[sdnativeson]

“Typical talk-radio-conservative crap. Slam others for precisely what you’re doing – insist that they’re the ones with the problem as a way to distract attention from your own activities.

Example: The phrase “Leftwing Media Bias” Conservatives seem to believe that any information that runs contrary to their talking points is inherently biased. Well, duh! ”

I read this as saying that I (sdns) was espousing “conservative crap” and therefore a “conservative”
The example “Leftwing Media Bias” I read as validation to the former. Therefore tossing out labels. I am incorrect?

If you are an engineer then why so adverse to my stating that you should know how things work and look at it from all sides and applying it your political/economic views?

What do you expect of your engineers are they “slammed” because you expect them to know how things work in their given discipline, to evaluate their work and to approach a task or problem from a different perspective?

[sdnativeson]

“Typical talk-radio-conservative crap. Slam others for precisely what you’re doing – insist that they’re the ones with the problem as a way to distract attention from your own activities.

Example: The phrase “Leftwing Media Bias” Conservatives seem to believe that any information that runs contrary to their talking points is inherently biased. Well, duh! ”

I read this as saying that I (sdns) was espousing “conservative crap” and therefore a “conservative”
The example “Leftwing Media Bias” I read as validation to the former. Therefore tossing out labels. I am incorrect?

If you are an engineer then why so adverse to my stating that you should know how things work and look at it from all sides and applying it your political/economic views?

What do you expect of your engineers are they “slammed” because you expect them to know how things work in their given discipline, to evaluate their work and to approach a task or problem from a different perspective?

[sdnativeson]

Please what? I said I am no fan of G. Bush, am I am Democrat? I questioned the (implied!)premise that the Clinton Gore administration was a paragon of governmental excellence so I’m a Republican?

[sdnativeson]

Please what? I said I am no fan of G. Bush, am I am Democrat? I questioned the (implied!)premise that the Clinton Gore administration was a paragon of governmental excellence so I’m a Republican?

[sdnativeson]

Please what? I said I am no fan of G. Bush, am I am Democrat? I questioned the (implied!)premise that the Clinton Gore administration was a paragon of governmental excellence so I’m a Republican?

[sdnativeson]

The only thing typical CostaMesa is your response. It’s typical of someone who hates being questioned.
I expressed neither preference nor affilitation toward any type of political/social group, party, organization. But you start tossing out labels when there isn’t really anywhere to be tossing them.

I suggested early on that you know how things work (the context was the structure and responsibilites of the various branches of the federal government) before you start making statements (adds validity to your position not necessarily a bad thing is it?).
I then stated that unless you seek information from another perspective (the other side of the coin or edges and giving the concession of forgoing objectivity) that the your reasoning and therefore any conclusion is faulty.

Why does that threaten you?

That is “slamming” someone? If you think this is “slamming” someone then you must live a very sheltered life. Your response actually adds validity to the point I was pursuing.

[sdnativeson]

The only thing typical CostaMesa is your response. It’s typical of someone who hates being questioned.
I expressed neither preference nor affilitation toward any type of political/social group, party, organization. But you start tossing out labels when there isn’t really anywhere to be tossing them.

I suggested early on that you know how things work (the context was the structure and responsibilites of the various branches of the federal government) before you start making statements (adds validity to your position not necessarily a bad thing is it?).
I then stated that unless you seek information from another perspective (the other side of the coin or edges and giving the concession of forgoing objectivity) that the your reasoning and therefore any conclusion is faulty.

Why does that threaten you?

That is “slamming” someone? If you think this is “slamming” someone then you must live a very sheltered life. Your response actually adds validity to the point I was pursuing.

[sdnativeson]

The only thing typical CostaMesa is your response. It’s typical of someone who hates being questioned.
I expressed neither preference nor affilitation toward any type of political/social group, party, organization. But you start tossing out labels when there isn’t really anywhere to be tossing them.

I suggested early on that you know how things work (the context was the structure and responsibilites of the various branches of the federal government) before you start making statements (adds validity to your position not necessarily a bad thing is it?).
I then stated that unless you seek information from another perspective (the other side of the coin or edges and giving the concession of forgoing objectivity) that the your reasoning and therefore any conclusion is faulty.

Why does that threaten you?

