La shawn barber s corner bush the sugar daddy. Gay sugar daddy. Russia pictures sugar daddy marriage nude. Sugar daddy. Michigan sugar daddy wanted. Rocket dog boots- sugar daddy….

creep.

wise_man on October 10, 2008 at 5:14 PM

You introduced stalking into the discussion. What does that make you?

Darn. How is he going to stalk you now?

wise_man on October 10, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Pretty rich coming from someone who enters discussions simply to express your dislike of me.

And as it happens, one of my oldest friends is a Shelby from Wisconsin that rips on Palin. Leave your sexual fantasies at the door.

You’re not from Wisconsin, by chance, are you?

MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Ha!

I have never been there.

Awww, I can see you’re glad to see me again!

Shelby on October 9, 2008 at 11:11 PM

You’re not from Wisconsin, by chance, are you?

MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Awww, I can see you’re glad to see me again!

Shelby on October 9, 2008 at 11:05 PM

Welcome to Hot Air. You’ll see the clickable “x” at the upper right corner of your screen.

“The most prevalent emotional responses reported from voters were “angry” and “disturbed” after viewing the ad.”

Note to McCain: Voters DO NOT WANT A WINKY HOKEY COLD-HEARTED ICE PRINCESS for VP / PRES!

The ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU

Info and stats on ad:
http://mediacurves.com/Politics/J7011-Anit-PalinAd-WildlifeRecord/Index.cfm

Scores and reactions to other Repub / Dem ads:
http://www.mediacurves.com/PCIS/

PS, it’s “sheer”. It’s been fun having you insult me without provocation, but I’ve run out of time to play with children.

MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Again, a poster who childishly chides another on a spelling error should be a little more careful about calling people children.

You say “common sense”, right after admitting that guns are treated entirely differently in different parts of the country. Some people’s “common sense” about firearms comes down to “guns are bad and kill people”. There is a distinct lack of common sense in certain areas of this country, and until it’s truly “common”, I think the current thousands of gun laws on the books should be enforced before any new ones are made, and I think the most important gun law, the second law ever established, should precede all of them.

I agree with everything you said and none of it counters anything I said.

Gun bans occurred, such as the DC gun ban and the AWB. They are not paranoid fantasies. They have happened, and legislators are working to reinstate them and add more to the mix. The “slippery slope” so far has been proven by history.

And yet, the fear of a slippery slope doesn’t invalidate some of the ‘common sense’ limitations that even the NRA agrees on.

People who can’t post without sighing need not respond. You’ll get none.

MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM

To be honest, this is the first decent response I’ve gotten from you.

Now that you’ve stopped seeking hidden strawmen in what I say, it’s a lot easier to have a discussion.

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM

PS, it’s “sheer”. It’s been fun having you insult me without provocation, but I’ve run out of time to play with children.

Thus, I believe McCain is correct is saying that some common sense needs to be involved in enacting gun laws and restrictions.

The NRA have a problem with such common sense restrictions because they see any such thing as the beginning, the “slippery slope”, toward out and out gun banning.

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 10:39 AM

You say “common sense”, right after admitting that guns are treated entirely differently in different parts of the country. Some people’s “common sense” about firearms comes down to “guns are bad and kill people”. There is a distinct lack of common sense in certain areas of this country, and until it’s truly “common”, I think the current thousands of gun laws on the books should be enforced before any new ones are made, and I think the most important gun law, the second law ever established, should precede all of them.

Gun bans occurred, such as the DC gun ban and the AWB. They are not paranoid fantasies. They have happened, and legislators are working to reinstate them and add more to the mix. The “slippery slope” so far has been proven by history.

People who can’t post without sighing need not respond. You’ll get none.

Awright, that’s the second time you’ve shown a level of arrogance comparable to Obama. You’re claiming that people who have not insulted you are deserving of insults and condescension?

Buddy, you’re not there, nor will you ever be.

If you think you’re not insulting me by continuing to misstate and misconstrue my words, then you need to think again.

This whole “conversation” has been a pain in the neck solely because people like you would rather argue about what you THINK I mean or where you THINK I’m going instead of simply discussing my words.

And then you make it worse by arguing that you know better than I do what I mean and what I’m trying to say.

So, yeah, you deserve every bit of dripping insult and bitter sarcasm.

No, it isn’t.

Yes.

Yes it is.

You WANT to make it complicated by trying to deflect where you THINK I’m going with it.

But the question is still quite simple with a very simple answer.

We do NOT have the right to have or even do whatever we want.

None, absolutely none of our freedoms are absolute. There are limits to every one of them.

Thus the discussion on any ‘right’ isn’t whether or not there should be limits, but WHERE those limits are.

And, by the way, you really shouldn’t be lecturing people about ignorance considering the shear amount of it you have shown in our discussion.

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 7:49 PM

To directly address your question. No, we don’t have a right to own anything/everything our heart desires. We, don’t have a “right” to own another person. But, I would like for you to consider the obvious counter questions.
1. Who or what has the right/authority to determine what we can’t own?
2. Given the obvious “royalty” attitude of our current political class, where does their “right/authority”, to determine what we can’t own, stop? Automatic weapons? Medical Marijuana? Handguns? Hamburgers and fries? Medical care? Right to not be euthenized? (sic)
3. Once they take away all the guns, who holds them accountable? The people by the ballot box? Who says the elections will stay honest? Hugo Chavez? Jimmy Carter? /sarc
Will “The Zero” be re-elected with 100% of the vote?

