Real School, Call Out Thread Part II.

[chriswebber]

Real School,

Let's do this again. Smart, no insults, open conversation about today's topics. Since you cannot start a civil conversation, I will. Rich people, are they bad, greedy, or just successful people?:eek:

[RealSchool]

I am rich so my vote is no on being bad.

Kick the Palin's and the other "religious" hypocrites out of the party and you might win people like me back.

[RealSchool]

When the republican's (the party of small government???) stuck their nose in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo I have never been more disgusted. Kick out the people that thought it was their business and you will win moderates back again.

[RealSchool]

Real School,

Let's do this again. Smart, no insults, open conversation about today's topics. Since you cannot start a civil conversation, I will. Rich people, are they bad, greedy, or just successful people?:eek:



Hey hypocrite who wrote this? Let's see you told him to shut-up, called him a racist, and told him to stop drinking the kool-aid. Any other lectures you care to give me hypocrite?

"Wait, the party of racial freedom, the party of acceptance... So now you are a racist if you come to America, speak english, and named your children american names. I would like to introduce you to a world called nationalism. I know it might be hard to be proud of your country, but alot of people like it, just the way it is. My ancestors were dutch, they had the prefix Van, however, my grandfather dropped it after fighting in WWI. Obama's name change was a political move. He claims to be a Christian, but when is the last time you met Paul Allah Smith or Tom Mahomid (sp?) Jenadowski? Interesting, stop drinking the koolaid, block daily kos. If you want to go to a place that retains their heritage, go to africa where you will be required to learn 1 trade language, and many tribal languages.... Yeah, shut up. You're appearing to be a racist, not an american."

[chriswebber]

Had you the ability to think for yourself you would realize there are atleast two types of racist, the KKK and modern racism. You know the racism of stating rich, white people are to blame. Rich white people like the republicans. According to the democratic party and most liberals, the second type of racism is acceptable. Anyone that states an Indian is a white man is a racist. We weren't discussing who came from where, but individuals. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream is a colorless society. I could careless if a president is blue, green, or red. I care about his or her principles. If you are such a person aware of racial problems, why are you not protesting Robert Byrd?

What is wrong with being religious? Seriously? We have the freedom of religion. You probably practice a religion. It might not have a church, but you absolutely believe in something. You might be pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-climate change, pro-idea here. If you believe those theories that is your religion. I to think religion has no place in government. But lets eliminate all religions, including those without pastors or churches.
You might be rich, congrats! Just realize that your fortunes are viewed as the people's assets with Obama. He wants to seize your things because it's not fair for you to have all those nice things. I really think your not who you claim to be. I myself just play into what you think I am. It's more fun that way. Sure, I have a trust fund and a Bugatti. :D

[RealSchool]

"Had you the ability to think for yourself"


Is this an insult or civil conversation in your book?

[chriswebber]

"Had you the ability to think for yourself"


Is this an insult or civil conversation in your book?

Well, your argument is normally in sync with the dailykos. I am a reader of the blog. I found it most interesting that some of your post are verbatim from the blog. Now know it's hard to conform ones thoughts in an analytical manor, but please build an argument based on your own viewpoints. Atleast change enough of the words in your post so google cannot automatically pick out the blog entry.
In an adult conversation, I am allowed to challenge the basis for your thoughts. If I deem your ideals to be that of another person, why should I carry out a conversation with you whereas I can go directly to the source. Would you sit and argue with speed limit sign? I would not, no matter what argument I present, the speed limit sign while not change. Whereas, I should focus my energy on debating the necessities of the speed limit with the body that controls the sign.
Often in a debate, one side might release some well place spiteful words so that the other individual becomes more focus on seeking revenge than winning a topic. I would hope that someone of your education level and would be able to ignore these childish antics on my part. However, I feel in a fisherman's terms, you have fallen hook, line, and sinker. You have not proven the burden of proof nor have you challenged my position. Is it that you concede the point? Perhaps you cannot follow my line of thought. I bet you are upset that I challenged your ways of thinking.
What I want is true logical thoughts with a common law type backup. If I were speaking to you, would you hand me a copy of the daily kos to read? I would just want a real answer.

[RealSchool]

And I can go on fox news and listen to Rush and word for word that is what I know you will post.

"He wants to seize your things because it's not fair for you to have all those nice things." This is word for word what
Ann Coulter said on Sean Hannity last night. Good job chriswebber you fraud.


Also, do you really need to type these 700 words posts when REALSCHOOL YOU HURT MY FEELINGS PLEASE STOP, will do just fine.

