Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: rightwing family values.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: rightwing family values. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 1:53:09 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Depends. Are human rights a family value

quote:



A prominent supporter of President Barack Obama and co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign was arrested last week on charges of sodomy and sexual abuse related to what authorities said was an encounter with a juvenile male.

Terrence Bean, 66, a major Democratic donor and a celebrated gay-rights activist, was indicted on two felony charges of sodomy and a misdemeanor count of sexual abuse by a grand jury and arrested in Oregon Wednesday, according to a statement from the Portland Police Bureau. Bean was released later that day on bail, pending a court hearing...



I suppose that if you feel you need a very narrow definition of "values" and such things in order to prove to yourselves that are not total hypocrites, you will go ahead and paint it any colour you like and completely disregard what is logical and makes sense


You tell me if human rights are a family value, Sanity. I'm unfamiliar with the Bible and have little idea of what fine upright Christian Bible supporters and kiddie-fiddling criminals like Josh Duggan consider to be the values we should all be upholding. I'm even less aware of how they consider their values to be 'logical' and 'make sense'. Perhaps you could help me on these questions?




Ah, you see Peon. It's not paranoid to ask you to go first. Here, first the sandbag question:
quote:



Has Terry Bean been a strident supporter of family values, then?



Then your response here in this post.

You often have insightful posts that contribute. But, for some reason you like this sandbag ploy.

Bullshit. There simply is no comparison and it getting tiresome to even read this crap.



Not that I think you'll care anymore about what I find tiring than I care about what you find tiring...or anything else actually...but I find left wing loonies who believe that their ideology should be accepted as gospel without comment to be very tiring.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 1:56:42 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline


VERY selective memory

Bubba Clinton was right in the middle of "Ronny and Bush's little wars"

("God bless America")

quote:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 3:18:00 PM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I'm not sure if I should refer you to the cultwatch link I posted earlier or start screaming Alinsky.

So I'll quote from a favorite fictional character of mine, Simi.

quote:

We have three kinds of family. Those we are born to, those who are born to us, and those we let into our hearts.



Have you ever watched SouthPark?

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 3:53:29 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
Sure, why?

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 3:57:36 PM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Sure, why?


I was just curious if you caught on to the fact that Eric Cartman is all growed up and arguing with you on this thread.

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 4:03:48 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
Don't forget we also bombed Iraq because of an assassination plot on George HW Bush.

I know that the war isn't a popular issue, but I do believe it was inevitable. Saddam was a proven evil sombitch, and could not be allowed to remain in power.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 4:07:13 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Sure, why?


I was just curious if you caught on to the fact that Eric Cartman is all growed up and arguing with you on this thread.


Heh. Thanks for that.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/25/2015 4:07:55 PM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV


quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant


quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Sure, why?


I was just curious if you caught on to the fact that Eric Cartman is all growed up and arguing with you on this thread.


Heh. Thanks for that.


I got yer back ;)


_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 8:22:56 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
So, what do you think Hillary will focus on in her first term?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 10:01:28 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, what do you think Hillary will focus on in her first term?





Low IQ voters deciding on who would best represent them by such things as who they had a selfie with, could explain how Barack Obama got elected twice

Could explain a lot of things, such as why processed cheese is so popular. And the people of Walmart

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 10:04:20 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Walmart is popular because walmart with the failure of the rabid rightwing is selling out to china, as well as giving out foodstamps and welfare to cover up one of the massive failures of capitalism and their beloved free trade communism, it works by not paying a living wage.

Low information voters put those imbeciles in there, not knowing that reality is not unworkable jingles.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 5/26/2015 10:06:02 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 10:16:56 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
And even without their filthy pictures they still find national humiliation at their imbecilities:

http://bluenationreview.com/incompetent-boob-scott-walker-finally-fired/

More low information.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 5/26/2015 10:17:20 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 12:03:03 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
I really don't think the candidates will have a problem because of the photos.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 12:28:52 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
its fairly big news now. And like several things not said, what does it matter, we have to pass it to see whats in it, I can see russia from my house, and so on............people will remember it that way.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to JVoV)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 12:50:24 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Huckabee is a reasoned right winger, until he forgives rightwingers. Asswipe.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/10/05/can-have-different-points-view-but-shouldnt-have-different-standards.html

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 135
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 2:53:37 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

its fairly big news now. And like several things not said, what does it matter, we have to pass it to see whats in it, I can see russia from my house, and so on............people will remember it that way.


Its all the buzz among the people of Walmart, anyway



Here, have some processed cheese-like food



Mmm, tastes just like margarin, only slightly more plasticy

Mmmm

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 136
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 2:55:03 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Thats what the rabid right has on the agenda right there.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 137
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 3:05:55 PM   
JVoV


Posts: 3657
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

its fairly big news now. And like several things not said, what does it matter, we have to pass it to see whats in it, I can see russia from my house, and so on............people will remember it that way.


