• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House passes resolution criticizing Wilson

Like you had a choice.



:doh

Gloating is bad form & something I didn't do when you apologized to me on an earlier point.
Additionally I would point out that if Next Extra hadn't saved your butt......You would have lost this debate so.......I should really have conceded to Next Extra!;):lol:
 
In fairness the definition is given as:



So Oral sex, is still sexual intercourse. I mean, they don't call it oral SEX for nothing ;)

But the question is in this definition is if the receiver is covered as the one having oral intercourse or instead the giver. I don't know too many people who count getting blowjobs as having sex. Hell you can't fault clinton for thinking like a female :mrgreen: but even so this wasn't the definition agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense.
 
OMG are we still talking about Clinton ?

The only way Clinton failed me in that whole deal was not telling Ken Starr to fekk off.

Can't subpeona a sitting president, gotta impeach first.

They didn't have the votes.

Clinton should have told Ken Starr off as the small fry he was, and since he didn't, Clinton weakened the power of the office.
 
OMG are we still talking about Clinton ?

The only way Clinton failed me in that whole deal was not telling Ken Starr to fekk off.

Can't subpeona a sitting president, gotta impeach first.

They didn't have the votes.

Clinton should have told Ken Starr off as the small fry he was, and since he didn't, Clinton weakened the power of the office.

Kinda hard to tell off a special prosecutor after he's been appointed. He should have told the republicans to just **** off
 
Kinda hard to tell off a special prosecutor after he's been appointed.

No, it is not.

The man can quite simply send Starr a letter that explains if he is caught on whitehouse grounds the Secret Service has been instructed to kick him in the balls all the way to Washington Avenue.

What power does Ken have if Bill tells him to go screw ?

Subpeona power, which does not work on a sitting president.
 
Never said it did. I brought up the republican-sponsored animal-human hybridization bill because I consider it to be a colossal waste of time and money (i.e., the concept originally posited by rudedog, which we are now discussing).

Are people in the world trying to do this? Are researchers trying to do this?

We have created human-animal embryos already, say British team - Times Online

Vault9 Forums > Scientists Mix Human And Animal Dna

Technology Review: Human-Animal Cybrids

Does not look like so much of a waist anymore does it? :mrgreen:

Then again your argument for the most part is based in unfounded opinion and not much else.

If you believe it's NOT a waste of time and money, please do elaborate. We're all ears.

See above. :2wave:

Umm? Where did I say or imply that this animal health corridor designation will "out of hand fail financially?"

I recommend you reread my statement:

Then think about it a bit more, before wandering even further into Ignorant Debater Land.

So you did not respond correctly to my initial reply I see. And you have the nerve to claim ignorance on anyone else's part.

You said...

"Now, I like animals probably more than the next guy, but please. Is recognizing a geographical region as the national center of the animal health industry that "important?" Really?" - Glinda

To which I replied...

"From a financial standpoint for the state? Yes it is.

Any good publicity for a state generates income in one form or another. Being known as the center of the animal health industry is a good thing. Sort of like silicon vally or wine country for CA etc. It attracts investors etc.
" - Blackdog

So you either completely missed my point or are being willfully ignorant. The choice is yours.
 
Gloating is bad form & something I didn't do when you apologized to me on an earlier point.

You try and gloat all the time even though you are wrong, again most of the time. :roll:

Additionally I would point out that if Next Extra hadn't saved your butt......You would have lost this debate so.......I should really have conceded to Next Extra!;):lol:

You have got to be kidding? The US courts backed up my position even without his definition so you (as usual) are lying. :doh
 
But the question is in this definition is if the receiver is covered as the one having oral intercourse or instead the giver. I don't know too many people who count getting blowjobs as having sex. Hell you can't fault clinton for thinking like a female :mrgreen: but even so this wasn't the definition agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense.

Intercourse is between two (or in some cases multiple) people. You can't say the guy had sex but the woman didn't sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

There is a reason it is called oral SEX, it is STILL SEX.
 
Last edited:
House passes resolution criticizing Wilson - CNN.com
House passes resolution criticizing Wilson

The House of Representatives on Tuesday formally admonished Republican Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting "you lie" during President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress last week.

I do not think that this was needed but I understand why they formally admonished this sorry excuse for a Congressman. If he really did apologize as a gentleman instead of bragging that he was forced into an apology I do not think that the House would have taken this action.

Do you guys hink that this piece Congressional trash was worth the time to formally admonish ?

I'm wondering what earmarks were attached to the resolution.
 
I don't know too many people who count getting blowjobs as having sex.

Oh god. Ask every single women that has ever caught her man receiving one.

