Just a reminder

[Bottomfeeder 244]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiZ-TqvVdGM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81TC6RloI9M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE2fPjskYG8

[AURaptor 1,126]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I was actually going to say something about this the other day. There seems to be an awful lot of posting of links, articles and such without commentary serving as political debate. That's not discussion, that's drive by appeals to authority. And both sides here are guilty of it.

Things would be a lot more interesting if everyone on both sides would resort to posting links only when facts are in dispute and reserve the bulk of their post for their own honest observations and views. All the current method seems to be doing is driving up the banner ad rates for the sites linked.

[LegalEagle 22]

I was actually going to say something about this the other day. There seems to be an awful lot of posting of links, articles and such without commentary serving as political debate. That's not discussion, that's drive by appeals to authority. And both sides here are guilty of it.

Things would be a lot more interesting if everyone on both sides would resort to posting links only when facts are in dispute and reserve the bulk of their post for their own honest observations and views. All the current method seems to be doing is driving up the banner ad rates for the sites linked.

Yeah right. You say "War Eagle" on here and 10 posters demand "link."

Bush and Republicans baaaaadddddd; Democrats not quite as baaaaaadddddd. No link, just reality.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

[Tiger Al 0]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

Then, by all means, go do them.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I was actually going to say something about this the other day. There seems to be an awful lot of posting of links, articles and such without commentary serving as political debate. That's not discussion, that's drive by appeals to authority. And both sides here are guilty of it.

Things would be a lot more interesting if everyone on both sides would resort to posting links only when facts are in dispute and reserve the bulk of their post for their own honest observations and views. All the current method seems to be doing is driving up the banner ad rates for the sites linked.

Yeah right. You say "War Eagle" on here and 10 posters demand "link."

Bush and Republicans baaaaadddddd; Democrats not quite as baaaaaadddddd. No link, just reality.

If you're posting something that you expect everyone to take as fact, that's fine, post a link. I guess what I'm getting at are the propaganda pieces and op-eds that everyone seems so fond of posting as if that suffices as a real argument. Frankly, I don't give a crap what the writers for Townhall.com, National Review, Daily Kos and so on think...at least not enough that simply posting one of their columns every other day is worth anything.

I just think that on a subject as important as politics and political worldviews, it would be better and far more interesting if people engaged the issues on their own terms instead of merely parroting the views of Cal Thomas or Molly Ivins and their ilk. If you want to make a case for something and require some proof, sure, supplement your points with links to objective facts. But if I want to read the opinions of professional writers, I know all the links and can find them myself.

[quietfan 233]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

So does that include the SIX threads I count right now on just page one started by TigerMike with only a link and someone else's article? Personally, I have no problem with his right to post, I just pretty much ignore those posts until an interesting debate develops around them. If I merely want to read conservative websites and/or journals, I can go directly to the source(s). In this sense, I agree with Raptor--I hardly ever follow links or pay attention to threads that are nothing but a reposting of some talking head's opinion. Now news articles (reporting of facts) [vs. op/ed pieces (reporting of opinion)] are a different story.

[Again, TM--not challenging your right to post, nor do I have any beef with you as a person and fellow Auburn fan. ...Just saying I don't pay much attention to a post that's nothing but a direct pasting of some conservative's op/ed piece, particularly when it's one of many every day. To be honest, if someone hit me with 4, 5, 6 or more liberal editorials daily I'd probably start ignoring most of them also.]

[LegalEagle 22]

I was actually going to say something about this the other day. There seems to be an awful lot of posting of links, articles and such without commentary serving as political debate. That's not discussion, that's drive by appeals to authority. And both sides here are guilty of it.

Things would be a lot more interesting if everyone on both sides would resort to posting links only when facts are in dispute and reserve the bulk of their post for their own honest observations and views. All the current method seems to be doing is driving up the banner ad rates for the sites linked.

Yeah right. You say "War Eagle" on here and 10 posters demand "link."

Bush and Republicans baaaaadddddd; Democrats not quite as baaaaaadddddd. No link, just reality.

If you're posting something that you expect everyone to take as fact, that's fine, post a link. I guess what I'm getting at are the propaganda pieces and op-eds that everyone seems so fond of posting as if that suffices as a real argument. Frankly, I don't give a crap what the writers for Townhall.com, National Review, Daily Kos and so on think...at least not enough that simply posting one of their columns every other day is worth anything.

I just think that on a subject as important as politics and political worldviews, it would be better and far more interesting if people engaged the issues on their own terms instead of merely parroting the views of Cal Thomas or Molly Ivins and their ilk. If you want to make a case for something and require some proof, sure, supplement your points with links to objective facts. But if I want to read the opinions of professional writers, I know all the links and can find them myself.

Geez, I hope you are not trying to limit this forum to independent thought. ~Thinkin' there will be lots of short threads ~ - Mmmmm, can they post blank pages to lengthen the thread?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I was actually going to say something about this the other day. There seems to be an awful lot of posting of links, articles and such without commentary serving as political debate. That's not discussion, that's drive by appeals to authority. And both sides here are guilty of it.

