Ted Haggard

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ruppert,
I asked for an explanation.
You are very confused.
I don't think Haggard is a Muslim. Post a link if you can substantiate.
Is he a democrat? Post another link. Is it on Drudge report?
Do I create the news? Do you really think so?
Well, if you pm me and mail me a check to the address I'll provide, I'll certainly move any mountain you ask me to, cure all of your diseases, and have food fall out of the sky to feed you.
Just keep believing.
Money orders only, please. Give as big as you ask for. I'll provide the address.
NOW! Everyone raise your hands before you fall to your knees and then start digging for your wallet.
PRAISE to the Pharisees!

The guy is not a muslim. That's not what I said. I said that if he was a Muslim and a democrat, you would probably criticize the story. You would attack the messenger. But since he is Christian and probably a republican, you think it's a newsworthy story.

No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The guy is not a muslim. That's not what I said. I said that if he was a Muslim and a democrat, you would probably criticize the story. You would attack the messenger. But since he is Christian and probably a republican, you think it's a newsworthy story.

No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.

I never claimed that he was a Christian,
He did.
You did.

Jesus said, "You will know the tree by its fruits".

Correct me if I'm wrong, did Haggart have weekly access to the White House and speak with George W Bush on a frequent basis?
That's newsworthy.

Nice try.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I never claimed that he was a Christian,
He did.
You did.

Jesus said, "You will know the tree by its fruits".

Correct me if I'm wrong, did Haggart have weekly access to the White House and spead with George W Bush on a frequent basis?
That's newsworthy.

Nice try.

I know you didn't claim he was a Christian but you knew he was. That is why you posted the story. If he was a Muslim, you would have never posted the article.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Hey DTS, What are you going to rant about once a democrat gets back in the White House? I think a democrat will win the White House in either 2008 or 2012. Once that happens, you will have nothing to talk about. What did you complain about in the 1990s?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Hey DTS, What are you going to rant about once a democrat gets back in the White House? I think a democrat will win the White House in either 2008 or 2012. Once that happens, you will have nothing to talk about. What did you complain about in the 1990s?

Price of Gas? An old reliable if there ever was one.

Also, Polytrack!

It's really hard to sort through the junk in the news or what seems to be passing for news these days, especially during election season. I vote based on issues instead of any straight ticket. It's actually very tough work to get a firm understanding of candidate positions.

I thnk it's real unfortunate politicians are getting brought down by what anyone reasonable would term a personal matter. But that's the way it is.

You can count on two things. First, negative campaigning stinks, but works. And the other is that Americans hate wars. I read that in the election following Pearl Harbor, FDR's party lost 45 seats in Congress. That amazed me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Price of Gas? An old reliable if there ever was one.

Also, Polytrack!

It's really hard to sort through the junk in the news or what seems to be passing for news these days, especially during election season. I vote based on issues instead of any straight ticket. It's actually very tough work to get a firm understanding of candidate positions.

I thnk it's real unfortunate politicians are getting brought down by what anyone reasonable would term a personal matter. But that's the way it is.

You can count on two things. First, negative campaigning stinks, but works. And the other is that Americans hate wars. I read that in the election following Pearl Harbor, FDR's party lost 45 seats in Congress. That amazed me.

not just americans hate it--churchill lost his first election after winning ww 2.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Price of Gas? An old reliable if there ever was one.

Also, Polytrack!

It's really hard to sort through the junk in the news or what seems to be passing for news these days, especially during election season. I vote based on issues instead of any straight ticket. It's actually very tough work to get a firm understanding of candidate positions.

I thnk it's real unfortunate politicians are getting brought down by what anyone reasonable would term a personal matter. But that's the way it is.

You can count on two things. First, negative campaigning stinks, but works. And the other is that Americans hate wars. I read that in the election following Pearl Harbor, FDR's party lost 45 seats in Congress. That amazed me.

The price of gas has come way down. In Los Angeles, we were paying as much as $3.70 a gallon. Now the price is down to about $2.30.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The price of gas has come way down. In Los Angeles, we were paying as much as $3.70 a gallon. Now the price is down to about $2.30.

1.92 in little rock....what a nasty place. still hovering just above $2 here.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The price of gas has come way down. In Los Angeles, we were paying as much as $3.70 a gallon. Now the price is down to about $2.30.

about $2.20 in so. florida. it's interesting that a gallon of gas is no more expensive than a half gallon of milk.

