JohnO

I find the reading comprehension of some here seriously lacking so let me help those that are challenged. I did not single out any specific group in my post because my statement applies to ANY special group.

Wow there are so many grate ones listed already. Sorry if some of these are repeats.

He Stopped Loving Her Today - George Jones

Sing Me Back Home - Merle Haggard

Opening Farewell - Bonnie Raitt's version

Time After Time - Cyndi Lauper

A Change Is Gonna Come - Sam Cooke

Your Cheatin' Heart - Hank Williams

Love T.K.O. - Teddy Pendergrass

My Mom - Chocolate Genius

Whiskey Lullaby - Brad Paisley (with Alison Krauss)

How Can You Mend a Broken Heart? - Al Green

In the Wee Small Hours of the Morning - Frank Sinatra

Killing Me Softly With His Song - Roberta Flack

Okay then, fair enough. Could you please expand on what "special groups" might be treated differently?

Go back and read the post.

I sort of agree with this, but as Lauren alluded to, I think wealthy (and famous) folks are often afforded privileges, not rights, the rest of us are not – but I get the sense that JohnO had other minority groups in mind when he posted what he posted.

You are mistaken, I never mentioned 'minority groups' in my post.

Obama went into debt to bail out the banks. What was the alternative? He financed shovel-ready projects to get things moving. Big business is playing tight with the purse strings, so he's likely going to have to go to the till again to create jobs. Meanwhile he's cutting spending, which is something that couldn't be said for the previous GOP president and Congress.

Alternative History Alert

Actually Bush bailed out the banks to the tune of about $250b with the passage of the TARP program in the fall of 2008. Obama owns the rest of the TARP spending and all of the Stimulus spending. By his own numbers the jobs created by those so called "shovel ready projects" have cost us on average $500,000 each. Net net I think you'll have a hard time showing that his administration is cutting spending.

Are you bored? Is that what this is?

no, are you?

spin, spin, spin

Rain, Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown), The Word, I'm Only Sleeping, I Should Have Known Better

It's tough to dance while sitting.

Can you provide some concrete examples of situations in which minorities have been afforded rights not extended to the majority?

Can you?

Well, to speak ill of the dead, especially with the words you chose to use, would be considered by many to be a not-too-classy move. But - I'm all about freedom of speech, so rave on, brother, rave on.

No problem I talked about him in the same way when he was alive. I fully support your stance on freedom of speech!

that way.

 

if you wanted to comment on the fact that Patrick Kennedy seems to suffer from pretty severe addiction issues, which are likely partially genetic in origin, you could have pointed that out in an appropriate way. The method you chose is what is commonly referred to as "assholish," and is the tone you seem to enjoy using repeatedly here.

I'll express myself however I like thank you. Feel free to do the same.

We do attempt to protect the rights of minorities, of course, but surely you can agree with me that there are situations where preserving equal rights for all requires us to overlook the opinion of the majority.

Equal rights requires no qualifiers. The laws are to be applied equally to all people PERIOD. Attempting to protect the rights of some special group in some manner differently than you do for others is the very definition of unequal rights.

JohnO's version of reality is like a cartoon where all the dialogue was written by a half-awake Sean Hannity. To criticize Bayh for being a quitter while praising Palin's decision requires a special brand of super-partisan, hypocritical, irrational blinders. I mean, defend Palin's decision to resign if you want; I suppose a case could be made. But to then turn around and suggest that the guy who actually is fulfilling his contract is somehow more of a quitter than the person who left halfway through her contract is, simply, laughable. It's also profoundly unserious.

 

I'm normally nicer than that. But seriously, JohnO, your partisanship is showing big-time, and it's kind of embarrassing.

Your own partisanship is causing you to miss the point entirely. No need to be nice on my account cuz I'm not very nice either.

It's an extremely rare occasion when I respond to obvious trolling here, but I just have to say this has to be one of the most mean spirited things I've ever read in the 4 years I've been on this board. Wow, just wow.

Mean spirited in what way? Everything I said is absolutely true. Now if your a Kennedy I can see where you might not appreciate hearing the unvarnished truth but that's just too bad. I have had many opportunities over the past 37 years to vote for a Kennedy and they've never earned my vote. That's not trolling that's fact. I didn't realize this board was so tame. Sorry to offend your sensibilities but you really should toughen up. You'd never survive Massachusetts politics.

Oh.

 

That's spectacularly dumb. Is it some kind of inside joke/right wing meme that I'm unaware of? Is it Sean Hannity's version of lolcat?

And that is a particularly idiotic response. It must come from watching too much MSNBC. Do they still broadcast?

First, who's they?

 

The italicized sentence does imply - I don't care what you say - that people in this thread have heard someone make that statement, and did not hear alarm bells. That, or, as I've said, it was a complete non-sequiter thrown in there for color. I like spinach!

