| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Could be good for Obama and Axelrod as the dems were stinking up the Presidents chances of reelection pretty badly. When they lose massively next week the worst of the dems agenda moves off the front page, especially if a lot of senior and hated dems fall.
I think the best line I have read recently about that car in the ditch is summed up like this.."look at the Obama bumper sticker"
Reid and his family have become very rich indeed in office..He does not need his pension.
Let's try some basic honesty for a minute.
The so-called "conservatives" we see in this day are actually radical reactionaries. They want to go back to the days of state religions and Queen Victoria in the bedroom.
In short, they want to go back to before the American Revolution.
Why do they hate America?
I thought we were going to get honest? No one is asking for or demanding a state religion, that is simply leftist hyperbole. What is asked for is a return to the government treating religion as they did for the first 180 years of our history and acknowledgement of the entire Establishment Clause...the awkward bit that reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". For 180 years the courts and country managed to live up to the entire phrase. It was not until 1947 that the Court decided to attack religion in public life. I contend we were not a theocracy in 1820, 1880, 1920, or 1946...in fact never so the argument that conservatives want such a thing is simply disingenuous piffle.
I also know of no one who has any desire to peek into anyone's bedroom...what they ask for is a bit of discretion on the part of societies more perverse. Those conservatives are tired of the lefts agenda on every issue being crammed down the throat of a majority who does not approve...
In short, most of us want to be left alone which includes in our homes, wallets, diets, Television and movies, and yes, bedrooms.
So, a more historically accurate question is not "Why do they hate America?" but why does the left insist on cramming their odd version of America down our throats each and every day and in every way?
How is pushing the perverse and immoral 'America'?
As to Queen Victoria...heck, we did not start the cult of Obama...that was you folk.
I am. Why don't you try it?
A lie or two, perhaps, in one sentence. I'm a pissed off moderate, so calling what I say "leftist" is fraud, a lie, completely dishonest propaganda, and in and of itself, fully and completely indicts everything you say.
And then, you say "nobody ...", despite your darlings O'Donnell, Angle, and the creep from Alaska DOING EXACTLY THAT IN DEED. What do you call religious intrusions into society like keeping women as chattels, like both Christianity and Islam call for? YOU CALL IT RECOGNIZING RELIGION IN LAW. It's a step along the slippery slope to state religion.
Your revisionist history is just more of an attempt to justify your return to a state religion.
So which religion should we choose? Christianity? Wicca? Islam? Buddhism? Santaria? FSM?
Which one should we choose to recognize in law, with laws that attempt to deal with the concept of "soul", with laws like "Blue Laws", with State Laws that exist in many places that state only religious people can hold state offices?
Which religions are the ones you allow? Which don't you? Why do you allow a religious litmus test for state offices, if you don't accept the simple fact that the 14th extends the bill of rights to the states, just like it was intended to, to prevent previous abuses of the sort you are advocating returning to?
Why? WHY DO YOU WANT TO UNDO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION?
I SUPPOSE you could be unaware of the ridiculous tommyrot that your "conservative" (they are nothing of the sort, they are neofascist Christian revolutionaries, but you call them 'conservatives") are spouting, but it's hard not to know that. So, then, I guess I have to ask, what would YOU regard as religious intrusion into the government sector?
In other words, "if you're not exactly like us, you have to hide". Well, hide, avoid laws that make their behavior illegal, ineligible for some kinds of government service based on RELIGIOUS TESTS OF MORALS, be subject to arrest at the whim of a law enforcement agency, be subject to job dismissal from government jobs as a result of RELIGIOUS TESTS OF MORALS, etc.
So, then, you ARE for the government taking up religious belief? I thought you said nobody was?
Which is it? Could you bother to be even slightly consistent, please?
Your cockamamie defintion of of a leftist would include Barry Goldwater and Ike.
To you, everyone who doesn't want to revert to pre-American-Revolution government is a "leftist", apparently.
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
Bullpucky. What YOU WANT is to force everyone to be like you. When you argue against abortion, you make women chattel, you push religion into the public eye, and you TAKE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF BEYOND SOMEONE ELSE'S NOSE. Ditto objections for homosexuality, laws against atheists holding offices, ... The list of religious intrusions into the life of non-religious people (and believers in different religions) is endless, all the way from "Blue Laws" through "sin taxes" to abortion regulation or banning. Why do you support that anti-American behavior?
Again with the "leftist" lie. According to you, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Tom Paine are all "leftists". Anything that holds you accountable to real, as opposed to your fantasy, history is "leftist".
You, sir, are touting historical revisionism, just like those people who more directly state lies like "THE USA is a Christian Nation". Man, that would be news to Jefferson, who was a Gnostic Heretic, to say the least.
