Yellow journalism never dies

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1220

(03-06-2010 08:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yellow journalism never dies

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1220

I NEVER see you say that about Faux News.

As for the article, what isn't true? He is being a dick about the abortion issue and is refusing to vote for it unless it puts his abortion wording into it because he doesn't want tax money going for abortions. Probelm is, THE LAW ALREADY STATES THEY CAN'T!

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

(03-06-2010 01:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet.

I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

(03-06-2010 01:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

I am glad you have an open mind like most Repugs(ie. closed).

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

(03-07-2010 01:01 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

What makes you think those two concepts can be separated?

http://www.discovery.org/a/14131

(03-07-2010 07:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 01:01 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

What makes you think those two concepts can be separated?

http://www.discovery.org/a/14131

Fiscal conservatives can survive and thrive without social conservatives, but social conservatives can't survive in any politically meaningful way without fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatism stretches across parties (and those without party). Social conservatism has a much more limited appeal.

Isn't the Discovery Institute a major purveyor of Intelligent Design and other creationist nonsense?

(03-07-2010 08:07 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 07:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 01:01 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

What makes you think those two concepts can be separated?

http://www.discovery.org/a/14131

Fiscal conservatives can survive and thrive without social conservatives, but social conservatives can't survive in any politically meaningful way without fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatism stretches across parties (and those without party). Social conservatism has a much more limited appeal.

Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

Quote:Isn't the Discovery Institute a major purveyor of Intelligent Design and other creationist nonsense?

Well, as long as you come in with a willingness to listen.

(03-07-2010 08:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

You offered someone else's opinion in place of your own. That's not an "open source for evidence". And that someone else is part of the group that would lose all political relevance if the fiscal conservatives split. That gives them strong incentive to concoct an argument trying to keep fiscal conservatives from leaving. Given that incentive and their history of advocating for ridiculous positions like having non-scientific philosophies taught as valid scientific theory in classrooms across the country, I don't put much faith in their thoughts.

As for my "evidence", you need only look at the history of the GOP. We survived as a party of fiscal responsibility for many decades while the social conservatives inhabited the other party. We were a better party then, and hopefully we will be again.

(03-07-2010 08:28 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

You offered someone else's opinion in place of your own.

No I didn't. That is my opinion. I simply offered a source for evidence that would allow people to refer to the same page.

Seriously dude, you're pretty whiny, and don't really add a whole lot of thought to things.

Quote: Given that incentive and their history of advocating for ridiculous positions like having non-scientific philosophies taught as valid scientific theory in classrooms across the country, I don't put much faith in their thoughts.

No one asked for your "faith". As for science vs non-science, I hear that from a lot of people who don't have a clue. If you do happen to know something, please feel free finally to share that at some point.

(03-07-2010 08:45 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:28 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

You offered someone else's opinion in place of your own.

No I didn't. That is my opinion. I simply offered a source for evidence that would allow people to refer to the same page.

Seriously dude, you're pretty whiny, and don't really add a whole lot of thought to things.

Quote: Given that incentive and their history of advocating for ridiculous positions like having non-scientific philosophies taught as valid scientific theory in classrooms across the country, I don't put much faith in their thoughts.

No one asked for your "faith". As for science vs non-science, I hear that from a lot of people who don't have a clue. If you do happen to know something, please feel free finally to share that at some point.

I apologize. I didn't realize you were linking to your own work. I thought you were just being lazy and using other people's words in place of your own.

(03-07-2010 08:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:07 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 07:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 01:01 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

What makes you think those two concepts can be separated?

http://www.discovery.org/a/14131

Fiscal conservatives can survive and thrive without social conservatives, but social conservatives can't survive in any politically meaningful way without fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatism stretches across parties (and those without party). Social conservatism has a much more limited appeal.

Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

Quote:Isn't the Discovery Institute a major purveyor of Intelligent Design and other creationist nonsense?

Well, as long as you come in with a willingness to listen.

I can see what Gil is saying. Fiscal conservatism is being smart where business is concerned, which is favorable in anyone. Social conservatism is based off of personal opinion.

(03-07-2010 09:58 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:07 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 07:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 01:01 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

What makes you think those two concepts can be separated?

http://www.discovery.org/a/14131

Fiscal conservatives can survive and thrive without social conservatives, but social conservatives can't survive in any politically meaningful way without fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatism stretches across parties (and those without party). Social conservatism has a much more limited appeal.

Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

Quote:Isn't the Discovery Institute a major purveyor of Intelligent Design and other creationist nonsense?

Well, as long as you come in with a willingness to listen.

I can see what Gil is saying. Fiscal conservatism is being smart where business is concerned, which is favorable in anyone. Social conservatism is based off of personal opinion.

Fiscal conservatism is not favorable to me.

(03-07-2010 11:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism is not favorable to me.

Get off welfare and get a job.

(03-06-2010 02:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 01:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

I am glad you have an open mind like most Repugs(ie. closed).

Notice how Mach isn't on his ignore list, just you. You don't add intelligent conversation, just throw out insults, you argue like a child.

(03-07-2010 11:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 09:58 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 08:07 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 07:15 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 01:01 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm no social conservative, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This is the deal that fiscal conservatives have been willing to make for too many years. Just look where it's taken the GOP. I understand where you are coming from on this particular issue, but I want no association with the social conservatives.

What makes you think those two concepts can be separated?

http://www.discovery.org/a/14131

Fiscal conservatives can survive and thrive without social conservatives, but social conservatives can't survive in any politically meaningful way without fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatism stretches across parties (and those without party). Social conservatism has a much more limited appeal.

Talk is cheap.

I assert the reverse is true, and offer an open source for evidence.

Quote:Isn't the Discovery Institute a major purveyor of Intelligent Design and other creationist nonsense?

Well, as long as you come in with a willingness to listen.

I can see what Gil is saying. Fiscal conservatism is being smart where business is concerned, which is favorable in anyone. Social conservatism is based off of personal opinion.

Fiscal conservatism is not favorable to me.

Well I'm not going to pretend to know about your situation but I assume that it isn't that great. I've hard that you have the type of job that nobody wants and also lack many benefits.

I guess I learned from my father that if you remain somewhat conservative with your money in your personal and business life, you'll succeed or at least increase your chances at success because you'll always have a dollar. He also said that if you hate your living situation use your saved money to get your ass out of there and to new opportunity.

(03-08-2010 12:14 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 11:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Fiscal conservatism is not favorable to me.

Get off welfare and get a job.

I have a job and I am not on welfare. Otherwise, thanks for the tip. :)

(03-08-2010 12:35 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 02:36 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(03-06-2010 01:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

I am glad you have an open mind like most Repugs(ie. closed).

Notice how Mach isn't on his ignore list, just you. You don't add intelligent conversation, just throw out insults, you argue like a child.

I don't add intelligent conversation because those I am posting to aren't intelligent enough to understand intelligent conversation. We are talking about people who believe in Creationism and don't know the difference between "weather" and "climate". Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.