SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 123
  1. #51
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Guys,

    I assure you that I (allie)is a woman. I know what I would do. Point is. That is my decision to make. Leave the politicians out of it.

  2. #52
    What's HTML?
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,701
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Didn't you just say you didn't want to have this debate?
    Ryan Kuhle - A Proud Advisor - Got Questions? Just Ask!
    Get your website started for less than $20! Click Here

  3. #53
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, I did. I did, however, thoght it pertinent for you to understand what my very general views were on this issue (abortion) so you would know something about my political leanings. Those views, really have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, so this is the reason that I choose not to discuss the abortion in any further detail.

    By the way, the original topic of discussion is way off track at this point. Time to get back on track. What was it about? Al Gore, I think. Personal opinion? He probably would have done much the same as GW, just with a different style. With either of them, it would have been the same. Difficult times or circumstances define the man. The verdict is still out on George Bush. Unfortunately, Al Gore will never get the chance to prove what he could/would have done given the same set of circumstances. It would be interesting to know. Let's hope that GWB is up to the task. If not, there is always another election on the horizon.

  4. #54
    Non-Member jigga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chesterfield, mi, USA
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why do people even have to talk about abortion... don't people realize that if you have sex, you can get pregnant? Well... if you get pregnant, then it's your own fault for having sex.... I'm not talking about rape, I'm talking about pregnancy from sex that you wanted to have... If you get pregnant, it's your own problem and you shouldn't be a murderer and kill a child because of that. What if your mother killed you? A lot of you, she probably should have, you *******s! Anyway... if people were more willing to take responsibility for their actions, the world would be a much better place...

    Also, to defend myself, it's not that I really want to see people lying dead in storm drains and I don't hope for it... it's more or less that I don't really give a damn if they end up that way, because they brought it upon theirselves and if it means that I get back $5 more on my tax return, then I'm willing to put a price on their worthless head!

    And why don't we send women into Afghanistan? I don't think it's fair that women should get the better military jobs, just because they have boobs and an extra hole... that's BS.... If women want to be all that they can be, or serve in an army of one, then they should be out on the frontlines with the men and fight just like the others... Women can't even go on the ships... or go into war, whatsoever... Which means the women get preferential treatment on officer jobs, thus they make more income and in the military, you can make quite a substantial amount of income from it.. There are generals making over $100K a year... and that's a fact.. and if women get all those positions, men are being pushed away from high paying jobs...

    I don't know.... just a thought!

  5. #55
    Fried Gold Polymath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    331
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let's not forget that George W pulled strings to get in the National Guard, which would exempt him from the 'Nam draft. At least Clinton had some kind of balls in the sense that he just plain didn't go, whereas Bush used family influence to weasel out of it:

    "records published in the US press show that Mr Bush clinched a pilot slot in the National Guard ahead of thousands of other applicants despite scoring only 25 per cent in his aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade. He was sworn in on the day he applied, in a hastily arranged ceremony for the press."
    http://www.theage.com.au/daily/990930/news/news28.html

    If you ask me, by this report's light, Bush looks ten times more conniving than Clinton.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tis, Tis, Tis, Sketch. I do know what a draft dodger is. A draft doger is someone who evades the draft through illigetmate means, like getting 11 (that's right, 11) student diferments (Mr. Ashcroft, or shuld I say Dr. Ashcroft), or there is the ever popular 'using-family-influence-to-portect-Texas-from-Mexico' ploy (our very own president). And as for Cheney, the closest he has come to fighinting oversees was last week's opening sketch on Staturday Night Live...

    BTW: I did note the spelling corrections. Thank you for your consideration. But as you can see, I'm not that good a speller, with the disgrapha and all, but then again, I'm smarter than I spell.