I guess you don't even understand quite how badly Queen Victoria skewed the morals of the (then) UK. Relating that to Obama is simply absurd.
And "perverse and immoral", you apply religious tests all the time, and keep arguing that you do not want a state religion.
You're at best a hypocrite.
J_J, time we save our energy.
JIMV gave it away with his "crammed down our throats," "leftists," ditto-mongering.
JIMV has his marching orders, those words are planted in his cortex by his masters.
The only remaining question is whether or not he blinks his eyes any more.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741 is yet another example, this time of corporate fascism.
You might have a point. See the link for some corporate, as opposed to religious, fascism, though. There are several prongs to this degeneration of our country.
Democrats are going to leeeeeahuuuuuews ha ha-ha-haha-ha.
Again, your legend is only in your own mind. If you keep behaving like this, you're likely to get yourself pregnant.
j.j....one cannot have a political argument with someone who labels every idea they disagree with as a 'lie' even when demonstrably true. For example...this
Is simply a strawman made up out of whole cloth...an imaginary position so one can make an imaginary rebuttal..
Do you really find folk dumb enough to buy into that style of debate...all straw man, logic fallacies, and cries of 'lies'?
I'll leave you to your confused illusions and compliment you on the quality of the weed you obviously ingest.
As to your claims to moderation...the first step in the cure to all issues is to accept what one is. If it walks like a liberal, posts like a liberal, and makes up conservative positions like a liberal, one is a liberal, even when one claims moderation...
It's exactly what your statement about "morals and perverts" implies.
If you don't like your position, change it.
Actually, I believe the actual, non edited, non strawman phrase was "the perverse and immoral"
I know, I know, awkward truths and all that...
I recommend a dictionary
Contrary to the horse manure you'd like to spread, "moderate" does not mean "accepts any old tommyrot".
When you keep lying about my position, spewing "leftist, leftist, leftist" kinds of hate speech (and that's what it is, the "conservatives" have so demonized anything as far left as Barry Goldwater that they can spew hate at it at will), and trying to dishonestly represent my position as something it isn't, I'm going to call you on it.
I'm standing up, in most part, for the STATUS QUO, not for the imaginary revisionist history you want to go back to. That makes your claim to conservatism rather, well, bizzare, to say the very least.
Your insistance on revisionist history, your acceptance of religious mores in government, your use of religiously justified words like "morals" and "perverse", your portrayal of people who want to keep the status quo as "leftists" all show that your agenda and your intent are anything but conservative, in fact that you are a radical reactionary, arguing for, regardless of what you intend or believe, a situation not terribly unlike what the colonists faced before the Revolutionary War.
And that, sir, makes you someone who HATES AMERICA in my book.
No, it obviously means 'accepts exclusively whatever twaddle that comes off the DNC FAX'.
Come on, come out of that closet...man up and admit what you are, an unrepentant liberal. It is not a disgrace, just truth in advertising. You fool no one.
Perhaps before you get deeper into the morass of lies you're making, you need to show me, at least, that there is even any such thing as a "DNC FAX".
I surely don't get any of them. The only mail I get is from the Repugnican party, asking me to "come back and help tear down America" in effect. The Democrats don't even know I exist.
You are really living off in some kind of dittohead fantasyland, aren't you? If anyone dares to point out the utter bankruptcy of your logical and ethical positions, you start spewing hate speech like "leftist" at them.
You have nothing. You don't even know your own opinion, you don't know your own position, and you utterly fail to understand why your opinion is fundamentally anti-American, pro-Religion, and part of a trend toward religious Fascism not unlike the right-wing religious movement that brought down the Moorish and Arabic civilizations, you know, the ones that invented (and lost) calculus, invented Algebra, the zero placeholder, and a lot of fundamental engineering that the church-ridden Europeans never even noticed.
Your lack of historic knowledge speaks for itself so I see no need to comment. Your use of the phrase "religiously justified" to describe 'morality' and 'perverse' belies the lefts conceit that even secular atheists can be moral.
I disagree. Morality is not dependent on religion. One can be moral and not religious and one can be immoral and religious. I am surprised you did not know that.
Of course the left wants to keep the status quo...they spent decades making the country into their image. They have no desire at all for anyone to stop the slow but steady march into the shadows of mediocrity and socialism. I guess one could call that desire to keep today's leftist excess as a conservative position, as in keeping the status quo, but one would not call the folk advocating it conservatives.
The idea that anyone wanting to correct the excesses of todays far left is a radical reactionary is amusing. What exactly were the folk who changed 180 years of our history into what we have today? You do have phrase describing them?
Glad to
COOL!!! We did like a red, white, and blue thing
Funny thing happened yesterday. Did you see or hear Obama when he was talking about Larry Summmers?