But here we go, right? An American president receives a blowjob (as if this is really all that went on, right?) and cheats on his wife (the first lady) and his supporters rush to define what is and is not "cheating"...or "intercourse"...or "sex." Get over it. He's not your daddy. He doesn't bring discredit upon your household. And you certianly don't owe him anything. Yet, plenty are willing to redefine their morality over this man whom they have never met.

So what we have here is people blasting Wilson's idiocy and embarrasssment to nation. People blasting Clinton's idiocy and embarrassment to nation. But both seeking to defend their personal idiot? Would this be that perfect definition of partisan slavery or what?
 
Last edited:
You try and gloat all the time even though you are wrong, again most of the time. :roll:


Who was wrong here?


The first (BA-1) was in November of 1973. They were running 3 classes of 53 students every 10 weeks. So to be in (BA-4) according to your statement is possible and does sound credible.

They were indeed also "special agents."

Anyone can get this information here...

DEA History Book, 1970 - 1975

I don't think he would have made this up, and it jives with the web site 100%.


Don't feel bad, so do I, for the not being an LEO anyway.

I officially apologies to Devil for doubting his being an LEO.
 

Yes, they are, and I consider that a GREAT thing. I don't want restrictions placed on stem cell research when it has the possibility to save millions of lives. From your responses, we can assume that you are adamantly against medical and scientific advances. Big shock, that.

Here's the thing...

We can already inject DNA into the nucleus of a cow egg and zap it with electricity, thus reprogramming that egg to be human. And we can even get that egg to start dividing as if it were an embryo, creating a bunch of human stem cells. Beyond that, we just aren’t sure. Will these embryos create viable stem cells to treat all those nasty human diseases? Or will they just be duds that act too much like cow cells to be usable by humans? If there’s even a small chance that the former will come to pass, it’s worth investigating – and we’ll have solved the human stem cell shortage problem. --Animal-human hybrid clones

See? We can eliminate the need for human embryos in stem cell research. Banning such research means we'll continue using human embryos. Don't you want to save the children?!?!? :doh

Does not look like so much of a waist anymore does it?

Actually, this looks like a waist.

MAN-WAIST.jpg


So you did not respond correctly to my initial reply I see.

Ah. You didn't like my response, so it's "incorrect." Was I required to "respond correctly?" And who gets to decide what a "correct" response is? YOU? :doh

So you either completely missed my point or are being willfully ignorant.

Oh, I got your point. I responded the way I did because your point is stupid.

You see, slapping a New and Improved! name on an existing thing/place/geographical area doesn't really change anything about that existing thing/place/geographical area. Whatever animal health businesses in that area today were also there last week - before the "Animal Corridor" designation was plastered over them - doing business as they've always done. Whatever presumed "tourism" that might occur because the region has a fancy new title (pasted on top of NO CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS WHATSOEVER) will surely not make or break these businesses.

Be serious, dude. How many people who never had any interest in going to Kansas City are suddenly going to make vacation plans because the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor title is SO incredibly intriguing? :roll:

You know, I remember when they changed the name of Candlestick Park in 1995. The park didn't change. The location didn't change. The crappy weather didn't change. And nobody called it 3Com Park. Or San Francisco Stadium at Candlestick Point. Or Monster Park. The Giants never stopped calling the stadium Candlestick Park in their media guides. It was and always will be Candlestick Park, no matter how many names they give it. The city/county even had to change the freeway signs back to read "Candlestick Park" because those other lame names just got people hopelessly lost. The bottom line is, the fancy new names changed nothing and did nothing to improve tourism. Essentially, the whole name change thing was a flop.

I'm sorry, but I believe spending congressional time discussing nifty new business-related monikers (that will never be used except by total dinks) for geographical regions is a complete waste of my tax dollars. Obviously, you think such things are just great.

God help us.
 
Last edited:
You know, I remember when they changed the name of Candlestick Park in 1995. The park didn't change. The location didn't change. The crappy weather didn't change. And nobody called it 3Com Park. Or San Francisco Stadium at Candlestick Point. Or Monster Park. The Giants never stopped calling the stadium Candlestick Park in their media guides. It was and always will be Candlestick Park, no matter how many names they give it. The city/county even had to change the freeway signs back to read "Candlestick Park" because those other lame names just got people hopelessly lost. The bottom line is, the fancy new names changed nothing and did nothing to improve tourism. Essentially, the whole name change thing was a flop.

100% behind you on this.

It will always be Candlestick, and you get to name things ONCE.
 
Intercourse is between two (or in some cases multiple) people. You can't say the guy had sex but the woman didn't sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

There is a reason it is called oral SEX, it is STILL SEX.

