My debate on Sarah Palin's issue

[bozazz]

Edited everything out because opponent demanded removal of the debate. Now the question is if anyone knows whether copying a debate from a different site is an invasion of privacy and a violation of copyright laws. I personally feel it fits under fair dealings under Canadian copy right laws.

[SirNitram]

Why is this in the politics forum? Your personal debates are not for here.

[bozazz]

What I noticed about this is that he's overwhelmed me with a large amount of information. I have to go and look up everything and even then I'm not always 100% certain what to make of it. How do I counter all this information? How do I prove my point definitively.

[bozazz]

Sorry. I wasn't sure where to put it. I thought it might fit here since the content is of a political nature.

[SirNitram]

Moved to the sub-forum specifically marked for Debating Help.

[bozazz]

Thanks. I didn't know there was a sub-forum.

[RedImperator]

Edited everything out because opponent demanded removal of the debate. Now the question is if anyone knows whether copying a debate from a different site is an invasion of privacy and a violation of copyright laws. I personally feel it fits under fair dealings under Canadian copy right laws.

He's completely full of shit. Not only is it not a privacy violation at all, and not only am I not sure copyright even attaches to an online debate, but even if it does, you own half the copyright by virtue of being the co-author.

[bozazz]

Edited everything out because opponent demanded removal of the debate. Now the question is if anyone knows whether copying a debate from a different site is an invasion of privacy and a violation of copyright laws. I personally feel it fits under fair dealings under Canadian copy right laws.

He's completely full of shit. Not only is it not a privacy violation at all, and not only am I not sure copyright even attaches to an online debate, but even if it does, you own half the copyright by virtue of being the co-author.

I explained to him that if I only posted my parts (which he didn't disagree with) the debate wouldn't make any sense at all. However if you think he wouldn't be able to press charges against me then I will re-post the debate. I'm still hoping to get feedback in my debate as I lost to him and I'm not exactly why. Anyways the guy's a typical Republican support, from Canada of all places. I'll summarize his views briefly below and when I can be absolutely sure that he has no foot to stand on in terms of copyright laws I'll post our exchange. But he's been known to threaten to bring lawyers into things - ie threatening to sue his friends (who incidentally aren't his friends anymore). Still can't believe we were friends once.

Here are a few of his main points: (I'll add more later when I have the opportunity to go through the debate transcript)
- he claims that the Palin interview was edited to make her look bad; and while she uttered nonsense in the clip, the rest of the debate what she said was good
- that gays have no right as the government doesn't recognize marriages, just unions
- that Michelle Malkin represents mainstream conservatism (he admires her)
- I argued that liking Malkin and being against gay marriages made him a bigot. He said no it doesn't.
- he thinks that Palin being only a veep candidate means that you can't compare her foreign experience with Obama (I probably should have compared her to Binden)
- that Palin's church's "pray away the gays" event is not extreme. He even said he polled people who support gay rights on this, though no details.

[RedImperator]

He can't "press charges" against you. He'd get laughed out of any court in the universe if he tried, and anyway, do you really think he's going to spend thousands of dollars on a lawyer to sue you for reposting an online debate? Jesus, if you can't see through that kind of transparent bullying horseshit, no wonder you lost.

[Darth Wong]

I've had idiots try to pull exactly this kind of bluff on me before, and my response was always the same: post even more of their bullshit and call their bluff.

[bozazz]

Well I do get bullied into things, especially since I'm rather reserved. I do get angry though, and in my debate I lost it when he kept on sourcing Malkin. To clarify I would think he would be pretty stupid to spend money on a lawyer on such a mindless, lawsuit that can't be profited from. But when he threatened to petition the admin, that would be Mike, about my transgression, I was worried since it wasn't explicitly stated in the rules if I had to remove my post if requested by someone off the board. I didn't want to get banned - I like reading all the posts here. I enjoy lurking and reading. I'm just not very assertive at times. Anyways I hope someone here will find the time to help me critique the exchange and help me improve, in debating, to be more assertive, and to control my outbursts. I have no doubt that if I get a handle on debating, I'll dramatically improve in my life as I become more assertive and less emotional when being confronted (I always get this fight or flight response which clouds my mind and makes it difficult to focus and not be emotional). I've never debated outside of model UN, and in this case I didn't want to debate the individual. I merely posted a video (of Palin's reponse to Couric on the bailout) and suggested she appeared to be ignorant. [Edit - dressed links]

Opponent wrote
She most definitely is not ignorant. Nothing in that interview suggests she is ignorant. It's very sad to see that because she does not have an example on hand that she is labeled as ignorant by you. So I ask, why the careless attack on Palin? What about her gives you the impression that she is ignorant? Besides, after reading the hatred and slant on the site for Sarah Palin and John McCain it's clear you've referenced more opinion than substance to demonstrate she had a poor interview.


Me wrote
She's running as the VP of a superpower. She has no excuse to be unprepared. Considering she's been proclaiming that McCain's a maverick she should be able to come up with a few examples. Please stop suggesting I'm merely referencing opinions. This isn't the first interview that she appeared less than coherent. Her first interview she couldn't answer exactly what makes her qualified to be VP. Not only that she seems to suggest her proximity to Russia seems to make her qualified in foreign affairs.

Interview

So if you think my attacks are careless you're free to do so. I'm only noting what she says and does. Her support and rejection of the Alaskan bridge certain peaked my interests in this candidate. At the very least her claim is at most a half truth.