Obama spoke about how Larry Summers on some public access show and how he has been doing a good job. Well, the audience started laughing and Obama pulled a quick one and said, "pun intended."
Obama threw Summers to the wolves on that one after the audience started laughing at him.
Hilarious, and its only going to get funnier.
Figures. Fraud suits your case much better than reality.
Yep, we see it again. Wheh caught with stains in your underwear, you "define the opponent" and try to change the subject away from the lies your fellow-traveller fascists have been caught telling.
Fellow, your not even coherent. "Stains in underwear"? Man, your treading on some weird turf. Get some rest and maybe a little of that fresh Cascade mountain air afterward.
Does any of this sound familiar? No need to thank me, I'm a giver.
Too funny
Perhaps my argument does not need to rely on mindless cries of 'lies', ignorance of history, poor logic, and strawmen, but does understand humor, history, research, and logic, things the left seems clueless about. Did you see BoBo on Comedy show? Pitiful.
More predictions:
The blue guy pulls out a victory in Pennsylvania and has - gasp! - local coat tails!
He rises to the top of the contender heap for 2012.
The bummer is, he actually served in the military, which the red party either hates or loves, depending on if their current candidate ever showed up for service.
So, blue guy in Pennsylvania saves a narrow Senate majority for the blues.
At this point, although Lamont will opine my desire, I am hoping we see a red House.
Since your history is a lie, you haven't researched anything this side of the KKK, and you don't know a leftist from your ethical superior, well, 'scuse me if I dismiss you as a dittohead who HATES AMERICA.
If you say so and that conceit helps you through the next week, go for it.
I suggest you look up "The Enlightenment Movement".
When you read and understand the basic civics involving the formation of the USA, get back to me.
Until then, you're just going to keep being a fan of George W. Frederick, George III by Grace of God.
That bitch sounds just like JJ? I'm crying I'm laughing so hard....
That was definitely the "full monty" on j_j, aka: The professional victim.
Mark
If you say so...3 Days to go before massive democrat unemployment...
How typical of the left to confuse disagreement with the DNC FAX as 'outright lies'...
Let's see. Your fraudulent "FAX" is all you've got.
I find it puzzling that people like you, who are hurt the most by the current nutter Republicans (bear in mind I used to be a party member, but left it when it went nuts, and no, I'm not a Democrat and never will be), are so rabidly in favor of nutcases like Boehner who work, effectively, for the people who hurt your own jobs and bankroll the most.
Why is this? Do you want to be miserable? Do you want everone to be miserable so you can stage your Christian Reconstructionist revolution? Did you mistake "Handmaid's Tale" for a history book?
Happy Birthday
Actually, I mostly rely on your posts for evidence...let's look at this one, for example...
"people like you"...ie; Americans
"hurt the most by the current nutter Republicans" - Opinion assumed to be fact
"left it when it went nuts" - Opinion pretending to be fact
"are so rabidly in favor of nutcases like Boehner" - Opinion pretending to be fact
"who work, effectively, for the people who hurt your own jobs and bankroll the most" - Opinion pretending to be fact using stock phrases from the far left
"Do you want to be miserable" - Opinion pretending to be fact
"Do you want everone to be miserable so you can stage your Christian Reconstructionist revolution" - Strawman
"Did you mistake "Handmaid's Tale" for a history book?" - Strawman
So what do we have? Opinion and strawmen arguments all couched in the language of the far left pretending to be a reasoned, researched argument...
As I noted, I need do little more than quote you to have all I need to rebut your positions...heck, I do not even need to work at it, your posts speak for themselves...
They are what they are.
Oh, look, now you can quote-mine and be dishonest THAT way.
Have you no shame?
I quoted about everything...didn't delete much and took nothing from context. I simply labeled the parts as what they were...Your post spoke for itself.
Angle speaks to Hispanics....says they look Chinese to her....rises to +4% in polls.
In an entirely related story....Vegas voted dumbest city of the 55 largest towns in the country, finally overtaking Fresno.
Next prediction: I predict a union president will be considered a viable Presidential cadidate by the right....within my lifetime.
I always thought that honor belonged to San Francisco, a place of astounding beauty and abysmal governance.
San Francisco is a fascinating place.
For people with jobs, you have to "live there on purpose."
Your car can't just break down in SF and you'll get a house.
For the people without jobs....thank goodness all those smart working people are liberal.
Housing values, I think, are a reasonable indicator of how the market sees the global worth of a city, all things considered.
Don't know how old you are but I seem to recall that Reagan was head of the screen actors guild...
I was fishin'.
Your quote-mining remains fraudulent. Your "define the opponent" remains straight out of the RNC and ID playbooks. Your attitude, behavior, and utter lack of ethics are obvious to everyone, including those who feel obliged to support you according to their own playbook.
Pages