Disqus - Latest Comments for Haggs

Re: Limbaugh Condemned for Democrats Attitude

Haggs — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:49:25 -0000

I agree with you that Saddam was a horrible, horrible man and needed to be dealt with. But if that was what President Bush wanted to do, then he should've come to the American people with that plan. Instead we got those lies about an active WMD program and Saddam's ties to 9/11. When those proved to be false, it was a huge embarassment for the president and he had to retroactively change the reasoning for invading Iraq.

I mean, Bush was still riding high polularity following 9/11, so it's very possible that we would've supported his plans for Iraq if he had just told us the truth... although the left would've been up in arms.

Re: Limbaugh Condemned for Democrats Attitude

Haggs — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:41:18 -0000

You don't get it, Bob.

You're in the minority conservative base, so you love it when Limbaugh says unAmerican things like he wants President Obama to fail. You eat that stuff up because it speaks to your hardcore ideology. But that's the same with hardcore Democrats. They saw President Bush as a huge failure and a liar for eight years. Of course they'd say they want him to fail.

It's not Democrats you should be worried about when it comes to Rush's comment. It's independents and the people in the political middle. You need them if you have any hope of winning another national election. They're offended by people saying they want the president to fail, no matter which side says it. If you Republicans had spread that poll around back in 2006 like we're spreading around Rush's comment, you might have gotten some traction out of it.

It also helps that there's a lot of people who find Rush to be too abrassive and mean. That's the reason he doesn't have much support beyond the conservative base.

So have you noticed why Republicans who are in office or want to run (like maybe Gingrich) won't support Rush's statement? They read the polls and know America is still supporting President Obama's efforts to help the economy. If Obama's popularity levels reach the lows of President Bush, then more Republicans will come out saying they want him to fail. Until that happens, they know independents won't like it if they say things like that. Rush isn't running for anything, so he's not afraid to attack the president as much as he wants.

Also, why was it we went into Iraq again? I forget. Something to do with WMDs or dragons or something else that didn't exist. So he lied to us and led over 4000 Americans to their death against a country that didn't even attack us. All the while he let the Taliban come back in Afganistan and we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden. There was really no reason for us to want Bush to fail because he was doing a great job of failing on his own.

Re: Steele to Limbaugh: I Misspoke

Haggs — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:48:59 -0000

Conservatives are the only ones who care about the Constitution? Pull the other leg, Bob. Secret memos from the Bush Administration recently came out showing that they argued that President Bush could ignore parts of the Constitution in order to fight terrorism. You can't spend eight years ignoring the Constitution and then start saying that you're the only ones following what it says.

And don't try any of that "Bush wasn't really a conservative" stuff. The general public didn't see much difference between him and the rest of the conservative Republicans. Plus, conservatives seemed to be plenty happy with Bush up until his poll numbers took a dive. Conservatives seem desperate to control the historical perception of the last eight years, but that seems like a losing battle in the age of the internet and YouTube.

Re: Steele to Limbaugh: I Misspoke

Haggs — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:49:07 -0000

Well, that's where we disagree. I think of conservatism as an evil plot to destroy America. You guys came close to doing that during the last eight years, but I'm hopeful that President Obama will fix your mess.

Arguing with you is fun, Bob. :)

Re: Steele to Limbaugh: I Misspoke

Haggs — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:02:47 -0000

You think Rush is on your side? Now that's humorous. Rush is on Rush's side. He would happily throw any conservative under the bus and then laugh about it on his show. The Republican Party is his toy and he seems to take great joy in playing with it. Republicans worship him at their own peril

Re: Steele to Limbaugh: I Misspoke

Haggs — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:21:09 -0000

I see it as a sign that the Republican Party is very weak right now. If they can't stand up to a guy on the radio, how do they expect to stand up to the Democrats?

Though I will admit that I enjoy seeing Republican infighting. It reinforces my hope that Republicans won't regain power any time soon, because if they do it would be bad for America.

Re: Steele to Limbaugh: I Misspoke

Haggs — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:28:08 -0000

Wow. How wimpy is the Republican Party right now? A Republican can't speak the truth about Limbaugh without then having to bow down, appologize and kiss Rush's ring. It's sad.

Re: And a Child Shall Lead Them…

Haggs — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:15:54 -0000

I think it's hilarious that conservatives are so desperate for any kind of leadership, they're turning to a 13 year old.