Really, the memes suck so far.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 138
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 3:10:55 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
“I don’t own a single share of stock.” —Michael Moore

Members of the liberal left exude an air of moral certitude. They pride themselves on being selflessly committed to the highest ideals and seem particularly confident of the purity of their motives and the evil nature of their opponents. To correct economic and social injustice, liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and much, much more.

But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate in depth the private lives of some prominent liberals: politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers and philanthropists like Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using everything from real estate transactions, IRS records, court depositions, and their own public statements, he sought to examine whether they really live by the principles they so confidently advocate.

What he found was a long list of glaring contradictions. Michael Moore denounces oil and defense contractors as war profiteers. He also claims to have no stock portfolio, yet he owns shares in Halliburton, Boeing, and Honeywell and does his postproduction film work in Canada to avoid paying union wages in the United States. Noam Chomsky opposes the very concept of private property and calls the Pentagon “the worst institution in human history,” yet he and his wife have made millions of dollars in contract work for the Department of Defense and own two luxurious homes. Barbra Streisand prides herself as an environmental activist, yet she owns shares in a notorious strip-mining company. Hillary Clinton supports the right of thirteen-year-old girls to have abortions without parental consent, yet she forbade thirteen-year-old Chelsea to pierce her ears and enrolled her in a school that would not distribute condoms to minors. Nancy Pelosi received the 2002 Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farm Workers, yet she and her husband own a Napa Valley vineyard that uses nonunion labor.

(From the book: Do As I Say, Not As I Do. Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweizer)

Then:

UPDATE: Prof. William Penn has been suspended, with pay, of his teaching duties at Michigan State University this semester, according to a statement from MSU. Penn "acknowledged that some of his comments were inappropriate, disrespectful and offensive and may have negatively affected the learning environment," according to the statement. This action comes less than a day after Campus Reform and Michigan Capitol Confidential reported on the video of Penn intimidating students and berating Republicans during a class lecture. Alternate instructors will take over the course he was scheduled to teach. Our original story first posted yesterday afternoon is below.
(Gee...I don't know why anybody would think his comments are disparaging)


A Michigan State University Creative Writing professor was caught on video saying Republicans are old people with "dead skin cells washing off them" who raped the United States to get "everything out of it they possibly could."

He also threatened any student who he said might be "closet" racists.

Professor William Penn made the comments in one of his classes, which was videotaped by a student and posted online by Campus Reform. In the video, Penn berates Republicans and says he doesn't care if students are Republicans or if their parents are Republicans and that it didn't really matter because they won't forgive him anyway.

At one point in the video when talking about race, he issues a blanket threat to his students.

"I am a college professor. If I find out you are a closet racist, I am coming after you," Penn said.

In the video, Penn said Republicans are a "bunch of dead white people, or dying white people."

He later asked the class: "Anybody here want to be Mitt Romney? Him? I mean (lets out a sigh) married to her (Ann Romney)?"

Penn, who earned $146,510 in 2012-13 according to MSU records, also talked disparagingly about Mitt Romney being "rich."

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19106

More from this 'liberal bastion of tolerance'

Professor Susan J. Douglas, a department chair at the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science and Arts, wrote a column this week for the liberal website inthesetimes.com entitled, ‘It’s Okay To Hate Republicans.’


Douglas, who is chair of the Communications Studies program, opened her article with the line, “I hate Republicans.”

The article includes a photo of three U.S. Senators who are Republicans, with the caption, “It’s okay to despise these men.”

Douglas, whose university pay was $178,786 last year, did not respond to a request seeking comment.

“We see this as a free speech issue,” said Rick Fitzgerald, spokesman for the University of Michigan.

Leon Drolet, chair of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, said employers have a right to determine what type of conduct they expect from their employees.

But Drolet said the University of Michigan has to make sure their mission is not compromised by an extremist.

“Their very mission is to create an environment that facilitates learning through an exchange of ideas,” Drolet said. “She is a detriment to the University because she hates and encourages others to hate University students who disagree with her political views. Many students in that department will feel intimidated and reluctant to express their views on politics, policy and society because a University official has announced she will hate them for it.”

In 2012, Douglas moderated an event that was accused of violating University of Michigan policies prohibiting the use of school resources to advertise a partisan event. The "non-partisan" event was called “The Republican War on Women.” When Dr. Robert Steele, a candidate for the U-M Regents, raised questions about the title of the event, it was amended by adding a question mark to the statement: “The Republican War on Women?” The panel included three liberal writers and no Republicans.

And yet...In 2008, Ron Weiser, former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, donated $10 million to a division of the same U-M college that employs Douglas, called the International Institute.

State taxpayers appropriated $321.7 million in direct aid for the University of Michigan in 2014.

Do you suppose any of that tax money comes from Republican taxpayers?

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/20840


< Message edited by CreativeDominant -- 5/26/2015 3:15:57 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 139
RE: rightwing family values. - 5/26/2015 3:15:13 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Peter Schweitzer is a world reknown lying propagandist organ for the rabid rightwing, he has more pages of error corrections than he has in the books.

Schweitzer is a lie felcher.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 140
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: rightwing family values. Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109