Should discussions of Politics and Religion be banned from CSR?

Should CSR ban discussions of Politics and Religion?

  • Yes

    Votes: 101 48.1%

  • No

    Votes: 109 51.9%
  • Total voters
    210
  • Poll closed .
That figures... The pig has paperwork readily available for inspection, but our nitwit in chief still hasn't shown anyone a birth certificate.

Does George Bush own a Sea Ray? He's gotta be around here somewhere because this is all his fault.
 
skibum said:
That figures... The pig has paperwork readily available for inspection, but our nitwit in chief still hasn't shown anyone a birth certificate.

Does George Bush own a Sea Ray? He's gotta be around here somewhere because this is all his fault.
Click to expand...


I will blackberry him the email site I ordered KJ's from and the US Post Office can send him one. Will that work?:smt024
 
LA,
Your words good enough for me. I'll take a Vietnamese pig with certified documents over our current "most admired man in the world" with questionable lineage anytime.
 
All this talk about birth certificates has started to make me wonder about my own heritage. I mean my feet are much bigger than those little footprints that are supposed to be mine.
 
comsnark said:
Bait 'em up and reel them in. You guys are FAR too easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

Ok. . .back to regularly scheduled programming. You can open a thread in the holding tank if you like. .. but isn't much more to add.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rely on Wikipdeia for any final answer.

Do I believe the President was born in Hawaii? Yes! But, I it bothers me that a presidential candidate doesn't have to show all documents to get on the ballot. Did his campaign ever produce a document or did others fight this battle for him?
 
Pack66Dad said:
Since I'm on most everyone's ignore list I guess this is rather futile but....... I think that any political post should be DIRECTLY related to boating or it should not be posted. If it is posted it should be removed by the moderators immediately.

The Obama/Pelosi/Reed jokes, the unending liberal trashing and general acceptance of ultra-conservative bile as truth really incites a response from those who disagree. To be honest almost everything I have read on this thread is saying "we don't want to censor political discussions, except when it disagrees with us".

I vote ban politics and religion from the site. Then we can remove the ignore feature, talk about SEA-RAYS and all get along like adults.
Click to expand...

Interesting that conservatives and libertarians seem to favor the free exchange of ideas and information. There probably are people that want to silence left wing outlets (CNN,MSNBC,NPR) but for the most part, that group is pretty tolerant of the dissemination of propaganda (as long as its privately funded..., public funding understandably drives 'em nuts). On the other hand, "progressives" seem to be far quicker to favor of the censorship of ideas. I haven't thought it through completely, but I have the vague notion that it's back to the DNA of individualists vs. collectivists. I don't think it ever occurs to conservatives that they would have a vote regarding the possible silencing of the opposition, but it never occurs to collectivists that there is another (and possibly superior) interpretation.
 
JediJD said:
Interesting that conservatives and libertarians seem to favor the free exchange of ideas and information. There probably are people that want to silence left wing outlets (CNN,MSNBC,NPR) but for the most part, that group is pretty tolerant of the dissemination of propaganda (as long as its privately funded..., public funding understandably drives 'em nuts). On the other hand, "progressives" seem to be far quicker to favor of the censorship of ideas. I haven't thought it through completely, but I have the vague notion that it's back to the DNA of individualists vs. collectivists. I don't think it ever occurs to conservatives that they would have a vote regarding the possible silencing of the opposition, but it never occurs to collectivists that there is another (and possibly superior) interpretation.
Click to expand...

One of the primary Liberal tactics is to stop debate and silence dissent or conversation in general. They attempt this a number of ways- Most common is to try accuse the other side of being a racist, bigot, just generally hateful.

They know that if you can shift the conversation where the other side is trying to defend themself rather than the point being discussed then the conversation will go nowhere.

When you are put in the position where you have to keep backing up in defense it is much harder to get the point across.

I must admit the tactic is clever and it works in many instances. Be on the lookout for this and you will see it often.
 
wish2fish said:
I wouldn't rely on Wikipdeia for any final answer.

Do I believe the President was born in Hawaii? Yes! But, I it bothers me that a presidential candidate doesn't have to show all documents to get on the ballot. Did his campaign ever produce a document or did others fight this battle for him?
Click to expand...