Voice of America

And you've got me wrong. I don't hate Palin nor McCain. I just feel they're not great candidates. I also don't support her abstinence only education, her views on creationism, or the fact that she attends a radical Christian fundamentalist church that pray to God to cure gays.

Salon


Opponent wrote
I asked you a question what makes her ignorant. You have yet to answer it. I asked why you have carelessly attacked her, you have yet to answer.
She was not unprepared for the interview. To top it off you've referenced a leftist blog that is using opinion, rather than fact and substantiated evidence to demonstrate her preparedness. This is simply unacceptable and wouldn't cut it in a debate class in University.
I won't stop suggesting that you're merely referencing opinions. Your original post was supported by opinions from a blog. Why should I stop?
She was very coherent in her ABC interview. I witnessed it and not surprisingly the interviewer thought he was clever enough to stump her on an issue which really has no solid definition.

Michelle Malkin- Bush Doctrine - ME: I have to make a comment on this link. I attacked him on this site because after reading it, and reading his accusation against me for not using credible source I felt that he basically did the same.

Observe how further Gibson screws up the interview.
Michelle Malkin – ABC Blows it

Here's the insight of the Bridge to Nowhere:
WSJ – bridge to nowhere

This half-truth speak is nonsense.
I never said you hated Palin nor did I say that you hated McCain. You have me wrong for making silly assumption of what I have said and implied.
Show us where she is abstinence only in education and please show us how the Wasilla Bible Church is a radical Christian fundamentalist church.
Don't forget that [name removed] is an evangelical too and I'm sure you don't mean to insult him when you call a mainstream evangelical church radical and fundamentalist in bad name.
You don't have to like anyone but be prepared to be challenged on the facts and not what you think they might be.

Me wrote
I'll comment on your stuff as soon as I can. I'm just about to start class so I don't know how much time I have. Also debating in facebook, and not only that as replies to my note isn't too good. There's no one to read or moderate and I'm curious to see how you hold up on this board I've been going to. They're very good at debating, slapped me down a few times, and if you're up for a challenge could give you a very worth while debate.

It's up to you. I'll look there tonight for your post on that site if you're interested in debating in a public forum. They're relatively non-biased as they have both conservatives and liberals. But it's for you to decide. Just post in the politics forum (the link goes to it) and make a post. I'm actually very curious as to the reasons you support McCain and Palin, vs Obama and Biden. I believe that the forum could also use some new insight and ideas.

Me wrote
And personally I don't spend all my time reading this stuff so I won't be as good at debating. And besides why did you bring up "reading hatred and slant on the site for Sarah Palin and John McCain". It just seems you were implying that I hate them. Maybe more clarification is needed.

Me wrote
Oh and copy what I wrote and your response to the post if you're going to post to the forum. So that everyone knows exactly what the debate is about. It's probably best not to use our real names.


Me wrote
just reading your Michelle Malkin. So just a question...you're replacing my liberal blog with a conservative blog? The language on that site hardly indicates a site that's non-partisan.

Opponent wrote
I would waste too much time posting in the board as I love to argue.

I've already been posting in that forum but I gave up because it took up hours of my day.

I brought up the hatred part because the site you link chose offers a lot of it. I'm not saying you hate anyone but it's uneasy to refer to a source that is fueled by hatred from it's readers.

I'm not "replacing" your blog but what I am doing is offering a counter to it. The problem with the situation is that my blog does not fuel extremes. I never intended to post a bipartisan site, there isn't any.

However Michelle Malkin continues to win many awards and has regular mainstream news appearances. She is a very well versed and informed syndicate.


Me wrote
What's your name on stardestroyer? I wouldn't mind reading a few of your posts.

Opponent wrote
I thought you said it's called "Politics". I'm not on Stardestroyer as I thought you mentioned posting on Politics.


Me wrote
the link I posted was stardestroyer. I meant the politics section of the forum

Me wrote
I read a few of your posts. Unfortunately I don't know what to say. The piece on the bridge is also an opinion piece so you can't just claim I'm referencing an opinion. I mean honestly the writer made a judgement that a baseball stadium and a visitor center is wasteful earmarks. Personally I don't see how that compares to a bridge for just 50 individuals. I suppose in the end it's all about opinions for the election so I think I'd rather not argue about this as I doubt I'd convince you or you I. I'll wait to see whoever wins and base my judgement on their actions in office. Honestly both sides have flaws and strengths. Base on Obama's speeches he seems to present himself well. And besides if she ran in Canada I couldn't justify voting for her. Since she's been shying away from most media for the last 4 months who can accurately pin down her views on abstinence education. all I know is that sarah palin in 2006 gubernatorial race said she would fund abstinence-only education programs in schools, then later supported contraceptives. Personally I not too fond of evanglicals, regardless of what scott thinks. You might not know but scott believes in the literal truth of the bible. This seems to what sarah believes in. I mean why would she want creationism taught in schools. Anyways it's a non issue. This is just how I feel after reading the news. Only sarah knows the truth. Anyways just an opinion on your debating technique...you really come off as aggressive and confrontational. Perhaps you'd find a kinder ear if you soften your approach.

Me wrote
As for michelle malkin. you realize she supported the internment of Japanese Americans. I find that very offensive. I'm very doubtful that she's an "award winning" journalists. It seems she spills only right-wing propaganda. It might be true that the blog I indicated spill hate and is not a very accurate or objective. But neither is the source you provided. Just thought I'd let you know that because it's really bugging me that you accused me of sourcing biased blogs when you did the exact same thing.

