. He's been running on his record since day one. The right continues to pretend to live in an alternate universe. I know you listen to fox news and they're demonstrably mis-informing people on a regular basis, but you've either missed or willfully ignored his many accomplishments
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma
gazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php

@ReverendTed

Abortion is not murder, but that's not really the point. America, and by extension, the world, doesn't really have a problem with killing as a whole. We war with ourselves and kill fellow beings in the name of religion, politics, land and other resources. We kill criminals if they commit heinous enough crimes. We kill vast amounts of wildlife for fun and sport. We kill flies and other insects merely because they bother us. We step on insects without even knowing it.

We humans kill.
We are killers.
There is no escaping this fact.
Create the right conditions and anyone will kill...anyone.

The only thing you can do is: 1. Hopefully create a world in the future where we don't have to kill as much and 2. Hope that we are killing for the right reasons. Sometimes this will be true, sometimes it won't be. But that's life. That's the human condition. A law will change nothing other than whether or not abortions are performed safely or not. I choose to live in a world where if someone I know decides to have an abortion, that they do it safely with a doctor and not in some back alley. Abortions will happen REGARDLESS of what the law says. If we're going to end an unborn child's life, let's at least make sure the mother remains safe. Outlawing abortions just increases the chance that we'll have two ended lives instead of just one.

Abortion, by definition is the LAWFUL termination of an unborn child...LAWFUL. Murder is the UNLAWFUL termination of a life. Key distinction there.

This false morality that some people are somehow above and beyond the rest of us mere mortals and hold life to be irrevocably sacred just does not understand history or the human condition. These sorts of people seem to be the same people who would casually send us to war for religious or ideological reasons and thus condone the termination of more lives. The hypocrisy is glaring.

In regards to this notion that a person would go have an abortion just because a baby would be inconvenient is sad certainly, but when it comes right down to it....tough. Cost of living in a free society. people are going to things you don't approve of. deal with it. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. People who go have abortions out of convenience are in the minority. Quit worrying about what the minority does..especially with their own body. You and I don't get to decide what is right for someone else.

We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet. If every viable pregnancy ever was brought to term, we would have an even bigger resource shortage problem on our hands.

We live in a world where your quality of life (and your offspring) is directly related to your job. Until the quality of life of humanity becomes more equalized, We are going to continue to have situations where if someone gets pregnant it will directly affect their quality of life (and their child's) for the worse. So I really don't have a problem with someone terminating the pregnancy so that they go on to improve their quality of life so that they can have a kid later who will benefit from that better quality of life.

I too would ideally prefer adoption to abortion. But that's not exactly saying much. Adoption agencies have tons of kids and not enough parents to go around. As fertility science continues to improve, fewer and fewer parents are going to want adoption when they can just undergo a procedure and still have their own. This recently happened to a friend of mine who was having difficulty conceiving. She and her husband initially decided to adopt, but at some point, they changed their mind and pursued some massively costly fertility treatments so that they eventually did conceive. I was immensely happy for her, but at the same time, I personally felt they should have stuck with the adoption as those orphans are already here and need help now. But here's the thing. It's not my choice, it's hers and her husbands. So we can deal with the realities of the situation or continue to play hypotheticals. If everyone gave their kid up for adoption instead of abortion, we'd just have a different kind of problem and the quality of life of a vast amount of kids would be affected for the worse.

As for your big questions, They are best left to people far more educated on this subject than you and I. Of course there is some point in a pregnancy where abortion should no longer be an option. I don't think anyone is arguing this. As you say, the question is when. I simply don't know and am unqualified to make that judgement. No matter what is decided upon, it obviously won't satisfy everyone, but a decision has to be made and you can't please everyone.

I know that in science, there is no such thing as a "failed experiment".
But there is certainly such a thing as an unqualified success. Well done.

Did you hear about the cancelled sequel, though? They were considering landing a Space Boat in a Methane Lake on the surface of Titan.
But no, we're going back to Mars to drill a hole. Booooring.
(Yes, I kid, but dang.)

