2
   

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 07:07 am
okie wrote:

No, I'm asking you to read the quote or listen to the quote yourself and think for yourself based on common sense? It has nothing to do with Hannity. Forget Hannity. Forget your own biases based on who repeats the quote. They are not the issue here. Concerning the quote, forget the 911 committee. They can't change what Clinton said. Don't try to change the quote. Take it for what it says and forget what all the Clinton defenders spin the situation now.


The Taliban had Osama in custody in 2001. They released him. Bush didn't bring him to the US.

Don't change the quote. Do you think Bush was offered Bin Laden?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 09:09 am
Probably because the Taliban didn't offer to release him to the U.S., but I am not familiar with this event. Can you provide some links or evidence. It seems I've read a little bit that Bush instructed his people to formulate some alternatives to deal with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first months of his administration before 911, so I think he would have jumped at the chance to "bring him here" if he was available to bring here via the Taliban. Doing it via the battlefield as we've discussed would not have been a viable option at the point in time before 911. If he had the opportunity to have him forked over to us in some other manner, can you provide evidence of this?

As far as the above quote, Bush made no statement to the effect that he chose not to bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him. If he had made such a statement, it would of course imply that he had been offered an opportunity to do that IF he had a basis to hold him. Simple logic.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 12:10 pm
okie wrote:
so I think he would have jumped at the chance to "bring him here" if he was available to bring here via the Taliban. Doing it via the battlefield as we've discussed would not have been a viable option at the point in time before 911.



Bullshit. He was more concerned with Iraq.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 01:19 pm
okie wrote:
Probably because the Taliban didn't offer to release him to the U.S., but I am not familiar with this event. Can you provide some links or evidence. It seems I've read a little bit that Bush instructed his people to formulate some alternatives to deal with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first months of his administration before 911, so I think he would have jumped at the chance to "bring him here" if he was available to bring here via the Taliban. Doing it via the battlefield as we've discussed would not have been a viable option at the point in time before 911. If he had the opportunity to have him forked over to us in some other manner, can you provide evidence of this?

As far as the above quote, Bush made no statement to the effect that he chose not to bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him. If he had made such a statement, it would of course imply that he had been offered an opportunity to do that IF he had a basis to hold him. Simple logic.


Now I see your circular reasoning. The outside evidence proves there was an offer in Clinton's statement and Clinton's statement proves the other evidence of the offer.

This isn't a case of Clinton's words prove the offer. This is a case of false logic. What else is new?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 06:14 pm
I guess you have no evidence about Bush having an opportunity to obtain OBL from the Taliban then. At least you never answered my request for evidence. Parados, if you are going to use an argument, you can't make wild claims here without at least a little evidence to back it up.

Parados, what if somebody said, "I did not drive my neighbors car down to the beach because the weather was bad and I did not have a good reason to be at the beach." I don't know about you, but I would assume the reason he did not drive the car down to the beach was because of the reason given, not because the car was not offered for use by his neighbor, otherwise why would he even mention the possibility of driving his neighbors car to the beach. I would assume he must have had an "offer" from his neighbor to drive it to the beach if he had chosen to.

This whole conversation reminds me of our debate on another thread concerning test questions for liberals and conservatives or something along that line. The logic you tried to employ was puzzling to say the least. And concerning this subject here, I will admit I am not real sure about you. I almost decided a couple days ago that you were simply playing with me and goading me on, and that you fully recognized the silliness of your own arguments, but now I wonder again that perhaps you really do believe what you argue. I will admit I do not know for sure. I am taking it on good faith however, and continuing to try to explain it to you one last time with the above situation, but admittedly I think we might as well just agree to disagree. But even if we do that, I think you are way out in left field for accusing Hannity of being a liar, a liar, a liar, etc. as you did. You really do not do yourself any good by making such blatantly inaccurate accusations. If he disagrees with your interpretation, he has good reasons for doing so, and it isn't because he is lying. I am not accusing you of lying here. I just think you are blind as a bat and not using sound objective judgement.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 08:50 am
Can the analogies, okie. They are stupid and pointless.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 08:54 am
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
Probably because the Taliban didn't offer to release him to the U.S., but I am not familiar with this event. Can you provide some links or evidence. It seems I've read a little bit that Bush instructed his people to formulate some alternatives to deal with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first months of his administration before 911, so I think he would have jumped at the chance to "bring him here" if he was available to bring here via the Taliban. Doing it via the battlefield as we've discussed would not have been a viable option at the point in time before 911. If he had the opportunity to have him forked over to us in some other manner, can you provide evidence of this?

