New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote?

[Unrelyable]

Goober of Gloversville wrote:

I vote on the content of a mans' character, not the color of his skin, that's why I didn't vote for obama.

It's very telling to watch the liberal media denegrate someone like Dr. Ben Carson.

When republicans vote against someone, it's because of their character. When democrats vote against someone, their denigrating (proper spelling) them...

Conservative hypocrisy knows no limits...

[Unrelyable]

Hingle McCringleberry wrote:

Instead of acknowledging it is possible to have a valid point-of-view that is different than the presidentÂ’s, the long knives have come out to plunge into the back of a famous black neurosurgeon who worked his way up from poverty to the top.

The left-wingers know his story is a powerful counter-point to the “woe is me,” everyone’s-a-victim-and-shoul d-be-on-the-government-dole narrative, and therefore, he has to be destroyed.

Watch your back Dr. Ben Carson.

And yes, watch your back Dr. Carson...

Because having a creationist notion of the world is NOT a "valid" point of view...

Nor is comparing gay relations to beastiality...

Again, I love the notion of conservatives painting a "you don't like him because he's republican" mentality, however, in the case of Dr. Carson, it's his absurd claims that make him undesirable to liberals.

"Doctor" is even a little subject as Dr Carson has NEVER: performed any experiments, never submitted his articles for peer review, never adhered to then scientific method, never submitted any hypothesized articles, nor ever provided proof for the things he's claimed...

In other words, congrats republicans, you've found a doctor who doesn't even understand how science works...

Is he a good neurologist? Absolutely, but that doesn't give him authority to speak on subjects of geology, astronomy, embryology, genealogy, or historical evolution...

Oh and here, I'm a liberal acknowledging the president isn't super human, nor is he 100% on any issue... There, now will you stop with the "liberals think the president is holier then though" crap?

[Teddy R]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe to people who have a conspiracy notion. A "reality" that a candidate running for president would try and take over the established principles of the country, based on your preconceived notion about Muslims? That's called xenophobia...
I'm not saying Islamic nations aren't under sharia law, but to assert ANY Muslim running for president would have "difficulty" defending the constitution is a presupposition, and belongs no where in civilized society...
Plus, MANY of today's politicians, especially in the GOP, base their voting on the bible. They base all of their preconceived notions on many social issues on the bible... Isn't that the same as those Islamic (sharia law) nations you were just speaking of?
So, why are Americans, and republicans in general, okay with voting for someone who gets their morality on issues such as abortion, women, and as we're seeing now, marriage, from a holy book? And why aren't people like you, who claim they don't want religion taking over the government (sharia law) standing up and boycotting THOSE politicians?
I just don't get the hypocritical notion of a group saying "if the president were Muslim, that would pose a political risk," while those same people vote for someone trying to ban abortion strictly on the moral ground of the bible...

Look, little man - you asked a question - I answered it. Not with opinion or "presuppositions," but with simple, well-known FACT about Islam.

Your response makes it clear your ignorance of Islam is more profound than I have time or interest in helping you with.

Additionally, I have no appetitite for discouse with schmucks who make a lot of completely baseless presumptions about what I think, and put bullshit rhetorical strawman words in my mouth.

Grow up. Until then - sayonara, troll.

[shameless-li]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe to people who have a conspiracy notion. A "reality" that a candidate running for president would try and take over the established principles of the country, based on your preconceived notion about Muslims? That's called xenophobia...
I'm not saying Islamic nations aren't under sharia law, but to assert ANY Muslim running for president would have "difficulty" defending the constitution is a presupposition, and belongs no where in civilized society...
Plus, MANY of today's politicians, especially in the GOP, base their voting on the bible. They base all of their preconceived notions on many social issues on the bible... Isn't that the same as those Islamic (sharia law) nations you were just speaking of?
So, why are Americans, and republicans in general, okay with voting for someone who gets their morality on issues such as abortion, women, and as we're seeing now, marriage, from a holy book? And why aren't people like you, who claim they don't want religion taking over the government (sharia law) standing up and boycotting THOSE politicians?
I just don't get the hypocritical notion of a group saying "if the president were Muslim, that would pose a political risk," while those same people vote for someone trying to ban abortion strictly on the moral ground of the bible...

romney is a mormon, not too many people bought into his religion...

