Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
JRod wrote:Please let's not start another throwdown.JackDog wrote:I know man. I was just f***in with you. Unless you want to go into a full tilt throwdown like Jrod and Teal. I'll rep the "Nortwest side" and you got the "Northeast" locked down. Bring it B-diddy!!
If you get a chance give it a look and post what you think. The transcript doesn't do neither one of them justice.Naples39 wrote:Fair enough--I'm just going off the transcript.JackDog wrote:The only thing I didn't like about Gibson was the way he looked. He seemed pissed and annoyed. He sighed at some of her answers. Other than that he did his job I guess. My wife on the other hand wants to kick Gibsons ass.
I didn't go after you. By Jack I meant JackB's and some of his outlandish posts a few pages back. I may have left out the "B". Or I incorrectly typed your name but I meant JackB.JackDog wrote:John,you go after everyone and everything in a pretty condescending way. I'll be honest. You come offf as an asshole in 90 percent of your posts. You use words like "Ignorant" and "Idioctic" when you respond to people. How do you expect them to respond to that? You went directly after Teal and Myself in this thread. You called our posts "Blogs".That's the pot calling the kettle black. Look,Teal did what you asked and your still trying to provoke him. Why? Practice what your trying to preach. Otherwise,if your going to dish it out be ready to take whatever comes back. It is what it is.JRod wrote:
I don't know your agenda, nor do I think you have one. If someone thinks I'm wrong than poke holes in my logic, or with the use of facts. Rob and Jared in this forum, if they disagree with me, will post enough links and evidence to bury someone.
You last statement is quite telling. On one hand you say you didn't get angry about it, then make statement that you won't let things go. I do think crosses a line here at DSP. It's not a threat but it's over the line in this little virtual community.
It's cool man. I have grown to understand and respect you John. I enjoy your posts and though I don't agree with some of you comments I am glad your here. I can be a huge asshole when I get pissed. I write some stupid things. But the fact we can do that here makes DSP a place I really enjoy visiting everyday. We have quite a mix of members here and sometimes things get heated, but it always seems to work out. Jared only has to play Principal every now and then. That says a lot about the members here.JRod wrote:
I didn't go after you. By Jack I meant JackB's and some of his outlandish posts a few pages back. I may have left out the "B". Or I incorrectly typed your name but I meant JackB.
I said very clearly, some of us cross the line atleast in this thread because we type, press send, in the heat of the moment. I think quite a few of us can be guilty of that. I'm guilty of it.
What crosses the line is making a personal threat like not letting something go. It's not about them responding to when I use a poor choice of words like idoitic.
To me there are two very different aspects that could be inferred from the way Gibson phrased the question, and which make it more than reasonable to ask if he meant Bush's worldview. The first, and the one Gibson eventually chose, is the idea of pre-emptive war. I personally find this to be a poor defnition of the "Bush doctrine" because pre-emption is a long-standing pillar of US foreign policy embraced by Republican and Democratic adminstrations for decades..at least.TheHiddenTrack wrote:. Like you said Rob, the Bush doctrine can be interpreted in more than one way, so after Gibson said, "well, what do you interpret it to be?" she could have gone into her answer, but instead she asked "his world view?" as if she didn't know what he was referring to at all.
Well I would agree with that except that she questioned him twice on that.FatPitcher wrote:Yeah, right. I bet that 99% of viewers thought, "What's the Bush Doctrine?" when they heard the question being asked. If she'd been honest, the real answer would be, "we'll infringe on other countries' sovereignty if necessary, but we'll try not to piss them off and stir up controversy unnecessarily by announcing that in network interviews." But of course, saying that would be self-defeating. Instead, she was hoping that the interviewer would get the point, which was clearly over his head.JRod wrote:If you watched the interview, here's how it will play.
Gibson was going after Palin.
Or.
Palin didn't know what she was talking about.
I think its pretty clear that Bush Doctrine meant it was okay for America to launch preemptive attacks on countries that post an immediate threat. It was the reason why we went into war with Iraq or atleast the one they sold us on.
She missed it. She also didn't knock the interview out of the park. It might not matter though because Gibson came off really bad.
Don't worry about it Teal. You should be honored to be the "JackB of the Right"Teal wrote:Good, because you don't know your asshole from your elbow. You complain about the fire, but buddy, you're holding a big assed torch, and you swing that damned thing too wildly. If you think I'm belligerent and closeminded, well...that's a compliment coming from you. Get over yourself.JRod wrote:You contintually redicule those that don't agree or hint at not agreeing.
Your last post is a prime example of just how you take any point and fly off the handle with it.
I think everyone in this forum though is guilty of getting little heated and saying something they shouldn't. Though people like PK, Rob, MattK, FP can debate and not contintually fly off the handle at everything. Just because someone disagree with you doesn't mean they are attacking you.
I'm done responding to all of the closeminded, beligerent nonsense you write in this thread.