That is “slamming” someone? If you think this is “slamming” someone then you must live a very sheltered life. Your response actually adds validity to the point I was pursuing.

[sdnativeson]

I think it does arraya, IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism.

As I said to Alex if you’re going to bash Bush, be relevant, and (unsaid) get your facts straight and verified. Dealing in generalizations is what a lazy person does or a person who knows that the specifics or details call their opinions into question which they don’t want,or a stupid person or, a bigoted person take your pick.

The mentality exhibited by many here is that ” the coin has only one side”. To exercise (or attempt) critical thought you have to look at the other side and even the edges (and absorb information that you find personally distasteful)to get as much information as possible to then form an opinion/theory. I won’t go into trying to be objective about it.

I stand corrected (I should have qualified the context I intended to use from the term) upon my choice of words with the term “sycophantic”. I could have been more precise in my wording. My intent was to convey some of the attributes listed below, (condensed from Mirram Webster). I feel however than beyond the “literal” definition the action behind the word is accurate

synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker . LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one’s own advantage. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger.

[sdnativeson]

I think it does arraya, IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism.

As I said to Alex if you’re going to bash Bush, be relevant, and (unsaid) get your facts straight and verified. Dealing in generalizations is what a lazy person does or a person who knows that the specifics or details call their opinions into question which they don’t want,or a stupid person or, a bigoted person take your pick.

The mentality exhibited by many here is that ” the coin has only one side”. To exercise (or attempt) critical thought you have to look at the other side and even the edges (and absorb information that you find personally distasteful)to get as much information as possible to then form an opinion/theory. I won’t go into trying to be objective about it.

I stand corrected (I should have qualified the context I intended to use from the term) upon my choice of words with the term “sycophantic”. I could have been more precise in my wording. My intent was to convey some of the attributes listed below, (condensed from Mirram Webster). I feel however than beyond the “literal” definition the action behind the word is accurate

synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker . LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one’s own advantage. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger.

[sdnativeson]

I think it does arraya, IMHO it exhibits complete bias, one side of the coin and all that. There is an implied opinion that the Clinton/Gore government is a paragon of governmental leadership and is beyond critcism.

As I said to Alex if you’re going to bash Bush, be relevant, and (unsaid) get your facts straight and verified. Dealing in generalizations is what a lazy person does or a person who knows that the specifics or details call their opinions into question which they don’t want,or a stupid person or, a bigoted person take your pick.

The mentality exhibited by many here is that ” the coin has only one side”. To exercise (or attempt) critical thought you have to look at the other side and even the edges (and absorb information that you find personally distasteful)to get as much information as possible to then form an opinion/theory. I won’t go into trying to be objective about it.

I stand corrected (I should have qualified the context I intended to use from the term) upon my choice of words with the term “sycophantic”. I could have been more precise in my wording. My intent was to convey some of the attributes listed below, (condensed from Mirram Webster). I feel however than beyond the “literal” definition the action behind the word is accurate

synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker . LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one’s own advantage. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger.

[sdnativeson]

Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.

Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.

fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.

The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.

[sdnativeson]

Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.

Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.

fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.

The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.

[sdnativeson]

Clinton, Al Gore… I am no fan of G. Bush but the sycophantic attitude some people here have of those two.. well… Baaaaa Baaaaa! Political bigotry abounds here and as bigotry supposedly is largely based upon ignorance – connect the dots.

Any individual that is politically polarized is not, imho, intelligent much less any type of free-thinker.

fourplexowner made a comment how he associates a movie with current events.

The movie I associate with this thread is the movie “Being There”.

[sdnativeson]

Proposing legislation isn’t the same as writing it and doesn’t mean it will be approved by the house and senate (that would be “Congress”). Vetoes can be overturned by majority votes in both houses (“Congress”).

Congress authorized Iraq it as is their responsibility-read article 8.

Political bigotry abounds here along with ignorance as to
the laws of our nation (Constitution).

I’m curious, what is our form of government? Anyone?

If your attention span lasts long enough feel free to read below.

Section 7 – House to originate all revenue bills. Veto. Bill may be passed by two-thirds of each House, notwithstanding, etc. Bill, not returned in ten days to become a law. Provisions as to orders, concurrent resolutions, etc.
1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

3. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8 – Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[Author]

Posts