Re: Researchers Generate Neurons from Adult Stem Cells

Haggs — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:59:42 -0000

I think it's awesome that they figured out how to do this and I hope they keep pushing adult stem cells to see what else will come of it. But that doesn't change my opinion that scientists should also be working with embryonic stem cells to see what will come of them.

I think your logic is faulty. You assume that because adult stem cells have already produced results, that it will give us all the same knowledge and results that embryonic stem cells would. But how would we ever know that unless we experiment on embryonic cells to see what they'll show us. You can't just assume we won't get any useful info from them simply because you have a moral objection to experimenting with those cells. That's not how science works.

Re: Treading Where Nazis Stood Condemned

Haggs — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:35:48 -0000

Y'know, comparing the other side to Nazis is the sign of a very weak argument.

Re: South Dakota Legislature Considers Repeal of Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Haggs — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:48:54 -0000

You just love to question my faith, Bob. You assume you know more than God just because of my political opinions. You like to assume that my love of Christ is some how less than yours because of your conservative ideology. Well, I have the same problem with you. There have been times when I've questioned your faith, even though I know I shouldn't. There have been times I've seen you write something on this blog that I thought was very evil, almost Hell-worthy. But that's between you and God. I have to assume that you have Jesus in your heart just like I do. So, whether you like it or not, we'll greet each other up in Heaven someday and probably have a laugh about all of this.

And I know I'm not perfect. Conservatives have really been making me mad lately with their stupidity. When I get to Heaven, God's probably going to have a long talk with me about that.

Back to the issue at hand: I did do research into why embryonic stem cells cause tumors, and I even put the reason in my post. But I don't think you care about that. I think you just like to point out that it can cause tumors because it helps you prove your point that we shouldn't use those cells to find cures. You don't seem to care that this research could help stop some human suffering because that's what your ideology is telling you.

And I'm glad that adult stem cells have lead to cures and treatments. I think we should continue to work with them to see what else they'll be able to cure. But I think it would be irresponsible of us to just assume no cures or treatments will come from embryonic stem cells. How will we know that if we don't do any research? Why do you think Nancy Reagan supports embryonic stem cell research?

Re: Obama Loading Up Justice Dept With Judicial Activists

Haggs — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:13:10 -0000

Bob, I agree with your definition of judicial activism. I think that's exactly what President Bush did with the Justice Department under his watch. He and his cronies stacked the department with conservatives in order to support his political ideology rather than the U.S. Constitution, law or precedent.

But you probably don't mind that Bush did that because you're a conservative and a hypocrite.

Re: Senator Thune on Neal Cavuto

Haggs — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:48:08 -0000

"porkulus"

I love how you don't even try to hide that you let Rush do all your thinking for you. It must free up a lot of your time to not have to think for yourself.

But I did like how Sen. Thune had a lot more class than you in regard to Daschle's withdrawal.

Re: South Dakota Legislature Considers Repeal of Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Haggs — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:42:54 -0000

The problem I have with this, Bob, is how you collect your "facts." You come in with a bias for or against something. Then you look for any piece of evidence that supports your previous bias and dismiss any contrary evidence as "lies." And then you repeat your "facts" as often as you can hoping no one will notice how weak they are. That's not scientific at all, it's just trying to turn your opinion into "facts." I've seen you do this with tons of issues.

And you throw out "facts" like "embryonic stem cell research causes tumors" without giving any explaination as to why. You do that to build up a case again embryonic research because, once again, you're biased. The reason ES cells can cause tumors is if you inject them into a person's body without having them go through a process of differentiation. Without that process, the ES cells will turn into a random types of cells (the wrong type for that place in the body). That's why scientists are researching how to differetiate them propperly to stop that from happening. But you don't want them to complete that research because it will prove your "facts" are wrong.

You also like to play up how adult stem cells have led to more cures than ES cells. You don't seem to mention that adult stem cells have been used for 40 years while research with ES cells began in the 90's and a lot of research was halted with President Bush's ban in 2001. So of course ES cells haven't led to as many cures, because it's still being researched. But that doesn't mean ES cells won't lead to cures, even though you wrongly believe they won't.

I'm so glad the era of biased "facts" is over now that Obama is president. Now we can get back to making real scientific discoveries.

