mr_genius

what, no recount?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) Trolling is even beneath you. But nice try. But to make you feel important, I got you this nice picture. buddy, you have to be kidding. this thread was 1 post away form you accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being "Hitler". i thought i was doing you a favor just ending the thread with a little joke before you went off the deep end as usual.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 06:30 PM) Pardon me for not (and no pun intended) preaching to the choir here about "OMG! THE MOOZLIMS ARE BACKWARDS!!111!! ELEVENTY!" I was making a much more valuable and cogent point about the dangers of fundamentalism. And as for your comment re: authoritarian socialists, yeah -- it is okay to be worried about them. However, the Christian "fascists" (as Chris Hedges succinctly put it) are much more dangerous and have much great access and use of power inside the United States. By that fact, they should deserve more of your fear than the "socialists". ok Rosie

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Dec 1, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Ah fundamentalism -- the crazies that will be willing to do just about anything to justify their crazy politcal/religious code that they would like to have in the states. From these crazy fundie Muslims to the fundie Christians who accessorize with dynamite at abortion clinics (and let's not forget the Christian Identity racists who kill people also some stuff like this -- On July 26, 2007, 17 Christians were convicted of religion-inspired terrorism under Indonesian law. A Christian mob attacked, murdered, and beheaded two Muslim fishermen in September 2006, reportedly as retaliation for a previous court ordered and legally sanctioned execution in 2006 of three Christians convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000.[14] In addition to the seventeen Christian defendants found guilty of "acts of terrorism by the use of violence", two defendants received fourteen year sentences for their main roles in the killings, while ten were sentenced to twelve year terms. Five other defendants in separate hearings received eight year sentences for their part in the disposal of the bodies.) There was a time that three of the FBI's top ten most wanted criminals were antiabortion terrorists - Christians, one and all, committing acts of terrorism in an effort to promote their religious beliefs. Why have they dropped off the radar? Fundamentalists of all religious stripes will utilize their religion to justify violent acts that they want to perpetrate. It does us no favors to pick out only one sect's fundamentalists but rather to look at them as an entire whole -- that all fundamentalism with a perverted thirst for political power to institute their moral code is a danger to a free, open, rational, reason-based pluralistic society that we have in the United States. of course, instead of commenting on the actual situation, you change the subject and give a Rosie O'donnell like rant. i don't like religious crazies of any religion either, but i also don't like authoritarian socialists. so should we start comparing these psychos to the far lefties in this country? because there sure are similarities.

whoa, what a bunch of psychos. angry mobs are out to kill her for naming a Teddy bear ? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article531449.ece

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) So, the one part of your claim that I haven't yet seen justified to my satisfaction is that the pro dem questions were specifically solicited by CNN. Granting you the whole General in the Audience thing, can you provide any other evidence to support this claim? Well, I suppose any evidence would be considered circumstantial. They deny knowledge of the Gay General working for Clinton, even though he appeared on CNN before and they certainly know who he is and that he works on the Clinton steering committee. This shows a tendency for dishonest journalism, at best. Then it just happens that they select videos from people who work for the Dem candidates or are Democrat activists. It really points towards CNN going out of their way to get the Democrat strategists agenda to be main stage at the debates. It just seems like way to big of a coincidence to be a 'innocent mistake'. But, no, I don't have some top secret CNN memo or something that would be 100% proof they solicited the questions.

Leno lays off staff, no guarantees of having a job after strike is over. http://www.variety.com/VR1117976808.html