 

That phrase was pure laziness on my part. I thought I have been overtly clear a number of times that this is about "the human impact of ___ v. ____," and didn't care to write out the whole thing.

Reading it in context who do you think "they" are?

The only thing the quotes imply is that I am quoting someone. When asked who used the quote I offered Algore as the example. Seeing as how I wrote it I can categorically state the there was no other "implied" meaning. Anything you fabricate beyond that is simply fiction.

Given your penchant for parsing and implying you should be more careful.

Palin quit because of the ludicrous number of frivolous lawsuits being filed against her that were costing the Alaskan taxpayers millions of dollars. Bayh is quitting because it's not going his way. You're right there is no comparison! Palin made a choice based on the best interest of her State and Bayh made a choice based on a lack of intestinal fortitude. imho

Then again maybe there is a scandal brewing...

kinda like Bobdole.

It is you who did not read what I wrote. My original post was a response to the question, "when did the trend change from global warming to climate change?" You then decided to spin it into a shit weave of implications and assumptions. Now your behavior may stem from either an over active imagination or a case of paranoid delusions but in either case that's not my problem. If my posts really annoy you please feel free to ignore them.

Oh and the debate is not between "those who agree that there is climate change and those who do not" as the climate has been changing since the planet was formed. The debate is about what affect human activity has on the global climate. That is the debate Algore has tried to shut down with his silly phrase. It seems with every passing day more and more of the data they use to support their theory is shown to be questionable. Here from this weekends London Times: World may not be warming, say scientists

Your post implied that (a) person(s) on this board agreed with the person making the quote, which IS relevant to this discussion if you're using it as a part of this discussion.

You are imagining things. Stay on your meds.

Are you saying that all of us who support parts of the theory of climate change agree with everything that Al Gore says, always? That our ideas are exactly the same as his, all the time? Or are you just throwing around quotes from famous people? Because that's a fun game!

We're talking about climate change right? Again, you have an over active imagination.

Throwing around a quote from someone on the "other side" of the debate, and then implying that everyone opposing your argument agrees with it, is a pointless and useless tactic when you're trying to have a productive discussion. Throwing around a quote from someone on the "other side" and NOT implying that people opposing your argument here is just as pointless.

Now you are really being foolish. The quote was used to demonstrate the point I was making which was open debate is good and necessary and in this case the "other side" is using age old tactics to stifle opposition. Your poor attempt to make it something else is really pathetic..

It's quite possible that you can support some of someone's ideas and not support other statements they make. It's also possible that you think climate change is a viable theory, and not be incredibly familiar with the works and doings of Al Gore.

I'm familiar enough with the works and doings of Algore to know he is living proof that there's a sucker born every minute. Others can support him if they like, that is their choice. My choice is to not support him.

Have fun getting your shorts in a knot.

I don't care how many people in the car do or don't have guns, a car will break down and affect each passenger more or less equally because of its surplus passengers if too many are stuffed inside; similarly, the earth won't give a rat's ass who has guns when it becomes overwhelmed. I know you're smart enough to know what GON is talking about, you just choose to mince words in favor of making what you perceive to be a joke.

You don't know me at all. I wasn't joking.

we’re going to have a surplus population numbering in the billions.

Who determines who is surplus? ANSWER: The guys with the bigger guns.

Over 97% of species that ever lived are now extinct. Lower life forms make up the vast majority of the 3%. Now we're supposed to be smarter than anything that ever came before but it's only a matter of when, not if, humans will join that list of extinctions. Let's see dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years so we only need to go about 159.99 million years to catch them. Did the dinosaurs worry about climate change? How many shows did TRex make it to?

You're using quotation marks, but I can't seem to recall who said that - and, more importantly, who on this board agreed with the person who said that.

 

I don't see why it's so bad to formerly agree that one theory might be plausible, and subsequently find another theory much better explains phenomena we're experiencing. Isn't that what scientific reasoning/explanation is?

Algore has said it and continues to say it every time someone challenges his position. It is a weak minded response used to close off debate. Why is it important that anyone on this board agree with the person(s) who use the phrase?

Positioning a theory as a plausible cause is one thing, using fascist tactics to silence competing theories is something else. It is particularly reprehensible in the case of Algore and his ilk at the UN who have a commercial interest in promoting a particular theory. That's commerce not science.

I wonder if the attack dogs will go after Bayh for quitting the same way they went after Palin?

I'm not holding my breath.

When we realized everything is a lot more complex than we originally made it seem.

More precisely it was when they couldn't prove it to be a man made phenomena and turned to religious rhetoric with a dash of Ponzi scheme called cap and trade thrown in for good measure. Every time someone says "the science is settled" alarm bells should go off in your head. Not long ago the greatest minds of the time felt the same way about eugenics.