From: assimilate on

On 5-Sep-2009, "gray asphalt" <dontwrite(a)> wrote:

> Competency and morality are two different
> things.

Not when trust is part of the equation.

From: Dinosaur_Sr on
On Sep 6, 1:15 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:00:33 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> > On  6-Sep-2009, Carbon <nob...(a)> wrote:
> >> I do not care about Kennedy or Rangel. The discussion was whether
> >> Palin is capable of holding high public office, and she clearly is
> >> not.
> > I would say that as an elected Gov, your opinion didn't count much
> > there.
> Your equally irrelevant opinion is noted.

Yes, the people of Alaska are so much more stupid than enlightened
people like you. Of course you have never participated in any sort of
political campaign, nor run for any sort of political office; and thus
you would know, wouldn't you!
From: assimilate on

On 4-Sep-2009, "The moderator" <no_spam_(a)> wrote:

> Palin is scary, but not because of anything she does or believes in.
> The scary thing about Palin is that she has so many sycophantic
> followers who actually believe her bullshit and think she is qualified
> for anything besides making babies.
> **********************************************************
> So because the left fears the voting block she controls they demonize her?
> I think that is page two of the liberal handbook.

Rules for Radicals

From: assimilate on

On 4-Sep-2009, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)> wrote:

> >She is perceived by the left wing as so dangerous that anything she says
> >makes news. The left went into hyperdrive to destroy her when she was
> >added
> >to McCain's ticket. I personally don't understand what they see in her
> >that
> >is so threatening.
> >
> I don't think they think of her as a threat, but a joke.

A joke does not provoke the type of response she got.

From: BAR on
William Clark wrote:
> In article <u9h7a51l5034b5p3c9l9qhb00fs924uo22(a)>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:13:12 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight(a)>
>> wrote:
>>> The problem here is that Hollis just read words that
>>> wrote, and has no idea what the original thought behind them happened
>>> to be. The out of context argument is absolutely valid. The authors
>>> were NOT advocates of those quotes in Their book was
>>> a collection of possibilities that a corrupt government might use.
>> Complete rubbish.
>> This show that Holdren advocates these extreme measure in the US, not
>> in some imaginary corrupt country.
>> "To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to
>> use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists
>> ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For
>> example, under the United States Constitution, effective
>> population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that
>> empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general
>> welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause
>> of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very
>> broad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory
>> population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory
>> abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the
>> population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
>> Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough
>> to justify compulsion, however."
>> To tell you the truth, this guy is much worse that Van Jones, who was
>> just forced to resign his White House post. Jones was just a
>> delusional fool. Holdren is a truly dangerous person.
> So, Jack, tell us about your latest round of golf. How as it?

Why don't you tell us about your latest round of golf or you can just
lie about it as you have been proved to to in the recent past.

> Or have you just returned here hoping that the humiliation of your call
> on the November election has been forgotten? Because it hasn't.

Buyers remorse is sinking in all across the USA.