Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

[BlaRo]

Sports Nuts? Harsh but Fair!

Hah, I just noticed that. IF YOU'RE A COWBOYS FAN THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!

Makes you really wonder about the value of going to hell, seeing as everybody's going there for doing anything anyway. (If I'm going to hell, I want to earn it. )

 

[tigger]

:lol: That reminds me ...

Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.

 

[AiR]

google has actually done it ...

http://img12.imageshack.**/img12/215/googledh.jpg
(screenshot google.cn (china) without installed chinese-fonts)

try it yourselves while it lasts ...

http://images.google.cn

Yes. Someone should make a thread about Googles new tougher style against China, I think it's very admirable. Hopefully Google has built up such a following that this measure impacts the chinese goverment quite directly.

 

[nomix]

You wrote the same thing he said in the video I think. Or at least a similar very long stacked curse word

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkJf0md1kG8[/YOUTUBE]

Ty, I needed that.

 

[AiR]

Re the asinine old man Pat Robertson

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-PEaWUduCM[/YOUTUBE]

 

[nomix]

Spoken like a true gentleman.

 

[jetsetter]

I've been reading article from places (like the terrible Guardian) about what Rush Limbaugh said about the earthquake in Haiti. Some have charged that he said

"So when he says that Americans should feel no need to contribute to Haitian Earthquake relief, since "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," it matters."

Now if one researches a little further you find that he said no such thing. What he said was that if one wishes to donate that you not do it through the White House website.

In another matter, I am not sure one some are praising Obama for in actions in comparison to the Bush/Katrina experience. If one must compare then something more fitting would be the tsunamis and the response of the US government to that disaster. As for Katrina, I lay blame for that debacle on the laps of the inept city government of New Orleans and the state government of Louisiana.

 

[BlaRo]

Now if one researches a little further

Got a link there, Spartacus?

In another matter, I am not sure one some are praising Obama for in actions in comparison to the Bush/Katrina experience. If one must compare then something more fitting would be the tsunamis and the response of the US government to that disaster. As for Katrina, I lay blame for that debacle on the laps of the inept city government of New Orleans and the state government of Louisiana.

And I'm sure people are yelling "OBAMA FUCKED THIS UP HE NEEDS TO BE BLAMED FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH IN HAITI THIS IS THE CHANGE YOU HOPED FOR" merely because it was said about Bush.

 

[AiR]

Ha!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Anti-piracy-agencys-logo-broke-copyright.html

 

[Plissken]

I've been reading article from places (like the terrible Guardian) about what Rush Limbaugh said about the earthquake in Haiti. Some have charged that he said

"So when he says that Americans should feel no need to contribute to Haitian Earthquake relief, since "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," it matters."

Now if one researches a little further you find that he said no such thing.

I know I'm supposed to be mature and non-confrontational in this, so I might get a warning, but that is that is absolute fucking BULLSHIT!

I wouldn't mind, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find that audio. If someone is going to lie through their teeth to me, at least put a bit of sodding effort in.

 

[salle]

No, calling something absolute bullshit is right when something IS absolute bullshit. And this was.

((Besides the whitehouse.gov page had some good links to a few different organizations which have information about the relief efforts and some links to other organizations other than the red cross. So the rant they went on was unfounded as well.))

 

[BlaRo]

I know I'm supposed to be mature and non-confrontational in this, so I might get a warning, but that is that is absolute fucking BULLSHIT!

Holy hell. Epic pwnage QFT.

 

[wooflepoof]

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/outfoxed-rupert-murdochs-war-on-journalism/

Good Docu. Fuck FOX News

 

[British_Rover]

I've been reading article from places (like the terrible Guardian) about what Rush Limbaugh said about the earthquake in Haiti. Some have charged that he said

"So when he says that Americans should feel no need to contribute to Haitian Earthquake relief, since "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," it matters."

Now if one researches a little further you find that he said no such thing. What he said was that if one wishes to donate that you not do it through the White House website.

In another matter, I am not sure one some are praising Obama for in actions in comparison to the Bush/Katrina experience. If one must compare then something more fitting would be the tsunamis and the response of the US government to that disaster. As for Katrina, I lay blame for that debacle on the laps of the inept city government of New Orleans and the state government of Louisiana.

I heard the audio on NPR this morning. Why would you just fucking flat out lie when it is so easy to find out the truth?

Got a link there, Spartacus?


And I'm sure people are yelling "OBAMA FUCKED THIS UP HE NEEDS TO BE BLAMED FOR NOT DOING ENOUGH IN HAITI THIS IS THE CHANGE YOU HOPED FOR" merely because it was said about Bush.

Owned

I know I'm supposed to be mature and non-confrontational in this, so I might get a warning, but that is that is absolute fucking BULLSHIT!

I wouldn't mind, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find that audio. If someone is going to lie through their teeth to me, at least put a bit of sodding effort in.

Severe ownage

Holy hell. Epic pwnage QFT.

thermonuclear ownage.

 

[jetsetter]

Perhaps I misspoke. I was speaking of the headlines saying things like "Limbaugh says don't donate at all" without elaborating the earlier discussion. The income tax bit I could care less about. That seems to be a common occurrence. He says something "shocking", some newspaper opinion columnist picks it up, removes only select parts of the discussion, and then publishes an article.

