100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
I do think its funny that he says at the end he is sorry if he hurt anyones feelings but he has to defend himself. Um did he go there and request to do a speech and is now doing it? That isn't defending yourself. If he was out somewhere and someone started insulting him because he was gay then I would give him that argument. Also he could have been taken more seriously without using insults or political cheap shots but w/e. It appears to me that he views his overall campaign to speak out against the basis for anti-gay sentiments is a form of 'defending himself'. I want to defend myself against invasive government. I don't need to be directly, immediately threatened by invasive government to 'defend myself' against it by speaking out against it. but speaking out against something is different than calling strangers names,,,,,thats not really defense if they have not initiated some threat against you,,, MsHarmony, from where I'm sitting your response has nothing to do with my comment. I was not commenting directly on the video, but on one specific thing that Chazster said: Um did he go there and request to do a speech and is now doing it? That isn't defending yourself.
I believe that proactively seeking speaking engagements is a form of defending yourself, and defending other people. I agree with you in that his 'pansy-***' insult was gratuitous, and not any form of defense. I was specifically responding to this paragraph "It appears to me that he views his overall campaign to speak out against the basis for anti-gay sentiments is a form of 'defending himself' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do think its funny that he says at the end he is sorry if he hurt anyones feelings but he has to defend himself. Um did he go there and request to do a speech and is now doing it? That isn't defending yourself. If he was out somewhere and someone started insulting him because he was gay then I would give him that argument. Also he could have been taken more seriously without using insults or political cheap shots but w/e. It appears to me that he views his overall campaign to speak out against the basis for anti-gay sentiments is a form of 'defending himself'. I want to defend myself against invasive government. I don't need to be directly, immediately threatened by invasive government to 'defend myself' against it by speaking out against it. but speaking out against something is different than calling strangers names,,,,,thats not really defense if they have not initiated some threat against you,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah, that was her HUSBAND the thug ex president,, who was arrested for DUI,,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
obama
|
|
there you have it.... no respect for being a good father for being a faithful husband for graduating magna cum laude from harvard law for giving the order to get Osama ,,,or anything in his forty some years of life not ONE thing to give him respect for,, Respect for being a good father and faithful husband? Respect for doing what you are supposed to? Also sitting in the chair when the army found Osaka and just giving permission doesn't sound like something to give respect for. Now graduating with honors, that is something to respect. I have no doubt he is a respectable man. In general I like the guy. I just don't think he is a good president. its a good point respect comes in many forms sometimes for things above and beyond sometimes for doing what one 'should' in spite of the obstacles and pressure not to, or in spite of it not being the 'norm' as in respecting men who take care of their kids (not the norm) or celebs and people in power who remain faithful (also not the norm) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A question of tolerance...
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! You know that! I suppose the command to take up Holy War is not a command to act even if it is not coming from someone's lips? Seriously, This statement is a walking fallacy. Also you are trying to avoid the base question. It isn't individuals being placed under the microscope. It is religious values. You are aware for tolerance to work it must be reciprocal? You cannot have one side tolerant and the other intolerant. That is tilted and biased! Where is the equality here? but oddly, most people if commanded to jump off a cliff wont do it its the persons CHOICE of ACTION that is tolerable of intolerable are these rhetorical questions? IF not, can you be more specific about what 'sides' you are referring to? Again you are side stepping the issue. Tolerance for intolerant religious values and faith practices! such as?,,,,what makes them specifically 'religious' values or practices? does it matter if it stems from religion or personal observation and choice if its the same value or practice? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 04/29/12 11:03 PM
|
|
thats interesting, probably is the exception though
I wish I could find more about the details in that case,,,, was it her first DUI offense? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 04/29/12 10:49 PM
|
|
was ms bush a thug,, after all, she did hit someone while driving drunk once,,,,,? if she died, would people make fun and want to make a profit? Maybe if she field patents related to the case like Martins parents did. He was nothing to them other then $$$$$$$$$$$. yeah, thats why they had him involved in community programs and why they want a CRIMINAL trial instead of a civil one and why they are trying to KEEP OTHERS From profiting by filing patents taking those rights off the market,,, and the question was about MS BUSH, not her parents,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the poor cant buy justice as often or well as the rich can
so poverty is not the crime, the poor are just more likely to be called 'criminal' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, so I read the story,, did a find for the name 'Obama',, and guess what,,,,?
nothing,,lol its a strange law, but not a new one,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
obama
|
|
If you really don't like the current President Obama, get out and vote against him! Whining doesn't solve anything and your vote does count. Remember Fl and Gore vs Bush? 
and replace him with who? people are "whining" because there is no one better to replace him with... people are just voting for the least sucky one... That's their problem for not voting in the primaries if they don't like the choices. As long as they at least VOTE for someone. amen Im still voting for the 'best' candidate, and not just the 'least sucky' one ...for the record,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Duke has also made some pretty wise speeches. Why aren't Dino Sharpie and Eugene ostracized? lol,,really? they arent? news to me,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A question of tolerance...