    Also, to defend myself, it's not that I really want to see people lying dead in storm drains and I don't hope for it... it's more or less that I don't really give a damn if they end up that way, because they brought it upon theirselves and if it means that I get back $5 more on my tax return, then I'm willing to put a price on their worthless head!
    As a high school 'drop-out,' I kinda take offence to that.
    DYK: the GED is designed so that only 80% of graduates would pass it. Now, math isn't my strong suit, but I think that means 20% don't. Feal free to correct me if I'm wrong, Sketch (I'm sure you will).

  7. #57
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ian, cite your sources for Mr. Ashcroft....I'd like to see a link from a credible source.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  8. #58
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    O.K. Sketch, here you go:

    http://waldmanreport.com/dodgin.htm
    http://www.bartcop.com/0121rack.htm
    http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
    http://www.buzzflashcom.bigstep.com/generic.html?pid=13

    Note: I origanaly heard about this on tv. Several pages linked to a Boston Globe story, but is seems to have been taken down. As for the creadibility of these sites, I'll leave that up to you.

    I don't really blame him for getting deferment, it was a different time. My biggest concern is that I've noticed that thoes who haven't served are usualy the most hawkish. And, as an 18 year-old whose looking at a selective services card, it's a concern.

  9. #59
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Waldman report appears to be Op-Ed (an opinion piece). Here's a reason I question the journalistic credibility of it:
    When the rules were changed so that marriage was no longer sufficient to get one a deferment but parenthood was, Lynn Cheney became pregnant just days later.
    It takes weeks to know if one is pregnant...generally 3-4 weeks. Never can one know in days. This preganancy could NOT have been a planned attempt at a deferrment. Not journalism. Op-ed!
    another op-ed is the bartcop link.
    ...Here's a recent rant:


    Beerbrains!?- 1/18/01 http://rackjite.com


    Dick Cheney (a Vietnam War supporter who sought and was awarded a deferment so
    not to have to go himself) is having an inauguration party titled "Salute to Veterans"!
    It's even called a rant. It's an opinion piece!!! Again, not jounralism.

    AWOLBUSH - 'nuff said in the name. I'm looking for a balanced objective look. Not opinion pieces or websites. Majoir newspapers (no matter what you fcall their political bias) constitue legitimate jounrnalistic sources with the exception of the editorial pages which again, are op-eds!

    Buzzflash lists republicans but links to the same page that bartcop does..rackjite.com. Rackjite has not cited it's sources making me wonder where they came up with their facts.

    I don't mind a negative look at our politicians but there is safety in numbers. If it can be documented and confirmed by multiple legitimate objective news sources, I will take it as fact...probabyl fact with a liberal spin as that is most of the media today, but still fact. Anyone can put info on a website. I want fact!

    Find some legitimate sources for me, Ian. Not just some liberal's "push-an-agenda" webpage.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  10. #60
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, Sketch, you don't give up, do you? O.K. lets look at some circumstantual evidence:

    ∙ Apperently he didn't feal being a 'vet was impornent enough to be listed in his own bio. {http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ashcroftbio.html} Also, 'Ashcroft taught business law at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield...' supports the statments made in the links of my previovus post.

    In addtion, I think, sence the majority of Americans wern't drafted into 'nam, the burden of proof should be on you, Sketch, to prove that, indeed, Ashcroft served (witch he didn't). Oh, and also, just because a statment is an op/ed pice, dosen't mean that it's not true. Right?

    ...with a liberal spin as that is most of the media today, but still fact.
    I am so tired of hearing so-called conservitives going on about the 'left-wing media.' It's been my experence that the media has been equaly hard on both Democrats and Republicans. If your ideas don't sound good when thier stated back to you, perhaps thier just bad ideas!

  11. #61
    Non-Member jigga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chesterfield, mi, USA
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Equally hard? I think you must be watching... The O'Reilly Factor, because him and Rush are the ONLY republican voices on television... Name a channel and they completely democrat and they generally hire people who have democratic values...