 

[BlaRo]

Perhaps I misspoke. I was speaking of the headlines saying things like "Limbaugh says don't donate at all" without elaborating the earlier discussion. The income tax bit I could care less about. That seems to be a common occurrence. He says something "shocking", some newspaper opinion columnist picks it up, removes only select parts of the discussion, and then publishes an article.

Must be more of that ZOMG LIBUREL BAYAS acting up again, right?

 

[British_Rover]

I've been reading article from places (like the terrible Guardian) about what Rush Limbaugh said about the earthquake in Haiti. Some have charged that he said

"So when he says that Americans should feel no need to contribute to Haitian Earthquake relief, since "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," it matters."

Now if one researches a little further you find that he said no such thing. What he said was that if one wishes to donate that you not do it through the White House website.

In another matter, I am not sure one some are praising Obama for in actions in comparison to the Bush/Katrina experience. If one must compare then something more fitting would be the tsunamis and the response of the US government to that disaster. As for Katrina, I lay blame for that debacle on the laps of the inept city government of New Orleans and the state government of Louisiana.

I know I'm supposed to be mature and non-confrontational in this, so I might get a warning, but that is that is absolute fucking BULLSHIT!

I wouldn't mind, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find that audio. If someone is going to lie through their teeth to me, at least put a bit of sodding effort in.

Perhaps I misspoke. I was speaking of the headlines saying things like "Limbaugh says don't donate at all" without elaborating the earlier discussion. The income tax bit I could care less about. That seems to be a common occurrence. He says something "shocking", some newspaper opinion columnist picks it up, removes only select parts of the discussion, and then publishes an article.

Perhaps you are back tracking after you were caught in a flagrant lie.

You said he said no such thing which he absolutely did as it is on audio tape.

Doing that is not misspeaking or missrembering :lol:

A flat out lie or distortion of the truth is worth of neg repping and I have done it to both you and Specter in the past.

 

[jetsetter]

Must be more of that ZOMG LIBUREL BAYAS acting up again, right?

Why would there not be a bias? There is no such thing as unbiased media.

Perhaps you are back tracking after you were caught in a flagrant lie.

You said he said no such thing which he absolutely did as it is on audio tape.

I copied and pasted this bit from an article at the Guardian: "So when he says that Americans should feel no need to contribute to Haitian Earthquake relief, since "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," it matters."

Perhaps I should have only copied a shorter part of the quote? This bit "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the US income tax," is a direct quote from Rush, I know that because it contained an embedded link to an article at the Huffington Post with an audio clip of the show. I was complaining about titles of articles and article themselves proclaiming that Rush said that people should not donate at all. If you read the whole transcript of the program is really isn't as simple as that.

 

[nomix]

Talking of bias, I've been having some fun, reading on the Conservapedia website, it's refreshingly funny. I started to read up on the US Supreme Court Justices, as I was interested in seeing how they would portray the different justices.

Well, reading up on Anthony Kennedy (nom.: Reagan), I came across a list of his liberal votes, which led me to the article on "Homosexual agenda". I must say I was suprised to see an article on this in an encyclopedia, but thought, what the heck, why not?

Well, the intro is quite interesting:

The homosexual agenda, or homosexual ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association.

Among all the liberal belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

Well, that's funny. There's no article on the "Heterosexual agenda". Neither on the "Christian-conservative-nutwackadoo_agenda_of_Intolerance", which I find strange, as it's just as silly, biased un-encyclopedial article as an article on "Homosexual agenda".

Well. Let's go on. In the article about Nancy Pelosi, there's written in the first paragraph, and I quote:

She is the first woman to become House Speaker. Pelosi, a Liberal Democrat, is among the top ten richest members of the House. [1]

.

While this is wrong (she is at number 13), what's interesting is that Darrel Issa, the republican representative for the 49th district in California, who is the richest member of the house, has no such mention in his article.

This isn't directed to anyone. It's just a late night rant from my side, why oh why is there need for this kind of stupid, back-to-the-hangman-conservative crap?

 

[nomix]

Talking of bias, I've been having some fun, reading on the Conservapedia website, it's refreshingly funny. I started to read up on the US Supreme Court Justices, as I was interested in seeing how they would portray the different justices.

Well, reading up on Anthony Kennedy (nom.: Reagan), I came across a list of his liberal votes, which led me to the article on "Homosexual agenda". I must say I was suprised to see an article on this in an encyclopedia, but thought, what the heck, why not?

Well, the intro is quite interesting:

The homosexual agenda, or homosexual ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association.

Among all the liberal belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish. Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

Well, that's funny. There's no article on the "Heterosexual agenda". Neither on the "Christian-conservative-nutwackadoo_agenda_of_Intolerance", which I find strange, as it's just as silly, biased un-encyclopedial article as an article on "Homosexual agenda".

Well. Let's go on. In the article about Nancy Pelosi, there's written in the first paragraph, and I quote:

She is the first woman to become House Speaker. Pelosi, a Liberal Democrat, is among the top ten richest members of the House. [1]

.

While this is wrong (she is at number 13), what's interesting is that Darrel Issa, the republican representative for the 49th district in California, who is the richest member of the house, has no such mention in his article.

This isn't directed to anyone. It's just a late night rant from my side, why oh why is there need for this kind of stupid, back-to-the-hangman-conservative crap?