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 04/29/12 04:01 PM
|
|
few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically So in essence if say I started a religion based on PURE hedonism, I mean an absolute desire of fulfilling personal self indulgences of any kind, and preach that in hedonism you can do no wrong. Now one of my faithful desires to murder and rape women, NO! Let's really up the stakes, likes to murder and rape little boys under 7 years old because their screaming makes him get off. Now lets say that because of religious tenant of hedonism that person has done nothing wrong and our church supports his actions. Now in normal society we would be aghast at someone doing something like this to someone. Worst and ultimately hypocritically that church would be branded a cult. Could you tolerate a religion where "Anything" goes? ESPECIALLY knowing that it could very well be you who something happens to next? How fine is the line between religion and cult? As far as I see it myself i see them both as very reflexive terms. It just matters on scale mostly. It is one thing to tolerate a person of Islamic heritage since all people can change. People are entitled to make mistakes as long as they don't harm one another BUT to blindly accept a faith who preaches the core values that Islam does? I am not a big fan of "Agape" or blind tolerance of anything. Would Christianity be less tolerable if it preached subjugation and murder? Lying cheating and stealing from anyone of any faith is wrong by Christian standards but does Islam draw the same moral lines? If you say yes I am going to dump a lot of passages from the Quaran on you that say otherwise. So are you confusing tolerance for a person or tolerance for a faith practice? re posted for clarity few people are not 'tolerant' of religion or lack of religion people just have opinions about them we live in a country where there is no choice but to 'tolerate',,,basically when talking BELIEFS, which is how I understand the context of religion, I feel few people have a choice but to be tolerant of others beliefs when it comes to ACTIONS, which I see as a seperate issue from religion, we only have to be as 'tolerant' as the constitution and the law declares,,,, mans law trumps beliefs or personal choice,,,,,, But again "WHAT IF THE RELIGION ITSELF PREACHES VIOLENCE AND INTOLERANCE?" Why MUST we tolerate it? Some ignorant Liberal Tree Hugging Peace Fag says so? Or some religious character preaching peace and love says so? (I KNOW someone is going to be offended by the term Peace Fag. TOUGH COOKIES! I am not disparaging homosexuals at all. I am however disparaging those who refuse to acknowledge the fact we MUST get violent at times to protect our own from harm. I personally PREFER peace but I am not so QUEER over it that I will try to ram peace down every throat like some of these JERKS who assume everything can be achieved through diplomacy! If words hurt you you have NO SPINE! But then again noting the debate style of others this should be more like a mirror mirror moment for them.) My issue is why we are forced to tolerate intolerance. Just because people are normally peaceful means nothing when the religion they observe preaches violence and hate. How many religions preach making war on others besides Islam? religion doesnt preach, people do religions arent exclusively peaceful or violent, people take from them what they will subjectively and personally we dont 'tolerate' a religion, we tolerate what people do and say,, and people will subjectively take from a 'religion' different things because there are many words in those books to be interpreted and as you yourself say 'If words hurt you you have NO SPINE!' its actions that are tolerable or intolerable, with or without religion,,, THAT IS SO NOT TRUE! You know that! I suppose the command to take up Holy War is not a command to act even if it is not coming from someone's lips? Seriously, This statement is a walking fallacy. Also you are trying to avoid the base question. It isn't individuals being placed under the microscope. It is religious values. You are aware for tolerance to work it must be reciprocal? You cannot have one side tolerant and the other intolerant. That is tilted and biased! Where is the equality here? but oddly, most people if commanded to jump off a cliff wont do it its the persons CHOICE of ACTION that is tolerable of intolerable are these rhetorical questions? IF not, can you be more specific about what 'sides' you are referring to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
obama
|
|
there you have it.... no respect for being a good father for being a faithful husband for graduating magna cum laude from harvard law for giving the order to get Osama ,,,or anything in his forty some years of life not ONE thing to give him respect for,, What he does in his personal life is meaningless to me, its what he has done in the white house the effects me that counts. Him giving the order to get Usama was a good move but he's too many stupid things that it nullifies that event in my eyes. Ron Paul is a doctor and helps save womens lives, that doesn't impress me. He will impress me when he takes the white house. everyones perogative to have a personal opinion,,,and to focus on the things they choose to,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
was ms bush a thug,, after all, she did hit someone while driving drunk once,,,,,?
