Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 7, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

god and football
used interchangably is the thang here. I would suggest not trying to change anything. Do what I'm doing and MOVE. lol
seriously get the hell out while you can because, as Faster1 is a testament, stupid is in the water.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 8, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's what happened. How is it not being fair and balanced? Because he used quotations? You didn't pay attention in history AND english?
You're in trouble homie.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 8, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well the past is just that. But there is soooo much history out there... I love it. (favorite subject).
K, I didn't take teh SATs or the ACT but I DID take teh compass. I nailed a 93 in reading and a 99 in writing. How'd u do?
I can provide a nice screen shot of it for you.
I notice you never answered the question of how it isn't fair and balanced, so I'll do your homework for you (just this once).

"Quoting Prose
Direct quotations are another person's exact words--either spoken or in print--incorporated into your own writing."

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/g...

I know I know it's from a university, an institute of higher learning and they're ALL liberal as all get out. Take heart my friend it's from Perdue! A heartland university. So, while its' not Jim Jones University, it'll have to suffice.

Also, I have one account and one username. Swing by the Advocate's office (I KNOW they're dying to make your acquaintence and to hear you pontificate on their journalistic styles) check with Kevin and see who uses what IP address etc etc. You can even use my name if your scurred. Though there's only one like me and I've kinda met Kevin and the Advocate's staff before. Beside's I'm better looking no doubt.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 8, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah I see. I figured you took issue with his use of quotes, my bad. To begin with MY libs consist of Barack Obama and Bobby Bright. I did not cast a vote for Nancy Pelosi nor Teddy Kennedy (was in USMC), etc etc. I've voted for Barack Obama and I've saved the clippings etc. So I can proudly show I was a part of another chapter in the great American history. I agree that people should have an opinion and voice it. This is what our country was founded on.
I doubt Kevin's worried about your piercing professional annotations, then again he might be.
As to Love attacking... How long have you been in New York? SA news doesn't have a site that I know of but man you missed some doozies while you were gone. I'll catch you up no worries. First Bright had signs that read Bobby Bright republican or something like that. That made Love mad because apparently he's concerned about the attention span or literacy among Republicans.
Then came a never ending torrent of political CRAP. That is the most appropriate use of such a benign word. But it was man it was crap. Bobby bright did this and he ate a kindergartner at the church picnic... all sorts of crap.
I believe the connected political parties made the hit adds for bright and love but love's "I approve this message" appeared quite a bit more.
Bright commercials more often than not had pictures of himself talking about the issues he'll deal with and how he'll deal with them. Love... was concerned about other things.
I wrote of it before but it bears reiteration. The biggest difference I saw this cycle was the rallies. At many an Obama rally there were hecklers and rabble rousers (hate that word) BUT they stayed and asked question which he answered(indicative of the spirit).
Mccain's rallies (indicative of the spirit) had hecklers tossed immediately. No discussion.
As to the ab-use of the power of journalism... dude you watch foxnews. You listen (how I don't know) to limbaugh et all.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 9, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So the "fairness and balance" of the Advocate isn't an issue anymore? Good. I'm sure that's a load off Kevin's mind.
It's good that you don't use only one source for your news or information. Obama can keep who he wants on his plane. The explanation I saw was that they were bounced to make room for a documentary crew. I've already addressed the West interview. Joe Wurzelbacher doesn't have a lisence to be a plumber but he's got a publicist. And I've already addressed the fairness doctrine.
Thank you for making my point. There was no discussion in that link. The heckler said something (inaudible) and she went about talking to him, not with him.
As to the SA news... how do I put this. They exclaimed that the north, particularly the northeast, holds racial resentments unlike anywhere else in the country. EVEN THE SOUTH!
They claimed that the Bradley effect was going to take hold and Obama wouldn't win.
lol
Well. To inform. The south has voted republican since the civil rights act of 1965. They continued that grand tradition last Tuesday. Of course there's no parallel to be drawn, merely an observation. Something that's funny to me that I'd only noticed recently.
Bearing the Civil rights act and desegregation in mind, I drove by Ft. Dale Academy recently and saw the founding dates of that school. I'm surprised it took four years.
But here is what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDWMxquNI...
True that both sides faced hecklers, and I never wrote that some were allowed at one but not the other. You assumed that. I wrote about the candidate's response to those hecklers.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 9, 2008 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Palin should do what she does best. Nothing. I would say though, that if you want people's votes you should talk with them not at them. United we stand is a bumper sticker logic I'm sure you favor, yet it isn't all that easy especially with the devisiveness of the past 7+ years, and the devisive perspectives of those that support the republican party.
Yeah I knew that and I also know Lincoln was the first republican to capture the presidency.
Are you seriously under the impression that the two major political parties have remained the same since their inception? How about the fact that the Democrats rejected George Wallace's ignorant stances, which split them into the Dixiecrats and the rest. Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond who still holds the record for a filibuster. He switched parties after teh Civil Rights act of 1964 and became a Republican from then until teh day he died. I'm glad he continued in teh tradition of conservatism etc. The glaring hypocrisy of denying voting rights to his own offspring is simply majestic to me.
The problem with your argument that republicans are for smaller government is that is simply not so. While Joe average republican might seem to think its' a good idea (and it is) the officials he votes for never reflect those values. EVERY Republican president we've had has increased spending, and/or declared a new war on something. I'm positive stock owners and CEO's aren't too mad at you guys.
As to prop 8 I think you overstate your case. But, just so I'm understanding, you're saying that you AREN'T in favor of COnstitutional amendments deny gays marriages? What about abortion Michael? I had you figured for someone who was down with the banning of it and gay marriage.
Maybe I had you figured wrong?

