Fox news "fair and balanced" yeah RIGHT

#476
#476
droski said:
Make sure to have some fish tacos and check out the zoo.
Click to expand...

I've been there quite a bit so I'm good on the taco's. Haven't done the zoo yet - drove through the area last time I was there though.

My sister used to live in Encinitas, now she lives in San Marcos. There's a taco dive called Juanitas on the main drag through Encinitas that is superb.
 
#477
#477
volinbham said:
The thing I've seen is the faux tolerance. For example, claiming we shouldn't criticize various objectionable acts by peoples from other cultures since that is their culture. However, then they espouse utter contempt for "religious nuts", conservative country folk, etc.

It's quite bizarre.
Click to expand...

exactly, we can't criticize criticise the islamic religion because a few terrorize the world, however, we can criticize the whole pro life movement for the murder of 5 abortion doctors in 30 years.
 
#478
#478
volinbham said:
Agree with that - I could even handle the loonies if I had enough $$$ to live the lifestyle there that I currently have.

Heading out to San Diego (or Whale's Vagina) in August.
Click to expand...

there is a bar in mission beach that sells shark tacos and they make their own beer. i forget the name but it's right on the beach, the tacos are incredible and you can see the people surf right out the window. it's just local bar/grill with fabulous food.
 
#479
#479
volinbham said:
The thing I've seen is the faux tolerance. For example, claiming we shouldn't criticize various objectionable acts by peoples from other cultures since that is their culture. However, then they espouse utter contempt for "religious nuts", conservative country folk, etc.

It's quite bizarre.
Click to expand...

The types you're talking about are even weird about the religious angle. They'll knit prayer mats out of their own eybrows for those that practice Islam but if they can see a nativity scene from their roof with a telescope they'll lose their minds.

Bizarre indeed.
 
#480
#480
volinbham said:
The thing I've seen is the faux tolerance. For example, claiming we shouldn't criticize various objectionable acts by peoples from other cultures since that is their culture. However, then they espouse utter contempt for "religious nuts", conservative country folk, etc.

It's quite bizarre.
Click to expand...

joevol320 said:
exactly, we can't criticize criticise the islamic religion because a few terrorize the world, however, we can criticize the whole pro life movement for the murder of 5 abortion doctors in 30 years.
Click to expand...

hndog609 said:
The types you're talking about are even weird about the religious angle. They'll knit prayer mats out of their own eybrows for those that practice Islam but if they can see a nativity scene from their roof with a telescope they'll lose their minds.

Bizarre indeed.
Click to expand...

Astounding comparison.

No "liberals" say its "okay" or "acceptable" for radical Islamic terrorists to murder people because its part of their religion.

Also, this country does not have a centuries-long history of forcing Islam on people, whether they want it or not.

The irony of what you guys are saying is this: you aboslutely loathe governments in the mid-East that are run by religious leaders, like Iran. But, you'd let the Christian identity of people like Palin instruct her on how to govern here.

Religion and government must be kept separate. Iran and other governments over there have not accomplished that and so they trounce people's individual freedoms as a consequence. We keep them separated here in theory, but manage to seem to get ourselves in hot water quite a bit when someone comes along who is going to govern in part based on faith.
 
#481
#481
lawgator1 said:
Astounding comparison.

No "liberals" say its "okay" or "acceptable" for radical Islamic terrorists to murder people because its part of their religion.

Also, this country does not have a centuries-long history of forcing Islam on people, whether they want it or not.

The irony of what you guys are saying is this: you aboslutely loathe governments in the mid-East that are run by religious leaders, like Iran. But, you'd let the Christian identity of people like Palin instruct her on how to govern here.

Religion and government must be kept separate. Iran and other governments over there have not accomplished that and so they trounce people's individual freedoms as a consequence. We keep them separated here in theory, but manage to seem to get ourselves in hot water quite a bit when someone comes along who is going to govern in part based on faith.
Click to expand...

I get your point and to an extent it rings true. I would however point out that some of our greatest presidents have governed in part based on faith. It is only when that faith is in conflict with the peoples individual freedoms that there is a problem. I am not a big Palin supporter but you have to back up your assertion that Palin would trounce on individual freedoms if she was president.

Saying she believes a certain way is not evidence for this LG. You have to show something she proposed as policy. Remember LG, many people here told you and others what we thought Obama would do as president based on his past endeavors, background, and associations. You blasted us for doing so and told us thinking he was going to do anything but govern from the center wasn't being reasonable. You thought that us going by the things he did in the past, and not what he campaigned on was stretching reality.

Note: You didn't use those exact words above but this is the general gist of what you were saying during the election and soon after.
 
#483
#483
lawgator1 said:
Astounding comparison.

No "liberals" say its "okay" or "acceptable" for radical Islamic terrorists to murder people because its part of their religion.

Also, this country does not have a centuries-long history of forcing Islam on people, whether they want it or not.

The irony of what you guys are saying is this: you aboslutely loathe governments in the mid-East that are run by religious leaders, like Iran. But, you'd let the Christian identity of people like Palin instruct her on how to govern here.

Religion and government must be kept separate. Iran and other governments over there have not accomplished that and so they trounce people's individual freedoms as a consequence. We keep them separated here in theory, but manage to seem to get ourselves in hot water quite a bit when someone comes along who is going to govern in part based on faith.
Click to expand...

there is a HUGE difference between being a leader who has a strong faith and being a leader who let's the leader of that faith tell him/her what to do.
 
#484
#484
nickknx865 said:
How about trying to "censor" certain books at the Wasilla library?
Click to expand...

Where is the list of these books, I remember hearing about this. Are these books for kids? What kind of books are we talking about here?

Edit: I think you are missing the point of my post.
 
Last edited:
#485
#485
KB5252 said:
Where is the list of these books, I remember hearing about this. Are these books for kids? What kind of books are we talking about here?
Click to expand...

Look, from what I've heard, she tried to get books censored that contained wizardry, magic, or any witchcraft in them. So yes, they would be more/less geared towards kids.
 
#486
#486
nickknx865 said:
Look, from what I've heard, she tried to get books censored that contained wizardry, magic, or any witchcraft in them. So yes, they would be more/less geared towards kids.
Click to expand...

I don't know what books she was trying, or had banned. Even so these books were not banned from public consumption, they just banned from the library. If parents or kids wanted to read these books they are available at many stores and online. There could be a case that rights were infringed on but you are missing the greater point geared toward LG.
 
#487
#487
lawgator1 said:
Astounding comparison.

No "liberals" say its "okay" or "acceptable" for radical Islamic terrorists to murder people because its part of their religion.

Also, this country does not have a centuries-long history of forcing Islam on people, whether they want it or not.

The irony of what you guys are saying is this: you aboslutely loathe governments in the mid-East that are run by religious leaders, like Iran. But, you'd let the Christian identity of people like Palin instruct her on how to govern here.

Religion and government must be kept separate. Iran and other governments over there have not accomplished that and so they trounce people's individual freedoms as a consequence. We keep them separated here in theory, but manage to seem to get ourselves in hot water quite a bit when someone comes along who is going to govern in part based on faith.
Click to expand...

Great point. Only atheists should be allowed to hold political office. When Palin advocates the extermination of an entire race, you're US-Iran comparison will hold water.
 
#488
#488
lawgator1 said:
Astounding comparison.

No "liberals" say its "okay" or "acceptable" for radical Islamic terrorists to murder people because its part of their religion.

Also, this country does not have a centuries-long history of forcing Islam on people, whether they want it or not.

The irony of what you guys are saying is this: you aboslutely loathe governments in the mid-East that are run by religious leaders, like Iran. But, you'd let the Christian identity of people like Palin instruct her on how to govern here.

Religion and government must be kept separate. Iran and other governments over there have not accomplished that and so they trounce people's individual freedoms as a consequence. We keep them separated here in theory, but manage to seem to get ourselves in hot water quite a bit when someone comes along who is going to govern in part based on faith.
Click to expand...

so she's against abortion and gay marriage, that makes her in the same league as muslims?

why do think this country has prospered in our 250+ years, it was due to the fact that our leaders did give thanks to God and they acknowledged that God was a higher than any government. the are almost endless quotes from our founders that contribute our freedoms to God and the are thousands of prayers that our founding father prayed to God.

you claim that our problems are because religion and government are mixed. i'd say it's because we've taken God out of everything that has caused out problems.
 
#490
#490
I think she only tried to get Obama's book banned. I mean the story includes confessions regarding taking hard drugs and sticking it to the man one day. Other then that...
 
#491
#491
lawgator1 said:
Astounding comparison.

No "liberals" say its "okay" or "acceptable" for radical Islamic terrorists to murder people because its part of their religion.

Also, this country does not have a centuries-long history of forcing Islam on people, whether they want it or not.

The irony of what you guys are saying is this: you aboslutely loathe governments in the mid-East that are run by religious leaders, like Iran. But, you'd let the Christian identity of people like Palin instruct her on how to govern here.

Religion and government must be kept separate. Iran and other governments over there have not accomplished that and so they trounce people's individual freedoms as a consequence. We keep them separated here in theory, but manage to seem to get ourselves in hot water quite a bit when someone comes along who is going to govern in part based on faith.
Click to expand...

Hold on big fella, what is the difference between Bush believing in a higher power and democrats using government as their god and putting their full faith and trust in a bureaucracy.
 
#497
#497
KB5252 said:
I get your point and to an extent it rings true. I would however point out that some of our greatest presidents have governed in part based on faith. It is only when that faith is in conflict with the peoples individual freedoms that there is a problem. I am not a big Palin supporter but you have to back up your assertion that Palin would trounce on individual freedoms if she was president.

Saying she believes a certain way is not evidence for this LG. You have to show something she proposed as policy. Remember LG, many people here told you and others what we thought Obama would do as president based on his past endeavors, background, and associations. You blasted us for doing so and told us thinking he was going to do anything but govern from the center wasn't being reasonable. You thought that us going by the things he did in the past, and not what he campaigned on was stretching reality.

Note: You didn't use those exact words above but this is the general gist of what you were saying during the election and soon after.
Click to expand...



The only problem with your test in terms of Palin is that she hasn't been anything at the federal level and so there are no policies of hers to review.
 
#498
#498
KB5252 said:
I don't know what books she was trying, or had banned. Even so these books were not banned from public consumption, they just banned from the library. If parents or kids wanted to read these books they are available at many stores and online. There could be a case that rights were infringed on but you are missing the greater point geared toward LG.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous. If she tried to ban books at a public library because their content offended her religious sensibilities, that's just awful, even if you could go spend the money to get them elsewhere. That's the point of a public library.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top