Opponent wrote
I'm not on stardestroyer, what posts did you read of mine?
Additionally I can say you're referencing opinion, the difference is mine doesn't use subjectiveness to define a truth or a half-truth. Furthermore, the opinion originator is a senator. A baseball stadium and a visitor center have no business receiving public funds as they are private entities.
I don't like how Obama speaks. He uses "um" too much and his rhetoric literally puts me to sleep.
She's not shying away from the media, she's running a campaign and does not want to submit to a media roast of herself. Have you been following how brutal the Mainstream media has been towards her? Have you seen the insults and attacks on her? Have you bear witness to the lies about her in the media?
I requested that you demonstrate the radicalism of the church she attends and the abstinence only issue. Please deliver.
It shouldn't matter if you are fond of them or not, but to call her mainstream evangelical church radical and fundamentalist is unfairly bold without substantiation.
I have always debated in an aggressive manner and a confrontational manner. It quickly weeds out those who are not serious and unwilling to back up their claims.
She cannot possibly have supported the internment of them, she was not alive then. While you might find it offensive, it's not enough to discredit her achievements in journalism and blog writing.
The source I have provided is far more objective as it fits mainstream conservative values.
Everything is biased, I've told you this many times before. The problem should always be around the level of acceptable biasness and I don't fine americablog acceptable, let alone accurate in what they post.


Me wrote
I believe you misunderstood me. I asked if you wanted to move the debate to stardestroyer in the politics section. You thought I was talking about the Politics website and responded that you posted on it. So I merely ask what your name is so I could read the posts. Since we're both talking about different webpage it doesn't matter.

Now as to dodging the issues it seems you're the one making habit of it. I provided links that dealt with homosexuality which leads to their radicalism. Perhaps you should actually read the links I post to you, and show me the respect that I show you by actually reading the articles. So stop demanding proof when I provided it.

Salon – Palin on Gays

You can't cure gays as their church believes through prayer. Though I find your previous stated stance on gay marriages unfair. Joseph might no say much on it, but he certainly find is hurtful and offensive as do I.
Your attack on my references is low, considering your own reference from senator DeMint is subjective and not only that quotes from Citizens Against Government Waste, which appears to be nothing more than a corporate front. That's hardly grassroots.
As for Obama I agree he uses um too much. I was listening to him and he did sound like some students that I went to school with.
So what if the media roasts her. She can defend herself. The scrutiny will only increase when she becomes VP. And besides the roasting only started significantly when she refused the press to cover her meeting with several foreign leaders. Remember how CNN pulled their film crew. You can't also ignore the lies from her camp. Obama doesn't encourage sex ed in kindergarden and his tax plan will not increase the burden on low to middle income earners.

Yeah well I usually save the aggressive manner for people acting like dolts.

Me wrote
In Defense of Internment. She justfy the internment of people in guantanamo bay to the internment of Japanese during wwII, many of whom were innocent. If that's not support for the internment then I don't know what is. I have yet to see much achievement in journalism or blog writing. The only achievement I feel that you perceive in her writing is that she agrees with you.
Yes everything is biased true. You did say that. But I'm rather shocked that you'd find that level of bias, as to say that any internment of individuals that disregard international standards, to be acceptable.
Don't accuse me of looking just for any flaws in that woman. My opinions is based on what I've read and I try to keep an open mind. I can be swayed if enough evidence can be provided. Sheesh. However from every contact I've had with you and even from the general consensus of our mutual friends you seem inflexible. As I've said both candidates are human and have flaws and yet you don't seem to admit to some major issues that is plaguing Sarah Palin.

Opponent wrote
You were not clear so it's not hard to see why there is a misunderstanding. Anyways my name on the politics site is still my name. You can't change your name joining another facebook group.
I'm not dodging anything here Kelvin, don't make stupid accusations. Your link hardly deals with extremism, if in fact you can properly attribute that label to that church for such an action. So no, you're wrong in stating that you have addressed the issues I have raised.
You talked about radical fundamentalism, not extremism. Are you equating the two now?
You don't command respect either, it's earned and so far you're doing a bang up job to lose my respect on how you carry yourself on an issue.
As for my previous stance on Gay Marriage, it has never changed and Joseph (who had nothing to do with this discussion until you decided to involve him by name) has told me on more than one occasion it is a position he shares. So I'm not certain what you find is hurtful and offensive about it on top of what he supposedly finds as hurtful and offensive.
My attacks are hardly low, you have to pick your sources wisely and be prepared to defend them which you're not doing a good job of. Furthermore you should stop relying on Wikipedia to do your research for you in addressing specifically Michelle Malkin and CAGW. If you really have a problem with DeMint's statements go and look up the figures in the LOC and the GAO.
The media's job isn't to roast a candidate they do not like and it is not their job to assist a preferred candidate. I hope you realize that the mainstream media is losing a lot of points in the overall scheme of things because of their petty and often stupid attacks on Palin and McCain.


Opponent wrote
They roasted her on day one, digging up any dirt they could and even fabricating stories about her. Call it the Palin Derangement Syndrome as Michelle does. So no, it didn't really start significantly when she refused press coverage. From unfair and biased media coverage to magazine sensationalism to blatant lies about her cutting funding to more lies about her banning books, books that were not even created when she supposedly banned them.

