Comments Posted By CDOR
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 110 Comments

PALIN WINS -- AND LOSES ME

Tsk, tsk. A little sensitive aren't we, Mr. Notevenapimpleonaknat'sass? Palin makes a couple of Facebook entries and knocks the Dem game plan for a loop. But hey, she didn't say what Rick wants said, the way he wants it said, soooo...even though you are seeking the same results, she is an idiot.

Whatever, bud. You know you've lost the argument when you resort to calling names. You probably won't post this comment anyway. I recommend you go out, have a couple packs of smokes, and calm down. I've probably posted 50 times or more on this site. I've had respectful exchanges on numerous occassions, and never was overcome by anyones brilliance...yours, mine, or any other poster.

Comment Posted By cdor On 17.08.2009 @ 09:08

New York Times headline, front page:

Rick Moran says Sarah Palin is an Idiot
but he agrees Dem plan sucks

I tried to copy Word editing to show first line in huge bold with second line itsy teeny, but it wouldn't paste here.

Palin didn't just say the dem plan sucks. She made shit up about death panels.

You really that shallow minded that this escapes you? That everything has to be painted in such broad, simple minded strokes that you equate my agreeing with Palin that the plan is bad that I must then agree with the concept of death panels?

Maybe it's just that people this stupid don't visit my website very often.

ed.

Comment Posted By cdor On 16.08.2009 @ 09:26

Palin wins:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html

Podcast
James Taranto on Palin and the "death panel" debate.
One can hardly deny that Palin's reference to "death panels" was inflammatory. But another way of putting that is that it was vivid and attention-getting. Level-headed liberal commentators who favor more government in health care, including Slate's Mickey Kaus and the Washington Post's Charles Lane, have argued that the end-of-life provision in the bill is problematic--acknowledging in effect (and, in Kaus's case, in so many words) that Palin had a point.

"If you believe the media, Sarah Palin is a mediocre intellect, if even that, while President Obama is brilliant. So how did she manage to best him in this debate? Part of the explanation is that disdain for Palin reflects intellectual snobbery more than actual intellect. Still, Obama's critics, in contrast with Palin's, do not deny the president's intellectual aptitude. Intelligence, however, does not make one immune from hubris."

Golly gee. Perhaps being the mother of a downs kid makes one a bit hyper sensitive to the reality of gubmint rationing of health care, I wouldn't know for sure, I only had a sister who was severely retarded.

Comment Posted By cdor On 15.08.2009 @ 17:19

YES, MORE PAUL RYAN PLEASE

Levin's book, Mr. King, is definitely not self-promoting. I don't believe he mentions himself at all in the book . He does document all his facts with extensive footnotes. Please read it... it's only 200 pages, but I believe you will be very impressed.

Comment Posted By cdor On 3.08.2009 @ 06:39

You seem like a fine gentleman, Nagarajan. Your country will be fortunate to have you back.

Comment Posted By cdor On 2.08.2009 @ 06:47

Thank you, Rick. Paul Ryan is an excellent example of the quality, in both moral fibre and intellectual heft, of the indivduals involved with the conservative movement. Why aren't they getting more attention? Well, you are an excellent start. Keep it coming, please. We certainly can't count on the MSM for much even exposure. I am thrilled to see him going on MSNBC to debate their propogandists. I realize the viper pit issues, but our guys do need to man up and jump in. He did very well in explaining our positions both pro and con in this episode.

Comment Posted By cdor On 31.07.2009 @ 16:57

FRUM IS BEING TOO KIND

From your article:"In his second book, Authentically Black: Essays for the Black Silent Majority, John McWhorter goes further with his candid discussions on how many blacks, through self-defeating behavior, undermine their own ability to achieve. His work joins other studies that have helped to create a kind of genre for re-thinking aspects of the civil rights movement and exposing the excesses that have exemplified so much of the post-civil-rights period"

One of those self-defeating behaviors, in my opinion, is re-naming themselves as Blacks. Why not Browns, which is much more accurate if we are going to reduce our race and resulting society simply to a color, at least use the correct color. Even if the color black were accurate, which of course it isn't, it happens to invoke emotional connotations that are often negative. The term black is associated with evil, sinister, the dark side, lack of light (understanding), and many more. Then, of course, there is the polar opposite color, white. So now by using these two highly innaccurate colors to describe the two races, we have created a dichotomy where one doesn't exist. We are all various shades of brown. If race is to go away, as you say it will, funny man, then using accurate descriptions of our skin colors will be quite helpful. I, for one, have decided that particpating in the popular jargon of the moment is not helpful in improving human relations. I hope you now understand my reasons.

Admittedly, the Republicans had a very weak Presidential candidate. But his gravitas so far outweighed Barack Obama in both length (time) and quality, that even though most conservatives (which means probably not you) had to hold their collective noses do to McCain's views on immigration, drilling in Anwar, and the Gang of 14, we still supported him because of the obvious ultra liberal candidate that was his opposition. He seemed the perfect moderate that the Frum's and the Colin Powell's , perhaps the Rick Morans (not sure on that), maybe even you, and certainly the media, could get behind. Instead Mr Frum decided to attack Palin. Why at that time was it necessary to throw cold water on a hot spark? Did he attack Biden? Did he ever write a column criticzing Obama?

All parties have disagreements within. Our internal antagonists give me every indication ( I am speaking of Frum and Powell...don't get me started with him) of fighting for the other side. I understand calling him a traitor is evocative. But go look up the definition for yourself.

Comment Posted By cdor On 3.08.2009 @ 07:33

I am neither trying to be cute nor provocative. I speak the same way to anyone at any time. I have never offended a Negro by calling them by their proper name when such designations are appropriate. Race may find it's way to the historic garbage heap a million years from now, but until then I am comfortable with people being proud of who they are, not ashamed... using real words with accurate meanings rather than euphemisms and slang.