    Editorial Opinions are probably the most insignificant sources of policital commentary... The majority of them are severely manufactured conspiracy theories, made understandable for the average reader... Why would they write something like that? Website traffic... we're all webmaster here and we all know that site traffic is what we're all aiming for and that's one way of doing it.. Is it right? No, but it's America and that's what makes it beautiful!

  12. #62
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    O.K. Jigga, I'll bite.

    No, I haven't been watching The O'Reilly Factor, I don't have cable...(long story). But, there are other 'conservitives' on telivision like Will, and Dr. Laura (or is her show canclled alredy). It's not as one sided as many like to clame.

    Granted, Sitcom's arn't usualy 'conservitive', but I wouldn't say thier 'liberal' (at least I'm not claming Friends, or the rest of NBC's line-up for that matter). However, I think that sunday morning talk shows and late night talk shows make a pritty good effort to try to present both (or more) points of view. Thire still after ratings, so many regularly pick up the zealots that none of us would clame, but they do this equaly to both sides. They're an equal-oppertunity distortor (wd?).

  13. #63
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I didn't say he served. I said I didn't think he dodged the draft. There's no burden of proof necessary.

    Op-ed's may be true, but they may not be and are not the standard by which we measure the things called facts. They are OPINIONS.

    Will who? Dr. Laura is on the radio and isn't a political voice...she's a psychiatrist and that's what her show is about. Fox NEws is a balanced station but none of the others are. I'm not on a head hunt but the media just isn't nonbiased! Sorry.

    Oh, and I don't look to sitcoms for political views. They are not journalism. They are entertainment.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  14. #64
    Non-Member jigga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chesterfield, mi, USA
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I remember, during the elections, where Bush was clearly winning in Florida, but they declared Gore the winner on EVERY single station, except for Fox News... Fox News was still showing Bush as the winner and in fact, in all actuality at that point in time it was discovered, that the networks declared it too early and that bush was actually in the lead considerably... This is one of those things that could have caused Bush the election because a lot of people once someone is declared a winner aren't going to go and vote, because it would be pointless for the most part. That had happened several times throughout the night, if you guys remember correctly. If they were a non-biased company, like you claim, they would have waited until they had enough evidence to support that any one person was actually the winner, but it was too close to call in the first place and Bush was ahead, so why would you give it to Gore? It's a bias! I don't know how else you could construe that.

  15. #65
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <sigh> Sketch, opinions and these things called facts are not diatomic opposites. For instance, it's a fact that your opinion of Clinton is poor. That's a judgment call based on some information you've received. I, on the other hand, have formed a positive opinion of Bill Clinton based on the totality of information I have received. Are you beginning to see the difference, yet? Generally, opinions are based facts--they are not interchangeable.
    If you would like to learn more about the deference between fact and opinion, the please feel free to reed http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=opinion for a definition of opinion, and http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=fact for a definition of fact.

    Now that that's cleared up, on to the next order of business: media bias. I've been thinking about media bias for the past few days and beginning to see that it is a figment of the conservative's imagination. There are many more conservative commentators (George Will, Pat Robertson, David Gergen, John Stossel, etc, ect… as well as Rush and O'Reilly) on television than there are liberal. In addition, Republicans spend more on polling, spend more on ad agencies, spend more on public relations, and generally spend more... So, I think that there isn't this rampant conspiracy to curtail conservative efforts, as many would have you believe. I liked this cynical pic: http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/liberal-media.jpg

    Just because FOXNews declares itself unbiased doesn't mean it is {http://www.cjr.org/year/98/2/fox.asp}. I, personally, feel that 24-hour news stations are a bad thing; there just isn't 24 hours worth of news. They need to fill the rest of the time with fluff and commentary. No 24-hour news station can remain unbiased with a format like that.

    ~~That's My 2˘

    (Sketch, I was being facetious about the sitcoms; my apologies if that subtlety confused you.)
    Last edited by Ian Glass; Oct 28, 2001 at 09:45.

  16. #66
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thank you for the education on what the defintions of words in the english language are based on the dictionary. I needed the demeaning comments.

