World Net Daily’s a newspaper?

Unless, and until , you are ready and willing to discuss the article

I DID address the article. I pointed out that their source for the quote don’t even have the quote itself. I said that the WSJ was a “dead end” because they don’t even mention the quote in the article (I searched). The quote isn’t even in the official transcript of the speech. In fact, apparently, the only newspaper that DID print that quote was the Chicago Tribune.

I know what you’re “thinking” now: “AHA! So the quote DOES exist!!!! I winzorz!!!” But ask yourself this: what’s more likely, that every other major newspaper in the country was part of some big cabal to cover up the quote, or that one reporter at one newspaper may have misheard or misinterpreted the quote? Occam’s Razor and all…

or go insult the developmentally disabled,

I’m pretty sure that’s what I’ve been doing all along?

You have to admit, you pretty much walked right into that one.

I will not respond to you again..

If I had a nickel for every time you said that…

They report stuff that people say, and if they lie , the people they lie about ask for a retraction…

No one has , because they can not …

Because you missed it , I will restate it : The article was not about me .

The article was not quoted to trick you into reading American Thinker …

Try it again, and see if there is something about a “civilian military force” and a huge budget increase for organizations like the Peace Corps and VISTA, to replace the military, while drastically reducing military spending for the traditional military that might prove disturbing to conservatives .

Unless, and until , you are ready and willing to discuss the article , please insult someone else , or go insult the developmentally disabled, or whatever it is juvenile liberals do for fun ..

I will not respond to you again..

Do I believe the article I ACTUALLY CITED contains facts and actual quotes from real people ?

Yes .

The link about Obama’s quote links to another AT article, which in turns links to WND, which provides no links. This, of course, raises some red flags. The link to the WSJ article about the speech also provides a dead end.

Does it have some significance for me (and, incidentally, every other “American Thinker” who reads it)

Yes .

Actually calling yourself an “American Thinker” is laughable at best, pitiable at worst. Also, jangling shiny keys would probably have some significance for you and your ilk (see: Palin).

Their best argument is a hypothetical scenario involving the defense budget. Now, hypotheticals make for decent arguments, but they only work as a support for a main argument. Otherwise, the entire opposition seems, well, hypothetical.

By the way, the article I linked was also from AT, and it was about how acting based solely on fear is a good thing, and that the Civil Rights Movement was a scary time where the Negro race rose up against the White Man. You know, things you can identify with.

Poor Frankie, why do you hate America so much?

But I think you went partisan with #4. “If a minor child gets pregnant, Conservatives would prefer the child have the baby because of their pro life view while Liberals would encourage abortion.” I’m sure there is someone out there who holds the view that an underage mother MUST have an abortion (we are an exceedingly diverse society) but overall Liberals would not encourage abortion. Liberals want the mother to have a choice.

“If a minor child gets pregnant, Conservatives would prefer the child have the baby because of their pro life view while Liberals would prefer the mother be able to have a choice.”

All you ever do is change the subject…

Do I believe the article I ACTUALLY CITED contains facts and actual quotes from real people ?

Yes .

Does it have some significance for me (and, incidentally, every other “American Thinker” who reads it)

Yes .

Does the existence of another article that I have not read have any relevance to the article I ACTUALLY CITED?

I don’t know .

Do I care about that other article?

No.

Do I automatically disbelieve the article I ACTUALLY CITED because you express unwarranted, undocumented, disbelief?

Nope .

Better luck next time — you might want to try formulating an argument.

Oh, and do me a favor ?

Pass this on to Nimrod “If it’s Frank, it must be wrong” Gently ?

Thanks

Just name one issue on which Senator Obama’s position is extreme and outside a reasonable definition of ‘mainstream’ for the politics of the United States. A legitimate issue, btw – none of the lies. A legitimate one.

Fine.

Abortion.

Main stream America considers abortion …
“at will” first trimester
“with cause” second trimester
and “why aren’t you having a c-section?” third trimester.

main stream America also supports parental notification of teens who seek abortion ( since no notification is in essence the statutory rapists protection act as 90% of all pregnant teens the father is over 18 ).
In fact the latest polls ( website to be added later ) show 67% of WOMEN believe in parental notification.

Sen. Obama according to the videotape of “announcing” his reason shortly after voting against the “born alive” act stated
“It would be inconvenient to have a 2nd Doctor come in and evaluate the fetus’ viability and in essence over-rule the original decision of the mother and her doctor.”
Mainstream America does not find that inconvenient.

Then Senator Obama denied that was the reason. That it was because there wasn’t a clause in the law to protect abortion rights.
Then the DOCUMENTS came out that that clause WAS in the law, it was voted into the law unanimously, including Sen Obama’s vote minutes before Obama voted against the law anyways.

Simply put, voting to let infants ( they are now out of the mother’s womb they are infants ) die after a botched abortion is NOT mainstream.
In fact it was AGAINST NARAL’s position and recommendation.
Which is why on that vote he was one of only 2 or 3 to vote against it.

Of course she did …

I don’t blame you for not being “in the know”, but remember the whole thing about Palin flying from Dallas to Alaska to deliver her baby? Well actually, she stole the baby from a Dallas mother and fled to Alaska.

The pundits are so out of touch with normal people that they have no clue why moderates like Sarah Palin.

Then tell us, oh great Swami, why DO moderates love Palin? Also, you say you’re pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but those obviously take the back burner on issues that are more important to you. What would those entail?

Uhm … err … Obama has almost NO moderate republicans.
Survey says… BZZZT.

Basically go here : http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update

Scroll down to the chart where they assign states and click on any given state.

State by state by state that pattern is clear.
and as a quote from PENNSYLVANIA ( which obama cannot lose or forget about it ).
The data in Pennsylvania reflects patterns seen elsewhere in recent polling. McCain has more support from Republicans than Obama does from Democrats, and McCain also wins more crossover votes from the other party. The two candidates are even among unaffiliated voters.

Uhm … err … survey state by state across the whole nation says?

You do not know what you are talking about.

The thing is, extremism is usually NOT a single issue.

Taking the hypothetical liberal checklist, you could have someone go down the list mark by mark and be right in line.
Protection of all species regardless of consequences to man, economic redistribution ( read high taxes to pay for social means ).
Straight down the checklist. Only that person could be catholic. And so into their faith they can not condone abortion.

Would that person be an extremist conservative … just because of that one issue?

Obama is an extemist liberal only in the totality of all his views.
Well that and he admits he is a “mainstream progressive”.

Sorry I live and grew up in the San Francisco region. I KNOW what progressives are like and what they believe.
I know the some who chose the term progressive. As a replacement for the word liberal.

I also know many progressives who honestly believe if you are NOT progressive. By definition you are regressive.

So maybe I am tar and feathering him with his chosen association with progressives in the area here. You know the ones who slash the tires daily of a Teacher who DARES to admit he is a republican. Because they do not want someone like that as a co-worker.
Or the one who brough a harrassment lawsuit against a person who went to a confirmation of her godson, because her being Catholic created a hostile working environment, since he knew her faith disapproved of his gay partner ( and she never spoke about her faith, just took a day off once ).

Maybe that is unfair. But moderate after moderate I speak to does ask “Why should I work with progressives like Obama wants us to, when THEY don’t want to work with us. Just call us names.”

1. No parent, consevative or liberal wants to have one of his/her children to become pregnant when she is 17.
2. Conservatives and liberals have a different view on sex. Liberals believe in birth control and conservatives abstinance. Let’s agree for the sake of discussion that each perspective has its pluses and minuses.
3. Every parent knows that his/her child will make mistakes.
4. If a minor child gets pregnant, Conservatives would prefer the child have the baby because of their pro life view while Liberals would encourage abortion.
5. When Governer Pailin’s daughter became pregnant,the parents announced their love and support for their daughter(which is what one would expect) and her decision to have the baby. I would expect any liberal parent to act similarly whether their child decided to have the baby or abort.
6. Loving your children unconditionally transcends politics and party affiliation. All parents(and clear thinking people) know this.
7. The parents can’t “make” a 17 year old, soon to be 18, marry anyone unless you believe we should have arranged marriages.

I’ve used the terms conservative and liberal very generally and for the purpose of making a point as to why the argument you and others have advanced as to the so called hypocrisy of conservatives and Plain won’t fly. If fact,in my view, the argument only diminishes the standing of its proponent(s). You may want to think this through should you decide to continue advancing this argument as a purported criticism of the Palins.

The social conservatives say women should stay at home or sacrifice high-powered careers because they do not allow enough time to spend with the children, but when Sarah Palin goes in for just such an ultra high-powered career, they say there is no reason she cannot do it–even with her problematic family situation that would require above-average parenting time–then they accuse the left of hypocrisy on this issue!

If, by her very belief system, she should not be careering, then why is everyone wrong to question her on it? Is she distancing herself from that belief, is she going on in hypocrisy, or does she plan to have 9-to-3 hours as VP? We have a legitimate right to know.

When was it ever? If (if) it’s a referendum on any one person, it would be on Bush.

“Instead of a promise of future change and breaking with politics as usual, McCain has delivered it.”

Buy the single act of cynically picking an unqualified woman as his running mate? So all those lobbyists running McCain’s campaign and all the adamant support for Bush’s failed policies are going to be offset by picking a running mate who hold positions held by the conservative base? What kind of change does she really represent?

Seriously, Frank. The article you refer to was clearly written by someone who made their conclusions and is making up facts to support it. I’m sure it may “explains very clearly what a conservative (not all conservatives, but many) believe has happened as a result of the Palin nomination” but that they believe it doesn’t have anything to do with reality.

I can believe McCain is “frantic” and “shameless”, but does that mean it’s true?