Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

Judged:

1

1

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I am trying to get you to understand a simple, basic, concept, and here it is:
As much as it makes things easier for you, especially when you are trying to support your simplistic rhetorical arguments, you cannot always pigeonhole individuals into neat little groups, just because you disagree with them on one, or several issues. Most people hold a variety of opinions about different issues, some that might be characterized as "liberal", some that might be characterized as "conservative"...wha tever term one might apply. I believe that one's ability to see things from different perspectives, and display tolerance of others' viewpoints certainly expands with age, and experience.
I understand that you think I am a member of a certain, or several "groups", primarily because I espouse viewpoints that you disagree with. You claim that I am a "leftist", a "liberal". So be it.
I am an individual with my own thoughts, not a member of any political party, church, religion, or other organization.
I am a member of a group of individuals licensed by the state, and the members of that group most certainly hold extremely diverse opinions on the issues we banter about here.
Beyond that, you don't have a clue about my personal or professional life, beyond the opinions I express here.
But if it suits your needs, call me whatever you wish.
woof

Kramers Attorney wrote:

<quoted text>Your argument might hold water had I never encountered you prior to this thread. But having seen you for well over a year on Topix, I'm on rock solid ground with my description of you as a leftist. And by denying your affinity for that philosophy, you employ yet another stock tactic that leftists use...denial when caught being exactly what they are.
Woof on that for a while.

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Well that is part of your (and I am referring to you specifically, not as a member of any particular group) problem.
You seem to not be able to grasp that there are intelligent people who don't agree with your opinions, yet have the ability to gather information, analyze it, and arrive at their own personal conclusions about specific issues. You'd rather wrap them all up in a box, tie a nice bow around the box, and call them leftists, liberals, whatever the term of the day may be, thinking that's the end of the conversation, and you need not delve any further.
You disagree with their positions, and that's the end of it.
Once again...show me a post in which I asserted that Mr. Obama is "black".
woof

Kramers Attorney wrote:

<quoted text>Your argument might hold water had I never encountered you prior to this thread. But having seen you for well over a year on Topix, I'm on rock solid ground with my description of you as a leftist. And by denying your affinity for that philosophy, you employ yet another stock tactic that leftists use...denial when caught being exactly what they are.
Woof on that for a while.

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't you write yesterday that Obama and Holder were currently on trial? Where is your proof of that? Why do you just drop your assertions the minute someone asks you to back them up?

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Just one? Ok. Jackie Chiles on the ACLU:
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Then support it.
Show your work.
woof

woo-boy wrote:

<quoted text>And so say's someone that sits 24/7 on a potty chair spewing crap.

woo-boy wrote:

<quoted text>And so say's someone that sits 24/7 on a potty chair spewing crap.

Kramers Attorney wrote:

<quoted text>Those are facts.
Just look up BSA v Dale, Curley v NAMBLA, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District...
""The ACLU is not anti-religion, just anti-Christian. By definition, it's the American Civil Liberties Union. By action, it has become the Abolishing Christian Legacy Union.
"The ACLU will assure Muslim clerics and imams the right to pray on planes, fight for an atheist's rights to remove a cross, stand beside pro-abortionists, help illegal aliens cross our borders, and establish rights for the sexual deviant by forming the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, but what is it doing for Christians and Christmas censorship? "
---Chuck Norris
How strict are they in their interpretation of separation of church and state? In Pittsburgh they went so far as to demand that a municipal parking lot be off limits to those parking there to visit a local Christmas display at a nearby church.
So when the University of Michigan decided to fund $25,000 worth of ritual foot-washers for Islamic students wishing to pray, one assumed the ACLU would yell foul. After all, it is a public institution, receiving federal and state taxes and using that money for a religious device whose purpose is to facilitate prayer. Not only did the ACLU not object but it also supported the expenditure as “reasonable,” something it can never bring itself to say when activities are for Judeo-Christian expression or symbols.
The Byron Union school district in California has decided that its public schools should set aside days and assignments where all students choose a Muslim name, recite passages from the Koran, and periodically give up certain comforts as “forms of fasting” that correspond to Ramadan. Has the ACLU brought this school district to court as it has hundreds of times when schools simply mention something involving Christianity or when a student reads her own Bible on her own time at recess or when a student chooses a religious theme for an essay topic? The ACLU has been silent. To the ACLU, the non-invasive, mere presence of anything Christian in school is far more “dangerous” than the actual, coerced undertaking of Islamic religious activities and beliefs in America's public schools.
---Rabbi Aryeh Spero
http://www.humanevents.com/2007/07/20/the-acl...

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
When I show you more than 20 instances when the ACLU either sued or made a public statement in support of Christians' right to worship will you then admit that you are wrong?
By the way, nice Chuck Norris quote. Now there is a guy you can count on for getting his facts straight. Ye gods.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I never wrote that. Go back and look.

Kramers Attorney wrote:

<quoted text>Yeah, only Leftist celebrities are allowed to speak out politically, right?

Judged:

1

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
and the crap flows your direction
waverly is downstream
waverly is also a crappy town
you should move, so you can grasp reality

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course Chuck Norris is allowed to speak out. But when he does, he should tell the truth and not lie.
But get back to the point. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

Kramers Attorney wrote:

<quoted text>Hell, no. Because I'm not.
And tell me, do all leftist celebs tell the truth?

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
See? That's your problem. You refuse to admit you are wrong. You are willing to persist in your lie even when presented with proof that it is a lie. Why? Wouldn't this country be better if the truth mattered?
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
Still deny it?

Female wrote:

Not surprising was what wasn’t discussed on Hannity - that the gun running began under the Bush administration in 2006 when it was called Operation Wide Receiver. It was a similar program carried out by ATF's Tucson, Ariz., office and resulted in hundreds of guns being transferred to suspected arms traffickers. So then why hasn’t at least one member of the Bush administration that started Operation Wide Receiver in 2006 been called to testify? Even Darrell Issa himself pledged to look into the Bush administration when circumstances demanded it, noting in a CNN interview last year, "many of the issues we’re working on began [with] President Bush or even before, and haven’t been solved." In the same interview when he was pressed to address the work done by Obama's predecessor on the arms trafficking he said,“[W]e will get to the bottom of whether or not this practice in a smaller way may have begun on the Bush watch," he said. So nobody under Bush has been called to testify and none of the witnesses that the Democrats want have been called to testify (you would expect ATF agents under both programs to testify, the gun shop owners, Mexican contacts, whistleblowers, etc.).
The unfortunate reality is this is nothing but a political witch hunt by Issa, the GOP and Fox News and during an election year to undermine the President and get rid of Attorney General Eric Holder (who,coincidently just happens to be working on ending voter suppression throughout the country). Moreover, this concerted effort to undermine the current administration with this absurd notion that the federal government intentionally expanded the program to finance and flood Mexico with untraceable weapons sold to violent criminals to cause mayhem and death so as to promote anti-gun policies in America has to be one of the kookiest right-wing conspiracy theories ever contrived. Darrell Issa himself has suggested this. Issa told the Daily Caller, a conservative news website.“Many of the people in the chain of Fast and Furious have a disregard for Second Amendment rights and a belief that they have to limit beyond what the courts have upheld—people’s rights to keep and bear arms

Kramers Attorney wrote:

<quoted text>Two can play that game:
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/09/30/aclu-an...