|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2008 10:06:02 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Attacks on Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain, Governor Palin, President Bush, VP Cheney, etc., even if published or televised, are exempt from libel/slander litigation, as they are "public figures". In that regard, anything is fair game. |
I am not informed enough to know if this is true. In Canada, it's certainly not true. The Prime Minister here issued suit for libel against the leader of the opposition, who made statments outside of the House of Commons, the only arena where exemption from libel is possible.
However, I wasn't concerned with either the media reporting on Obama, or other candidates' statements. I was only concerned with the empty insults, the genuine ad hominems, offered for consumption here by one crass and nakedly biased individual. As I said, feel free to align yourself with him if you like, and defend his language. Not everyone is comfortable doing so.
Originally posted by RonB:
MANY in the Rant forum have made vile accusations about President Bush, VP Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, etc. with no word of condemnation by you - so why would you expect me to respond to such accusations about Obama? |
Oh, I wouldn't, are you kidding?
Originally posted by RonB:
3) A lengthy discussion/debate about Catholicism and Christianity took place in another thread. To the best of my knowledge, NO-ONE in that thread EVER said that Catholics ( people ) were not Christians ( people ). They DID maintain that the tenets of Catholicism ( the ideology ) were at odds with the tenets of Christianity ( the ideology ). |
Just to clean this up, this is a red herring. Catholicism is comprised of individuals who follow the tenets of Catholicism. Catholicism is comprised of individuals who call themselves Catholic. If you say, "Catholicism is not Christianity," you are saying, "Catholics, who follow the tenets of Catholicism, are not Christians." It would be intellectually dishonest to argue this point any other way. If I say, "The Democratic Party is not Republican, but that's not to say that Democrats aren't Republicans," you would think I was an idiot.
Originally posted by RonB:
You are certainly entitled to your views - but as I stated in another thread, when you DO make your personal views known, and we compare the expression of those views to your stated cautions about posting in these threads, you DO run the risk of exposing yourself as being hypocritical. |
There is a world of difference between this thread and the debates elsewhere on this site. Other debates are genuine arguments. The opening salvo here was intentionally provactive and insulting. The responses, including mine, were in kind. My "advice" post concerned debate. If I say in another thread, "Please debate intelligently and leave personal feelings out of it," that does not preclude me from ever having or communicating personal feelings in other places, particularly in a true Rant where the order of conversation does not entail dialectic, but is rather about who can lowball the most. If you see hypocrisy in this, I suppose that's your prerogative, but it's a skewed perspective, and I find it difficult to understand why you're pursuing this. Regardless, I won't stop having opinions or voicing disgust where it needs it, just because I expect you and everyone else to behave civilly. Something does not compute.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 10:28:55 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scientists who support the Theory of Evolution ARE feces-flinging sub-humans - or at least they Evolved from feces-flinging sub-humans, if the Theory they support is anywhere close to being true :-). |
Your theory has them coming from dust. Why is theirs more far-fetched? |
Because theirs does not provide for any "intelligence" behind the existence of something as complex as RNA, let alone DNA, and certainly no provision for anything as complex as the audacity of "hope" ( pun intended ). When the Theory of Evolution can be used to explain a scientific, purely genetic reason for "hope" or "faith", then I may have cause to reconsider my position. Frankly, I don't see that happening. |
rofl
__________________________
Ronb, why are we playing a comparison game here? I never compared the US with Canada and I don't see why you are here, unless you want this thread to take another turn. You're wasting your time. This thread was started by someone who had other intentions than talking economics. Now let's get back to the subject of Obama being a loser.
Message edited by author 2008-09-02 10:36:31. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 03:25:48 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Ronb, why are we playing a comparison game here? I never compared the US with Canada and I don't see why you are here, unless you want this thread to take another turn. You're wasting your time. This thread was started by someone who had other intentions than talking economics. Now let's get back to the subject of Obama being a loser. |
I'd be glad to. For what it's worth, I would never have even thought of posting about the economics of Canada vs. those of the U.S. if YOU hadn't introduced the topic to denigrate my country when you said:
Originally posted by Jac on 08/31/2008 at 09:55:34:
"I hope for your country that Obama gets elected. Another 4 years of recession, high energy costs that show absolutely no signs of letting up, higher than normal inflation, housing market collapse (please don't tell me this wasn't partly Bush's fault), your automobile industry, etc. Your country is in deep shit and it's not because of Clinton!" |
( emphasis mine )
Note that the terms that I highlighted are all terms used in economics and were introduced by YOU.