Things would be a lot more interesting if everyone on both sides would resort to posting links only when facts are in dispute and reserve the bulk of their post for their own honest observations and views. All the current method seems to be doing is driving up the banner ad rates for the sites linked.

Yeah right. You say "War Eagle" on here and 10 posters demand "link."

Bush and Republicans baaaaadddddd; Democrats not quite as baaaaaadddddd. No link, just reality.

If you're posting something that you expect everyone to take as fact, that's fine, post a link. I guess what I'm getting at are the propaganda pieces and op-eds that everyone seems so fond of posting as if that suffices as a real argument. Frankly, I don't give a crap what the writers for Townhall.com, National Review, Daily Kos and so on think...at least not enough that simply posting one of their columns every other day is worth anything.

I just think that on a subject as important as politics and political worldviews, it would be better and far more interesting if people engaged the issues on their own terms instead of merely parroting the views of Cal Thomas or Molly Ivins and their ilk. If you want to make a case for something and require some proof, sure, supplement your points with links to objective facts. But if I want to read the opinions of professional writers, I know all the links and can find them myself.

Geez, I hope you are not trying to limit this forum to independent thought. ~Thinkin' there will be lots of short threads ~ - Mmmmm, can they post blank pages to lengthen the thread?

Yeah, I'm just enough of a nutty idealist to think that the people here are capable of more than they usually demonstrate.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So does that include the SIX threads I count right now on just page one started by TigerMike with only a link and someone else's article? Personally, I have no problem with his right to post, I just pretty much ignore those posts until an interesting debate develops around them. If I merely want to read conservative websites and/or journals, I can go directly to the source(s). In this sense, I agree with Raptor--I hardly ever follow links or pay attention to threads that are nothing but a reposting of some talking head's opinion. Now news articles (reporting of facts) [vs. op/ed pieces (reporting of opinion)] are a different story.

[Again, TM--not challenging your right to post, nor do I have any beef with you as a person and fellow Auburn fan. ...Just saying I don't pay much attention to a post that's nothing but a direct pasting of some conservative's op/ed piece, particularly when it's one of many every day. To be honest, if someone hit me with 4, 5, 6 or more liberal editorials daily I'd probably start ignoring most of them also.]

I've not read those links, but at least TigerMike has demonstrated his ability to have an original thought and to converse in a mature, reasoned manner, unlike BF. And I've never challenged anyone's RIGHT to post, I just pointed out that BF's childish banter and purely antagonistic posts aren't worthy of my time.

At least we can agree that any post which includes nothing more than a link is far less interesting than one's where the posters have taken the time to at least set up the link and put the issue into some sort of context.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Okay, the above link illustrates the insanity of war. Doing the same things expecting different results.

The one below link is an example the ignorance of Republican representatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiZ-TqvVdGM

This link is a link showing Scarborough Country (you know Joe Scarborough, the ex-congressman) and Bushisms. In other words we have to laugh at this president to hide the pain of his administration. The White House has been occupied by a downright moron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81TC6RloI9M

This link is one that comedian imitating Dubya. Funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE2fPjskYG8

[AURaptor 1,126]

The White House has been occupied by a downright moron.

...... who is still smarter, if only by a little, than John F Kerry. Guess we made the right choice, of the two.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Since my Dem leaning friends here on the Forum cant seem to decipher how most of the Conservatives feel about those guys in Washington. Let me try once more in very simple terms.

1) Probably most of us think the War in Iraq was in reality not justified. However, the intelligence was overwhelming according to the CIA, EU, Brits, etc, etc. Hell Kerry, Hillary, etc all saw it and said the same things. Yes, we should have listened to Blix, Hindsight is always 20/20. Saddam should just have made the inspections beleivable and then shut up. At the point it happened, we had 17 Resolutions that were doing nothing with Saddam. We also had the "Oil for Food" SCANDAL where Saddam had bought the French and Russian govts AND Annan's family members and much of the UN as well. It was NOT ALL BUSH"S FAULT by a long shot.

2) Bush is a graduate of Yale and Harvard Business School. One would have to forever look at a Harvard Business school Masters as tainted by Bush. He is not the sharpest tool in any shed. He is not as dumb as some would have you believe, but he is his father's son no doubt. I never supported Bush 41. I always thought 41 was too wishy washy. Knowing what I do now about 43, I would not vote with him again. 43 has been a complete sell out for whatever incredibly stupid money spending spree is going on in Washington and most Conservatives I know could never support him again because of it. No vetoes of huge spending bills? WTH is up with that?

Some part of 43 being elected was the two absolute dolts the Dems ran against him. Gore was in slow meltdown from day one and never recovered. The day he had to rehash his complete campaign structure and remove Coelho was the day I knew he would not win. Who in his right mind makes a guy with Coelho's notoriously bad track record with public funds a campaign manager? Criminal Land Deals (like Reid's BTW) removed him from office. Criminal fraud of public funds were about to put him in an ugly long trial fight over funds missing from the World's Fair Mission he oversaw. Right when Gore should have been leading by miles, he was having to start from scratch with brand new campaign leadership. Again, what idiot would ever have picked Coelho? The same man that replaced him with a Daley, the leading Democratic family connected with campaign fraud. Number Two in the Gore campaign was Brazille, probably the number two in Democratic circles for campaign frauds she has acknowledged and pulled off, hells brags about. Her best quote? "Give me 24 hours and I can have 4000 votes in any precinct in the country."

