Balta1701 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 04:00 PM) Also, WTF is with conservatives politicizing and bashing the Olympics now? They're just using it to take shots at Obama. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I've seen just as many stupid progressives do the same thing. God...politics move faster now but not so f'n fast the president can't leave his administration for a day to promote bringing something that will create many a job for a city. Suck it idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Weekly Standard brags and then deletes post saying that their office erupted in cheers when Chicago lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 1, 2009 -> 01:13 PM) Looks like Perry doesn't want it to come out that he authorized the killing of an innocent man. The new guy that Perry put in charge of that committee/investigation hadn't even heard of the position until it was offered to him. And he's considered one of the most conservative, hard-line prosecutors in Texas. I know it's Republican politics, but I really hope Hutchinson makes an issue of this. It's just inhuman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 02:15 PM) The new guy that Perry put in charge of that committee/investigation hadn't even heard of the position until it was offered to him. And he's considered one of the most conservative, hard-line prosecutors in Texas. I know it's Republican politics, but I really hope Hutchinson makes an issue of this. It's just inhuman. If you substitute Daley for Perry, it sounds pretty much like Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 That's over the top even for Daley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) Weekly Standard brags and then deletes post saying that their office erupted in cheers when Chicago lost. This is starting to piss me off actually, the more comments I read cheering Obama's failure (and it exists only in their minds, I don't see how a head of state trying to use influence against other heads of state to get something for America is a bad thing) the more I realize they're willing to take it a step farther than just dissing Obama, they're dissing Chicago, and America. They're so hung up on the fact that something happened that didn't make him look good that they don't even realize it wasn't a good thing for the country, using their own criteria, that they will openly mock the effort or the concept. Furthermore this talk about "the world" getting tired of Obama's ego makes no sense at all to anyone that reads non-American, non-English media and knows what the various opinions actually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 12:34 PM) This is starting to piss me off actually, the more comments I read cheering Obama's failure (and it exists only in their minds, I don't see how a head of state trying to use influence against other heads of state to get something for America is a bad thing) the more I realize they're willing to take it a step farther than just dissing Obama, they're dissing Chicago, and America. They're so hung up on the fact that something happened that didn't make him look good that they don't even realize it wasn't a good thing for the country, using their own criteria, that they will openly mock the effort or the concept. Furthermore this talk about "the world" getting tired of Obama's ego makes no sense at all to anyone that reads non-American, non-English media and knows what the various opinions actually are. I'm sure you remember how in 2005 New York's 2012 bid was defeated and the Democrats stood up and cheered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) I'm sure you remember how in 2005 New York's 2012 bid was defeated and the Democrats stood up and cheered. No one had any delusions of NYC winning after their stadium plan fell through to be fair. They also didn't have Bush involved in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) I'm sure you remember how in 2005 New York's 2012 bid was defeated and the Democrats stood up and cheered. Can someone refresh my memory? I honestly dont remember that or much of anything about the NY bid except the stadium plan falling through. Oh how I loved that stadium proposal. Edited October 2, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) Can someone refresh my memory? I honestly dont remember that or much of anything about the NY bid except the stadium plan falling through. Oh how I loved that stadium proposal. You don't recall the big screams of joy because there weren't any. That was sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) You don't recall the big screams of joy because there weren't any. That was sarcasm. I suck at picking up written sarcasm. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 2, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) This is starting to piss me off actually, the more comments I read cheering Obama's failure (and it exists only in their minds, I don't see how a head of state trying to use influence against other heads of state to get something for America is a bad thing) the more I realize they're willing to take it a step farther than just dissing Obama, they're dissing Chicago, and America. They're so hung up on the fact that something happened that didn't make him look good that they don't even realize it wasn't a good thing for the country, using their own criteria, that they will openly mock the effort or the concept. Furthermore this talk about "the world" getting tired of Obama's ego makes no sense at all to anyone that reads non-American, non-English media and knows what the various opinions actually are. At this point I'm convinced these same people would cheer a domestic terrorist attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I present to you the biggest turd burglar in television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Glenn isn't too happy with this website: http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/ Ed Brayton takes up the story: I don't know if you've ever seen the Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a Young Girl in 1990 website, but it's fairly amusing. It's a political satire of the style of argument Glenn Beck likes to engage in, which involves requiring that someone prove a negative ("prove you didn't do X") and making claims in the form of an interrogative ("Hey, I'm just asking questions here. I'm not saying he did this. What's wrong with asking questions?"). Well now Beck is trying to kill the site by making a formal complaint (PDF) to an international internet governing body, the World Intellectual Property Organization. He wants the domain name taken away from the person who registered it. Why would he do that rather than file, say, a libel suit? Because he knows he would lose a libel suit. He is a public figure and the site is clearly satirical. Under precedents like Falwell v Flynt, it is virtually impossible to win such a suit. The attorney for the site owner, Marc Randazza, has filed a response brief (PDF) that is hilarious in its attack on Beck's thin-skinned and legally dubious argument. http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10...parody_webs.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Thanks for giving me cause to smile on a Monday morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 LOL god I love that Larry Flint set an important precedent for our country hahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 11:39 AM) LOL god I love that Larry Flint set an important precedent for our country hahaha. You mean other than setting the standard for meat curtain photography in monthly men's entertainment magazines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No that's the precedent I was talking about. What were you talking about/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The lawyer's response to Beck's complaints is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 No matter which panelist is assigned to this case, the First Amendment will illuminate these proceedings like rays of light from the Torch of Liberty. I laughed pretty hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Jim Demint headed down to Honduras to hang out with Roberto Micheletti. Who has just suspended civil liberties. http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20...310/1004/NEWS01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 The thing is, no Zumaya is an idiot as president. Yes, he overstepped his bounds. Yes, he should have been removed, but AFTER a trial. This is so 80s republicans to merely support the overthrowal of a leftist president no matter. I like that we are respecting the reactions of the other countries around them and am in favor of our policy on Honduras so far. Americans enacting a more facilitative, patriarchal approach to SA as it grows as opposed to dominating will improve relations so much more and lead to some really positive benefits. Really tired of the only coverage of south america being CHAVEZ + LEFTIST LEADERS ARE DOMINATING THE REGION. Chavez is not that powerful, he's not intimidating/dominating other countries, he's in cahoots with Ecuador, they seem to be pals, but thats it. Colombia seriously doesn't seem to have a problem dealing with them, Brazil doesn't either. Chile/Uraguay are, once again, completely not influenced by Chavez. But I guess they are leftist gov'ts therefore Kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Conservative Bible Project Cuts Out Liberal Passages Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing. That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots. Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one." So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text. 1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias 2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity 3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3] 4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". 5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census 6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. 7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning 8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story 9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels 10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm not convinced its not satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts