I never claimed to be a marine - read my post more carefully. I said that MEN LIKE ME JOIN THE MARINES, and cited a good friend of mine as an example, because he is indeed, a LOT LIKE ME. I am perosnally UNABLE to join the armed forces for reasons previously stated. I guess having asthma won’t keep you out of the NFL, but it’ll prevent you from joining the Coast Guard. Wacky shit.
If I wanted to claim that I was a marine, I would’ve stuck by that lie to see you idiots choke on your feet, but I’m an honest person, I made an honest mistake in capitalizing the wrong word of a sentence, and I clarified it.
I was under the impression that Bush was a member of an Evangelical church - not a Methodist one. Again, I made an honest mistake - I was ill informed about specifically which church he attends.
I can’t link you to an evangelical centra website citing an official stance on Catholicism, because they aren’t centrally organized - there are TONS of Evangelical churches and organizations.
At a black church in Harlem, the preist certainly should not be indirectly instructing people to vote for Democrats - Religions have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in government. If a preacher wants to encourage people to participate in our Democratic government, that’s another story - as long as he/she stays non-partisan.
This argument is stupid, and I’m certainly getting tired of it - you seem to think that forming opinions on what your eyes and ears and what the eyes and ears of one’s close friends percieve is foolish and that we should all follow some dogmatic conservative approach to everything, and you try to enfoce that belief by poo-pooing everything else. Well dude, there’s PLENTY of dirt on your beloved conservatives - REAL dirt, not hearsay, and more than enough of it to cement my liberal beliefs even further. I’m not going to get into a “oh yeah? Well, YOU’RE stupid cuz…” argument with you.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Absolutely. Read books, newspapers, magazines. Watch the news. Think about things before you make up your mind. DON’T, however, let the deciding factor be some zit-backed 'roid user on an internet forum. [/quote]
Strangely, good discussions on these forums include links to information. However, I will disagree again, in that people can outline a principle and apply it to a situation.
Obviously, it will be rare that someone who is arguing here will be swayed by doing so, but I’m sure there are readers that are not as politically savvy (sic) as some of us who will enjoy seeing principles outlined in this way.
No, it’s sad that politics should be only about fighting, in your opinion. Focusing on the type of site the discussion in occuring on is not important and you know that. The quality of the discussion and the information in it (if any) should weigh in on the issue of whether or not it has any chance to sway another.
Obviously, in smacktalk fight land, nobody will be swayed from anything or learn anything.
Do you really see much “political savvy” around these parts… ?[/quote]
“Sic is a Latin word meaning “thus” or “so.” In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets ? [sic] ? to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the original quoted material and is not a transcription error”
Nothing unusual about ‘political savvy’ as phrase or the way it is spelled.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Sic is a Latin word meaning “thus” or “so.” In writing, it is italicized and placed within square brackets ? [sic] ? to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase or other preceding quoted material is a verbatim reproduction of the original quoted material and is not a transcription error”
Nothing unusual about ‘political savvy’ as phrase or the way it is spelled.[/quote]
And this guy wonders why I call him a pedant?
Dood, I’m using it to point out that there is an apparent mistake in referring to their being ‘political savvy’ in these parts.
If I was writing a paper for some peer reviewed publication perhaps I would follow the literary rules a little closer.
Attempt to relax yourself a little… if you clench your butt cheeks any tighter I think your eyes may pop out of your face.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Here’s another little dog trying to hump my leg![/quote]
I thought we had agreed to stop the insults between the two of us and respect each other?
(and no, laughing at somebody else’s jokes does not count. I didn’t say it was funny because it was true, I just thought it was funny. Generally speaking. I would have laughed even if it had been directed at me…)
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Here’s another little dog trying to hump my leg!
I thought we had agreed to stop the insults between the two of us and respect each other?
(and no, laughing at somebody else’s jokes does not count. I didn’t say it was funny because it was true, I just thought it was funny. Generally speaking. I would have laughed even if it had been directed at me…)
[/quote]
Okay, my bad!
I’ll save the insults for Kliplimet and Sxio with their pseudo-kiddie porn anime over in Sex and the Male Animal.
BTW: You know that I respect your intelligence and I’ll say so publicly again.
Interesting info on Angelides’s chief donor – that’s an awful lot of money from a single real-estate developer. Not that it proves anything, but I’d have to be a pretty good friend of someone – or fairly scared of the alternative in each case – to have given this much money. $12 million over the past decade.
Then again, it looks as if Westly may have been using influence for a big donor:
“Controller Steve Westly aided retailer Barnes & Noble’s fight to avoid a multimillion-dollar California tax bill at the same time he was arranging a fundraiser at the chain’s East Coast headquarters.”
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there, Barrister.
Phil may have an extremely wealthy friend - Angelo is practically his godfather. However, he’s NEVER used his influence to help his friends.
Westly, on the other hand…
well, like I said, you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s no surprise to me that dispite Westlys intense ad campaign and the nearly 40 million of his own cash he’s spent to smear Phil, Angelides is still up in the polls anywhere between 3 and 12 percent, depending on the source. (3% is LA Times, 12% was CBS channel 5 in San Francisco, I believe, and the latter was of likely California primary voters)