No kidding, Wikipedia is changed by voulnteers on a daily basis. Good for use as a guide but certainly not a 100% factual enviroment.

No, the original cert has never been released to the public. Only a certified copy. HI law does not allow it to be released without the individual's permission. YES, I believe he WAS born in HI. I am really not sure why he will not release it but at this point I don't think it would do much good to silence any skeptics even if he did. If he would have released it before he became pres then it probably would have been more effective to satisfy the people that don't believe he was born here. Obviously it is not something that concerns him.

As far as I know, none of his school records from anywhere have ever been released by him either.
 
Last edited:
I was supposed to have court today, but it was canceled...leaving me here with a few extra minutes on my hands. I went through this thread, post by post. I tried to divide the posts into four categories...anti-censorship, pro-censorship, abstain, and off topic (I tried not to count duplicates and I didn't tabulate the off-topics), but got roughly a total of 2000 total posts from all of the commenters who believed the discussions should be banned. I pinned them against geography and found them identified primarily out of the US, San Francisco, the great NW and upper Michigan. The pro-holding tank crowd totalled almost 40,000 posts and seemed to be geographically random.

Given the subjectivity of the categorization, an admitted observational bias, and the substantial certainty of error in calculation, I would take this information with several grains of salt (lime and tequila).
 
jason78 said:
No kidding, Wikipedia is changed by voulnteers on a daily basis. Good for use as a guide but certainly not a 100% factual enviroment.
Click to expand...

A 100% factual environment. . . .where on the Internet are you going to find that (outside of my posts)?

I am often amused that I can often predict what a source will say based upon the URL address. I now tend to skip any URL that links to a FOXNEWS or HuffingtonPost article. I mean. . .I have even heard snide comments about Washington Post links. I have criticisized the notorious Rausmann polls. Where can you get reliable information?

I actually am educated with new and interesting information by many of the Wikipedia articles. . which often don't support the points I originally was intending to make!

So. . .I will continue to preferentially link to Wikipedia sources because, well, while not 100% perfect, it *tends* to be more factually based and the content not written to increase page views.

It would be an interesting thread to discuss where one can get reliable information from.


jason78 said:
No, the original cert has never been released to the public. Only a certified copy. HI law does not allow it to be released without the individual's permission. YES, I believe he WAS born in HI. I am really not sure why he will not release it but at this point I don't think it would do much good to silence any skeptics even if he did. If he would have released it before he became pres then it probably would have been more effective to satisfy the people that don't believe he was born here. Obviously it is not something that concerns him.

As far as I know, none of his school records from anywhere have ever been released by him either.
Click to expand...

Seriously. If a State Certified Copy doesn't satisfy the critics. . .do you think the original will?

I can just bet how this went down. Obama back during the campaign probably said "Geez; Can you believe these loons? Go get the Birth Certificate and post it". Then some go-getter went to the State of Hi; got the copy, and posted it. I bet that they didn't even realize that there was such a thing as a "short form" until the wing nut brigade started clamoring about the document.

By that time. . .there was no point; People on this forum were already complaining about how Obama would be riding to the capitol on a camel to take the oath of office on a Koran. I bet half of you guys believe that actually happened. :grin:

Oh . .. by the way. . . my understanding is that the previous President ALSO never authorized the release of his school records.

Face it guys. . . the Republican candidate for President in 2008;

a) Ran for the incumbent party with the Economy tanking.
b) Ran a strategically poor campaign
c) and got his butt whipped as a logical result of (A) and (B)
 
comsnark said:
A 100% factual environment. . . .where on the Internet are you going to find that (outside of my posts)?

I am often amused that I can often predict what a source will say based upon the URL address. I now tend to skip any URL that links to a FOXNEWS or HuffingtonPost article. I mean. . .I have even heard snide comments about Washington Post links. I have criticisized the notorious Rausmann polls. Where can you get reliable information?

I actually am educated with new and interesting information by many of the Wikipedia articles. . which often don't support the points I originally was intending to make!

So. . .I will continue to preferentially link to Wikipedia sources because, well, while not 100% perfect, it *tends* to be more factually based and the content not written to increase page views.

It would be an interesting thread to discuss where one can get reliable information from.




Seriously. If a State Certified Copy doesn't satisfy the critics. . .do you think the original will?

I can just bet how this went down. Obama back during the campaign probably said "Geez; Can you believe these loons? Go get the Birth Certificate and post it". Then some go-getter went to the State of Hi; got the copy, and posted it. I bet that they didn't even realize that there was such a thing as a "short form" until the wing nut brigade started clamoring about the document.

By that time. . .there was no point; People on this forum were already complaining about how Obama would be riding to the capitol on a camel to take the oath of office on a Koran. I bet half of you guys believe that actually happened. :grin:

Oh . .. by the way. . . my understanding is that the previous President ALSO never authorized the release of his school records.

Face it guys. . . the Republican candidate for President in 2008;

a) Ran for the incumbent party with the Economy tanking.
b) Ran a strategically poor campaign
c) and got his butt whipped as a logical result of (A) and (B)
Click to expand...


As my dad used to say: "never get in a p!ss!ng match with a skunk, you'll never win." Your argument is a good example of it. You have not enough to support your opinion so you attack. I thought that liberals were accepting. It must be only if you agree with them.
Face it: Liberals are intolerant of opposing views, religion, capitalism, and freedom of speech.

I'm out
 
comsnark said:
By that time. . .there was no point; People on this forum were already complaining about how Obama would be riding to the capitol on a camel to take the oath of office on a Koran. I bet half of you guys believe that actually happened. :grin:
Click to expand...

Com, do you not agree there are some pretty valid questions that should have been answered prior to the election? If the answers are so simple...just answer them. There seem to be some pretty solid indicators that at one point he was traveling to countries that he couldn't have visited on a US passport and under terms that would have required that he identify himself as being another nationality. I'm not a militia birther, but I think that is a heck of a lot more important than Dan Rather'philes forging George Bush's military records.

If I supported his policies, I probably would gloss over it too, but as long as I have to produce a birth certificate to get a driver's license, and explain my international travel for a security clearance, it doesn't seem to be that much to ask.
 
comsnark said:
A 100% factual environment. . . .where on the Internet are you going to find that (outside of my posts)?

I am often amused that I can often predict what a source will say based upon the URL address. I now tend to skip any URL that links to a FOXNEWS or HuffingtonPost article. I mean. . .I have even heard snide comments about Washington Post links. I have criticisized the notorious Rausmann polls. Where can you get reliable information?

I actually am educated with new and interesting information by many of the Wikipedia articles. . which often don't support the points I originally was intending to make!

So. . .I will continue to preferentially link to Wikipedia sources because, well, while not 100% perfect, it *tends* to be more factually based and the content not written to increase page views.

It would be an interesting thread to discuss where one can get reliable information from.
Click to expand...

I have learned some interesting things from Wikipedia too and have no doubt much of what is contained there is fact.

The fact that anyone can edit information and it is largely self-policing worries me greatly, especially in areas of politics and historical events. One could argue that history could be changed over time, little by little. The general public is generally too un-informed to notice a lot of things.



comsnark said:
Seriously. If a State Certified Copy doesn't satisfy the critics. . .do you think the original will?

I bet that they didn't even realize that there was such a thing as a "short form" until the wing nut brigade started clamoring about the document.
Click to expand...

NO, I don't and I already said that.

They knew exactly what a short form was. All he had to do to clear this up initailly was sign a form to release the cert.

I just can't understand why they would not release it. I have my Birth Cert and it has ALL the information typed in With a Typewriter and is signed by all parties involved. If I were running for a public office, I would have no issue showing it.

If I, a mere citizen, have mine, why did he not just release it? I will tell you why. To help stir up a controversy during the campaign that could help act as a smokescreen to his shortcomings. Plus it gave his handlers a chance to use the race card and brand consertatives as crazy. I clearly remember Birthers being called racist because they wanted to see his cert, the handlers said is was "only because of his race" that it was an issue.
 
Last edited:
Let put the birth certificate issue to rest!
ATT00068.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,143
Messages
1,427,146
Members
61,054
Latest member
MrMckinzey
Back
Top