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 9, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Incidentally, I realllly don't take offense at being called a liberal. It was a VERY liberal ideology to think that men could rule themselves WITHOUT a divinely appointed monarch. It was nine kinds of liberal to think that men could band themselves, their fortunes, and their fates and forge a nation out of nothing.
I LOVE being liberal. But... I';m very comfortable in the traditions of liberalism, are you as comfortable with yours?
I'd assume you cling to the idea that Sparta was an ideal sort of society, as opposed to Athens.
But yeah man keep calling me liberal and I'll keep a-smilin'

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 10, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To begin I've a request for you. Knock the arrogant copyright crap off and simply make your point©.
Prop 8 is very very simple. As is the question of gay marriage. When the various States agreed and signed onto the U.S. Constitution (Alabama has done so twice) they also submitted some of their rights as individual states in order to join that union. Part of that agreement is teh 14th Amendment which basically states that no government (State nor Federal) can make laws that abridge the rights of the citizens within its' varied jurisdictions. Most specifically life, liberty, and property.
A marriage is a legal binding contract period. Ask ANY man that has gone through the family courts system. Once you are married you are legally bound to the other. This allows you to enjoy certain priviledges in the eyes of the law. So long as you are able to enter into a contract (of age & sane) then it is most certainly an inalienable right. Where we differ is that you believe being gay is a choice. I beg to differ. Unless one is extremely into being beaten, harrassed, sometimes crucified, but over all it aint' pleasant. Why would anyone consciously do this? To make mommy and daddy mad? lol No Michael. I believe that if one is gay they were born that way.
(cont)

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 10, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To try the "Well let's just let poeople marry goats" and whatnot. I say SURE!
As soon as its' determined that a goat can enter into a legal and binding contract and is of sound mind then yes according to our laws a goat can marry a person. Though the goat might have trouble signing on the dotted line.
The argument that "It's not natural" is also rendered moot by simply looking about us. It's also not natural to incinerate an entire city, or two. It's not natural for people to be flying at 30,000 feet at 600 miles per hour. It's not natural for men to have walked on the moon!
And finally the last remaining straw, the biblical argument. MM had furnished a passage frmo the new testament which doesn't exactly address homosexuality. It's in reference to the Roman, as opposed to the Greeks. The romans were into the chicks ALOT, the Greeks were more open opportunity. THE ONLY reference that is explicit twoards homosexuality is in the old testament. Which doesn't apply to christian thought because it was the old covenant, NOT the new one made by the hippy from Nazareth. To that end if we are to apply ancient Jewish kosher laws to teh United States of America in 2008, then I ask who gets to choose which laws are enforced? Seriously? Would I be able to own slaves? What about if I went to Mexico and found me a nice young lady, can I buy her? I enjoy watching football and loved playing it when I did...but am I going to hell because I touched the pig's skin? Also, ALL shrimp eaters would then cease to eat shrimp and other shellfish, no holy men should have glasses or contacts, AND if there's a lein on my house I can then take care of that debt by hawking one of my daughters on the open market.
The problem with applying biblical logic and arguments is that they do NOT coincide with the basic fundamentals of the United States. As much as you can try and argue that we're a christian nation founded on christian laws it is simply not so.
To finish a contract is not owned collectively by any one group of people. It is an inanimate thing. It is an agreement. You make an oral agreement when you go to BK and order a Whopper. If that contract is broken (they give you a fish sammitch) then you seek restitution (fix the order or you ain't payin for it).
If you seriously wish to see the sanctity of marriage preserved, then outlaw divorce. Make pre-nuptual counselling mandatory. Bump up the age limits a bit.
I would also argue that heterosexuals aren't all that great at the marriage thing (see divorce rates). But to claim that allowing gays to marry would somehow imbrue the sanctity of the institution is an old and tired argument.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 10, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The same was said about cross racial marriages ("It ain't natural and what an abomination"); the offspring of which are some of the most beautiful children I've seen. Some of which are the grandchildren of some of the readership of the Advocate. I'm positive they would argue their grandkids are anything BUT abominations, and I'd agree.

Posted by INI (Rob Mello) on November 10, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Incidentally the 14th Amendment also applies to the illegal laws of banning felons from voting.