The only reason Frum is ever discussed is because he criticized some Republican. When has anyone ever mentioned him in a discussion of Democrats promoting some wacked out big government legislation or because he has criticized a Democrat acting stupidly (using our President's terminology)? If he "made his bones" promoting Republican and conservative philosophy and occassionally took exception to something a Republican said, well ok. But it seems to me that after being an unknown speechwriter for Bush, he quit or was fired and wrote a book that probably sold about 10 copies critical of Bush. He's done not much more than criticize Palin and Levin since. Where am I wrong funny man and what do you believe that makes you a conservative?

Comment Posted By cdor On 2.08.2009 @ 20:55

I presume you have an issue with my use of the word Negro. Caucasian, Negro, and Mongoloid are the correct names of the three major human races. The word, Negro, became politically incorrect in the 1960's and the accepted slang terms became black and white. I have never met a black or a white person. I don't know what we are supposed to call people of the Mongoloid race. Are they yellow people? "Professor Booker T. Washington, being politely interrogated ... as to whether negroes ought to be called 'negroes' or 'members of the colored race' has replied that it has long been his own practice to write and speak of members of his race as negroes, and when using the term 'negro' as a race designation to employ the capital 'N' " ["Harper's Weekly," June 2, 1906]. The NAACP is The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I guess they need to change their name to Black people. Words do have proper meaning. A Negro should, in an unbiased world, be as comfortable as a Caucasian with the accurate naming of ones race.

Back to the economy and Mr. Obama. We have been in numerous recessions over the last 80 years. The only one that led to a depression was caused by tremendous government interference similar in scope to what the current administration is attemmpting. You asked for reasons and I gave them. If they aren't enough, so be it. That is exactly why guys like David Frum are traitors to my cause. They are used by people like you to defeat people like me. You don't care about being free, you want government to lead your life. You are my enemy.

Concerning govenrment run health care, a few words from Mark Steyn:
The president needs to get something passed. Anything. The details don’t matter. Once it’s in place, health-care “reform” can be re-reformed endlessly.
If this seems a perverse obsession for a nation with a weak economy, rising unemployment, and a war on two fronts, it has a very sound strategic logic behind it. That’s its attraction for an ambitious president: It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in a way that hands all the advantages to statists — to those who believe government has a legitimate right to regulate human affairs in every particular.
How did the health-care debate decay to the point where we think it entirely natural for the central government to fix a collective figure for what 300 million freeborn citizens ought to be spending on something as basic to individual liberty as their own bodies?
Freedom is messy. In free societies, people will fall through the cracks — drink too much, eat too much, buy unaffordable homes, fail to make prudent provision for health care, and much else. But the price of being relieved of all those tiresome choices by a benign paternal government is far too high.

Government health care would be wrong even if it “controlled costs.” It’s a liberty issue. I’d rather be free to choose, even if I make the wrong choices.

To anyone who isn't a certifiable lib like our busboy, read the entire article at NRO:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzlmYWZhMjZjZDAwYjMxOTZkZTNmODI5ZDAyZmExNDY=&w=MA==

ps

The third front of the war I described as our Homeland. Have you been to the remains of the Twin Towers? Have you taken a plane trip? Yes, our Homeland is the third front.

Comment Posted By cdor On 1.08.2009 @ 18:12

busboy33 Said:
4:55 pm

I know this thread has drifted off topic, but let me ask this:

For those that think Obama is the front for the Black Conspiracy . . . what has he done that advances the conspiracy? I know there’s alot of “action X seems perfectly inocuous, but if you believe that Obama is the AntiChrist then the action can be seen as part of the plot” rationale floating around, but what has he done that is suspicious WITHOUT being pre-disposed to hate him?

WHAT THE HELL DOES HIS SKIN COLOR HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

It's his policies that blow me away. Did you believe him when he said that under his governance only 5% of the people would pay for all of his social engineering. Don't you become a bit concerned when 40% of our citizens are getting a free ride. The IRS just reported in 2007 (yes after Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy had been in effect for 6 years) the top 1% of wage earners who earned 22% of total income, paid 40% of the taxes. See here:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

I hated the irresponsible spending and new prescription drug entitlement of the Bush years. I hated the lack of even marginal concern for our border security and the slap in the face to law abiding citizens that those policies incure. And although I was very confused by the financial meltdown, I hated the TARP bailout. But even with all of that, we were fighting a war on three fronts, Afghanistan, Iraq, and our Homeland and Bush left with a 450 Billion dollar deficit after 8 years. Obama is quadrupling that. Are you comfortable? Is this how you would handle your own finances?

And what about our two glorious government run social programs, the ones in which we all participate? Of course I am speaking of Social Security and Medicaire. How has our government handled them? 50 some trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. We have been lied to and cheated out of our money and trust. And Obama wants that same government to control our health care. You are perfectly alright with that? Everything he has done since taking office has been a huge rush. Why? What's the hurry? These are crucial issues involving ALL citizens liberty and happiness. He got 53% of the vote and I doubt he would get 50% today. Do you know him well enough to trust him with your life...your wife's, your child's?

No one need dislike Obama, but that doesn't mean we know him well enough to trust him with our futures or our country. He just doesn't have the track record to have earned that trust and his compatriots Pelosi and Reid are seriously flawed individuals.

However, busboy33, if you want to get this thread back to race baiting, let me ask you, how have the libs treated conservative Negroes and Hispanic/Latinos over the past 20 years?

Comment Posted By cdor On 31.07.2009 @ 18:15


 


Next page »


Pages (11) : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


«« Back To Stats Page