[Goober of Gloversville]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha ha I c, So then why being his religion up in the first place?

Romney is a Mormon, you are a Moron

[Goober of Gloversville]

shameless-li wrote:

<quoted text>
romney is a mormon, not too many people bought into his religion...

Simpleton obama voters bought into what the press and the White House sold them, it shows you can still sell snake oil in America.

[Goober of Gloversville]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
And yes, watch your back Dr. Carson...
Because having a creationist notion of the world is NOT a "valid" point of view...
Nor is comparing gay relations to beastiality...
Again, I love the notion of conservatives painting a "you don't like him because he's republican" mentality, however, in the case of Dr. Carson, it's his absurd claims that make him undesirable to liberals.
"Doctor" is even a little subject as Dr Carson has NEVER: performed any experiments, never submitted his articles for peer review, never adhered to then scientific method, never submitted any hypothesized articles, nor ever provided proof for the things he's claimed...
In other words, congrats republicans, you've found a doctor who doesn't even understand how science works...
Is he a good neurologist? Absolutely, but that doesn't give him authority to speak on subjects of geology, astronomy, embryology, genealogy, or historical evolution...
Oh and here, I'm a liberal acknowledging the president isn't super human, nor is he 100% on any issue... There, now will you stop with the "liberals think the president is holier then though" crap?

And obama has his PhD. in what? His M.D. in what? He is a community organizer with marginal academic achievement hoisted on the shoulders of fools and elected president. The same people always pick what's behind door # 2. Clueless.

[Goober of Gloversville]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
When republicans vote against someone, it's because of their character. When democrats vote against someone, their denigrating (proper spelling) them...
Conservative hypocrisy knows no limits...

Hypocrisy? That's when you close the White House tours to pretend there is repercussions to cutting future spending by 40 Billion { a grain of sand on the beach of Federal spending} and then send your daughters to the Bahamas for their spring break on the taxpayers dime, while school children are locked out of their White House.

[Goober of Gloversville]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
And yes, watch your back Dr. Carson...
Because having a creationist notion of the world is NOT a "valid" point of view...
Nor is comparing gay relations to beastiality...
Again, I love the notion of conservatives painting a "you don't like him because he's republican" mentality, however, in the case of Dr. Carson, it's his absurd claims that make him undesirable to liberals.
"Doctor" is even a little subject as Dr Carson has NEVER: performed any experiments, never submitted his articles for peer review, never adhered to then scientific method, never submitted any hypothesized articles, nor ever provided proof for the things he's claimed...
In other words, congrats republicans, you've found a doctor who doesn't even understand how science works...
Is he a good neurologist? Absolutely, but that doesn't give him authority to speak on subjects of geology, astronomy, embryology, genealogy, or historical evolution...
Oh and here, I'm a liberal acknowledging the president isn't super human, nor is he 100% on any issue... There, now will you stop with the "liberals think the president is holier then though" crap?

Carson's other surgical innovations have included the first intrauterine procedure to relieve pressure on the brain of a hydrocephalic fetal twin, and a hemispherectomy,[when?] in which a young girl suffering from uncontrollable seizures had one half of her brain removed.[citation needed]

In 1987, Carson made medical history by being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins (the Binder twins) who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. At the end, the twins were successfully separated and can now survive independently.

You only hear what you want to hear, the perfect useful idiot for the democratic party. obama has never worked a day in his life, or contributed anything to this country but to divide it. He truly is the worst president ever elected under an imperfect system.

[mummum]

youtube.com/watch... ………Vote Putin

[Unrelyable]

Goober of Gloversville wrote:

<quoted text>And obama has his PhD. in what? His M.D. in what? He is a community organizer with marginal academic achievement hoisted on the shoulders of fools and elected president. The same people always pick what's behind door # 2. Clueless.

Marginal academic achievements ha ha ha being a law professor at Harvard is marginal, I guess...

[Unrelyable]

Goober of Gloversville wrote:

<quoted text>Hypocrisy? That's when you close the White House tours to pretend there is repercussions to cutting future spending by 40 Billion { a grain of sand on the beach of Federal spending} and then send your daughters to the Bahamas for their spring break on the taxpayers dime, while school children are locked out of their White House.