I totally agree that Affirmative Action needs to die. The question is, of course, when?

5 years ago, I would have said that Aff. Action needs to die. But after seeing the level of hate and disrespect for Obama? I'm not so sure.

Just because a law says everyone is equal...doesn't make it so. I think we still have a long ways to go. Quite honestly, I don't think things will change until the people still old enough to think it was OK that blacks used separate water fountains shuffle off this mortal coil. There's simply too many people in positions of power who remember when it was totally acceptable to visit violence upon the "colored folk"

I'm totally ok with giving minorities a boost until we fucking grow up enough to see past petty shit like ethnicity. Maybe you do run the risk of someone completely unqualified getting put into a job, but please...as if no white EVER got a job they weren't qualified for. Yep...it was completely unheard of until Aff. Action came into being. /sarcasm

We fucking killed and enslaved these people for centuries. And even when we freed them, we still treated them like shit. I'm totally cool with cutting them some slack for a while. Yeah, someday we're going to have to take away Aff. Action...but that day isn't today.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

>> ^EMPIRE:
schizophrenia?

Unqualified diagnosis much?


oh I'm sorry... I forgot I was making a medical diagnosis, and not just a wild guess. Thank you for correcting me.

>> ^EMPIRE:

schizophrenia?


Unqualified diagnosis much?

They were criminally reckless. Her disqualifying lack of knowledge was so extreme, there's no way she could have faked it until after the convention. Unless these other guys were clueless themselves about basic civics/history/world events, which is even sadder, but not hard to believe. They are political hacks, after all.

If you were interviewing a highly experienced engineer, you wouldn't ask him or her something basic like Newton's 3 Laws. But you would talk shop with such a person about issues that depend upon knowledge of the fundamentals. It wouldn't take 5 minutes to uncover an unsophisticated cad. So, I don't believe the book or the movie. They knew they were in trouble the first conversation they had with Palin.

On Edwards, it's not up to me to prove a negative. I don't know one way or the other. The McCain aid certainly can't prove his assertion, which is my point. I never was in the Edwards camp, but the fact that he was a lying philanderer counts for nothing. Wouldn't be the first time we had a president with those two flaws.>> ^shuac:

>> ^longde:
They should have pressed him alot more on why he knowingly put up an unqualified person as a candidate for the VP. He wasn't contrite enough, IMO.
Also, how does he know Edwards was unqualified?

While I agree that he wasn't contrite enough, you can't say he knowingly put up an unqualified candidate. They just did a crappy vetting job of her. And even if they had the time to fully vet her, I think she could've faked her way through it, she being a good politician.
The vetting process probably assumes a great deal about what a candidate knows because when you ascend to becoming somebody's veep pick, it's a safe bet that you know a few things about the world. In other words, they don't ever bother vetting a sophomore high school student because, why would they ever need to unless sophomore high school students is all we had? Yet that is the level of world knowledge Palin seems to have had...so the vetting questions do not start that far back, understand? My point here is that they didn't realize the full extent of her ignorance and instability until well after the convention. I read the book and saw the movie.
But my question for you about Edwards is this: do you believe he was qualified? You think a person with such crucially flawed judgement and character would be okie-dokie as president, is that right? Better than Palin? Probably, but that's not the only hurdle a potential president has to jump, is it?
So tell us why Edwards wasn't unqualified given his public record.

>> ^longde:

They should have pressed him alot more on why he knowingly put up an unqualified person as a candidate for the VP. He wasn't contrite enough, IMO.
Also, how does he know Edwards was unqualified?


While I agree that he wasn't contrite enough, you can't say he knowingly put up an unqualified candidate. They just did a crappy vetting job of her. And even if they had the time to fully vet her, I think she could've faked her way through it, she being a good politician.