Illinois Government

There is the bill. Line 14 specifically references kindergarten. It's time that you substantiate your bold claims.
Thanks for calling me a dolt however indirect. I can unleash insults like others can but I choose to refrain from such actions. I warn you though, I do reserve the right to respond in kind.
Have you read her book "In Defense of Internment"? I'm not certain you have going by your statements of what the case for justification is.
She can't possibly agree with me if she is the one writing for mainstream conservatives. Full stop, that's a role reversal that is not true.
As for her achievements being a journalist from 1992, a regular contributor to the largest news body in America, hosting two large blog-sites, a conservative syndicate columnist and writing three books is nothing to balk at. How well have you researched her?
What international standard in 1941 was Roosevelt defying? Of the standard(s), how many had superseded the US Constitution? Please play the wow-factor card after you've demonstrated the scope.
There's nothing open about attacking Palin because you happen to have read one side of the story.


Opponent wrote
like how you bring personalities into this discussion. I mean, you've actually gone and polled friends about my flexibility in opinion? That's appalling, pathetic and downright insulting. Should I poll people about your intelligence? How about your driving habits? You best change your tone, you're treading in territory that is not beneficial to either of us. I don't know what your problem is but for a person to demand respect and then threaten the respect of his friend is very harrowing.
I ask you to identify an issue that's actually plaguing Sarah Palin right now, not what the media cuts out and tries to convince the masses of.
Did you watch the entire interview session with Couric? Did you watch the Hannity interview with her? Did you watch the AP interview with her? Did you brief yourself on the Financial Post interview with her?

What are these issues that are plaguing her and why is it that there is only an issue from groups out to smear her?

Me wrote

While I don't think anyone can pin down Sarah's exact views on creationism quotes like these are indicative of how she will run the education system. I'll admit that at the very least during her term none of her beliefs translated into policy, though there remains a doubt. So you got me there. I will cede that point.

Palin Creationist

Google Article

Though her church still remains exceptionally conservative and quite fundamentalist. You can't deny that they don't hold a event "pray away the gays." It's interesting that she hasn't come out and addressed the issue yet. Barack did come out to address the Wright issue. And I do have hesitation about his association with that person and the church same as I have with Sarah and her church.

Gays

These are among a few that I have come across. Oh it's also nice to see the double standards that you impose on the candidates. As I recall the press was pretty hard on the wright issue, and the confusion of Obama and Osama was just plain wrong.

Now that's pretty much all I have to say on the subject. Frankly your views on gay rights, and generally your antagonistic views is draining to my psych. Not to mention that you subscribe to a site like michelle malkin and try to pass it off as mainstream conservatives is just disturbing.

Opponent wrote
So you've removed me as a friend because I've asked you to take down a series of comments you had no right to post elsewhere, a direct invasion of my privacy? You've stooped to a new low. In all the times I have gone well out of my way to help you in life, I never thought you would subject to such poor principles and disrespect. Not only have you verbally insulted me, you've clearly personally insulted me.

Anyways, as always, I'm going to address this post seeing as I am unable to address the others because you have removed me.

Sarah Palin has stated unequivocally that she supports evolution being taught in science class and that she did not want to only teach creationism in school.

Sarah Evolution

Read the entire transcript, you might learn something.

In your AP article it specifically mentions that Sarah Palin did not push for creationism as Governor. The claims are weak, the paranoia is high. The substance is non-existent.

I have not attempted to deny that her church has a "pray with gays" event but I have questioned the very foundation of your claims as to how possibly her church could be considered radical and even how it could be considered extremist. As yet, we still await your demonstration of this. Your link does not support your claims in the slightest, in fact you did not even make an attempt to demonstrate how the link could support your statements.

She does not have to address the "pray with gays" event as it is not nearly as controversial as you claim. Obama had to address Wright's comments because his comments were national media attention. The article even states that her efforts have not worked against gay activism.

Where have I drawn a double standard? This church nonsense you're going on about is a non-issue. There is no double standard.

You don't even know what my views are on gay rights.
Michelle Malkin is part of mainstream conservatism and no amount of self-inflicted disgust from you will change this fact. If that bothers you, I can't change that.

In all of this you have left me little choice but to request one final time to remove my posts from that forum. I will be petitioning facebook for a violation of their terms of service and a violation of my inherent right to privacy.

Me wrote
How is it a it an invasion of your privacy? I've removed your name in the document to ensure your privacy. And as far as I am concern it falls under fair dealings as I'm using the exchange for analysis which for me is accomplished from a peer review from the member of the forum. There's no personally identifying information and so doesn't violate facebooks terms of service. If you don't want your information disseminated and analyzed don't post it. Beating your chest loudly doesn't make you right.

I've stooped to no low. I merely find your views offensive to me and to that extent I made it clear to you. Please don't start a sad sob story about how you've helped me in life. We both know we haven't gone out of our ways to help the other. And even if you did you can't hold that as a defense. It doesn't matter if you gone out of your way to help me. I find your conservatives views dangerous to society. Since you support Malkin I can't support you.

I have poor principles and disrespect? I'm not the one making false claims about the validity of my sources. Michelle Malkin is hardly unbiased and you can continue to present her as mainstream, but if that truly represents main stream conservatism that I think I stand by my beliefs to disassociate myself from it.