I made the comparison to Canada because I AM from the U.S.A, a country that I maintain is NOT in "deep shit" any more than is Canada - your country ( unless your profile is misleading ).
YOU could have dropped the topic after my first rebuttal, but YOU insisted on posting additional links.
As long as some folks feel that it's OK to take the thread off-topic to denigrate my country, I will feel entitled to respond and rebut those charges.
Feel free to ignore this response - and get back on topic. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 04:28:35 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Jac:
Ronb, why are we playing a comparison game here? I never compared the US with Canada and I don't see why you are here, unless you want this thread to take another turn. You're wasting your time. This thread was started by someone who had other intentions than talking economics. Now let's get back to the subject of Obama being a loser. |
I'd be glad to. For what it's worth, I would never have even thought of posting about the economics of Canada vs. those of the U.S. if YOU hadn't introduced the topic to denigrate my country when you said:
Originally posted by Jac on 08/31/2008 at 09:55:34:
"I hope for your country that Obama gets elected. Another 4 years of recession, high energy costs that show absolutely no signs of letting up, higher than normal inflation, housing market collapse (please don't tell me this wasn't partly Bush's fault), your automobile industry, etc. Your country is in deep shit and it's not because of Clinton!" |
( emphasis mine )
Note that the terms that I highlighted are all terms used in economics and were introduced by YOU.
I made the comparison to Canada because I AM from the U.S.A, a country that I maintain is NOT in "deep shit" any more than is Canada - your country ( unless your profile is misleading ).
YOU could have dropped the topic after my first rebuttal, but YOU insisted on posting additional links.
As long as some folks feel that it's OK to take the thread off-topic to denigrate my country, I will feel entitled to respond and rebut those charges.
Feel free to ignore this response - and get back on topic. |
Our country IS in deep shit.
Just like I would be in deep shit if I ran up my debt with credit cards and loans.
How you can't see that, I don't know, unless you have your head stuck where the sun don't shine or are one of those wealthy and fortunate enough to be a crony of this administration. In the former case, I'd advise you to pull your head out, in the latter, I'm sure you just don't care as long as the cash keeps filling your pockets.
In any event, I don't know why you think pointing out the fiscal irresponsibility of our country's leadership is "denigrating" to our country, but evidently you do. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 05:35:35 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Our country IS in deep shit.
Just like I would be in deep shit if I ran up my debt with credit cards and loans.
How you can't see that, I don't know, unless you have your head stuck where the sun don't shine or are one of those wealthy and fortunate enough to be a crony of this administration. In the former case, I'd advise you to pull your head out, in the latter, I'm sure you just don't care as long as the cash keeps filling your pockets.
In any event, I don't know why you think pointing out the fiscal irresponsibility of our country's leadership is "denigrating" to our country, but evidently you do. |
From the profile of Spazmo99
Cameras:
Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Canon EOS-10D
Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital
Lenses:
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon
If your profile is anywhere near accurate, I find it quite amusing that you would have the gall to call ANYONE "wealthy and fortunate enough". From what I can see, I would be of the opinion that a majority of folks who hang around DPC would consider themselves "wealthy and fortunate" to have just ONE of those EOS Digital Cameras with just ONE of those lenses.
And, for the record, the fiscal irresponsibility rests on the shoulders of the financial institutions and the consumers - not the administration.
I bet you blame the McDonalds Board of Directors for the country's obesity problem, too. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 06:09:56 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, for the record, the fiscal irresponsibility rests on the shoulders of the financial institutions and the consumers - not the administration. |
Financial institutions and consumers didn't spend $3 Trillion on Iraq. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 06:32:47 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
And, for the record, the fiscal irresponsibility rests on the shoulders of the financial institutions and the consumers - not the administration. |
Financial institutions and consumers didn't spend $3 Trillion on Iraq. |
That was a fiscally responsible investment. It enriched their defense contractor and energy industry friends, who in turn will provide them with lucrative posts once they get out of office. That's why there's no recession, silly. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 08:45:33 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
And, for the record, the fiscal irresponsibility rests on the shoulders of the financial institutions and the consumers - not the administration. |
Financial institutions and consumers didn't spend $3 Trillion on Iraq. |
A measly THREE trillion? That's nothing.