Re: Daschle Nomination Dashed

Haggs — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:37:40 -0000

Nice gloating, Bob. Very Christian of you.

Re: Tom Daschle’s Voting Record on Taxes

Haggs — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:42:18 -0000

You're right, Daschle would make a horrible Finance Secretary. Why did President Obama choose him for that spot? Oh wait, he's actually going to be Health and Human Services Secretary. So who cares?

Also, half the things you listed was about the "Death Tax" which is mostly a partisan conservative issue. Since Daschle is not a conservative, then of course he would vote that way on that issue.

Re: Life at Conception Act Introduced in Congress

Haggs — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:19:25 -0000

Why didn't they try this while Republicans were in charge of Congress? I don't see how this would have any chance of passing now.

Re: Evidence of Physics, Evidence of Design

Haggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:33:13 -0000

See, this is why I have such trouble discussing things with you. My post was an olive branch to find common ground between us. We're both creationists, just two different varieties of creationists. We both believe God created the universe. We just different on some of the details. But what do I get from you? The finger. I probably deserve it since I tend to call you a "jerk" quite a bit. But, still, can't we just agree that we do have some common ground on this?

And I don't agree that the Bible is clear that the 6 days of creation are each 24 hour periods. That seems to be an assumption on the part of Young Earth Creationists. Just like they assume the Earth is only 6000 years old. There's no date in the Bible for the exact day God began creating. What people have done is taking the various dates in the Bible, along with ages, and tried to match it as best they could with history books. I think the Young Earch Creationist thinking of 6000 years and 24 hour creation days are assumptions.

But, for Old Earth Creationists, you can take current scientific theories about how the solar system was formed and see that they match pretty well with the Genesis account of creation. But the idea that a "day" from Genesis is longer than a 24 hour period is also an assumption on our part. We just feel that our way of thinking can be backed up by scientific data that you dismiss.

In the end, none of us will find out who's right until we get to Heaven and ask God for ourselves.

Re: Sarah Palin Launches SarahPAC

Haggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:59:16 -0000

That's because you want a robot to run. All you want it someone who can recite the conservative ideology from memory. You don't care whether or not that person can actually think. That's why Palin caused McCain to lose. America saw that there wasn't any substance below the surfance of her memorized conservative lines.

Keep blaming the media for pointing out how stupid Palin is if that makes you feel better.

Re: Pistol Waiting Period Repeal Passes Committee

Haggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:03:12 -0000

What's the point of this? The current language states that if a person has a valid permit, they are exempt from the 48 hour waiting period. So this will let people without valid permits get their gun right away? Why? And why would you let someone without a valid permit buy a gun?

I have a big problem with pistols. I can understand hunting guns. But a pistol's "intended purpose" is to shoot another person. Why would someone want to buy something that shoots other people? I don't understand how a Christian can be okay with buying something that's used to shoot another person. It makes no sense to me.

Re: Closing Gitmo Damages American Security

Haggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:41:27 -0000

Bob, when exactly do you see the War On Terror being over? You can't hold those people until terrorism has completely vanished. That's just dumb and not realistic.

I would agree that there are some problems with closing Gitmo. But there are also problems with keeping it open. It's been one of the best recruiting tools the terrorists have. The status quo needs to change, so I support Obama's attempts to close Gitmo.

Re: Sarah Palin Launches SarahPAC

Haggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:17:01 -0000

Good. I'm glad she'll be running in 2012 and I hope she gets the nomination. Why do I think that? Because that would give Obama an easy ticket to a second term. I think the 2008 campaign destroyed any credibility Palin might have had, and there's no way America would elect her as president.

Re: Evidence of Physics, Evidence of Design

Haggs — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:12:43 -0000

That fits my beliefs pretty well. I'm an Old Earth Creationist. I believe we can see God's hand in all of Creation and that He has used the Big Bang and Evolution and stuff like that to shape this universe He created.

Re: Fresh Inroads for Socialized Medicine

Haggs — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:20:00 -0000

Thankfully, Democrats are in control of things now so we'll finally be able to stop the Republicans' evil and immoral crusade against helping sick children. Yay America!

Re: Colin Powell: I Think I’m Still a Republican

Haggs — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:15:11 -0000

Actually it's been my observation that, to be a conservative, you must remove two key parts of your brain: The rational-thinking part that understands reality and the part that has compassion for other human beings.