The fact that they feel that they can pray to have gays cured is radical and extremist in my views. But of course knowing that your consider Malkin to be mainstream I can see why you wouldn't bat at eye at such evidence. I don't have to point out the moral implications of believing that gays are only gay because they have a disease. That's just hogwash.

It seems nothing changes your mind since you buy so deeply into the conservative movement. McCain's entire staff is full of lobbyist and you still support him. Palin has no tangible international experience and you support her. While she didn't actively worked against gay rights she had supported a bill to strip them of benefits, but only backed out due to pressure. She drove the city of Wasilla into ground and left it with a $22 million bond debt from a mere 1.125 million when she took office. [url=http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?

Not only that she's been known to elect friends and are often vindictive against those who oppose her.
?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222452377-AILncNGgN5i0dTSV5v+eww]Sarah Elect Friends
You once said that you'd be ashamed if anyone would hire another person into a public office due to friendship because it would be a biased nomination rather than one based on reason. So what does that make you a hypocrite? You bet, another reason why I don't respect you.

Now your sources are literally right off the conservative press. From Michelle Malkin to your most recent quote from Fox. The same fox news that brought you this.

Fox Blunder
Fox Blunder

Previously you also sourced a quote from Jim DeMint. Who made it clear publicly that he opposes gay individuals and single mothers from teaching in schools. Jim DeMint

Finally Sarah's being investigated for abuse of power, which she has actively resisted.

I can not explain it any clearer to you why Sarah is a bad candidate. You can blame liberal media, by sourcing your right wing conservative media as a response. It doesn't wash away these issues. I also find your support of a woman who wrote a book champing Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans into camps distasteful.

You see if you could support a woman who believes this then that's an affront to me. I'm proud to be Canadian and I will fight anyone tooth and nail who says otherwise. I'm also very proud of my Chinese heritage because that's who I am. But if for some very improbable reason that China went to war with the west, even though I have never supported the government's treatment of its citizens, and although I love Canada - I couldn't for even a micro of a second imagine you would for a moment speak out against internment. You are the company you keep and the people you admire.

I've grown tired of hearing your deeply conservative bigoted views. And don't say you're not. Because only a bigot would find a convoluted way to explain away why gays should not get married. If you want the message deleted you can petition stardestroyer's admin yourself. Because I feel that I'm using the text fairly. If you feel otherwise let them know and if they agree they'll remove it.

Opponent [b/]
If you want to debate, don't run away or block people because you want to have the last word.

You said the prior post was your last one, now you're back. Either
way, I'm not bothered.

It is an invasion of my privacy because you did not ask to reproduce
my comments. You did not ask me if you could use my comments, my work
elsewhere. Furthermore I did not agree to you doing it. I asked you
twice to take it down and because you won't you are continuing to
violate my right to privacy.

Furthermore, under the Copyright Act, you are not allowed to reproduce
my comments without my consent. Facebook's Terms of Use, in particular
the Privacy policy mandates that users must abide by local laws when
considering information about another individual.

If I ask you to take my work down to which you have no permission to
post, you are obligated to do so.

You have stooped to new lows and you continue to do so. With your
insults and personal attacks, you have demonstrated that you have
chosen to treat this situation in an immature fashion. Additionally my
views are most definitely not dangerous to society because a) Alberta
is a conservative society b) I function well within society c) I don't
threaten people d) I don't treat people like garbage because they have
a difference in opinion. You said you have an open mind, this is not
the case when you tell me you can't support me because I support
Michelle Malkin. I think it's time you leave Alberta and move to a
place more socially acceptable for yourself as clearly you are
uncomfortable here.

While my opinions might offend you, they are shared and practiced
within the rights and freedoms afforded to me by the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. I have gone well out of my way to help you including the
time Joseph thought you were depressed and possibly suicidal.

I've paid for you to partake in social events when you could not
afford them. I've called you up to see how you are and even helped you
with relationship concerns. I've been a friend. On the other hand you
have demonstrated very recently that you do not consider yourself a
friend of mine to the point where you hurl insults and falsely label
my beliefs.

Yes you do have poor principles and disrespect. Your posts are
polluted with ad-hominems, red herrings, personal insults and a
premise of a general lack of understanding about subject matter.

I have not made a single false claim and while you state that I have,
you have yet to substantiate your claims. I never once claimed
Michelle Malkin was unbiased but you continue to play this card.
Additionally it makes no difference whether you chose to associate
with her or not, the point is you have to properly defend your beliefs
and show where hers and mine are wrong. So far you have failed
miserably. Additionally you cling to that of what is the fringe left.
America Blog and Thinkprogress.org are known to distort facts to
appear beneficial for the message they want to spread. This is not
different when you consider your complaints about Michelle Malkin. You
can't have it both ways.

While you believe them to be radical and extremist you simply must
demonstrate a convincing position to others of which you have not. Who
said they have diseases?
What's hogwash is that you're trying to trumpet substance but when
dissecting your statements, we see a lot of talk and saying very
little.

Obama's support staff is full of lobbyists too, it's all a part of the
political game in Washington. Obama has no tangible international
experience and while you attack Sarah Palin and my support for her,
remember, she is running for Vice President and Obama is running to be
President. A refresher course in understanding the role of the POTUS
will tell you that the President is in charge of Foreign Policy and to
have Obama there is simply unacceptable on all levels.

She left Wasilla in debt because the people approved her to do so. She
held referendums, a series of votes on the issues. The people voted in
favor of her initiatives including a $14.7 Million USD bond for the
Sports Complex in 2002.