Sexual Intercourse by any definition is penetration. Having oral intercourse is one having contact with another's genitals according to the dictionary definition. So the person giving would be the one having oral intercourse. Clinton was just plain selfish being the receiver. Anyway here is the exhibit on the agreed upon definition

http://icreport.access.gpo.gov/hd105-311/vol3/tab2.pdf

Also you can have relations with a married person and not commit an affair. The married person would be committing the affair but you being single would not. The point is certain words have specific definitions.
 
Yes, they are, and I consider that a GREAT thing. I don't want restrictions placed on stem cell research when it has the possibility to save millions of lives. From your responses, we can assume that you are adamantly against medical and scientific advances. Big shock, that.

Because you don't like it is not a good enough reason to call it a waste of tax payer money.

Here's the thing...

See? We can eliminate the need for human embryos in stem cell research. Banning such research means we'll continue using human embryos. Don't you want to save the children?!?!? :doh

I personally don't care about an unborn human embryo, others do.

This line is nothing but a fallacy as your argument has nothing at all to do with mine.

My argument is based on tangible economics, it can be proven. Your is based on an appeal to authority that has little to no bearing to my argument at all.


Actually, this looks like a waist.

Oh my goodness, you got me. A typo! Oh no!

You Win the Internet!

Ah. You didn't like my response, so it's "incorrect." Was I required to "respond correctly?" And who gets to decide what a "correct" response is? YOU? :doh

Ahhh no. Your response had nothing to do with my argument. As I said are you being willfully ignorant? Or is reading comprehension not your forte?

Oh, I got your point. I responded the way I did because your point is stupid.

I applaud your brilliant response!

You see, slapping a New and Improved! name on an existing thing/place/geographical area doesn't really change anything about that existing thing/place/geographical area. Whatever animal health businesses in that area today were also there last week - before the "Animal Corridor" designation was plastered over them - doing business as they've always done. Whatever presumed "tourism" that might occur because the region has a fancy new title (pasted on top of NO CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS WHATSOEVER) will surely not make or break these businesses.

You have no concept of marketing do you?

Be serious, dude. How many people who never had any interest in going to Kansas City are suddenly going to make vacation plans because the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor title is SO incredibly intriguing? :roll:

I would think none and it was not done for that reason. You are instead of attacking my argument, arguing against unrelated examples I used. :shock:

You know, I remember when they changed the name of Candlestick Park in 1995. The park didn't change. The location didn't change. The crappy weather didn't change. And nobody called it 3Com Park. Or San Francisco Stadium at Candlestick Point. Or Monster Park. The Giants never stopped calling the stadium Candlestick Park in their media guides. It was and always will be Candlestick Park, no matter how many names they give it. The city/county even had to change the freeway signs back to read "Candlestick Park" because those other lame names just got people hopelessly lost. The bottom line is, the fancy new names changed nothing and did nothing to improve tourism. Essentially, the whole name change thing was a flop.

I'm sorry, but I believe spending congressional time discussing nifty new business-related monikers (that will never be used except by total dinks) for geographical regions is a complete waste of my tax dollars. Obviously, you think such things are just great.

God help us.

That has to be the longest fallacy argument I have ever read? Apples and oranges. Then again it is par for the course I guess.
 
Last edited:
Because you don't like it is not a good enough reason to call it a waste of tax payer money.

Ah. The old My opinion is right and yours is wrong tactic, eh?

Sorry friend, but you don't get to decide what is/is not a "good enough reason" to base my opinions upon.

My argument is based on tangible economics, it can be proven.

You're on! Prove to me that the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor designation has produced tangible economic increases in the region. :2wave:

You have no concept of marketing do you?

Actually I have quite a bit of experience in the area, but that's beside the point. Tell me, were you living in the SF Bay Area when Candlestick's name was repeatedly changed? I was. And I can tell you that the tangible impact it had on the locals was IT PISSED THEM OFF and had zero impact on the people not living in the area (other than to confuse the hell out of them when they came to town). The genius "marketing" of Candlestick's name was a massive and colossal flop, and it did NOT bring "tangible economic" increases to the SF Bay Area in any way, shape, or form.

Similarly, SF's Pac Bell Park which opened in 2000 – and was renamed SBC Park in 2003, then re-renamed AT&T Park in 2006 – is still known by everyone in the region as Pac Bell Park. And those name changes also did NOT bring "tangible economic" increases to the SF Bay Area in any way, shape, or form.

That being said, I've already stated that it's entirely possible the sparkly new Kansas City Animal Health Corridor designation will bring notoriety and prosperity to the region beyond anyone's imagining, but I have serious doubts.

Clearly, you do not. *shrug*

Nevertheless, I consider the energy spent by congress on the matter a waste of time. Almost as much a waste of time as this having loopy discussion with you. Good day!
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep things civil.
 
Back
Top Bottom