As far as the above quote, Bush made no statement to the effect that he chose not to bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him. If he had made such a statement, it would of course imply that he had been offered an opportunity to do that IF he had a basis to hold him. Simple logic.


Now I see your circular reasoning. The outside evidence proves there was an offer in Clinton's statement and Clinton's statement proves the other evidence of the offer.

This isn't a case of Clinton's words prove the offer. This is a case of false logic. What else is new?


I doubt that okie understands what circular reasoning is. It is like Foxfyre constantly accusing people of making strawman arguments and in the next entry, posting a classic strawman herself. To the know-nothings, logical fallacies mean something that doesn't follow the latest right-wing talking points.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Mar, 2006 09:13 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
McGentrix wrote:
I have always felt this to be true.

__________________________________________________________

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
By George Will


A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals -- in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves ``very happy,'' only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared to 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.



That from the king of sour pusses! If conservatives are so happy & well adjusted how come they have the highest divorce rate in the land. I would think that all that happiness would cause them to have the happiest marriages this side of Timbuktu.

Those results will be the same as long as George Will and his ilk are asking and answering their own questions!.

But then Liberals have a multitude of reasons to not be happy at the present..... with murder and mayhem being committed in our names, not to mention all the other crimes the Liar in chief has committed. Watching our country being torn apart & bankrupted by a bunch of spend crazy, greedy, corrupt republicans is not exactly anything to make one turn cartwheels.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 06:24 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
Magginkat wrote:
If conservatives are so happy & well adjusted how come they have the highest divorce rate in the land. I would think that all that happiness would cause them to have the happiest marriages this side of Timbuktu.


Can you provide a link or evidence to support this assertion.

I won't doubt your figures if they are legitimate, but what group of people is more liberal than movie stars, and how many times do they get married on average?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 06:31 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
okie wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
If conservatives are so happy & well adjusted how come they have the highest divorce rate in the land. I would think that all that happiness would cause them to have the happiest marriages this side of Timbuktu.


Can you provide a link or evidence to support this assertion.

I won't doubt your figures if they are legitimate, but what group of people is more liberal than movie stars, and how many times do they get married on average?


Divorce is much higher in the red states. Your movie star contnetion is probablyh the dumbest assertion ever made at a2k, as if a film star is a typical liberal. Stupid. Really stupid.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 06:52 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
okie wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
If conservatives are so happy & well adjusted how come they have the highest divorce rate in the land. I would think that all that happiness would cause them to have the happiest marriages this side of Timbuktu.


Can you provide a link or evidence to support this assertion.

I won't doubt your figures if they are legitimate, but what group of people is more liberal than movie stars, and how many times do they get married on average?


okie, dude, what is your preoccupation with hollywood and movie stars ?

i really don't get it. most of the people that i know and work with are decent, hardworking and caring people.

so what's yer beef ?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 07:27 pm
okie wrote:
Probably because the Taliban didn't offer to release him to the U.S., but I am not familiar with this event. Can you provide some links or evidence. It seems I've read a little bit that Bush instructed his people to formulate some alternatives to deal with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in the first months of his administration before 911, so I think he would have jumped at the chance to "bring him here" if he was available to bring here via the Taliban. Doing it via the battlefield as we've discussed would not have been a viable option at the point in time before 911. If he had the opportunity to have him forked over to us in some other manner, can you provide evidence of this?

As far as the above quote, Bush made no statement to the effect that he chose not to bring him here, because we had no basis on which to hold him. If he had made such a statement, it would of course imply that he had been offered an opportunity to do that IF he had a basis to hold him. Simple logic.


The police didn't arrest the suspect because they had no basis on which to hold him.

Your logic sucks okie. "because they had no reason to hold him" in no way implies an offer.

You haven't provided any supported evidence that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. If a Taliban leader was to come forward to say he offered to broker a deal to send Bin Laden to Bush would that be enough proof?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 08:16 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
okie wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
If conservatives are so happy & well adjusted how come they have the highest divorce rate in the land. I would think that all that happiness would cause them to have the happiest marriages this side of Timbuktu.


Can you provide a link or evidence to support this assertion.

I won't doubt your figures if they are legitimate, but what group of people is more liberal than movie stars, and how many times do they get married on average?


okie, dude, what is your preoccupation with hollywood and movie stars ?

i really don't get it. most of the people that i know and work with are decent, hardworking and caring people.

so what's yer beef ?


Did I say I had a preoccupation? Relax, I simply made an observation about an obviously liberal group of people that might provide a clue about political leanings vs. divorce rates. I am genuinely curious about any statistic available for liberals vs. conservative divorce rates. I haven't recieived an answer. Roxxxanne said rates are much higher in red states, but I didn't see any backup link, and still we don't know who in the red states have the highest rates. She may be correct, but I would like to see the source for it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 08:22 pm
parados wrote:

You haven't provided any supported evidence that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. If a Taliban leader was to come forward to say he offered to broker a deal to send Bin Laden to Bush would that be enough proof?


I did provide some links that indicated evidence a page or pages back. As far as a Taliban leader coming forward, it would not provide proof but if other evidence existed such as statements by Bush himself that virtually admitted the same, then yes it would need to be taken seriously as a piece of the puzzle that would make it appear very likely that such did happen.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 08:53 pm
Okie, Far be it for me to argue with Evangelical minister George Barna who did this study and stands by it even today.

A study saying that born-again Christians divorce more often than non-Christians has raised eyebrows, sowed confusion, even brought on a little holy anger. So much, in fact, that the study's author, evangelical George Barna, put out a special letter to "our partners in ministry" trying to calm their fury and let his fellow believers know that he was standing by his stats no matter how distasteful they might be.

The Barna Research Group's national study showed that members of nondenominational churches divorce 34 percent of the time in contrast to 25 percent for the general population. Nondenominational churches would include large numbers of Bible churches and other conservative evangelicals. Baptists had the highest rate of the major denominations: 29 percent. Born-again Christians' rate was 27 percent. To make matters even more distressing for believers, atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate of divorce 21 percent.

...............................................................

Divorce rates among Christian groups:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The slogan: "The family that prays together, stays together" is well known. There has been much anecdotal evidence that has led to "unsubstantiated claims that the divorce rate for Christians who attended church regularly, pray together or who meet other conditions is only 1 or 2 percent". 8 [Emphasis ours]. Dr. Tom Ellis, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention's Council on the Family said that for "...born-again Christian couples who marry...in the church after having received premarital counseling...and attend church regularly and pray daily together..." experience only 1 divorce out of nearly 39,000 marriages -- or 0.00256 percent (this guy must be drinking some of the funny koolaid stuff)
A recent study by the Barna Research Group throws extreme doubt on these estimates. Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is within 2 percentage points. The survey found:

11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.


George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented: "While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all. George Barna commented that the results raise "questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families." The data challenge "the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriage."

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said: "In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot." Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 09:00 pm
Re: Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness
okie wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
okie wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
If conservatives are so happy & well adjusted how come they have the highest divorce rate in the land. I would think that all that happiness would cause them to have the happiest marriages this side of Timbuktu.


Can you provide a link or evidence to support this assertion.

I won't doubt your figures if they are legitimate, but what group of people is more liberal than movie stars, and how many times do they get married on average?


okie, dude, what is your preoccupation with hollywood and movie stars ?

i really don't get it. most of the people that i know and work with are decent, hardworking and caring people.

so what's yer beef ?


Did I say I had a preoccupation? Relax, I simply made an observation about an obviously liberal group of people that might provide a clue about political leanings vs. divorce rates. I am genuinely curious about any statistic available for liberals vs. conservative divorce rates. I haven't recieived an answer. Roxxxanne said rates are much higher in red states, but I didn't see any backup link, and still we don't know who in the red states have the highest rates. She may be correct, but I would like to see the source for it.


no you didn't say that. i did. Laughing

why?

because you mention hollywood and liberals in the same sentence on what seems like a regular basis.

there must be a reason.

what gives ?

and i am relaxed. i just really want to know what's up.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 09:04 pm
There is no obligation to provide a link for every statement. Want to play games, go play with your kids.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 09:10 pm
Oh but research is a wonderful thing

I googled divorce rates blue red states, here is one thing I found BTW divorce rates are 37% higher in th e red states, look it up yourself.

Quote:
November 3, 2005

**** the South. **** 'em. We should have let them go when they wanted to leave. But no, we had to kill half a million people so they'd stay part of our special Union. Fighting for the right to keep slaves - yeah, those are states we want to keep.

And now what do we get? We're the ******* Arrogant Northeast Liberal Elite? How about this for arrogant: the South is the Real America? The Authentic America. Really?

Cause we ******* founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about? All that bullshit about what you think they meant by the Second Amendment giving you the right to keep your assault weapons in the glove compartment because you didn't bother to read the first half of the ******* sentence? Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were? They were ******* blue-staters, dickhead. Boston? Philadelphia? New York? Hello? Think there might be a reason all the ******* monuments are up here in our backyard?

No, No. Get the **** out. We're not letting you visit the Liberty Bell and ******* Plymouth Rock anymore until you get over your real American selves and start respecting those other nine amendments. Who do you think those ******* stripes on the flag are for? Nine are for ******* blue states. And it would be 10 if those Vermonters had gotten their ******* Subarus together and broken off from New York a little earlier. Get it? We started this ****, so don't get all uppity about how real you are you Johnny-come-lately "Oooooh I've been a state for almost a hundred years" dickheads. **** off.

Arrogant? You wanna talk about us Northeasterners being ******* arrogant? What's more American than arrogance? Hmmm? Maybe horsies? I don't think so. Arrogance is the ******* cornerstone of what it means to be American. And I wouldn't be so ******* arrogant if I wasn't paying for your ******* bridges, bitch.

All those Federal taxes you love to hate? It all comes from us and goes to you, so shut up and enjoy your ******* Tennessee Valley Authority electricity and your fancy highways that we paid for. And the next time Florida gets hit by a hurricane you can come crying to us if you want to, but you're the ones who built on a ******* swamp. "Let the Spanish keep it, it's a shithole," we said, but you had to have your ******* orange juice.

The next dickwad who says, "It's your money, not the government's money" is gonna get their ass kicked. Nine of the ten states that get the most federal ******* dollars and pay the least... can you guess? Go on, guess. That's right, ************, they're red states. And eight of the ten states that receive the least and pay the most? It's too easy, asshole, they're blue states. It's not your money, assholes, it's ******* our money. What was that Real American Value you were spouting a minute ago? Self reliance? Try this for self reliance: buy your own ******* stop signs, assholes.

Let's talk about those values for a ******* minute. You and your Southern values can bite my ass because the blue states got the values over you ******* Real Americans every day of the goddamn week. Which state do you think has the lowest divorce rate you marriage-hyping dickwads? Well? Can you guess? It's ******* Massachusetts, the ******* center of the gay marriage universe. Yes, that's right, the state you love to tie around the neck of anyone to the left of Strom Thurmond has the lowest divorce rate in the ******* nation. Think that's just some aberration? How about this: 9 of the 10 lowest divorce rates are ******* blue states, asshole, and most are in the Northeast, where our values suck so bad. And where are the highest divorce rates? Care to ******* guess? 10 of the top 10 are ******* red-ass we're-so-*******-moral states. And while Nevada is the worst, the Bible Belt is doing its ******* part.

But two guys making out is going to ******* ruin marriage for you? Yeah? Seems like you're ruining it pretty well on your own, you little bastards. Oh, but that's ok because you go to church, right? I mean you do, right? Cause we ******* get to hear about it every goddamn year at election time. Yes, we're fascinated by how you get up every Sunday morning and sing, and then you're ******* towers of moral superiority. Yeah, that's a workable formula. Maybe us ******* Northerners don't talk about religion as much as you because we're not so busy sinning, hmmm? Ever think of that, you self-righteous assholes? No, you're too busy erecting giant stone tablets of the Ten Commandments in buildings paid for by the ******* Northeast Liberal Elite. And who has the highest murder rates in the nation? It ain't us up here in the North, assholes.

Well this gravy train is ******* over. Take your liberal-bashing, federal-tax-leaching, confederate-flag-waving, holier-than-thou, hypocritical bullshit and shove it up your ass.

And no, you can't have your ******* convention in New York next time. **** off.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 09:17 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
There is no obligation to provide a link for every statement. Want to play games, go play with your kids.


Roxanne,
One thing these conservative blow hards have in common is that they park their ample backsides in a forum and start demanding a source for everything that is posted by those they think are liberals or Democrats.

I have long ago lost count of how many of them have demanded sources when I am doing nothing more than stating my opinion. I have also lost count of how many of them I have set straight on this fact.... that it is a discussion forum and that I did not come here to do their research for them. I have a better idea. Let them provide information that can discount what I say!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Mar, 2006 09:18 pm
okie wrote:
parados wrote:

You haven't provided any supported evidence that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. If a Taliban leader was to come forward to say he offered to broker a deal to send Bin Laden to Bush would that be enough proof?


I did provide some links that indicated evidence a page or pages back. As far as a Taliban leader coming forward, it would not provide proof but if other evidence existed such as statements by Bush himself that virtually admitted the same, then yes it would need to be taken seriously as a piece of the puzzle that would make it appear very likely that such did happen.


And there is your circular reasoning in a nutshell.

Clinton's statement proves the evidence is correct.

The evidence proves Clinton's statement is about an offer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 10:15:11