[Downthestretch55]

Rupert,
Your words:
"I don't think anyone really cares about the stuff that DTS brings up".
Seems to me that you've spent a bit of time today discussing same.
So, are you creating a lie about me, denying what you've said, or do you have some other excuse for avoiding the truth of which I speak?
I await your response.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Your words:
"I don't think anyone really cares about the stuff that DTS brings up".
Seems to me that you've spent a bit of time today discussing same.
So, are you creating a lie about me, denying what you've said, or do you have some other excuse for avoiding the truth of which I speak?
I await your response.
DTS

I don't think my posts are that confusing but I guess they are because you don't seem to understand anything that I post. I was talking about the lack of WMDs, the faulty intelligence, your assertion that Bush lied, and that type of thing. That is what I was talking about. I was saying that I don't think most Americnas cared about that stuff. The only thing they care about is that Americans are dying and the war does not seem to be going our way. They don't care about whether there were WMDs or not.

I hope this post was more clear.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know you didn't claim he was a Christian but you knew he was. That is why you posted the story. If he was a Muslim, you would have never posted the article.

Rupert,
You're really reaching on this one.
How in HELL do you know I would never have posted the article?
Do you speak with Miss Cleo on a frequent basis? Or do you have telepathic powers to read my mind?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
You're really reaching on this one.
How in HELL do you know I would never have posted the article?
Do you speak with Miss Cleo on a frequent basis? Or do you have telepathic powers to read my mind?

Who does Miss Cleo like tomorrow?

I can't get through to Dionne Warwick!

... congrats on your son's accomplishments! attaboy ... way to go ... keep up the good work ...

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Who does Miss Cleo like tomorrow?

I can't get through to Dionne Warwick!

... congrats on your son's accomplishments! attaboy ... way to go ... keep up the good work ...

S2S,
I don't talk to Mis Cleo, Rupert does.
I don't think Dionne Warwick is running in anything, but if she is, I'd tell her to watch out for Pine Island. Ugly but fast. Cash a big one!
Thanks for your congrats about my son.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
You're really reaching on this one.
How in HELL do you know I would never have posted the article?
Do you speak with Miss Cleo on a frequent basis? Or do you have telepathic powers to read my mind?

Because I see the stuff that you post. You post stuff that fits your agenda. I don't see you posting stuff that doesn't fit your agenda. Any article that is a negative for republicans or Christians would be something that you would be likely to post. There would be no reason for you to post an article that made a democrat or a Muslim look bad.

Would you have posted the article if it was about a Muslim Imam who was caught in a homosexual relationship? I highly doubt it.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Because I see the stuff that you post. You post stuff that fits your agenda. I don't see you posting stuff that doesn't fit your agenda. Any article that is a negative for republicans or Christians would be something that you would be likely to post. There would be no reason for you to post an article that made a democrat or a Muslim look bad.

Would you have posted the article if it was about a Muslim Imam who was caught in a homosexual relationship? I highly doubt it.

Rupert,
Come on now!
Do you post things that fit your agenda?
For your information...I AM a Christian. I worship the Prince of Peace.
Your "trash talk" is getting old.
I am also NOT a democrat. Ask Timm. I'm independent.
Enough about me.
I don't need to ask you to define yourself. You've already proven it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Come on now!
Do you post things that fit your agenda?
For your information...I AM a Christian. I worship the Prince of Peace.
Your "trash talk" is getting old.
I am also NOT a democrat. Ask Timm. I'm independent.
Enough about me.
I don't need to ask you to define yourself. You've already proven it.

I admit that I usually post things that fit my agenda. I posted the article about Braswell to remind people about how dishonest and unethical Clinton was. I admit it.

However, I am not like you guys when it comes to thinking that any article that knocks my guys must not be true, and any article that knocks your guys must be true, no matter what the source.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Come on now!
Do you post things that fit your agenda?
For your information...I AM a Christian. I worship the Prince of Peace.
Your "trash talk" is getting old.
I am also NOT a democrat. Ask Timm. I'm independent.
Enough about me.
I don't need to ask you to define yourself. You've already proven it.

dts, just for my sake...what is it that you find makes you an independant, and not a democrat? just out of curiosity.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The guy is not a muslim. That's not what I said. I said that if he was a Muslim and a democrat, you would probably criticize the story. You would attack the messenger. But since he is Christian and probably a republican, you think it's a newsworthy story.

No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.

This quote is why I hopped into the debate, RP. No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS. ) I wanted to hop into the discussion.

Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com:

<<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority

Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along.

Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things."

The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course."

Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never."

Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section.

So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >>

That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This quote is why I hopped into the debate, RP. No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS. ) I wanted to hop into the discussion.

Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com:

<<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority

Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along.

Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things."

The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course."

Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never."

Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section.

So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >>

That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.

Of all the abortions that are done in the US, what percentage of them are done to save a woman's life? I don't know the answer but my guess is that the number is extremely low. I doubt it's higher than 1% or 2%. O'Reilly probably should have used the word "rarely" rather than "never".

I don't know how you can make the accusation that O'Reilly is encoraging terrorists by criticizing abortion. You have always scoffed at that argument when conservatives make that argument about opponents of Presidnet Bush and the war.