Every day I visit tons of website, forums, and social networks for all types of topics, most of which are technology based in some sort of form.  This election cycle has really brought out the best of the liberal “group think” mentality regarding Obama.  On just about every social network Obama is praised as “the one” and any hint of disagreement with his policies or ideals is immediately responded with accusations of racism, or just plain insults.  Anybody who wants to claim that liberals are tolerant to others, please give me a shout because I can quickly debunk that.  Even here on our network of sites, there have been insults tossed at the slightest hint of either supporting McCain, or being against Obama.  I’m certainly not saying conservatives don’t dish out their fair share, but the mentality of liberals has once again bordered on the insane and hateful.

It’s tough being a proud conservative, as I will say what I think regardless of what the group and mob mentality is.  The real shame is so many people, especially bloggers in the tech area, are afraid to do the same.  I have received so many private notes and comments in support of standing up for conservatism, it’s almost crazy.  The best comparison I can make is how conservative actors in Hollywood are often ridiculed or turned down for roles because of their conservative beliefs, and the same mentality is going on right now in the blogosphere.  Conservative bloggers, some of which can be considered A-list are having to remain silent about their thoughts on Obama and McCain, simply because they are afraid of retribution from their employers or just not being able to pickup work from other sites.  It’s a shame, and it’s more telling about liberals than it is anything.

I am a conservative, I don’t like Obama, and I will never let anyone intimidate me because of that. 


Comments (Page 82)
86 PagesFirst 80 81 82 83 84  Last
on Nov 19, 2008

How does the Chinese attempting to contribute to a LOSING campaign (which is illegal, was discovered, and has been rectified)

Gore was never indicted.  It has not been rectified.

have to do with the past 8 years of the WINNING candidate's obvious graft amounting to TRILLIONS?

Source?  Opinions do not need any, but you are stating a fact.  So facts please.

The French and the Russians selfishly and corruptly tried to BLOCK us from going into Iraq, because they had secured secret backdoor oil deals with Saddam. So your amazingly inciteful point here is that there are some corrupt politicians in other countries too?!

You said follow the money, not I. I just followed it.  Why do you make light of your own challenge?

Foreign governments, companies, and nationals are forbidden from contributing to American Presidential campaigns. When they've tried, they've been caught and the funds have been returned.

Prove it.  SHow us the indictments and convictions of Obama's campaign staff.  You throw a lot of "facts" around, but you seem to have very little to show for your assertions.  And referencing a link 20 pages ago on another subject is not proof of anything but your own lack of proof.

on Nov 19, 2008

keep shooting spitballs

With you, it's the only logical & worthwhile option.

on Nov 19, 2008

Do either of you have any POINTS to make?

Not really, everytime you post, you do it for us.

Or are you just going to keep shooting spitballs?

Hey, I believe in fighting fire with fire. You throw spitballs, I throw spitballs, you fail to make points, I fail to make points. I'm trying to be fair here, isn't that why you voted for Obama?

on Nov 19, 2008

Gore was never indicted. It has not been rectified.

Why would Gore be indicted for the Chinese sending an illegal check?!  I could send YOU an illegal check and send you to jail that way then.  The whole point of the Chinese issue was to improve the vetting of donations in ALL elections, which has been done - as we saw in this election.

Source? Opinions do not need any, but you are stating a fact. So facts please.

Sources - Contracts awarded to Halliburton, Cheney's former company.  Record oil profits off of record oil prices.  Etc.  I don't think I'll need to provide links to such obvious and widely available information do I?

Foreign governments, companies, and nationals are forbidden from contributing to American Presidential campaigns. When they've tried, they've been caught and the funds have been returned.

Prove it. SHow us the indictments and convictions of Obama's campaign staff.

I covered this above regarding Gore, and now you're onto Obama...the LEAST corrupt man we've apparently ever had run for the White House. Nice try.

But there is a HUGE difference between SOLICITING donations from known foreign nationals to being sent a random check (like the $25 Obama's Auntie sent him).  You can't stop someone from sending a check.  You can only try and catch it before it's cashed (since they were getting thousands of these daily) and then refund the ones that inadvertantly slip through.

Either way, shouldn't you be livid about the REAL corruption represented by hundreds of thousands of dollars of LOBBYIST contributions to each sitting Senators and Congressmen, instead of worrying about Autie Obama's Christmas cash? 

 

on Nov 19, 2008

YOu just dont get it.

Oh I get it alright.  I just don't think this matters at all to my POINT.  Just because the final UN paperwork wasn't ratified until a couple of months later doesn't mean that EVERYONE (except the Serbian scumbags) wasn't in agreement on what had to happen in Kosovo and who had to do it and when.  They'd been debating this for YEARS as the serbs just kept killing.  So the Spring came and...boom.  Goodbye fascists.

But NO ONE has ever ratified our second invasion into Iraq, have they?  In fact, they're STILL protesting it around the world.