[RealSchool]

Terri S. right or wrong for the "small government republicans" to get involved in? Simple question.

[Mike Furley]

Terri S. right or wrong for the "small government republicans" to get involved in? Simple question.

Complicated answer.

I first want to point out that I find the premise implied in your question to be somewhat faulty.

I infer from your use of "small government republicans" that you are implying there is something incongruous at best and hypocritical at worst for Republicans to have played any role in this matter. Am I making a correct inference?

On one level, I find a certain insidiousness present whenever third parties are involved in two party disputes, because the thrid parties often times have agendas that are not entirely consistent with either of those of the two direct parties.

That being said, there was involvement by both sides of the political spectrum as third parties in the Schaivo case, and I'm not of the belief that either side was wholly altruistic in their support for either of the two direct parties involved.

Given that our judiciary system places a large value on both precedence and stare decisis it sometimes requires those who have a vested interest in the overall debate on a topic of contention to inject themselves in order to protect their positions in future cases of law. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.

Just because Republicans by and large believe government should play a smaller role in the lives of its citizenry does not mean Republicans should cede the battlefield of debate and public discourse to Democrats because Democrats do believe in the larger role of government in the lives of its citizenry.

The implication to suggest otherwise is very Alinsky-esque. This seems to be a debate tactic you commonly use on this board. Are you aware you come across as a living embodiment of Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals?

Republicans, just as Democrats do, have several First Principles. One First Principle is to have government be less intrusive. A bigger First Principle is to protect and defend innocent human life.

Therefore, given the above reasons, I do not feel it was wrong for Republicans to have been involved and sought the prevention of Terri Schaivo being deliberately starved until her internal organs failed, thus causing her death.

I think the troubling aspect of the Schaivo case was that it was an emotional ordeal for her husband and parents to go through - and the debate appeared to be less about Terri Schaivo and more about the philosophy of Peter Singer. Singer lays out very sound arguments (though I ultimately disagree with) on issues such as abortion and euthanasia in Practical Ethics. For those members on the board who wish to understand more fully the positions of the pro-abortion - pro euthanasia side, this is a good book to read.

[RealSchool]

3-5 and #8

As far as the rest of your post, the vast amount of Americans disagree with you. Who is the radical now?

As much as you all try to paint me as liberal you can't. I am mainstream America. You all are the outdated radical right.

[Mike Furley]

3-5 and #8

As far as the rest of your post, the vast amount of Americans disagree with you. Who is the radical now?

As much as you all try to paint me as liberal you can't. I am mainstream America. You all are the outdated radical right.

not sure what 3-5 and #8 means. are those the post numbers? If so, most of those are your own. Would you mind clarifying so I can follow along?

[osusteve]

Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley would not be republicans the way the party has become today. Note that Mr. Buckley was a strong proponent for the legalization of marijuana (a right decision).

Many rational republicans today really consider themselves to be libertarians -- not republicans.

[The Michigan Man]

Terri S. right or wrong for the "small government republicans" to get involved in? Simple question.

Terri S isn't a big/small government issue - it is a civil rights issue. Big or small, the government needs to have the ability to protect its citizens.

The fact that Terris S' husband remarried and wanted her ass put to sleep while her parents wanted to care for her, combined with the ambiguity of her wishes should result in erring on the side of "life". IMO.

[RealSchool]

Terri S isn't a big/small government issue - it is a civil rights issue.


Exactly why I believe in Roe vs Wade.

[chriswebber]

Wait are you talking about the Terri S. case where the husband remarried her and had a girlfriend? Then he wanted to pull the plug on his wife? Let's see here, the government protected Terri. Terri should have a living Will with a statement saying 'if I am a veggie for X days and my spouse and parents agree that I should perish so be it. Terri didn't have a will.

Roe v. Wade is about the definition of life. See when the constitution was written, they had no idea of the biology of human life. When does a human life begin? That's debatable, but Roe v. Wade has been extended to late term abortions where the child is viable outside the womb.

Let's worry about when the government starts wanting to eliminate people.

[RealSchool]

Roe vs wade is based on the right to privacy you dope. Do you guys know anything????

WOW WOW WOW! So dumb.

[chriswebber]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm an engineer. But forgive me if this makes sense. If deem an embryo a human, it has the rights of a human. Lets see, if in Roe v. Wade we deem it privacy issue, we don't look at the actual problem. Besides, a court case can have different meanings on how it is viewed.