City of Wasilla
City of Wisilla

So while your link only goes to the City's main page, I've linked
directly to the budget reports and in particular the financial report
for the single largest spending initiative of her time as Mayor.

All of these nonsensical and maligned attacks on Sarah Palin have lead
me to believe that the fringe left will stop at nothing to discredit
and defame this woman so long as she does not end up in the White
House. Absolutely appalling.

Please, you're using an article referring to hearsay to demonstrate
vilification of someone. What I did say is that I would be ashamed to
hire someone based on friendship rather than their qualifications for
the job. Of course, you've gone and misinterpreted that so wrongly
that you again attack me this time calling me a hypocrite of which you
have not demonstrated anything hypocritical of me. This is another
logical fallacy of yours, attack me instead of the ideas at hand.

What you're not pointing out is that Obama gained a seat in the
Illinois Senate by gaming the system. He made it so no one could
contest his contention for the available seat. Obama ran unopposed and
because of this tactic, he circumvented democracy.

We bear witness to another logical fallacy of yours this time
attacking the sources and dismissing their contributions because of a
predetermined image you have of them. Instead of addressing the ideas
presented, you engage in logical fallacies. I posted an interview from
Fox News for you to witness from her own mouth what she says. You
cannot claim you are open minded if you are not willing to analyze
alternative sources. You cannot claim you are open minded and willing
to learn if you just want to lash out at anything conservative.

I can return the same favor:
Obama's Gaffe on a Bush 4th term:
Obama’s Gaffe

MSNBC's spelling error of the word Computer:
MSNBC Spelling

This is all moot, it doesn't achieve anything and it is not beneficial
to the issue at hand.

What does attacking Jim DeMint's character have to do with the facts
he presented in highlighting the Bridge to Nowhere?

As always your links come up short. Your links are often myopic.

Washington Post

The above link demonstrates the comment he made.

Here is his comment: "Russert aired a recent debate clip in which
DeMint said, "If a person is a practicing homosexual, they should not
be teaching in our schools." DeMint later said he felt the same "if a
single woman who is pregnant and living with her boyfriend should be
hired to teach my third-grade children.""

I do not condone his comments. I do not support his comments. However
it is clear that what he said is not the same thing as what you or
your source state.

Sarah Palin has not actively resisted investigation into her abuse of
power. Had you watched the interview I posted for you, you would
understand that she appointed the appropriate committee to oversee her
decision to fire a member of her cabinet. Additionally she has
cooperated with all the authorities involved during the investigation.
I'm certain your "sources" tell you different though.

I can not explain it any clearer to you why Sarah is a bad candidate.
You can blame liberal media, by sourcing your right wing conservative
media as a response. It doesn't wash away these issues. I also find
your support of a woman who wrote a book champing Roosevelt's decision
to intern Japanese Americans into camps distasteful.

Your explanation for Sarah Palin's poor candidacy is clouded, fraught
with lack of insight and poor reasoning. It does little to defend your
claim of why she is a poor candidate other than if you could vote for
her you wouldn't based on shady reasoning at best. These issues you
refer have been easily shown as non-issues. Then again you have to
throw in another attack on me. I'm not certain that with all your
concerns of respect and distaste why you don't find your actions to be
disrespectful or distasteful.

You're not fighting anyone here tooth and nail. You offer little
substance, poor support for your arguments and a general lack in
commanding the subject matter.

Remember about thumping your chest and pretending you're right because
you can thump loudly? It doesn't work like that. The real affront here
is your maligned attacks against me and other individuals. It's all
here for everyone to see. Your case would easily be dismissed before a
judge or an independent panel on civility. Your weak case coupled with
insults would probably lead to warnings and consequences levied
against you.

I don't know many proud Canadians that could say with a straight face
that attacking people and insulting them is a patriotic thing to do.

In your hypothetical of a war between the west and China, why would
you think that the west would intern Chinese-Canadians or
Chinese-Americans? This is so highly improbable that I'm not certain
why you are convinced otherwise.

There was no interment of Koreans or Vietnamese, or Kosovars, or
Bosnians, of Somalis or Iraqis of Afghanis and we've seen war with
these groups of people and their leadership in the past and present.

You see Kelvin, I accept that you listen to the fringe left and their
loony-tune mantra and it does not make me respect you less. Somehow
you can't accept that I have my beliefs. My beliefs pose no threat to
your or society no matter how much you pretend they do. Your beliefs
however threaten me as evidenced in your constant insults and name
calling and your violations of my right to privacy.

I'm not going away until you remove the posts and apologize for
insulting me. You have to live with the consequences of attacking me
and I hope it weighs on your conscience. You started this mess with
your careless attacks now you have to remain accountable.

My views are not bigoted but you have clearly demonstrated yours are.
I have systematically destroyed your position and the only thing left
is an entrenched belief that you're right and I'm wrong. Unless you're
willing to state unequivocally that Joseph was lying when he said that
he agreed with my stance on Gay Marriage I suggest you knock off the
bullshit and step up.

I will be petitioning an admin on stardestroyer since it is clear that
you, bozazz, could not even follow proper process to post the topic in
the right thread.

It's clear that your maligned view of me has been formulating for
quite some time. It is now apparent how little respect you have of
people, to the point where you insult them and lie about them.