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 30, 2007 -> 08:11 AM) Looking at the questions asked of the Dems, there were some conservative sounding questions there too. So really, the only difference here is that the tough question was asked by someone who works for a Clinton-related organization, right? Look, I've been as critical of Clinton as anyone here, but my response is still... so what? I could care less if one of those questions asked of the Dems that was uncomfortable was asked by someone related to a GOP campaign. It makes no difference. Actually, the question were much more lame for the GOP. What, because media matters (a Democrat political operatous formed by Hillary Clinton), says it was fair? They chose like 3 questions out of all of them to prove that the debate was unbiased. During the GOP debate on CNN there were multiple attempts at a 'gotcha' question. There Dems got issue questions. None if this slop the Democrat plants, which were solicited by CNN, asked. Obviously there is absolutely nothing CNN could ever do which would prove to you that they are pro-dem.. Because this stuff is blatant, Dan Rather forged documents, type stuff.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 05:58 PM) My first question would be did they have known hardcore conservatives ask Dem's on controversial issues to make them look bad? Of course not, that wouldn't be fair. See, what is the fair, is to have Democrats select the questions for the Dem debate, and have Democrats select the questions for the GOP debate. See, it makes it consistent. If you don't see the logic in that you are just a conspiracy theorist.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 05:38 PM) All of you conspiracy theorists that keep pointing at these questions and questioners as plants are making the assumption that CNN is somehow acting like they didn't know the general was gay or something. Or that the GOP pundit with a question wasn't a GOP pundit. I watched the entire debate, and they knew darn well who they all were. So what's the conspiracy? How is asking uncomfortable questions that put people in awkward positions making them crooked or stupid? The only thing I am seeing here that's at all dirty is an accusation that this gay general was a supposed Clinton "plant". How is he a "plant" if CNN asked him on there, knowing what he was? And why do people give a s*** if candidates are questioned in the debates by people not of a common viewpoint? To me, that is a very, very good thing, for a change. Uh, it's not the fact that they ask supposedly hard questions, it's the format of having some "surprise" guest who gets a microphone and gives a speech after the candidates answer. They sure didn't do that to the Dems. It's also the type of questions asked, selecting decent questions to the Dems then selecting Dem operatives to select the questions for the GOP. This is a GOP primary, questions should be geared towards the issues that GOP voters want to know about. Not what the Democrats at CNN think will be a 'gotcha' question. The whole debate was a debacle for CNN, it was a joke. If you can't see the bias on this issue, you got on the 'blinders' big time.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) OK. That was definitely an interesting segment though. Hillary plant or not, I think it was a solid question and situation to put to that group. I'd recommend watching the videos of the debate if you haven't seen them - to anyone here. In particular, that segment, but also the opening sequence between Giuliani and Romney about illegal immigrants, and also the McCain-Paul exchanges over Iraq. Actually most of the questions were total garbage. A lot of stupid stuff like "what would jesus do?". No questions on education, healthcare or energy policy. CNN is probably done getting any GOP debates from now on. From all the planted questions selected by Dems at CNN to the big planned out scene with the gay general. However, I thought the candidates handled the situation well.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) I want to see candidates answer tough questions, but I don't want those questions to be part of political operations for their opponents. CNN really messed up big time on this one. It appears that there were numerous planted questions. CNN seems to have solicited 'youtube debate' questions from Clinton, Edwards and Obama campaign workers/activists. This is a pretty big scandal.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) First plan of attack....take out the six guys around "robo soldier" that it takes to keep his wires straight Second wave....take out the 3 guys who are holding the ropes that are keeping "robo soldier" upright. pfft, yea if you are fighting the prototype. I guess if you up a against the first prototypes of a stealth bomber the plan would be "stand around and watch it crash"

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 11:47 AM) Grover Norquist, at least, disclosed who he was. Part of me thinks its crappy that Clinton and Obama voters got questions in, but at the same time... most of these questions were vetted by the candidates' staff ahead of time. So why does it really matter? The issue is how it was handled. CNN knew who this guy was, that is why the gave him this big production during the debate. Not only did he get his video question on air, they gave him a microphone after the candidates answered so he could give a big long winded speech. Wtf?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 29, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) OK. That was definitely an interesting segment though. Hillary plant or not, I think it was a solid question and situation to put to that group. It was a bs. Legit question? yes. But none of the other questions got the same treatment. So they play this guys question, then after the GOP answer Anderson is like "I want you to know mr.whateverhisnameis is in the crowd". CNN then gives the guy a microphone to give a big speech. This is not a town hall meeting, NO other audience members said anything. The only person was the CNN/Clinton plant that got to berate the candidates. It was a shameful display and only cements CNN's reputation as a bogus news enterprise.

lol, look at CNN pulling this crap. not surprised, they really can't help themselves. Wow, they are letting the audience berate the candidates. this is a GOP debate not a "give microphone to audience guy to scold the candidates".

Romney just flip flops, again.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 08:16 PM) John McCain really dislikes Ron Paul. haha, yea it sure seems like it.

that suit is awesome.

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...m112707-CR.html lock that 9 year up and throw away the key.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 08:58 PM) This poll is essentially a statistician's worst nightmare. The methodology is horrible. It's literally like one of those polls on the side of CNN.com. It's a non-randomized sample of self-volunteering respondents taken online. Gallup put out a similar poll yesterday, a phone poll with an actual sample that had some attempt to be randomized, and it showed the exact opposite results. But yet...despite one using garbage methodology and one using traditional methodology, the one that used the garbage methodology got all the press coverage, because it fits into the new narrative of Clinton struggling, and the other one got little press coverage because it showed the same thing that all the other polls have shown. Actually it's not a nightmare at all for a statistician, they know those polls are unreliable. Online polls or call in polls are known to be inaccurate. Oh, and the Gallup poll of 897 is a fairly small sample for a national election. But I do think H.Clinton is leading nationally and if the election were held now she would win.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...ndChannel=10000

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...ndChannel=10000

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 12, 2007 -> 05:51 PM) Better remembered: 72 Dolphins I don't know about that. The 85 Bears roster, playoff run, and superbowl seem to be more legendary and better remembered than the 72 Dolphins. But I'm biased.

Huckabee is fun to say haha, what kind of name is that anyways? besides an awesome one.