We must not allow the government determine these things or eventually, we’ll be eating Taco Bell at formal dinners (think “Demolition Man” analogy.

Edgar Friendly: You see, according to Cocteau’s plan I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder – “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing “I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener”.

It’s more than just about automatic weapons.

…then you deserve every insult and every condescending word.

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 7:47 PM

Awright, that’s the second time you’ve shown a level of arrogance comparable to Obama. You’re claiming that people who have not insulted you are deserving of insults and condescension?

Buddy, you’re not there, nor will you ever be.

It’s quite a simple question.

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 7:49 PM

No, it isn’t. For someone who puts on airs of omnipotence, you have severe tunnel vision. I gave you my answers to that complicated concept. If you’re unable to comprehend the depth of the question you asked, that’s your problem, not mine.

Then again, you also boil down one type of firearm as somehow more deadly than another, based on flawed and very uninformed reasoning. I’m here to tell you: there’s a difference between objectivism and willful ignorance. You’re practicing the latter.

That’s because it’s a loaded, hyperbolic question. Can you own anything you desire? Not in a literal sense, no. Can you own damn near anything you desire? Yes. Are there things that one person can own, but another cannot? Yes. To make the assertion is the confirmation of an exception, not a rule.

MadisonConservative on October 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM

No. It’s neither loaded nor hyperbolic.

It’s quite a simple question.

Do we have the right to own anything/everything our heart desires?

Again, you dodge the question due to fear about where the conversation might be heading.

The less you dance, bob and weave, the easier this conversation could be and would have been.

I would be inclined to say “I was wrong” if it wasn’t for the fact that every time you claimed you weren’t making that assertion, you re-asserted all the components of said assertion. You come full circle over and over.

See, there you go again – “components.”

Still looking for a hidden meaning or agenda.

Unwilling or unable to simply admit that my words mean exactly what they say.

I do not back away from any of my individual assertions or “components.”

They simply don’t fit together they way you keep trying to make them.

And I maintain that as long as you continue to sigh every other post, as well as insult me and others, you bolster a persona that is arrogant and claims to know better than others on matters that, just before, you claim are merely opinions.

Again, as long as you continue to attack the meaning behind/between/betwixt my words…

…a meaning that simply isn’t there…

…then you deserve every insult and every condescending word.

And as far as arrogant is concerned…

…I certainly AM arrogant about knowing what I mean.

One might wonder, then, what kind of adjectives should be used toward people who continue to insist that they know what someone else knows and means.

Arrogant, indeed.

And people who voted for Perot contributed to Bush’s loss to Clinton.

Look at it from the perspective of the Perot voters.

The fiscal conservatives who voted Perot got a balanced budget from Clinton/House GOP who were spooked by the possibility of a viable third party. Exactly what they wanted.

The NRA declined to support Bush 41 or Clinton after Bush did nothing to veto Democratic gun control measures for 4 years and when asked about the NRA said “Where else are they going to go?” i.e. who else are they going to vote for. The GOP’s pro-gun stance is now etched in stone.

Similarly if Paul, Tancredo or Nader ever got a huge third party showing their respective agendas would be integrated into the GOP and Dem platforms respectively.

These are just some of the ways that voting third party can be effective. You seem to think that just because McKinney or Bob Barr aren’t going to be President next November their supporters should feel they’re are wasting their time.

Perot siphoning off votes from Republicans may be a defeat for you and your views but not necessarily for his supporters. They don’t lack political acumen.

I’m not saying people should vote third party – especially not with Obama in the running – just trying to explain why they do.

To say that this is not a fact flies in the face of logic and analysis.

wise_man on October 9, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Voting for a third party candidate is a vote that is neither for McCain nor for Obama. To say that this is not a fact flies in the face of logic and analysis.

aengus on October 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM

So “some” is less or more than “few”.

I wouldn’t think that any would. And, his point was trying to say that people who support Barr don’t want Obama to win, every time there is a spoiler like Perot, it takes votes from the republican. And people who voted for Perot contributed to Bush’s loss to Clinton. And the people who tried to vote for Nader (the ones that the democrats didn’t get around to having their lawyers kick him off the ballot) siphoned votes from Kerry to Bush’s advantage.

To say that this is not a fact flies in the face of logic and analysis. Therefore, his political acumen, as it were is lacking.

BTW – you still haven’t replied on whether or not you agree with the statement that we don’t have the right to own whatever our little heart desires.

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 6:08 PM

That’s because it’s a loaded, hyperbolic question. Can you own anything you desire? Not in a literal sense, no. Can you own damn near anything you desire? Yes. Are there things that one person can own, but another cannot? Yes. To make the assertion is the confirmation of an exception, not a rule.

But instead of just saying “hey, sorry about that but it certainly sounded like you were going somewhere else with that”…

…he insists that he KNOWS what I REALLY mean.

-sigh-

Religious_Zealot on October 9, 2008 at 6:06 PM

I would be inclined to say “I was wrong” if it wasn’t for the fact that every time you claimed you weren’t making that assertion, you re-asserted all the components of said assertion. You come full circle over and over.

And I maintain that as long as you continue to sigh every other post, as well as insult me and others, you bolster a persona that is arrogant and claims to know better than others on matters that, just before, you claim are merely opinions.

It’s mighty, mighty confusing.