HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Feb 6, 2007 13:58:31 GMT -5
I just read online that the guy this woman was fighting over did not fly a mission with the two women but instead trained with them. Due to this new information, I rescind my giving of props to this man. However, the fact that this woman wore a space diaper while driving from Houston to Orlando is still absolutely hilarious.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Feb 6, 2007 10:37:02 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/06/astronaut.arrested/index.htmlThis news story made my morning. This woman wore her astronaut diapers while driving from Houston to Orlando to settle a score.... makes you wonder what regularly goes on in that space station during missions. I give mad props to the mission commander who had these two chicks fighting over him. Sure, he's already married with children, but he is probably one of the few men out there to experience "space sex." I won't go over the logistical problems of weightlessness, but suffice it to say I'm impressed.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 31, 2007 16:05:55 GMT -5
I can't find the story on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website. I have searched for Obama, student, visas and various other keywords and can't find any story. As this is a very important issue, I would ask you to please provide an article date or title. Elvado doesn't believe in sources. After all, it is "your homework" to fact-check his claims. It is about time we put a "no vacancy" sign up on this message board too.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 26, 2007 16:37:48 GMT -5
Good for John. A true American success story...manipulate the legal system to make a ton of money and look at the nice house you can buy. Look, you can argue that Edwards is not in touch with the constituency that he mentions in his speeches but what proof do you have that he has "manipulated the legal system?" Just because someone is a good lawyer and has successfully won law suits doesn't mean they have done anything to stretch the law. Maybe he's a good lawyer and there are companies out there that <gasp!> have committed aggregious errors in the design of their products.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 24, 2007 10:17:53 GMT -5
So you would have no issue with a caucus of only male members of Congress or a caucus which excludes women? If so, we have no argument. Sure, I don't think that would be an issue. Although again, like your "white caucus" argument, I would like to know what issues that a men's caucus would address. The point of a Women's and Black caucus is to deal with the inequalities present in our society. However, I could maybe see an all men's coalition to promote legislation to fight prostate or testicular cancer or something like that. I still think you are missing the point with the purpose of a women's or black caucus. What might help is to say that I hope one day that these Caucuses will be unnecessary. Once there is true equality in our society, then you will be right and groups with a racial or gender identity won't have a reason to exist anymore. I agree with you that true equality means that someone who is white should not be considered any different than a person who is black. However, our society is not at that point yet. I would argue that the Black Caucus is needed to protect minority interest in Congress and bring society closer to eliminating the need to have such a caucus.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 24, 2007 9:43:46 GMT -5
Thanks to those who pointed out how typically fallacious and simplistic the Galludet/Howard analogy really is. Those schools could not and do not restrict based upon race and/or physical capacity. Riiight... "typically fallacious and simplistic"... kind of like arguing that excluding white members from the Black[/i] Caucus is discrimination. Just face it, the way the caucus system works in Congress is to group together Members that have similar backgrounds and interests so that they can have meetings and agree to support or reject proposed bills. There is nothing sinister going on here when they decide to limit their membership to Members who are actually black!
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 23, 2007 15:06:56 GMT -5
My daughter, who is white, attended Howard University. I stand corrected on my assertion that these colleges were exclusive. However, that does not change the fact that the Black Caucus, even more so than these Universities, has an identity that is integral to its mission. By definiton, the Black Caucus is a group of black Members of Congress much like the Log Cabin Republicans consist of a group of homosexual conservative men or the Women's Caucus consists of female members. This is not exclusion but merely maintaining a characteristic that defines the group. If a man were admitted into the Women's Caucus, it would no longer be a Women's caucus. If a caucasion was admitted into the Black Caucus, it loses its definition. I should also stress again that the Black Caucus isn't some exclusionary rascist group. The Caucus has worked with members of all colors, genders, and sexual orientations to pass legislation benefitting their constituencies. Representative Cohen will have just as much say in voting/civil rights legislation as any other representative in the House and will work together with many members of the Black Caucus to construct such legislation.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 23, 2007 13:53:49 GMT -5
The organization's purpose is to represent minority interests from a minority perspective. How do they serve that intent and purpose by admiting persons that do not share those interests or perspective? As a Republican you should start getting used to defending a minority position. Please stop playing dumb with us and posting non-stories. Awwwww... c'mon St. Pete! I was having fun with this debate! I'm still waiting for the list of issues that a white caucus is needed to address and an argument against the "discrimination and exclusion" practiced by Howard and Galludet. You just HAD to lay down the gauntlet. I must admit, however, you laid it down well.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 23, 2007 12:41:00 GMT -5
Isn't it possible that a white member could have constituents whose needs might be advanced by help from the caucus? Yes, I completely agree with you here. White members often ally themselves with the Black Caucus to support legislation that helps their black constituents and will continue to do so. Membership in the Black Caucus isn't necessary to advance the needs of these constitutents.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 23, 2007 12:30:40 GMT -5
So there would be no outcry if certain members wanted to find a white caucus? Isn't it possible that a white member could have constituents whose needs might be advanced by help from the caucus? Isn't it possible that there is a very simple double standard at play here? Exclusion is exclusion. Can you please list the interests that the "white caucus" would address? I would suggest that there are existing caucuses and coalitions that address these issues. However, racial equality and civil/voting rights are not addressed by other caucuses. Again, please look at what I said about Howard University and Galludet. The purpose of exclusion for institutions like these is not because they are trying to disadvantage white people but because black and deaf students have themselves been disadvantaged at other universities and want to attend institutions with a student body that has a shared identity and struggle.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 23, 2007 12:01:56 GMT -5