Me wrote
. I still feel that the use of that work is covered under fair dealings but I will respect your views. Remember though that I never have the authority to delete the post, but at least they gave me the ability to edit it. Reading Malkin has stressed me out and I'm shocked that you could even quote her.

As for Red Herring the links I provided are also indicative of the right wing media's gaff. I don't believe the left is any better, but at least they don't go around trumping up an excuse to limit the freedoms of others. As I read your post you still never addressed how gays can be denied that simple right of marriage.

Please as if you haven't degraded yourself through your own low and personal attacks. Remember you started off by calling my movie on Palin as "careless". The right have made just as many mistakes on their attacks. The thing I don't like is that you seem to see your side as infaliable. You claim to a left-wing media bias, so you quote fox with its right-wing media bias.

Alberta is conservative. Yes, but hardly the same vein of conservatives that you represent. Which leads me to your own veil attempt at suggesting I don't belong in Alberta. Perhaps it might be you who is uncomfortable and might explain your desire to move south. I personally think you would fit better down there then here. Walk down the street and talk about Malkin's book on the support of interning Japanese. The only support you might find is probably from deeply conservative Canadians, far and few, and possibly the deeply conservative Americans that now call this place home. The rest you'll find will not support such a hateful view of the world. However maybe I'm wrong. Go down the street and see. I'll come. And if you find a majority of support among Calgarians that would support such a view then maybe Calgary isn't for me.

"While my opinions might offend you, they are shared and practiced
within the rights and freedoms afforded to me by the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. "

Your point? I'm not preventing you from expressing your views.

"I have gone well out of my way to help you including the
time Joseph thought you were depressed and possibly suicidal."

And I believe I said that I was fine and Joseph had nothing to be concerned. I remember being suprised that you brought it up.


I've paid for you to partake in social events when you could not
afford them. I've called you up to see how you are and even helped you
with relationship concerns. I've been a friend. On the other hand you
have demonstrated very recently that you do not consider yourself a
friend of mine to the point where you hurl insults and falsely label
my beliefs.

"Yes you do have poor principles and disrespect"

I can say the same about you. ad-hominems can go both ways.


How do I explain how Michelle Malkin is wrong? Well her books supports the violation of the US Constitution. That's where it's wrong. Where are you wrong? Well let's see your beliefs that gay's should not be afford the ability to marry, only civil union, is slap to human rights and freedom.

As for the chuch they pray to cure the gays and turn them into heterosexual. You can read between the lines. You don't cure someone of something unless they've contracted a disease.


"Obama's support staff is full of lobbyists too, it's all a part of the
political game in Washington. Obama has no tangible international
experience and while you attack Sarah Palin and my support for her,
remember, she is running for Vice President and Obama is running to be
President. A refresher course in understanding the role of the POTUS
will tell you that the President is in charge of Foreign Policy and to
have Obama there is simply unacceptable on all levels."

I would ask you to explain why Obama is unacceptable, especially since so far he has taken a even-handed approach, where-as John McCain seems to fly off the handle and threatened to remove Russai from the Group of Eight? That's not exactly diplomacy is it. And besides considering McCain is over 70, if he dies from old age, Sarah will be President which is the main concern. Personally Ron Paul would have made a better VP.

All of these nonsensical and maligned attacks on Sarah Palin have lead
me to believe that the fringe left will stop at nothing to discredit
and defame this woman so long as she does not end up in the White
House. Absolutely appalling.

All of these nonsensical and maligned support of Sarah Palin have lead
me to believe that the fringe right will stop at nothing to suport
and defend this woman so long as she does not end up in the White
House. Absolutely appalling.

What exactly is your point. People bring up issues regarding as ability to lead and you call them non-issues. Her lack of foreign experience is important, considering she will take over if anything happens to McCain. That's a valid concern. Reading everything you wrote I only get the feeling that no matter what you'd support her, McCain simply because of the fact that they're Republican. Those are legitmate concerns that I have. You haven't actually provided anything to change my mind.

So you're saying you didn't tell me the vetting process for any individual for an official government position should not be based on friendship? I remember because you chastised me when I suggested that I would hire both you and Joseph for offical positions. While Sarah Palin is doing the same. How is the article here-say. They went out and interviewed witnessess of events.

We bear witness to another logical fallacy of yours this time
attacking the sources and dismissing their contributions because of a
predetermined image you have of them. Instead of addressing the ideas
presented, you engage in logical fallacies. I posted an interview from
Fox News for you to witness from her own mouth what she says. You
cannot claim you are open minded if you are not willing to analyze
alternative sources. You cannot claim you are open minded and willing
to learn if you just want to lash out at anything conservative.

You do exactly the same thing. Except you dismiss liberal news sources or sidetrack them. When you have a gaff like the one where she said kill osama, obama , both if we could, without being repremanded or critized by Fox then you can't assume they have any credibility. I don't lash out at anything conservative. I lash out at the parts that are intolerant. Denial of gay rights. The support you've thrown behind Malkin despite her book. Those are the things I lash out at. In terms of being open to new ideas some of your beliefs affected mine. I was all for fix taxes but at the very least I can see the wisdom of usage taxes.