I can talk to JackB, I can talk to PK, I can talk to most people on this board, no matter their stripe. I can't talk to you, because you hear everything in a language all your own, apparently. Please do me a favor, and honor your last sentence. It will eliminate 90% of what you say to 90% of the people in here about 90% of the topics.
Seriously, if I represent the left boundary and you the right and everyone else is between us, then we as a group aren't all that different. I agree with a lot of what you say and as you said...can always discuss points with you, whether or not we agree on them. Some others here are so arrogant in the way they say things, it doesn't leave any room for discussion. They just want to talk, but don't care to listen.Well Gibson used it in the context of a pre-emptive war doctrine. But he made it clear after the fact.RobVarak wrote:To me there are two very different aspects that could be inferred from the way Gibson phrased the question, and which make it more than reasonable to ask if he meant his worldview. The first, and the one Gibson eventually chose, is the idea of pre-emptive war. I personally find this to be a poor defnition of the "Bush doctrine" because pre-emption is a long-standing pillar of US foreign policy embraced by Republican and Democratic adminstrations for decades..at least.TheHiddenTrack wrote:. Like you said Rob, the Bush doctrine can be interpreted in more than one way, so after Gibson said, "well, what do you interpret it to be?" she could have gone into her answer, but instead she asked "his world view?" as if she didn't know what he was referring to at all.
The second is the idea of democracy-promotion above all else as outlined in his second inaugural and his 2005 SOTU. This is definitely a broader policy, more of a philosophy really and much more of a worldview. To me it was reasonable to ask Gibson if he meant this aspect of Bush's legacy.
As I said initiallly, I think the biggest mistake she made was opting to chatter her way out of answers with platitudes instead of artfully dodging them...but ultimately that's a pretty small sin.
So how exactly do we ask God if this is his plan? Just the words "task that is from God" is very troubling for me. How does that separate us from the extremists who also believe they are doing everything in the name of their God?RobVarak wrote:So now people are accusing Palin of claiming that the war in Iraq is a crusade because of these remarks made at her church:
Somebody sent this to me during the convention and it seemed clear to me that she was saying pray that our national leaders are sending them on a task worthy of their sacrifice, not that God is commanding our national leaders to wage war on the infidels"Pray for our military. He is going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
I agree with that, at least as far as that segment of the interview went. I haven't seen or heard the remainder. I also don't think that she did anything which would make the independent undecided voter say that she's clearly unqualified either...despite the gleeful protestations of the Obamanistas.JRod wrote: Atleast she didn't impress me not in the way where it would, "Wow, I'm not going to vote for McCain/Palin, but she knocked this out of the park."
I love Cheers...RobVarak wrote:
It's a snipe hunt.
You are missing the point. God and religion are PERSONAL BELIEFS.XXXIV wrote:God must be a really be a bad being the way he is constantly getting blasted and mocked in these threads.
Maybe because Obama wants God's will as well.JackB1 wrote:Apparently Palin is also asking people to pray that a pipeline be built
and that is also God's will:
Quote:
"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
P.S. I really think Palin's church in Wasilla showed a lot of class by saying it wouldn't be right for the church to endorse one candidate over another. I only wish politicians would stop combining political aspirations with church and God. Do that personal stuff on your own and don't even give the media a chance to grab it. I am surprised Obama's people haven't made more of this "God's will / Iraq War" stuff. I guess there's still time
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07252008/ne ... 121564.htm"Lord - Protect my family and me," reads the note published in the Maariv daily. "Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
I didnt miss the point at all.JackB1 wrote:You are missing the point. God and religion are personal BELIEFS.XXXIV wrote:God must be a really be a bad being the way he is constantly getting blasted and mocked in these threads.
Politics and Government are for ALL AMERICANS. When you combine something for all with something for some, it doesn't quite work.
.
Hey man I am pretty busy but I'll take some time off to help with this project.XXXIV wrote:
I didnt miss the point at all.
In fact I agree with you...and... I will help you all with a part of this problem.
Send me all government paper (currency) that has the word God on it and I will see that it is properly disposed of.
Every once in awhile there's a glimmer...sometimes faint...that there may be hope for you yet.XXXIV wrote:[
I didnt miss the point at all.
In fact I agree with you...and... I will help you all with a part of this problem.
Send me all government paper (currency) that has the word God on it and I will see that it is properly disposed of.
Is this just a Bush/Palin thing with you? Was it OK for JFK and FDR? Is it OK with you that Dems come into black communties and campaign at black churches? Not trying to be an ass Jack. Just want to know if your thoughts include your politicians in your party.JackB1 wrote:
You are missing the point. God and religion are PERSONAL BELIEFS.
Politics and Government are for ALL AMERICANS. When you combine something for all with something for some, it doesn't quite work.
Our country is a melting pot comprised of people who believe in all kinds of religions and also of people that don't believe in religion at all. How would you like it if the president of your company starting saying "We are completing this new project for God"!
Using God/Religion for personal political gain is wrong. Assuming everyone you are speaking to believes in YOUR God is wrong. Saying going to war is "a task from God" is really wrong. The concept of war and of God/religion couldn't be farther apart, IMO.