if she died, would people make fun and want to make a profit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well, people can check the charts out themself to see the difference
obviously, its everyones perogative (including mine) to have their personal opinions and feelings about the President,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
obama
|
|
there you have it....
no respect for being a good father for being a faithful husband for graduating magna cum laude from harvard law for giving the order to get Osama ,,,or anything in his forty some years of life not ONE thing to give him respect for,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/24/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/ Do some people HATE OBAMA more than they 'love america', does their support change MERELY because his name becomes attached to the issue somehow,,,? sure seems like to me,,, you make it out like the issues were on the table the day before Obama walked into office and the next day Republicans changed their minds.. Who says that they have to support the exact same things they supported in the 80s. Should democrats still have to support slavery? It must be wonderful to be a Liberal Journalist. Write anything that you like as the truth and the Liberal Sheeple believe it. Baa, baa, baa. The article is a bunch of liberal garbage. I wouldn't use it to wipe my ... 
Im in disagreement about journalists writing what they want , including garbage. The idea to post this came after reading a thread about just that (Several threads, actually). You know? People posting somones opinion in youtube, or some editorial about how Terrible the POTUS is doing,,,,,? Did you mean the Im-potus? 
judging by his fatherhood status,, probably not,,,lol I was thinking more of his presidential skills. 
I dont know Osama gone Healthcar passed depression avoided ,,seems he has a pretty strong presence,,, Osama gone-- He fell into this. Left over intelligence from previous administration. Nuff said. Healthcar passed--Very unpopular and also unconstitutional as will be shown. Had to bribe some lawmakers to get it passed. Did not give time for it to be read as he said any of his bills would be. No transparencey in his office as he promised. depression avoided--As much as Tax Cheat, Ben Bernanke, lies about it. The recession is not over in spite of the massive trillion dollar so called "Stimulus" and the huge deficit that it created. If anything this will add years to it. Yes, seems he has a pretty strong presence,,,a negative one. technically, he 'fell' into most of the things he is attributed to healthcare wasnt unpopular when Romney did it there was plenty time to read it, they spent most of the first year on it there is more transparency, just not complete transparency I didnt say the recession was avoided, I said we avoided a 'DEPRESSION' He fell into most of them and wants to take credit for all of them? What a liar! Joe Biden must be giving him lessons on plagerism and hypocrisy since he wrote the book on it. There is no transparency. Unless one can call taking the 5th transparent. Ask Eric Holder, huh? I'm sorry, we avoided the "Great Depression" again? or did he say the greatest depression since the "Great Depression"? So much Spin makes my head spin..I can't remember... 
I doubt he said the great depression again, though he may have said ANOTHER Great depression (with great as an adjective, like Farrakhan uses it,, though it sweeps past the heads of most) I dont think he should singularly take credit OR blame for any of it, which is what I usually argue. ALthough I point out the 'credit' to point out the hypocrisy of those so quick to give him the 'blame',,,, as to transparency, one of the first things he did was set out an open government directive,,but since he is not a 'dictator' , he then has to let others put the details and plans together,,,, read about it here http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/open-government-directive-has-dropped-heres-whats-it-and-why-its-big-deal If there is any doubt about who Farrycan is, his name was Eugene. He turned Muslim and changed his name. Is that why Barry Changed his name also???? To honor his Muslimness? 