Kerry proved to be the perfect buffoon for Rove's ploys. Kerry is a man with no discernible record after 20 plus years in the Senate, and a man with no discernible spine when it comes to ideas. He is the Nation's leading flip-flopper. Even Chris Matthews recently bloodily challenged him for his newest 180 degree flip-flop on his show.

3) We have to stay in Iraq for some time, hopefully less than a year. Bush has gotten us into a war we cant be in right now. We have Iran and Korea to worry about now. We need the troops freed up for them far more than

4) Iraq is developing into a civil war and Iran will be a victor to some extent no matter what. The situation on the ground is not very stable and well likely not get any better.

Having said all that:

1) Get rid of ALL the CINOs in 2006.

2) Vote in real fiscal Conservatives in 2008.

3) Grin and bear the rest of this Presidency.

4) Hope for something better in 2008.

[Tigermike 3,055]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

Then, by all means, go do them.

Want the conservatives to leave huh Al? As normal you stick close to the party line. Part of the dims agenda in this election has been to dissuade conservatives to vote.

For the most part, the media tell Americans that voting is important, a cherished right for which others have fought and died. The right to vote has been expanded numerous times throughout our nation’s history to include groups once disenfranchised, but now there appears to be a coordinated effort by the dems and the media, to dissuade a certain segment of Americans from voting. Some on the Left are using the Mark Foley scandal to hopefully suppress turnout of conservative Christians. The Media Research Center noted that reporting on this sex scandal by the former Republican member of Congress is running at an 8-to-1 ratio over the conviction of a former Democrat member of Congress for sexual assault against a minor. In many stories, reporters editorialize on how the Foley affair will keep Christians away from the polls. Wishful, hopeful thinking? You guys have been very sneaky with your voter repression strategy. You know there is nothing that will cause conservative Christians to vote for the dems and even if they did, there is no where in the dim party they would be welcome.

[Tiger Al 0]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

Then, by all means, go do them.

Want the conservatives to leave huh Al? As normal you stick close to the party line. Part of the dims agenda in this election has been to dissuade conservatives to vote.

For the most part, the media tell Americans that voting is important, a cherished right for which others have fought and died. The right to vote has been expanded numerous times throughout our nation’s history to include groups once disenfranchised, but now there appears to be a coordinated effort by the dems and the media, to dissuade a certain segment of Americans from voting. Some on the Left are using the Mark Foley scandal to hopefully suppress turnout of conservative Christians. The Media Research Center noted that reporting on this sex scandal by the former Republican member of Congress is running at an 8-to-1 ratio over the conviction of a former Democrat member of Congress for sexual assault against a minor. In many stories, reporters editorialize on how the Foley affair will keep Christians away from the polls. Wishful, hopeful thinking? You guys have been very sneaky with your voter repression strategy. You know there is nothing that will cause conservative Christians to vote for the dems and even if they did, there is no where in the dim party they would be welcome.

Sounds like it's...medication time!

I'll give you this, though; You are one of the greatest strawman builders I've ever seen.

[Tigermike 3,055]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

Then, by all means, go do them.

Want the conservatives to leave huh Al? As normal you stick close to the party line. Part of the dims agenda in this election has been to dissuade conservatives to vote.

For the most part, the media tell Americans that voting is important, a cherished right for which others have fought and died. The right to vote has been expanded numerous times throughout our nation’s history to include groups once disenfranchised, but now there appears to be a coordinated effort by the dems and the media, to dissuade a certain segment of Americans from voting. Some on the Left are using the Mark Foley scandal to hopefully suppress turnout of conservative Christians. The Media Research Center noted that reporting on this sex scandal by the former Republican member of Congress is running at an 8-to-1 ratio over the conviction of a former Democrat member of Congress for sexual assault against a minor. In many stories, reporters editorialize on how the Foley affair will keep Christians away from the polls. Wishful, hopeful thinking? You guys have been very sneaky with your voter repression strategy. You know there is nothing that will cause conservative Christians to vote for the dems and even if they did, there is no where in the dim party they would be welcome.

Sounds like it's...medication time!

I'll give you this, though; You are one of the greatest strawman builders I've ever seen.

Yes it is and you shouldn't take any chances and miss any more.

If you are calling the dims straw men,,,,,,,,,,,, we agree.

[AURaptor 1,126]

If you can't post anything other than 'links', you've got nothing to say, nothing to offer from your own mind. No sense in wasting my time surfing the net on someone elses agenda.

Funny how you rightwingers save these critiques for the links you don't like.

Nice try, but the same rule applies to all posters, right, left, middle. Tell me something about what you're trying to say, and I'll consider playing chase the link. Otherwise, I've got better things to do.

Then, by all means, go do them.

Oh, I've been doing them, make no mistake about that.