----
Remember about thumping your chest and pretending you're right because
you can thump loudly? It doesn't work like that. The real affront here
is your maligned attacks against me and other individuals. It's all
here for everyone to see. Your case would easily be dismissed before a
judge or an independent panel on civility. Your weak case coupled with
insults would probably lead to warnings and consequences levied
against you.
---

It might be dismissed due to my poor debating skills, not necessarily because they are untruthful. And I stand by my beliefs. And by the way I'm PC not because I don't want to offend, I do it because I want to show respect to other people and to let them know that I conciously think about them and the issues that affect them. So don't accuse me of being disrespectful of people. I have shown far more repect to individuals than you have towards gays. I don't peddle ideas of denying them their right to marry, or go around supporting an individual like Malkin who has shown to be exceptionally intollerant of individuals who have been interned. Both our cases would be dismissed. Mine for the countless fallcies. And yours because in the end you support the government enacting policies to limit the freedom of others.

---
You see Kelvin, I accept that you listen to the fringe left and their
loony-tune mantra and it does not make me respect you less. Somehow
you can't accept that I have my beliefs. My beliefs pose no threat to
your or society no matter how much you pretend they do. Your beliefs
however threaten me as evidenced in your constant insults and name
calling and your violations of my right to privacy.
---

I don't listen to the fringe left. I try to listen to the middle left and at most left leaning conservatives. But how is arguing for gay rights and for pointing out that Malkin's book in support of internment loony-tune mantra? It seems you have also been affected by the right's loony-tune mantra. Malkin's book has been discounted by historians, check the link I showed you. If that's indicative of her writing then does that not at the slightist concern you?

---

I have removed the post, though I can't delete the title. I have no authority only the authority to edit. As I said I was not aware I could just edit out everything.
As for an apology I will not comply as I feel your views are intolerant. If I apologized for calling you a bigoted then I would be in support of a oppression of gay individuals, and the support of the internment of individuals during world war 2 and now. I find that brand of conservatism loathsome at the least.
---
My views are not bigoted but you have clearly demonstrated yours are.
I have systematically destroyed your position and the only thing left
is an entrenched belief that you're right and I'm wrong. Unless you're
willing to state unequivocally that Joseph was lying when he said that
he agreed with my stance on Gay Marriage I suggest you knock off the
bullshit and step up.
---

You have destroyed my position merely on the fact that I am a poor debator and have dug my own grave with my fallicies. With that said you only countered my biased links with your biased links. You have ignored certain points I made in regards to the McCain campaign accusing Obama of teaching a complete sex education to children in Kindergarden. You provided a link to an incomplete bill. If you look at the Senator's amendments you will see the education is age appropriate which the McCain ads fail to mention. There were several others but I am tired of this so I won't argue. If you are wondering, my views do change on evidence. I'm not as narrow minded as your rehoritic would suggest. Given the facts presented I can not conclusively prove Sarah is an active creationist. However there are still too many issues that are present that I haven't been swayed on.

And for the record I speak for both Joseph and I. He called me last night when he came across our disagreement. This is also not the first time he mentioned that yes he did not agree with your stance on Gay Marriage. I will state unequivocally that Joseph flat-out lied to your face. Joseph wanted your approval, as he does of many people, but as he has said to me on many occasions by agreeing with you, you had made him felt ashamed to be gay. He supports out right gay Marriages. Not gay unions. There is no bullshit. You perhaps should be the one stepping up and show your true colors as a person and admit that your beliefs on gay marriages and the support of Malkin is nothing but hidden bigotry. If you can't see it I'm not the one to convince you. You already know by now my debating skills are relatively poor.

----
I will be petitioning an admin on stardestroyer since it is clear that
you, bozazz, could not even follow proper process to post the topic in
the right thread.
---

No I didn't follow proper process. Thanks for pointing that out. However you would find that placing new threads is often subjective. In this case I chose politics because it's based on politics.

---
It's clear that your maligned view of me has been formulating for
quite some time. It is now apparent how little respect you have of
people, to the point where you insult them and lie about them.
---

Yes I have had these views of you for a very long time. Ever since you claimed that you don't support gay marriages. Though don't think that I closed my mind completely to your views. I listen with an open mind. I respect your views on economics. Perhaps that's why I can cross sides on certain issues and respect Ron Paul who is a conservative. But on social issues, I have no respect. You can't claim to demand the right to freedom when you trample over that of other people. It's freedom, not the freedom to restrict others. The Malkin book as I have said many times over is a prime example of that. It reflects the person that she is, and if you agree with her views. Well you can see why I won't apologize.

[Darth Wong]

The most disturbing thing about Sarah Palin is not necessarily how smart or knowledgeable she is (although her pitiful education and academic performance does not speak well in that regard), but the fact that everything about her record indicates a lack of one crucially important trait: CURIOSITY. This is a person who never even got a passport until she was in her 40s, and when challenged on this, showed not even the tiniest hint of shame: instead, she attacked those who get passports early and see other countries! She accused them of being slackers who travel the world on their parents' dime instead of hard-working "real Americans". She is hardly innocent until proven guilty at this point: can anyone provide any evidence that she has ever taken any initiative in her life to learn about cultures outside of her own? Hell, she doesn't even seem to understand the culture of metropolitan cities in her own fucking country, attacking them as the enemy of core American values.

Bottom line: she doesn't care to learn anything unless she feels it is necessary. Does that remind you of anyone else you know? Oh yeah, this guy:


She has never been interested in learning about the outside world. Could she potentially be coached and tutored, like a wayward child? Probably. But her personality is such that she doesn't really want to learn about the outside world. She has to be dragged kicking and screaming into it, and there are a lot of good reasons why this is a disastrous trait in a national leader.