Consumer debt ( revolving credit and mortgages ) in the U.S., at the end of 2007 was more than FOUR TIMES that amount - a whopping THIRTEEN trillion dollars. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 08:47:28 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Our country IS in deep shit.
Just like I would be in deep shit if I ran up my debt with credit cards and loans.
How you can't see that, I don't know, unless you have your head stuck where the sun don't shine or are one of those wealthy and fortunate enough to be a crony of this administration. In the former case, I'd advise you to pull your head out, in the latter, I'm sure you just don't care as long as the cash keeps filling your pockets.
In any event, I don't know why you think pointing out the fiscal irresponsibility of our country's leadership is "denigrating" to our country, but evidently you do. |
From the profile of Spazmo99
Cameras:
Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Canon EOS-10D
Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital
Lenses:
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon
If your profile is anywhere near accurate, I find it quite amusing that you would have the gall to call ANYONE "wealthy and fortunate enough". From what I can see, I would be of the opinion that a majority of folks who hang around DPC would consider themselves "wealthy and fortunate" to have just ONE of those EOS Digital Cameras with just ONE of those lenses.
And, for the record, the fiscal irresponsibility rests on the shoulders of the financial institutions and the consumers - not the administration.
I bet you blame the McDonalds Board of Directors for the country's obesity problem, too. |
Really???
The financial institutions and consumers wrote and are writing the checks for trillions to pay for a middle east quagmire in Iraq?
They probably are also to blame for the largest growth in the Federal Government in history too right?
Since when?
You've just confirmed that you do indeed have your head stuck. Now, put both hands and feet on your butt and push. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:42:06 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The financial institutions and consumers wrote and are writing the checks for trillions to pay for a middle east quagmire in Iraq?
They probably are also to blame for the largest growth in the Federal Government in history too right?
Since when? |
Gentlemen, PLEASE...Jac has made a request...
Originally posted by Jac:
This thread was started by someone who had other intentions than talking economics. Now let's get back to the subject of Obama being a loser. |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:57:52 PM · #211 |
As posted by the SC can we keep this somewhere on target and give the personal attack a rest and yes I am refering to where everyones heads seem to be....
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Our country IS in deep shit.
Just like I would be in deep shit if I ran up my debt with credit cards and loans.
How you can't see that, I don't know, unless you have your head stuck where the sun don't shine or are one of those wealthy and fortunate enough to be a crony of this administration. In the former case, I'd advise you to pull your head out, in the latter, I'm sure you just don't care as long as the cash keeps filling your pockets.
In any event, I don't know why you think pointing out the fiscal irresponsibility of our country's leadership is "denigrating" to our country, but evidently you do. |
From the profile of Spazmo99
Cameras:
Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Canon EOS-10D
Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital
Lenses:
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon
If your profile is anywhere near accurate, I find it quite amusing that you would have the gall to call ANYONE "wealthy and fortunate enough". From what I can see, I would be of the opinion that a majority of folks who hang around DPC would consider themselves "wealthy and fortunate" to have just ONE of those EOS Digital Cameras with just ONE of those lenses.
And, for the record, the fiscal irresponsibility rests on the shoulders of the financial institutions and the consumers - not the administration.
I bet you blame the McDonalds Board of Directors for the country's obesity problem, too. |
Really???
The financial institutions and consumers wrote and are writing the checks for trillions to pay for a middle east quagmire in Iraq?
They probably are also to blame for the largest growth in the Federal Government in history too right?
Since when?
You've just confirmed that you do indeed have your head stuck. Now, put both hands and feet on your butt and push. |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 10:07:20 PM · #212 |
From Senator Obama's interview with Anderson Cooper ( CNN ) ( Read the transcript here:
"COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question -- your -- some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.
What's your response?
OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year.
You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.
So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years."
There you have it. Senator Obama seems to think that being the head of a $432 million a year ( if one extrapolates his 1-month estimate into a full year ) campaign with 2,500 "employees" is equivalent to or better than Governor Palin's being the head of a $5.5 BILLION a year state government with 15 THOUSAND employees.
Message edited by L2 - Locked without bumping.. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:08:59 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/04/2025 05:08:59 PM EDT.
|