The vetting process probably assumes a great deal about what a candidate knows because when you ascend to becoming somebody's veep pick, it's a safe bet that you know a few things about the world. In other words, they don't ever bother vetting a sophomore high school student because, why would they ever need to unless sophomore high school students is all we had? Yet that is the level of world knowledge Palin seems to have had...so the vetting questions do not start that far back, understand? My point here is that they didn't realize the full extent of her ignorance and instability until well after the convention. I read the book and saw the movie.

But my question for you about Edwards is this: do you believe he was qualified? You think a person with such crucially flawed judgement and character would be okie-dokie as president, is that right? Better than Palin? Probably, but that's not the only hurdle a potential president has to jump, is it?

So tell us why Edwards wasn't unqualified given his public record.

They should have pressed him alot more on why he knowingly put up an unqualified person as a candidate for the VP. He wasn't contrite enough, IMO.

Also, how does he know Edwards was unqualified?

Hey look

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/02/18/2125242/kenyan-chief-foils-robbery-via-twitter

SO i guess you're more unqualified than a kenyan, QM! You don't do shit for anyone! Woo!

Awesome at their disbelief over Palin THREE YEARS AGO :

She is uniquely and supremely unqualified, and to support her is unfair to her at least... and look what crazy bitch is supporting her! Suprise!

Well, Gingrich is in the mix for sure, but honestly I think Mittens is the most palatable combination of qualified and electable. I mean, the guy actually has executive experience, as well as business sense. Gingrich comes with so much baggage, and sounds like such a dick all the time.

>> ^heropsycho:

I disagree. If you're gonna put resumes of the candidates together, Newt Gingrich would be the most qualified. Sure, Ron Paul has been in Congress longer, but Gingrich had a major leadership position as Speaker of the House. Going along with that, he negotiated numerous deals with the President, including gov't budgets, talks about foreign policy initiatives, etc.
I don't mean to suggest I think he's the best candidate because I don't think he is, but most qualified? No contest.
I don't vote necessarily for the most qualified, but I will NOT vote for anyone who isn't qualified. Ron Paul is qualified to be President, although I don't think I could ever vote for him because of his ideological rigidity. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain are all unqualified.
>> ^notarobot:
"There's got to be someone who understands the issues better than Herman Cain?"
Um... Ron Paul is the most qualified and experienced candidate on the republican stage, period. Now if only he could figure out how to connect with "normal" people, and have some billionaire back him to buy MSM air time.

I disagree. If you're gonna put resumes of the candidates together, Newt Gingrich would be the most qualified. Sure, Ron Paul has been in Congress longer, but Gingrich had a major leadership position as Speaker of the House. Going along with that, he negotiated numerous deals with the President, including gov't budgets, talks about foreign policy initiatives, etc.

I don't mean to suggest I think he's the best candidate because I don't think he is, but most qualified? No contest.

I don't vote necessarily for the most qualified, but I will NOT vote for anyone who isn't qualified. Ron Paul is qualified to be President, although I don't think I could ever vote for him because of his ideological rigidity. Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain are all unqualified.

>> ^notarobot:

"There's got to be someone who understands the issues better than Herman Cain?"
Um... Ron Paul is the most qualified and experienced candidate on the republican stage, period. Now if only he could figure out how to connect with "normal" people, and have some billionaire back him to buy MSM air time.

>> ^shinyblurry:

@petpeeved but here you have stated the truth of the matter with absolute certainty that you are right while simultaneously admitting that you are in the dark about the nature of existence, specifically in regards to what happens after you die. Being in the dark, I submit to you that you are unqualified to judge whether my claim is correct. However, even so, I have provided you the means to ascertain the truth of the matter on your own. Rather than take me at my word, which is relayed from the word that God gave to us, you can test my truth claim for its accuracy by following the method prescribed above.


What direct proof do you have that the Bible was created by anyone or anything other than a human being? The answer to this question always seems to rely on circular logic: "I know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God."

Everything you've been told about the Bible and Jesus and Christianity has come from the mouth of a human. Your faith is based on pure hearsay.