Regardless, as I have said repeatedly, this is IRRELEVANT to my point about which conflicts I have felt were justified and which were not.  I've stated my opinion repeatedly and rather than accept this as my position, you've resorted to nothing but badgering insults and irrelevant semantic arguments.

And while I'm glad you've final decided to cite some actual information here, I only provided that information to educate YOU about your gross mischaracterization of my positions and OPINIONS.

I will call your attention to the part about "Security Council". Made up of 12 member nations. 12 Nations decided. Iraq had over 40. So who has the bigger mandate?

I would have to say that 100% of the Security Council voting yes for action in Kosovo is a FAR bigger "mandate" than NO ONE voting for the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Why you continue to maintain that we were justified in invading Iraq in 2003 because we were authorized to do so in order to libertate Kuwait in the first Gulf War is beyond me.  Even the Bush administration knew that wouldn't fly and so pursued their own NEW resolution for the 2003 action - as discussed here...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

"Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.[45][46]

With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and their supporters abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law.[47]"

So even the ADMINISTRATION felt there were two distinct Gulf War conflicts requiring separate authorization from the UN.  When it was obvious they didn't have that mandate, they withdrew the resolution and went into Iraq on their own accord anyway. And that's why we're in the situation we find ourselves today.

Wikipedia has been shown, by a court of law, not to be authoratative.

The peer-reviewed SUMMARIES may not be, but its SOURCES are far more likely to be withstand (ed.) legal examination.  And that is what I keep pointing you to.  The summaries just happen to match my opinions in some cases and should be weighed accordingly.

And the MSM? Yea, like journalists know what the hell they are talking about?

Is there anyone in this world you'd find an authoritative source on anything, especially if they don't agree with your position?

REAL MSM journalists (NOT infotainment like Fox News) cite their sources, so again, I ask you, what would YOU cite as authoritative?  Because all the info I have provided, even the stuff you are quoting back, still has its roots in authoritative documentation.

And whether you agree with my positions or opinions or not, at least mine are based on the real world, not some imaginary land where a scumbag butcher like Slobodan is supposed to get my sympathy. 

Not...gonna...happen.

The free world is glad he's gone and so am I. 

A pacifist does not believe in war. You do.

Even self-avowed pacifists believe we need to call the police from time to time.

So if you want to claim I am not a "black or white" pacifist, so be it.  The world is a complex place, and I'm better educated than to make such over-reaching gross generalizations.

 

on Nov 19, 2008

Hey, I believe in fighting fire with fire.

Every post you've made can be summarized as "No, you are!"  

on Nov 19, 2008

So even the ADMINISTRATION felt there were two distinct Gulf War conflicts requiring separate authorization from the UN.

Emphasis mine.  No, the administration, in order to appease certain domestic critics, more than likely you among them, sought a new resolution.  They were already justified in proceeding with GW2 (really, a resumption of GW1) on the basis of Iraq's violation(s) of the armistice.  Your subtle assertion of a requirement to obtain authorization from the UN to achieve legitimacy is completely bogus - no such requirement exists.  Although you appear to be unhappy with the notion, the US has no obligation to subjugate its foreign policy to the (non-existent) authority of the UN.  The UN is a vehicle for diplomatic persuasion (such that it occurs there = not much), nothing more.

on Nov 19, 2008

I'm better educated than to make such over-reaching gross generalizations

I'd amplify that to say that you're an expert in over-reaching gross generalizations.  Be proud (not that you have any ego issues).

on Nov 20, 2008

far more likely to withhold legal examination.

I'm assuming you mean 'withstand' .... Spell checker

[ya ain't the only eddykated person 'ere, ya no] ...

on Nov 20, 2008

I'm assuming you mean 'withstand'

Thank you sirree!  Fixed.

 

You betcha! 

on Nov 20, 2008

They were already justified in proceeding with GW2 (really, a resumption of GW1) on the basis of Iraq's violation(s) of the armistice.

You just keep pushing that thoroughly discredited position there.  Even Bush and Cheney won't say this anymore, but you just keep carrying that water for them anyway. 

 

on Nov 20, 2008

Duplicate post, so I'll just say...

OBJECT DESKTOP 2009 is out!  YAY! 

 

 

on Nov 20, 2008

Dodgeball again.  The only authority/approval required by the administration was authorization by Congress.

on Nov 20, 2008

You served up a hanging curve ball there, but I'll be good & just say it's actually Object Desktop 2009.  And I agree, "YAY!"

on Nov 20, 2008

You served up a hanging curve ball there, but I'll be good & just say it's actually Object Desktop 2009. And I agree, "YAY!"

How do you know I wasn't cheering for LAST year's version? Hmmm? 

Seriously, thanks, fixed.  Two typos in the same day.   I'm tired, hehe.

86 PagesFirst 80 81 82 83 84  Last