[quote]Okay, of the two parties which one supported, defended and protected the people that made these stupid mistakes? Both.[/quote] Proof?
Paladin77
[quote]In my opinion: What he did is between him and his wife/family, Period. It was only brought out to smear him, drag him in the mud, etc. It's typical politics that both parties are guilty of. It's disgusting. Yes, he lied under oath and should've been prosecuted....for THAT and yes he did a number of other things that were illegal. However, we're not the morality police. The
[quote] Historically, when the GOP was first founded, they were widely considered the radicals. [/quote] Yes, back then the GOP were the liberals, they sought change of the status quo, to right the moral wrongs of the country as they saw it at the time. Over time the conservatives were democrats that wanted to keep the status quo and their repu
[quote]I see hypocracy as saying one thing but doing another[/quote] Good points made, but you miss the point, You have one party the republicans that want and stand for family values. You have another party that does not. When a member of the republican party fails to live up to his words and obligations the other party points its finger. Fine
[quote]In point of fact, however, the ones who suffered were not the ones who wrote the rules (no surprise there).[/quote] D, wait till the electionns. I am hoping for change!
[quote]Yeah they're so hypocritical, next they're going to be standing on a platform of family values, attacking their 'immoral' rivals for not adhering to the same set of values, and then doing the same thing themselves...[/quote] When the republicans have and issue with a member that breaks the rules he is forced out of leadership positions, that is part of the rules for republicans. The democrats have no such rule. where is the hyporicy? When a democrat breaks and ethics rule they
[quote]Like the bankers did?[/quote] The bankers did not risk anything. The laws were written in such a way that the Federal government would back all the paper Fannie and Freddie wrote. It was guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Then the same people that wrote the laws said they would not back the bad paper. Just like
[quote]To call members of the KKK the force behind the civil rights movement is both absurd and insulting. [/quote] We are talking about politics, a politician will go whichever way the political winds blow. When the tide changed so did the politicians. The KKK was a means for power so they were pro segragation in the late 70's that changed and so did they. Republicans were not as a group pro racism. Though there was an Illinoise governor that was a republican and a member of the KKK
[quote]Like the bankers did?[/quote] The bankers did not risk anything. The laws were written in such a way that the Federal government would back all the paper Fannie and Freddie wrote. It was guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Then the same people that wrote the laws said they would not back the bad paper. Just like
Oh, and I will repeat. Up until the 1980's you could not be elected in the South unless you were a democrat and a member in good standing of the KKK.
[quote]if i remember correctly, it was democrats truman and humphery who took on the racists in their own party in their efforts to end american apartheid. democrat lyndon johnson who--no matter his other failings--was the driving force behind the 1964 civil rights acts. and it was nixon who courted thurmond to make the republican party a welcome place for racism and reagan who confirmed it by his speech in philadelphia missi
[quote]i dunno what it was, but i'm hoping for your sake, you're not trying to suggest that roy wilkins would support georgia republicans' use of hysterical fear-mongering to promote policy that's as flawed as it is unnecessary at risk of disenfranchising and discouraging voters of that state.[/quote] Not at all. I am saying it out right! Becau
[quote]Seems like you might be using several definitions of "big"?[/quote] Snowball Earth was a big ice age. It has been suggested that we have gone through four so far with a few more coming. in between we have had ice ages and little ice ages. You ar
[quote]So, the government, any government really (had it been McCain, he would have had to do something about the banks as well) had to be saved at all costs. Otherwise, even those businesses that didn't have a problem them would have gone bye bye (sorry for the oversimplification, it helps me to see context in compex systems) [/quote] <p class="MsoNormal" style="marg
[quote]What I find interesting is the assumption that being a Democrat or Republican somehow decides on wehther you are an American or not. From the outside, both look pretty much the same.[/quote] From the outside looking in you miss the points being made. It is not whether you are an American or not that is just a distraction from the left an
[quote]That's odd, because I am not.[/quote] okay, the little smiley face was to let you know I was joking but we can deal with humor later. [quote]Perhaps, but you were talking about an ice age that only ended 15 thousand years ago, and suggesting it was roughly
[quote]A lot of bloggers seem to think that someone important is reading their crap and will base their decisions on what was posted.[/quote] I do believe some important people read what I write. You and the others that join me in discussion are important people. I post my beliefs and debate them. Some fall flat others take off in directi
[quote]think one of the problems in this topic, is that you Paladin, are too stuck on Darwinism.[/quote] That is because it is Darwinism that I take issue with. If you read carefully I don't have an issue with evolution. I see no conflict with evolution and my religious beliefs, I do have problems with people that keep screaming Charles Darwin
[quote]Also the department of justice has ordered the case against black panthers who intimidated white voters dropped... AFTER their conviction.[/quote] So does this mean you are not hoping for change?
[quote]This article is bait. It also shows what many bloggers are guilty of: delusions of grandeur.[/quote] I have no idea what you are talking about. Please explain. [quote]Which proves what I said. There are too many for any one to be traditional.[/quote] </spa
[quote] Anyone that holds to a particular point of a theory when there is EVIDENCE (by the way...do you have any) against it, is not a scientist.[/quote] In which field do you want me to start? [quote]I label this entire thread a troll.[/quote] Sorry, I don't know what that is. Could you please explain it to me? Anyone?
[quote]Many politicians are shady, but when one elects a person from a place that is renown for its corruption and back-door deals what should one expect?[/quote] I expected exactly what we got. How is that hope and change working for you?
[quote]On a more related note, you are partially right about Darwin being proven wrong. However, modern evolutionary theory includes those amendments to Darwin's original theories, and (inseperable from modern biology) is responsible for making these corrections. Calling anyone a Darwinist is a misnomer unless you are actually talking about a person that clings to every single one of Darwin's original ideas in defiance of modern evolutionary theory.[/quote] That is exactly who this ar
[quote]In either case, you really need to cite a source on that because even Pluto manages to have a partially Nitrogen atmosphere when its at its closest to the Sun; which means you are saying the earth was colder than Pluto despite Pluto's closest distance to the Sun being 30 times that of earths distance.[/quote] <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0
[quote]The congressional investigation against them was just dropped, the congressman in charge of the investigating commitee said "the order came from the top".[/quote] the top of what? The news article stated that Mr. Conyers from Mi asked for the investigation and later changed his mind. There is no record of it going any further than that.