    Anyways. I think this comment has no qualifying fact to allow you to make it:
    it's a fact that your opinion of Clinton is poor. That's a judgment call based on some information you've received.
    It sounds like an opinion because I don't tknow that what you call facts are truly facts just like you don't know if what I call facts are truly facts. I don't accept your "facts" as facts and you don't accept my "facts" as facts and by the literal defintion, neither of us can provew our facts are truly facts because neither of us were there in person to observe any of Clinton's antics. All we have to go by are newspaper, internet and television reports both of which we can't agree are unbiased. So let's just drop the thing because according to me, you are wrong and according to you, I am wrong and we are both unbending.

    As a sidenote, there are alot of "proclaimed" conservative reporters. Bill O'reilly is not necessarily conservative although he does have some conservative views. He also has liberal ones. His show is the "no-spin" zone and he doesn't allow any of his guests, democrats or republicans, liberal or conservative put ploitical "spin" on his show. I hae watched him shut down people from both sides for doing so. There are several other conservative media figures as you have pointed out, but frankly there are alot of "balanced" journalists, and I'm not just talking big names, that are not balanced and you know they aren't by watching/listening/hearing their reporting. Peter Jennings is not a "balanced" reporter. He is a liberal and although he, mostly, reports straight news, he does report it through a liberal framework. Same for all kinds of reporters and editors from most of the nations newspapers including, The Washington Post, Teh New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribue the Baltimore Sun and the Boston Globe. There are, of course, more conservatively slanted papers such as the Washingotn Time, the Chicago Sun-Herald, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal but you can't read a paper and tell me it doesn't have a slant. Don't call it unbiased because that's a farce. There is no such thing as facts are facts and here it is...including the man Bill O'reilly that I defended for being relatively balanced. Even he isn't completely balnaced, but he is more balancved than most.

    Okay, stepping off my soapbox.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  17. #67
    Non-Member jigga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Chesterfield, mi, USA
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hey hey hey now... just because Ian Glass is a big fat poopy head, doesn't mean that you have to lay the smackdown on him sketch!

  18. #68
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Damnit, Sketch. I was going to write something to that effect after you were going to write something overtly partison. So much for the high road...

    You're right, Sketch, my comments were slanted; I should have sayed something like, "...it is my perception that your opinion of Clinton is poor. That's, likely, a judgment call based on some or all information you may or may not have received."

    Anyway, Jigga, call me Ian (Ian Glass sounds pompus to me). I'm rubber your glue, anything you say bounces off of me (not because I'm fat, but because I'm rubber) and sticks to you... And, Sketch did not put the smackdown on me.

  19. #69
    Prolific Blogger silver trophy Technosailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Before These Crowded Streets
    Posts
    9,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    THERE we go...now we are beginning to see more eye to eye. We can admit partisanship. Partisanship is not all bad, it's simply how we see the world.

    Sketch
    Aaron Brazell
    Technosailor



  20. #70
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Partisanship is a good thing; I know this. Without partisanship, I wouldn't be able to complain about all of the conservitive jerks out there.

    The fact (in my opinion) that we get to experess our partisan views at all is great. It's part of what makes America great.

  21. #71
    What's HTML?
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,701
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Conservative jerks? And what about the liberal nuts?
    Ryan Kuhle - A Proud Advisor - Got Questions? Just Ask!
    Get your website started for less than $20! Click Here

  22. #72
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's your job.

  23. #73
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry, I came here a bit late, but I had to refute CJ (again).

    Do you really believe for a second that Bill Clinton is somehow completely responsible for our recent economic prosperity? Hardly. Did he make some of the right calls? Absolutely. The man was morally bankrupt, but did make some sound economic decisions...but your logic is all messed up. Why?

    Well, for one, the economy hit the friggin' wall with Slick Willy still in office. And don't give me that "America saw what was coming and started to sink" nonsense, because the majority of investors don't care who's in office, but rather, they care about what policy choics they'll make...and Bush has all along screamed his bloody head off about lower interest races and lower taxes...which investors drool over.

