usvi-on-line
DELETED
jmq-
by posting your most recent post, you have become guilty of almost everything you listed- replacing, of course, "Drudge, listening to Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc." with "Olberman, Maddow, your local TV news affiliate, Joy Behar & The View, etc".
a. utterly define the meaning of the word “ideologue”
b. don’t know when they are being offensive
c. are part Troll / love to inflame / don’t care who they might offend
d. have been indoctrinated and desensitized by years of reading Olberman, Maddow, your local TV news affiliate, Joy Behar & The View, etc
e. read it on the “internets” so it must be true
f. think that the internet can substitute for life experience
by posting your most recent post, you have become guilty of almost everything you listed- replacing, of course, "Drudge, listening to Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc." with "Olberman, Maddow, your local TV news affiliate, Joy Behar & The View, etc".
a. utterly define the meaning of the word “ideologue”
b. don’t know when they are being offensive
c. are part Troll / love to inflame / don’t care who they might offend
d. have been indoctrinated and desensitized by years of reading Olberman, Maddow, your local TV news affiliate, Joy Behar & The View, etc
e. read it on the “internets” so it must be true
f. think that the internet can substitute for life experience
So, what was you intent with your post? Did you want anyone to reply? Of course you did. So, maybe I should say: JMQ WANTS YOU TO REPLY. You are no different. Can you answer this question: Are you sure this is done on only one side? You might want to lose the critical eye and read the posts once again. I have seen a lot of twisting of words, and defending at all costs, and I can assure you that it is not only done by people defending President Bush.The other half of this equation is that THEY WANT YOU TO REPLY just so they can parse your words and twist your meanings and defend their beloved and virtually infallible President . . .
JMQ, you don’t get it. When someone on the left make a valid point I have said so and have agreed. I haven't seen one person on the left do that. I think there is a huge intolerance to a different point of view. I am open-minded enough to see that this is happening on both sides, are you? If the answer is no . . . then you are the one who need to examine your intolerance to other points of view.It’s so tired. It’s no win. It’s just bait. It’s the low road. And it’s a waste of your time and my time because it’s become obvious that some here:
a. utterly define the meaning of the word “ideologue”
b. don’t know when they are being offensive
c. are part Troll / love to inflame / don’t care who they might offend
d. have been indoctrinated and desensitized by years of listening to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC
e. read it on the “internets” so it must be true; huffington post anyone?
f. think that the internet can substitute for life experience
g. all of the above
-
California Girl
For what it's worth, I have seen things on both sides in this thread that I both agree and disagree with, but I've kept my mouth shut. I see no need to get in on this discussion just to get flamed again, as I have been in the past, by either side. Maybe that's why many others have not stated their positions.
Sometimes in these political threads, it doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, someone else (regardless of their political affiliation) will take it and twist it to their own advantage. I'm not going there anymore.
Sometimes in these political threads, it doesn't seem to matter what anyone says, someone else (regardless of their political affiliation) will take it and twist it to their own advantage. I'm not going there anymore.
I've been reading along too but felt it wise to keep my political opinions where they belong, at a motorcycle forum 
If you dare here is the link http://www.sportbikes.net/forums/politics-religion/
It's populated more by the left and they get real pissy when someone upsets their echo chamber
If you dare here is the link http://www.sportbikes.net/forums/politics-religion/
It's populated more by the left and they get real pissy when someone upsets their echo chamber
Sorry, Gina, I just think some of us were deeply offended by some of the less friendly words used to describe our new President repeatedly here before and after the election.
My buddies and I were referred to as comrades. Because supporting Obama makes me a communist too. I don't like bullies and I was unable, despite my better judgement, to let the "OBAMA is a socialist, communist, hilter-like, supporter of infanticide" who is also a milano (in fairness he didn't mean the cookie but the pejorative term to describe someone with a parent who is black and a parent who is white), and all of us following him are lambs to the proverbial slaughter, sheep, and Jews on that train to the concentration camp BS slide. Metaphor or not, some of the stuff was so far out of line, I felt the need to offer and alternative perspective. And the Hitler and Mulatto references were repeated by Sox, so I feel the need to repeat them as well.
Sorry, but I just think in society you have to step up and speak up when someone is staying something so abhorrent and repugnant. (Metaphor or not).
We can disagree 100% about Obama without that kind of low brow rhetoric. Call him a liberal, tax and spend, partisan whatever. Talk about his policies. His experience or lack thereof. That is ALL fair game. But appealing to people's worst instincts and likening him to communists and genocidal maniacs just might have pushed a few buttons. I am pretty sure that was the intent.
As for ME PERSONALLY, I made one statement I truly regret, otherwise I made a conscious effort (even when I really, really didn't want to rise above) to not in a single instance refer to Mccain, Bush, Palin or any member of the forum in a derogatory manner. My issues with them are substantive and based on issues, and I think my point gets across better when I don't stoop and use such tactics. Disagree fervently, YES I can and do. Speak my mind, yes. Hold feet to the fire, yep. But to say we have all used the same tactics would be inaccurate.
My buddies and I were referred to as comrades. Because supporting Obama makes me a communist too. I don't like bullies and I was unable, despite my better judgement, to let the "OBAMA is a socialist, communist, hilter-like, supporter of infanticide" who is also a milano (in fairness he didn't mean the cookie but the pejorative term to describe someone with a parent who is black and a parent who is white), and all of us following him are lambs to the proverbial slaughter, sheep, and Jews on that train to the concentration camp BS slide. Metaphor or not, some of the stuff was so far out of line, I felt the need to offer and alternative perspective. And the Hitler and Mulatto references were repeated by Sox, so I feel the need to repeat them as well.
Sorry, but I just think in society you have to step up and speak up when someone is staying something so abhorrent and repugnant. (Metaphor or not).
We can disagree 100% about Obama without that kind of low brow rhetoric. Call him a liberal, tax and spend, partisan whatever. Talk about his policies. His experience or lack thereof. That is ALL fair game. But appealing to people's worst instincts and likening him to communists and genocidal maniacs just might have pushed a few buttons. I am pretty sure that was the intent.
As for ME PERSONALLY, I made one statement I truly regret, otherwise I made a conscious effort (even when I really, really didn't want to rise above) to not in a single instance refer to Mccain, Bush, Palin or any member of the forum in a derogatory manner. My issues with them are substantive and based on issues, and I think my point gets across better when I don't stoop and use such tactics. Disagree fervently, YES I can and do. Speak my mind, yes. Hold feet to the fire, yep. But to say we have all used the same tactics would be inaccurate.
-
cypressgirl
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 2:42 pm
- Location: houston
My bad.
SJ and sox, I will not pretend to be an expert in economics, nor in this branch of health policy--though i do work in the field, however there are expert opinions oout there, cory richards is an expert in reproductive health and reproductive helath policy at the guttmacher institute (yes, liberal, but even cypress or was it gina quoted them on this thread)
so rather than bore you with my opinion, i will provide one from someone with more than 30 years experience in the field and a track record of peer reviewed publications and policy papers.
"How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"
So asks House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) in decrying the inclusion of a provision making it easier for states to expand contraceptive services under Medicaid in the economic stimulus package the House is expected to vote on later this week - and we'd be happy to answer.
First of all, assisting states with their Medicaid programs is a proven and effective strategy for stimulating the economy in times of economic distress. That's why the stimulus package contains $87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs. One can only assume that Rep. Boehner's singling out for criticism the Medicaid spending for contraception is politically motivated.
Not only is it politically motivated, it is highly ironic coming from a self-described fiscal conservative who repeatedly says the stimulus package should include spending that doesn't increase the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. An expansion such as the one permitted by the stimulus package could save Rep. Boehner's state of Ohio $1.4 million in 2009 - money that could make a real difference in a hard-hit state that is struggling with significant budget shortfalls.
Coming from a member who is adamantly antiabortion, Rep. Boehner's opposition is doubly ironic, since publicly funded family planning services significantly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions that occur. Each year, the contraceptive services provided just at publicly funded clinics help women avoid 1.4 million unintended pregnancies, which would result in 640,000 unintended births and 600,000 abortions. Without these services, the number of abortion performed each year in the United States would be 49% higher than it currently is.
In short, inclusion of the Medicaid family planning provision in the economic stimulus bill is eminently justifiable. It's classic anti-recession economic policy, it doesn't increase the deficit, and it reduces unintended pregnancies and abortions. My question to Rep. Boehner is: What's not to like?
fini.
so rather than bore you with my opinion, i will provide one from someone with more than 30 years experience in the field and a track record of peer reviewed publications and policy papers.
"How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"
So asks House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) in decrying the inclusion of a provision making it easier for states to expand contraceptive services under Medicaid in the economic stimulus package the House is expected to vote on later this week - and we'd be happy to answer.
First of all, assisting states with their Medicaid programs is a proven and effective strategy for stimulating the economy in times of economic distress. That's why the stimulus package contains $87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs. One can only assume that Rep. Boehner's singling out for criticism the Medicaid spending for contraception is politically motivated.
Not only is it politically motivated, it is highly ironic coming from a self-described fiscal conservative who repeatedly says the stimulus package should include spending that doesn't increase the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. An expansion such as the one permitted by the stimulus package could save Rep. Boehner's state of Ohio $1.4 million in 2009 - money that could make a real difference in a hard-hit state that is struggling with significant budget shortfalls.
Coming from a member who is adamantly antiabortion, Rep. Boehner's opposition is doubly ironic, since publicly funded family planning services significantly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions that occur. Each year, the contraceptive services provided just at publicly funded clinics help women avoid 1.4 million unintended pregnancies, which would result in 640,000 unintended births and 600,000 abortions. Without these services, the number of abortion performed each year in the United States would be 49% higher than it currently is.
In short, inclusion of the Medicaid family planning provision in the economic stimulus bill is eminently justifiable. It's classic anti-recession economic policy, it doesn't increase the deficit, and it reduces unintended pregnancies and abortions. My question to Rep. Boehner is: What's not to like?
fini.
< leaving on the 22nd of march...but too lame to figure out the ticker thing again!>
How many times, Flip? How many times?flip-flop wrote:
My buddies and I were referred to as comrades. Because supporting Obama makes me a communist too. I don't like bullies and I was unable, despite my better judgement, to let the "OBAMA is a socialist, communist, hilter-like, supporter of infanticide" who is also a milano (in fairness he didn't mean the cookie but the pejorative term to describe someone with a parent who is black and a parent who is white), and all of us following him are lambs to the proverbial slaughter, sheep, and Jews on that train to the concentration camp BS slide. Metaphor or not, some of the stuff was so far out of line, I felt the need to offer and alternative perspective. And the Hitler and Mulatto references were repeated by Sox, so I feel the need to repeat them as well.
So this debacle of a bill is going to go through...God, I am sooo happy that every republican in the House voted no. As well, the 11 Dems who voted no should also be congratulated.
Thank the Lord we have a few who will stand up to the many in the face of economic suicide. 2010 can't come fast enough.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
These political threads remind me of that song I used to listen to on the Beatles white album, "Piggies"...you know...."have you seen the little piggies playing in the dirt..."...I'm not sure why...
That's all I have to add here....just sayin'...
That's all I have to add here....just sayin'...
STJ Villa Map:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie ... 2&t=h&z=14
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie ... 2&t=h&z=14
Well I was going to go add up the references to Obama that included socialist, friend to terrorists, milano/mulatto, hitler, or communist and use that as my baseline, but then I lost count.soxfan22 wrote: How many times, Flip? How many times?
I'd be happy to let it go if you think you can refrain from using such inflammatory and baseless language in the future. I can tell you are really cleaning it up lately and I applaud you.
Not trying to be YOUR moral authority, just trying to clarify why I felt the need to hammer you on it. Calling someone a friend to terrorists or a communist is VERY different from saying someone's policy is bad.
Truce. Peace out.
-
California Girl
Flip, you know I like you! Seriously, I do!flip-flop wrote: My buddies and I were referred to as comrades. Because supporting Obama makes me a communist too. I don't like bullies and I was unable, despite my better judgement, to let the "OBAMA is a socialist, communist, hilter-like, supporter of infanticide" who is also a milano (in fairness he didn't mean the cookie but the pejorative term to describe someone with a parent who is black and a parent who is white), and all of us following him are lambs to the proverbial slaughter, sheep, and Jews on that train to the concentration camp BS slide. Metaphor or not, some of the stuff was so far out of line, I felt the need to offer and alternative perspective. And the Hitler and Mulatto references were repeated by Sox, so I feel the need to repeat them as well.
But by repeating all this stuff over and over, you are as guilty as anyone else of perpetuating the ugliness. For once I agree with Sox when he says, "How many times?" I know you are very offended by every single remark you posted, so am I. And you are obviously very angry, as well, but please let it go.
See above CG - you are right and I'll even admit Sox is right. I am ready to let it go. And I had, COMPLETELY, until the more recent "Mulatto There I said it girls" post unhinged me. I don't think the forum needed it beaten into them, but I do think he did. Promise, if I don't hear another reference along the lines that I outlined above, I will not mention it again.
There I said it girls" post unhinged me. I don't think the forum needed it beaten into them, but I do think he did. Promise, if I don't hear another reference along the lines that I outlined above, I will not mention it again.-
California Girl
Ok, I am going to aim this at you Flip, but there are others that I would like to think about to reconsidering continually pointing fingers. Unless you can let go of some past wrongs we should quit debating. None of us are without blame. I feel a respectful debate is a really good thing. All of us should be admired for our passion even when we don't agree.flip-flop wrote:Truce. Peace out.
Are you able to quit holding past comments over Sox or can you accept his apology and move forward? It appears, to me, that Sox genuinely agrees that he was out of line . . . I am not sure what else you want him to do? Everyone brings something to the table and I look most forward to your' and Sox's posts. You are both very well informed and spend time putting together posts with a lot of insight. Agree or disagree they are insightful. Maybe you resent him because he challenges you.
I think you have really valid points and I don't want to see you quit posting. Do some of your views make my blood boil? At times sure. If we only have discussions with people who think like us we will have stagnation.
All of us have crossed the line and maybe need to remember that when we try to single anyone out and require them to stand in judgement that we aren’t any better. Going forward I think we all need to agree that the past is the past or we just need to stop.