Pretending? Try telling that to the children in Indiana who now have to win a lottery to attend head start programs....

[Unrelyable]

Goober of Gloversville wrote:

<quoted text>Carson's other surgical innovations have included the first intrauterine procedure to relieve pressure on the brain of a hydrocephalic fetal twin, and a hemispherectomy,[when?] in which a young girl suffering from uncontrollable seizures had one half of her brain removed.[citation needed]

In 1987, Carson made medical history by being the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins (the Binder twins) who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. At the end, the twins were successfully separated and can now survive independently.

You only hear what you want to hear, the perfect useful idiot for the democratic party. obama has never worked a day in his life, or contributed anything to this country but to divide it. He truly is the worst president ever elected under an imperfect system.

I actually admitted he was a wonderful neurological doctor...

I just said he had no credentials speaking about OTHER sciences...

Obama never worked a day in his life? Law profession at Harvard...

In typical conservative fashion, you ignored everything I said, and started arguing points no one was combatting...

You have that Clint Eastwood "empty chair syndrome." Try picking a topix, and sticking with it!

[Liars]

The polls are all rigged. It doesn't matter who you vote for

[shameless-li]

Liars wrote:

The polls are all rigged. It doesn't matter who you vote for

agreed, proof:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/04/02/sen-ma...

[Goober of Gloversville]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
Marginal academic achievements ha ha ha being a law professor at Harvard is marginal, I guess...

adjunct prof, means nothing, the equivalent of a substitute teacher

[Goober of Gloversville]

Unrelyable wrote:

<quoted text>
I actually admitted he was a wonderful neurological doctor...
I just said he had no credentials speaking about OTHER sciences...
Obama never worked a day in his life? Law profession at Harvard...
In typical conservative fashion, you ignored everything I said, and started arguing points no one was combatting...
You have that Clint Eastwood "empty chair syndrome." Try picking a topix, and sticking with it!

You can spin your pasture pudding any way you want, you're so full of obama your eyes have turned brown.

Dr. Carson is a brilliant role model for inner city youth among others. obama couldn't inspire a circus clown, his achievements are pedestrian other than fooling millions of fools to vote like fools. You worship a false idol, a pernicious clown in a destructive opera that will not end well.

[Remiesong]

His point, he said, was just that “there is no group that really gets to have a special dispensation” to change the definition of marriage. So Ben Carson has an opinion, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Homosexuals believe they are entitled to the same rights and benefits as straights. If the federal government and the Supreme Court do not feel that homosexuals should have the same rights then they are discriminating. Civil unions should be recognized and legal and health benefits, etc. should be shared and recognized as well. Marriage should remain between a man and a woman by definition, but clearly, love, commitment, respect , trust, responsibility are not unique to the male -female union. These things will change in time. Everyone may not agree, or like it but we have the right to pursue happiness.

[Goober of Gloversville]

Remiesong wrote:

His point, he said, was just that “there is no group that really gets to have a special dispensation” to change the definition of marriage. So Ben Carson has an opinion, that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Homosexuals believe they are entitled to the same rights and benefits as straights. If the federal government and the Supreme Court do not feel that homosexuals should have the same rights then they are discriminating. Civil unions should be recognized and legal and health benefits, etc. should be shared and recognized as well. Marriage should remain between a man and a woman by definition, but clearly, love, commitment, respect , trust, responsibility are not unique to the male -female union. These things will change in time. Everyone may not agree, or like it but we have the right to pursue happiness.

I believe in Gay marriage, why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Be careful what you wish for. And yes Dr. Carson has an opinion founded in his beliefs and has a right to pronounce it and defend it, just like Dr. Matin Luther King, a fellow conservative Republican.

[Remiesong]

Goober of Gloversville wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe in Gay marriage, why should heterosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Be careful what you wish for. And yes Dr. Carson has an opinion founded in his beliefs and has a right to pronounce it and defend it, just like Dr. Matin Luther King, a fellow conservative Republican.

so, you believe heterosexuals suffer - no wonder your opinions appear so bitter. The only thing I wish for is non-discrimination for any reason. Not just the obvious reasons such as race, religion..........