:: SuperTopo Rock Climbing Discussion Topic

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 7121 - 7140 of total 22618 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:03pm PT

I know Bob D'A would like to ban me. What puzzles me is the thought process on how Bob would rationalize doing so. Let's unwrap this, shall we?

1. Bob disagrees with what I say.
2. Bob likes hearing speech that he agrees with.
3. Bob would be happy if he did not have to hear my speech since he could just converse with folks he agrees with.
4. Bob would therefore try to ban my speech to make him happy, and suppress my views from being heard and spread.
5. Therefore, Bob would support a ban on my speech -- like liberals do on our college campuses through speech codes -- and the world would be a better place, in Bob's eyes.

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:04pm PT

One week after President Obama's speech to Congress, opposition to his health care reform plan has reached a new high of 55%. The latest Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll shows that just 42% now support the plan, matching the low first reached in August. I can understand why the Democrats chose not to talk much about the details of their plan (plans, rather), but it is reassuring to see that their strategy has been a failure.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Arid-zona

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:05pm PT

When I hear the word culture....I reach for my pistol.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:07pm PT

SUP wrote: I know Bob D'A would like to ban me. What puzzles me is the thought process on how Bob would rationalize doing so. Let's unwrap this, shall we?

1. Bob disagrees with what I say.
2. Bob likes hearing speech that he agrees with.
3. Bob would be happy if he did not have to hear my speech since he could just converse with folks he agrees with.
4. Bob would therefore try to ban my speech to make him happy, and suppress my views from being heard and spread.
5. Therefore, Bob would support a ban on my speech -- like liberals do on our college campuses through speech codes -- and the world would be a better place, in Bob's eyes.

Crackhead...it's Dr.F who asked if you were banned. No me. I find you funny.

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:07pm PT

WAIT, I THOUGHT BUSH WAS SHREDDING OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!! He was, since he was a Republican. But if Obama does the same thing -- its called "Hopey Changey ... whatever."

From Powerline blog today:

First, the administration announced that it supports extending all three of the provisions of the Patriot Act that will expire at the end of the year:

The provisions give the government the authority to access business records, operate roving wiretaps and conduct surveillance on "lone wolf" suspects with no known link to foreign governments or terrorist groups.
Evidently we don't need to worry about those library books any more.

Second, President Obama reportedly signed an order authorizing special forces to take out one of al Qaeda's most vicious operatives, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, Somalia's top terrorist. Nabhan was behind the bombing of a resort in Kenya and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner, and is suspected in involvement in two African embassy bombings. He also was involved in the pipeline that brought a number of young Somalis from Minnesota to Somalia to fight for al Qaeda, some of whom have died there.

The operation went like clockwork, as helicopters swooped over Nabhan's convoy and opened fire. Soldiers rappelled down from the helicopters on ropes and collected two dead or wounded terrorists, including Nabhan. U.S. authorities say Nabhan was killed. If, in fact, he was only wounded, one wonders whether Obama's executive order went so far as to allow him to be questioned without the assistance of counsel.

Finally, a coordinated effort by federal and local law enforcement authorities in New York and Colorado has disrupted an alleged al Qaeda cell and prevented what could have been a major terrorist attack:

Multiple sources told The News the FBI believes it has uncovered an Al Qaeda cell for the first time since 9/11, prompting the huge response.
"The FBI is seriously spooked about these guys," a former senior counterterrorism official told The News. "This is not some ... FBI informant-driven case. This is the real thing." ...

One of the suspects visited New York last week toting bomb-making plans after a trip to Pakistan - home to most of Al Qaeda's leadership, sources said. ...

He drove from Denver to Queens carrying documents and papers about bomb-making and bombs, the sources said. Zazi remained under constant surveillance in suburban Denver Tuesday, three sources said.

Red flags about an impending attack went up last week when Zazi visited with several people in a single day and there was worrisome information collected from wiretaps, sources said.

Thanks to the Patriot Act, they can now tap all of the suspect's telephones, even if he picks up a disposable cell phone, rather than a single number. That's what "roving wiretap," authorized by the Patriot Act, means.

These are all, as I said, efforts for which the Obama administration should be congratulated. How those who voted for Change feel about them, I have no idea.

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:09pm PT

BOb -- lets put it this way. There has been a rather significant discussion about banning me, and I reasonably believe that you were part of it. No?

If you were not, then I retract my sylogistic slur against you.

PS -- any comment on Obama's clear support for the Patriot Act's secret wiretap provisions?

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE LIBERALS!!! I THOUGHT THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BUSH'S FASCIST TAKEOVER MECHANISM?

Guess. Not.

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Boulder, CO

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:12pm PT

SUP...for one thing I could care less what you post...most of it is drivel from a foaming at the mouth right wing whack job.

Continue with your mission.

Gary

climber

Desolation Basin, Calif.

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:12pm PT

It is called fascism folks.

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:13pm PT

Thank you dear sir. I shall.

Mighty Hiker

Social climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:14pm PT

"When expalining things to Republicans, use short words and pretty pictures."

Alternatively, a 2" x 4" applied to the noggin.

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:14pm PT

Hey libs -- a simple straightforward question.

You called Bush Hitler for creating the Patriot Act.

Obama LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVES the Patriot Act, and is even expanding its powers.

So, why don't you call Obama Hitler too?

shut up and pull

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:17pm PT

When you hang around liberals long enough you realize one thing -- when they are outraged over some policy by a Republican, they really are not outraged -- they are faking it. Why? Because the feigned outrage is a pose, and its purpose is to turn the political tide towards the Dems. Plain. And. Simple.

Its why we see no more Iraq war protests. Its why the libs arent screaming about Obama's expansion of the Patriot Act. Its why libs arent screaming about the massive instrusion of government into the private sector.

It. Is. All. A. Pose. For. Political. Gain.

jstan

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 09:42pm PT

Blue:
It is conceivable we have been here before.

Possibly we may even understand why it is the party is making no effort to
reconstruct itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912);

National Progressive Convention, 1912

In the United States, the Progressive Party of 1912 was a political party created
by a split in the Republican Party in the presidential election of 1912. It was
formed by Theodore Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to
William Howard Taft and pulled his delegates out of the convention. The party
is colloquially also known as the Bull Moose Party, after the party's emblem and
after Roosevelt's boast that he was "as strong as a bull moose".

Birth of a new party
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between
corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of
the day." - 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to Theodore
Roosevelt[1] and quoted again in his autobiography[2] where he connects
Trusts and monopolies(sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson
and William Howard Taft, and consequently both major political parties.

16-page campaign booklet with party platform

The great majority of Republican governors, congressmen, editors and local
leaders refused to join the new party, even if they had supported Roosevelt
before. Johnson, the Vice-Presidential nominee, who had been elected
Governor in California in 1910, remained a member of the Republican Party
(GOP) because his supporters took control of the GOP in California. However,
many independent reformers signed up. Two important activists were Gifford
Pinchot and his brother Amos Pinchot. The Progressive Party also endorsed a
number of sympathetic candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties
in state and federal elections from 1912 to 1916.

Only five of the 15 most prominent progressive Republicans in the Senate
endorsed the new party and Roosevelt's candidacy for President; three came
out for Wilson. Many of Roosevelt's closest political allies supported Taft,
including his son-in-law, Nicholas Longworth. Roosevelt's daughter Alice
Roosevelt Longworth stuck with her father, causing a permanent chill in her
marriage. For men like Longworth, expecting a future in politics, bolting the
Republican party ticket was simply too radical a step. Progressives who did not
aspire to elective office often went with Woodrow Wilson………….

corniss chopper

Mountain climber

san jose, ca

Sep 17, 2009 - 10:10pm PT

Sept 17 2009 News:
Congress Votes to Strip ACORN of Federal Funding
The House voted 345-75 and the Senate voted 85-11 to strike ACORN funding in two different bills.

Another victory over corruption!

apogee

climber

Sep 17, 2009 - 10:16pm PT

"I understand your point to be that current GOP policies are more attractive to white racists than are Democratic policies."

My point is even simpler than that- no matter what the ends (policies, elections or whatever), using clearly hateful, racist imagery and tactics as the means to achieve them is wrong and not helpful in advancing society or our country.

To argue that these tactics are not currently in use is ridiculous and completely refutes reality. (Yesterday's posts are a small, obvious example.) To say that these tactics are being called out by the Dems as a diversion to their progress is asinine, yet completely in line with yellow custard that cchopper regularly spews out of his arse.

While there was a litany of (well justifed, in my opinion) harsh, critical, ridiculing imagery of Shrub, I can't remember anything that had such blatant racism as the imagery in use today. Why would that be? As simple as the nose on your face: Shrub is a white guy.

As far as Bamm's homophobic comments- stooooopid. Not worthy of any response, from anyone. Without a doubt, move on.