The Congressional Black Caucus has refused to admit a white member of Congress. I must have missed the outrage from the liberal media at such blatant discrimination. Did I miss the plans for a boycott to be led by Messrs. Sharpton, Jackson, Mfume, et al? Will one of my liberal friends on the Board explain why this is OK? Blatant discrimination? <sigh> Let me explain to you what a caucus is. A caucus is a bunch of Members of Congress with similar views and interests who work together to support or lobby against legislation that affects their group's interests[/i]. So the reason they restrict membership to African American members is to keep their caucus strong. They don't want to lose their identity as a black[/i] caucus. Let me put it another way. Do you think Howard University is guilty of discrimination? How about Galludet College? If so, then all the power to you. But if not, maybe then you can see why restricting membership to the caucus makes sense and is not discrimination. Also, a hyperlinked reference would have been nice somewhere in your post.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 29, 2007 10:22:50 GMT -5
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 22, 2007 19:27:07 GMT -5
Don't know whether or not this is true but there is an email online which says that Obama attended a Wahabi school in Indonesia for a while after his mother remarried another Muslim and relocated to Indonesia. Wahabism is regarded as radical Muslin followed by many terrorists. The email also says he attended a Catholic school for 2 years. Is this important? If true rest assured his Democratic and Republican opponents will talk about it. I hate to burst you and right-wing agenda's bubble, but unfortunately, your "concerns" about Obama's schooling have proven to be fiction. Apparently all CNN had to do was visit the school to find out it is not a madrassa or a wahabist terrorist training ground. Sorry ed! www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/index.html
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 17:05:28 GMT -5
Keep defending the indefensible. Awww.... and here I thought my views were immaterial.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 16:39:57 GMT -5
I've read the article and you may parse this one all you like. Babies born alive were left to die and he was okay with that. He can take that to his grave when he meets his maker. What you, I or anyone else thinks of that one is immaterial, and he is immoral. Wow... you say what you think is immaterial and then in the same breath you call him immoral.... Anyways, the point of the article is that abortions don't result in a live child being born and if they did, the baby would be protected anyway. Late term abortions are only allowed in cases that the mother's health is in jeopardy or if the baby was conceived due to rape. If in this rare case, a doctor has to make the difficult decision to abort the child and it is "born alive", then the doctor might be in legal jeopardy if the baby dies soon after despite medical efforts to save it since the state law attaches that definition of personhood to an aborted fetus.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 16:26:17 GMT -5
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 16:02:26 GMT -5
Illinois State Senate: 2001, 2002, BAIPA Act Sen. Obama votes against. As Chairman he refuses to bring Act out of committee. See if he denies it. OK Elvado, I'll be sure to ask him next time I see him.... Anyways, I did a simple search and found an explanation (not going to say it is an impartial one, but hey, I offered up a chance for someone else to post the article and didn't get one) from the Chicago Tribune written around the time that Allen Keyes tried to discredit Obama with this same charge. There is even a link to the bill text in the blog.(GASP! the bill had text besides "a bill to save babies from being killed!") blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2004/08/index.html(to find the part on this act, hit ctrl-F and type in 'BAIPA') Decide yourself if Obama is guilty of "infanticide".
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 19, 2007 15:33:38 GMT -5
Obama voted to deny funding to preserve the lives of babies who survive partial birth abortion. That sir, with all respect, is infanticide. Roll call vote number or article link please? Otherwise this is pure mudslinging on a vote that could have been about anything and had this provision stuck in it somewhere or as Fox News calls it "fair and balanced" reporting.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 18, 2007 14:33:44 GMT -5
Don't know whether or not this is true but there is an email online which says that Obama attended a Wahabi school in Indonesia for a while after his mother remarried another Muslim and relocated to Indonesia. Wahabism is regarded as radical Muslin followed by many terrorists. The email also says he attended a Catholic school for 2 years. Is this important? If true rest assured his Democratic and Republican opponents will talk about it. I can't believe there haven't been more people to call out easyed on this one. This has to be one of the single most pointless posts in the history of this board. First of all, there was ZERO fact-checking on this. Second of all, even if there was fact checking, why does any of this crap matter? What is the thought process advocated here? "Oh my goodness.... if he travelled to Indonesia, he MUST be a terrorist... after all look at his name!" Former President H. W. Bush worked with several Wahibist Muslims before and after his Presidency (see Saudi Arabia business and diplomacy)... does that mean we should be asking questions about his patriotism? And the fact that Obama attended a Catholic school? I'm not Catholic and I went to Georgetown... does that mean I should be answering "questions" from people like easyed? This post was insulting to the intelligence of most people on this board and I would hope that future political posts don't invoke speculation and thinly-veiled attacks that are based on ignorance.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Jan 5, 2007 10:00:44 GMT -5
FWIW, I think Coburn is not only crazy - he's also lazy and dishonest. The video of him not paying attention and filling out a cross-word puzzle during a committee hearing would have lost most congressmen their job (ask one time presidential hopeful George Allen about the power of viral video), but not in Oklahoma apparently. As someone who changed my voting registration to Virginia after realizing voting democrat in Oklahoma is like peeing in the ocean - I can proudly say that I never voted for the guy. Senator Coburn was not up for re-election this year. He was elected in 2004 and will be up for re-election in 2010. At that point there may be more viral video than the one of him doing a crossword puzzle during a confirmation hearing.
|
|