    Secondly, the economic downturn we hit before Billy left office is the result of two things: first, some whacked out Greenspan stuff (the dude thought the market was growing TOO fast...so he tried to slow down what he thought was inflation)...and second, Clinton's tax hike on the rich, which had a larger-than-originally-intended effect on America, because, as the economy grew, it applied to more and more people.

    Other than that: if you've studied the US for that long, you'd know that, legally, Bush won, hands down. Did he get less votes? Yep, looks that way...oh well. You can't complain about the rules when you've already lost the game. Call me crazy, but I'm going to assume that the Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers know better than Christophe from Belgium...but that's just me.

    Get a life? Give me a freakin' break. There's nothing wrong with trying to reason out how Gore would fare in this situation...and there's nothing wrong with coming to the conclusion that he wouldn't, unless the logic leading there is shaky. I think you're just looking for something to be upset about, because you have an incredibly unfounded and irrational hatred of Bush....why? Well, it appears that you think you're smarter than him...whatever, man. Conclusions like that are so ridiculous and illogical and grounded in emotion (rather than reason) that it'd be pointless of me to try to correct you...you go on thinking that, but please do not let it lead you to other faulty conclusions.

    Bush won...bottom line. Clinton was partially responsible for our upturn (if you think he did it himself, then tell me why. Go ahead, CJ, explain what he did step by step, and how it all worked), and just as responsible for our downturn. Bush is not responsible for our downturn.

    Gore, I think, would have done okay. Gore, I think, has some faulty notions about the economoy and politics in general...HOWEVER, I believe him to be, on the whole, a fairly honest, decent man...unlike Clinton. I think Gore would do a solid, admirable job...but not the job that Bush is doing. Bush has been preaching like a madman about the military and defense (which Clinton shrunk significantly, I might add!)...and as such, is obviously more prepared for these kinds of things...having brought on many of his father's wartime advisors. Bush is obviously a President well-suited to wartime.

  24. #74
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Ian Glass
    the Republicans are realistic and don't promise things like that to the minorities and thus don't get their vote... Also, why in the world are we raising spending to help those that don't have jobs? If you don't have a job, it's your own fault for the most part... we should be spending money to help them find jobs, educated them, but not to allow them to live off of us... Personally, I don't give a damn if everyone that is poor dies... unless you are poor for a reason beyond your control. If you are poor because you got knocked up, your own fault, if you became poor because you didn't finish high school, go die in storm drain, I don't care...
    Actually, the way you're making generalizations on minorities, the way you're implying they're only living off your money, and then your following statements about burning them, makes that post more than an example of free speech: it's a call to racial hatred.

    And in some civilized countries (France, for example), it's illegal and makes you eligible for either a big fine, loss of your electoral rights, or plain behind the bars for a short while. You're lucky that you live in a country that allows for such racist outcries to be made.
    This is not about political correctness, this is about basic human decency and respect.

  25. #75
    SitePoint Wizard Ian Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Beyond yonder
    Posts
    2,384
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Exclamation Credit Where Credit is Due

    The system seems to have falsely attributed Shin Ma's quote to me... I think that honnor acctualy belongs to Jigga.

    Anyway, enough dogin' the bullet for me. Shin Ma, why would you insunate that America is not a cilvil nation simply because we allow our citizens to make stupid remarks? As far as human decency and respect, is it not more inhuman to censor what the populas can and can't say or think? I had no idea that in a democricy (of all places), laws like that would ever be passed.

    While I don't agree with his comments (and I kinda fall into the strom drain according to Jigga), I do respect his right to make an jackass out of himself. In the U.S., freedom of speach is the first right afforded to citizens. Free speach is that important to us, and, indeed, something we take great pride in (even if we don't take pride in the person exercising his or her frist amendment rights). In America, it's only a crime if the remark acctualy does real and meserible damage.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •