Fox, What's the date of that survey? November 2006? LOL
Foxfyre wrote:You're saying that giving her an opportunity to comment on it is "defending it"? Well that's certainly typical Blatham liberalspeak, isn't it.
I've given up on hoping you'll display integrity, foxfyre. The term is nothing but an anti-gay slur. Coulter lied in that interview and Hannity set it up to facilitate the deceit and excuse the slur. Watch the interview then pray for forgiveness for your dishonesty.
blatham wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You're saying that giving her an opportunity to comment on it is "defending it"? Well that's certainly typical Blatham liberalspeak, isn't it.
I've given up on hoping you'll display integrity, foxfyre. The term is nothing but an anti-gay slur. Coulter lied in that interview and Hannity set it up to facilitate the deceit and excuse the slur. Watch the interview then pray for forgiveness for your dishonesty.
I accept that YOU won't see her as anything other than the way you see her. And I accept that YOU didn't bother to check how she answered Hannity's question or even check out that entire discussion. And I accept that Hannity, moderating a discussion, asking her to comment on the much criticized remark is the same as defending her in your eyes. I don't even pretend to know what the world looks like through your eyes and I hope to God I never find out. It is a horrible thought.
That makes me the one without integrity of course. You've told me that often enough. Which is why I am really REALLY sorry I responded to you at all. I won't be entertaining that kind of relapse any time in the near future I hope.
Quote:
That makes me the one without integrity of course. You've told me that often enough. Which is why I am really REALLY sorry I responded to you at all. I won't be entertaining that kind of relapse any time in the near future I hope.
Of course you will respond. You can't stand not having the last word, never have been able to for all the years I've been on A2K.
Cycloptichorn
Ah yes and the little dog piles in behind "Spike" to get a few barks in so he can pretend he's a big dog.
Foxfyre wrote:Ah yes and the little dog piles in behind "Spike" to get a few barks in so he can pretend he's a big dog.
See? You can't help it!
As I've said in the past, I don't have a problem with you feeling however you like to feel about me. Just as long as you keep making such amusing and foolish posts to entertain me. That's all I ask; for you not to turn a more critical eye towards your own posting.
Otherwise, I might have to figure out some name to call you in order to try and make myself feel better, and I don't really want to go to the trouble.
Cycloptichorn
Fox, How about the link to your Rasmussen report?
cicerone imposter wrote:Fox, How about the link to your Rasmussen report?
They're there C.I. Look for the color differentiation in the post. Click on Republican or Democrat and you'll see the list for the party.
blatham wrote:That remark was "defended by nobody", you say.
Quote: "What do you say to those people that take the word that you used and say, well, that was an anti-gay slur? What do you say to them?"
Sean Hannity
Foxfyre wrote:You're saying that giving her an opportunity to comment on it is "defending it"? Well that's certainly typical Blatham liberalspeak, isn't it.
Hannity apparently also helpfully asked: "Do you feel you get victimized here? Do you feel it's unfair?"
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Let me go to Ann here for a second here, because I actually went and looked at your whole speech. I have been to Ann Coulter's serious speeches. I watched you debate. We've shown this. This was meant to be on every level ?- because I went through ?- this was a speech that was a series of joke after joke after joke after joke, wasn't it?
HANNITY: That was in the very same speech. What do you say to those people that take the word that you used and say, well, that was an anti-gay slur? What do you say to them?
HANNITY: Well, I think there's a lot of selective moral outrage. I mean, you know, Dick Durbin compares our troops to Nazis. He's a senator. He could have an impact on the troops and their future. You have Howard Dean, you know, Republicans are dark, evil, brain dead. They can't get African-Americans in a room unless the wait staff is there. You know, we have the former Klansman who was the head of the Democrats. Ann, is this selective moral outrage? Are they trying to use you now as a fund raiser?
HANNITY: But what names have you [Coulter] been called over the years?
HANNITY: Quite a few, I would assume.
HANNITY: Let me just say this, Pat. I understand there are certain words ?- and Ann, look, you are smart, you are bright, you are intelligent, you're ?- you know that if you use that word, there are going to be people that melt like Alka Seltzer in water. But you know that. I mean, this is not a...
HANNITY: You know, Pat, I want to get back to this issue here. Ann Coulter is a writer. She uses satire. She's an iconoclast, known to be acerbic at times. She's not in a political position. Very same people that are so indignant ?- putting aside the word here for just a minute. What Ann Coulter says, not in a position of any power, not a word of outrage about our troops being called Nazis, not a word about our troops being called ?- wait a second, murderers...
HANNITY: Not a word about a former Klansman as the head of the Democratic Party. You know, I just ?- it seems to me that the Democrats want to use Ann Coulter as the poster child and ignore all of these guys that are actually in positions of power. Is that a valid argument?
HANNITY: Well, I mean, that's ?- but I am bringing up the question of selective moral outrage here when...
HANNITY: You don't get the same outrage in the media. You don't get ?- the same Democrats...
HANNITY: ... that are now trying to raise money off of Ann Coulter's comments, you know, they sat back, silently, when all these things were being said. And it seems that we go back to Trent Lott, and once again, he is excoriated by Democrats...
HANNITY: You know, Ann, do you feel like there is this double standard? Do you feel you get victimized here? Do you feel it's unfair?
COULTER: Well, I think it's a little unfair for you to compare my joke, which got a lot of laughs...
HANNITY: I said it was a joke.
------------------------------------------------------
Foxfyre, anyone - seriously want to claim Hannity was not defending Coulter here?
Quote:Firefighters union assails Giuliani
One of the nation's largest firefighters' unions has accused Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, of committing "egregious acts" against firefighters who died in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Their complaint is as follows:
Quote:[T]he International Association of Fire Fighters, excoriated Giuliani for his November 2001 decision to cut back the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades.
The 280,000-member union accused him of carelessly expediting the cleanup process with a "scoop-and-dump" operation after the recovery of millions of dollars in gold, silver and other assets from the Bank of Nova Scotia that had been buried. [..]
The former mayor and the union have feuded for years over his policies in the aftermath of the attacks [..].
"Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that firefighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like so much garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills landfill," the letter said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them."
"What Giuliani showed is a disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen and those brothers still searching for them," it added.
The union said the purpose of the letter was "to make all our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11 and our New York City union officers following that horrific day." [..]
nimh, Most Americans that now support Giuliani will not know about that part of the story, and will continue to support him.
nimh wrote:Quote:Firefighters union assails Giuliani
One of the nation's largest firefighters' unions has accused Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, of committing "egregious acts" against firefighters who died in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Their complaint is as follows:
Quote:[T]he International Association of Fire Fighters, excoriated Giuliani for his November 2001 decision to cut back the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades.
The 280,000-member union accused him of carelessly expediting the cleanup process with a "scoop-and-dump" operation after the recovery of millions of dollars in gold, silver and other assets from the Bank of Nova Scotia that had been buried. [..]
The former mayor and the union have feuded for years over his policies in the aftermath of the attacks [..].
"Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that firefighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like so much garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills landfill," the letter said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them."
"What Giuliani showed is a disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen and those brothers still searching for them," it added.
The union said the purpose of the letter was "to make all our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11 and our New York City union officers following that horrific day." [..]
Large unions are typically anti-GOP, anti-conservative, and anti free trade. Large unions also speak from the leadership bureauocracy, oppose right to work laws, and support candidates who support unions. They shamelessly use union dues to support pro-union leadership candidates, as often than not against the convictions of the majority of the workers. The unions can also make it quite difficult for workers who presume to openly oppose the leadership.
Both Clinton and Obama are on the record as supporting the unions in their efforts to make it easier for workers to join unions against the wishes of their employers. Giuliani is pro business.
This is only the first volley of what the unons will probably be launching against Giuliani, and they probably won't care whether they distort or exaggerate the truth when they do it.
The following was a Chicago rally, but there will almost certainly be similar events in New York City and elsewere:
Quote:--March 4
With Democrats in control of Congress and seeking to boost a struggling labor movement, national union leaders joined Illinois' two senators at a rally Saturday in Chicago to promote legislation to make it easier for workers to join a union against the wishes of their employers.
"We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when," said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "We may have to wait for the next president to sign it, but we will get this thing done.". . . . .
, , , , ,The labor rally followed a vote Thursday in the House, where Democrats, in a nod to organized labor for its help in retaking control of Congress, approved a bill that would take away the right of employers to demand secret balloting by workers before unions could be recognized.
Under the bill, the National Labor Relations Board would certify a union if it wins a majority of cards signed by workers. Currently, the NLRB calls for a secret vote if more than 30 percent of workers say they support a union. In order to win the election, the union must garner the majority of the workers' votes.
SOURCE
blatham wrote:
Quote: Evangelicals battle over agenda, environment
Global warming and other causes stray too far from battles on abortion, gay rights and similar 'great moral issues,' some leaders say.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2007
A struggle for control of the evangelical agenda intensified this week, with some leaders declaring that the focus has strayed too far from their signature battles against abortion and gay rights.
The best-known champion of such causes, the Rev. Jim Wallis, this week challenged conservative crusader James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, to a debate on evangelical priorities.
"Are the only really 'great moral issues' those concerning abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence?" Wallis asked in his challenge. "How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day?
What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evangelicals10mar10,0,5336382.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Stephen Lewis musta got to him :wink:
A couple of years ago, one brother attended a conference where Lewis gave the keynote speech. He spoke without notes and there was not a single "umm..." interrupting his sentences. Not one. That's pretty impressive. Of course, I once heard an interview with Bertrand Russell's editor who said that Russell's manuscripts would arrive, written in longhand and in first draft, and he never saw a correction or edit.
cicerone imposter wrote:nimh, Most Americans that now support Giuliani will not know about that part of the story, and will continue to support him.
I'm not sure about that, ci. I think most Americans did in fact know that the firefighters were outraged when the recovery efforts were scaled back once the missing gold was found.
There's gold in tham there kills.
Foxfyre said:
"Both Clinton and Obama are on the record as supporting the unions in their efforts to make it easier for workers to join unions against the wishes of their employers."
You say that protecting the right to join unions is bad?
Truly?
You say that employers ought to have the right to say whether workers join unions or not?
Really?
If that is not what you meant, kindly say EXACTLY what you ARE saying.