did I imply I didnt know who Farrakhan is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from: http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions_2.htm A good rule of thumb for determining the difference between a recession and a depression is to look at the changes in GNP. A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent. A recession is an economic downturn that is less severe. By this yardstick, the last depression in the United States was from May 1937 to June 1938, where real GDP declined by 18.2 percent. If we use this method then the Great Depression of the 1930s can be seen as two separate events: an incredibly severe depression lasting from August 1929 to March 1933 where real GDP declined by almost 33 percent, a period of recovery, then another less severe depression of 1937-38. The United States hasn’t had anything even close to a depression in the post-war period. The worst recession in the last 60 years was from November 1973 to March 1975, where real GDP fell by 4.9 percent. Countries such as Finland and Indonesia have suffered depressions in recent memory using this definition. a chart of GDP growth since 2008 is here http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth easy to see, nowhere near a 10percent decline in GDP with the exception of the 8.9 decline we saw right before OBAMA took office,,, GDP is not the only measure used to determine a depression Harmony.....Also note how some economists define a depression... Considered, by some economists, a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is characterized by its length, by abnormally large increases in unemployment, falls in the availability of credit— often due to some kind of banking or financial crisis, shrinking output—as buyers dry up and suppliers cut back on production, and investment, large number of bankruptcies—including sovereign debt defaults, significantly reduced amounts of trade and commerce—especially international, as well as highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations—most often due to devaluations. Price deflation, financial crises and bank failures are also common elements of a depression that are not normally a part of a recession. There is no agreed definition of the term depression, though some have been proposed. In the United States the National Bureau of Economic Research determines contractions and expansions in the business cycle, but does not declare depressions.[1] Generally, periods labeled depressions are marked by a substantial and sustained shortfall of the ability to purchase goods relative to the amount that could be produced using current resources and technology (potential output).[2] Another proposed definition of depression includes two general rules: (1) a decline in real GDP exceeding 10%, or (2) a recession lasting 2 or more years. there are broad adjectives here and no real 'measure' how is 'recession' being defined here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/24/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/ Do some people HATE OBAMA more than they 'love america', does their support change MERELY because his name becomes attached to the issue somehow,,,? sure seems like to me,,, you make it out like the issues were on the table the day before Obama walked into office and the next day Republicans changed their minds.. Who says that they have to support the exact same things they supported in the 80s. Should democrats still have to support slavery? I make it sound that way , because pretty much it IS that way... IM not talking about support from a century ago Im talking about support as it relates to the politicians they put up on a pedesatal who did the SAME THINGS,,,,, We went down this road before. You claimed Obama wanting to take out Gaddaffi was exactly the same as Reagan trying to take him out. It wasn't. So we just twist the narrative a bit, but the motive is the same. It still won't work. lol, the action is the same the support changed,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/24/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/ Do some people HATE OBAMA more than they 'love america', does their support change MERELY because his name becomes attached to the issue somehow,,,? sure seems like to me,,, you make it out like the issues were on the table the day before Obama walked into office and the next day Republicans changed their minds.. Who says that they have to support the exact same things they supported in the 80s. Should democrats still have to support slavery? It must be wonderful to be a Liberal Journalist. Write anything that you like as the truth and the Liberal Sheeple believe it. Baa, baa, baa. The article is a bunch of liberal garbage. I wouldn't use it to wipe my ...
Im in disagreement about journalists writing what they want , including garbage. The idea to post this came after reading a thread about just that (Several threads, actually). You know? People posting somones opinion in youtube, or some editorial about how Terrible the POTUS is doing,,,,,? Did you mean the Im-potus?
judging by his fatherhood status,, probably not,,,lol I was thinking more of his presidential skills.
I dont know Osama gone Healthcar passed depression avoided ,,seems he has a pretty strong presence,,, Osama gone-- He fell into this. Left over intelligence from previous administration. Nuff said. Healthcar passed--Very unpopular and also unconstitutional as will be shown. Had to bribe some lawmakers to get it passed. Did not give time for it to be read as he said any of his bills would be. No transparencey in his office as he promised. depression avoided--As much as Tax Cheat, Ben Bernanke, lies about it. The recession is not over in spite of the massive trillion dollar so called "Stimulus" and the huge deficit that it created. If anything this will add years to it. Yes, seems he has a pretty strong presence,,,a negative one. technically, he 'fell' into most of the things he is attributed to healthcare wasnt unpopular when Romney did it there was plenty time to read it, they spent most of the first year on it there is more transparency, just not complete transparency I didnt say the recession was avoided, I said we avoided a 'DEPRESSION' He fell into most of them and wants to take credit for all of them? What a liar! Joe Biden must be giving him lessons on plagerism and hypocrisy since he wrote the book on it. There is no transparency. Unless one can call taking the 5th transparent. Ask Eric Holder, huh? I'm sorry, we avoided the "Great Depression" again? or did he say the greatest depression since the "Great Depression"? So much Spin makes my head spin..I can't remember...
I doubt he said the great depression again, though he may have said ANOTHER Great depression (with great as an adjective, like Farrakhan uses it,, though it sweeps past the heads of most) I dont think he should singularly take credit OR blame for any of it, which is what I usually argue. ALthough I point out the 'credit' to point out the hypocrisy of those so quick to give him the 'blame',,,, as to transparency, one of the first things he did was set out an open government directive,,but since he is not a 'dictator' , he then has to let others put the details and plans together,,,, read about it here http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/open-government-directive-has-dropped-heres-whats-it-and-why-its-big-deal |
|
|
|
|
Previous
