An old econ lesson I want to share with you libers
Conservative_X
up on the forums, and see most (if not all of you) are liberals. Well,
I have to admit, I have a need to convert all liberals into
conservatives.
So, let's get started on my first attempt!
I remember in an old econ lesson I had, with a brilliant conservative
teacher, she told me how liberals ALWAYS accuse Bush of stealing the
2000 election, even though the popular vote would have STILL gone his
way. They recounted all the ballots in florida, and it didn't come to
Al Gore. She said this is further proof of the liberal bias in the
media. Not only that, but he got military ballots THROWN OUT just
because they didn't have a stamp on them...and they would have came in
his favor too! And the media NEVER reported on that. Further proof of a
liberal media bias! We truly live in a liberal media country! That was
the first step into opening my eyes and the first in a long list of
things that made from liberal to conservative.
Hope this story enlightens you guys.
You'll be hearing more from me later.
Yaoi Huntress Earth
the conservatives these days leave me a little cold. I feel it's the
Neo-Cons that ruined it for me, because I've met some rather decent
right-wingers (my father is one) and come across some truely fightening
ones as well. I know, I know, there are asshole liberals out there,
but I find their beliefs a little more compassionate towards others. I
don't like abortion, but I wish the pro-lifers would show the same
compassion towards the already-born as they do to fetuses (like help
the women who gave birth to those babys find employment to raise them).
Not to mention that more liberal eras like the 60's were fighting for
the rights of non-whites, the disabled, women, gays, and people from
forgien countries that didn't fit the 1950's brainwashed, WASP ideal of
what a human being should be. (While people like Pat Robertson and
Falwell were praising segragation.) I also find a lot of the
mouthpeices of the conservitive movement to be very hateful,
hypocritical and\or racist\sexist (Rush, Couliter, Vox Day, etc.)
Maybe I have been exposed to too many of the jerks, but I guess I had
to vent as well.
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> Hey guys, I just discovered this website a wile ago, and been reading
> up on the forums, and see most (if not all of you) are liberals. Well,
> I have to admit, I have a need to convert all liberals into
> conservatives.
>
> So, let's get started on my first attempt!
>
> I remember in an old econ lesson I had, with a brilliant conservative
> teacher, she told me how liberals ALWAYS accuse Bush of stealing the
> 2000 election, even though the popular vote would have STILL gone his
> way. They recounted all the ballots in florida, and it didn't come to
> Al Gore. She said this is further proof of the liberal bias in the
> media.
You are absolutely wrong on that point, or rather, your "brilliant"
teacher is wrong. Here are the facts:
All post election counts revealed that Al Gore actually won. This is
not just some liberal website that supports Al Gore. This is a
compilation of all the official facts, much of which is forgotten about
because people have short memories.
So your first attempt at conversion strikes out.
> Not only that, but he got military ballots THROWN OUT just
> because they didn't have a stamp on them...and they would have came in
> his favor too! And the media NEVER reported on that.
There were a number of overseas ballots missing postmarks or filled out
in such a way that they were invalid under Florida law. A poll worker
filled out the missing information on some absentee ballot
applications; the Democrats moved to have the returned ballots thrown
out because of this. These disputes added to the mass of litigation
between parties to influence the counting of ballots. The largest group
of disputed overseas ballots were military ballots, which the
Republicans argued to have accepted. Your facts, or rather your
teacher's, are incorrect. Thus, the argument you have based on these
incorrect facts is also incorrect.
Strike 2.
> Further proof of a
> liberal media bias! We truly live in a liberal media country!
Strike 3. The idea of "liberal media bias" is not supported by reality.
With CNN, Fox News, and all major news networks full of conservative
commentators, and almost no liberal commentators, the idea of "liberal
bias" in the media is ridiculous. Since Bush was elected, none of the
media outlets have questioned the administration's policies, and in
fact, have eagerly promoted falsehoods and misinformation from the
white house.
Worst of all, is the fact tha thte white house has weekly meetings with
executives from all the majot news outlets where they give them
briefings on what the latest buzzwords and talking points are, so that
news readers will use them and promote the administration's agenda.
>That was
> the first step into opening my eyes and the first in a long list of
> things that made from liberal to conservative.
If that's all it took you to go from liberal to conservative, then you
obviously aren't very bright, and you don't check facts before jumping
into believing things.
> Hope this story enlightens you guys.
>
> You'll be hearing more from me later.
Oh boy, will your future posts be as inept and ill-researched as this
one? It'll be fun to have a new village idiot!
Pat Robertson
leadership that is even remotely conservative; expanding the size of
the federal government to historic levels hardly qualifies one as being
fiscally responsible. Moreover, our Second Lady Lynn Cheney once wrote
a book called 'Sisters,' which is filled with explicit lesbian sex;
yes, fine family values there. The Nov. 7th election proved how
disappointed America is with their leadership. To Conservative X, I
recommend logging on to www.lewrockwell.com.
I was saddened a few months ago when Harry Browne, my favorite
Libertarian commentator, died of ALS. His foreign policy ideas were
brilliant; he's burning in Hell, of course.
Psycho Dave
Well, there sure aren't any fiscal conservatives out there. What we
have with the current republican party is a bunch of social
conservatives who don't seem to have any concept of "fiscal
conservatism" in their brains at all. They' re just a bunch of cultural
fascists.
Conservative_X
Yaoi Huntress Earth wrote:
> While I have mixed feelings about the 2000 election,
What are your mixed feelings?
>I'll admit that
> the conservatives these days leave me a little cold.
Why?
> Neo-Cons that ruined it for me, because I've met some rather decent
> right-wingers (my father is one) and come across some truely fightening
> ones as well. I know, I know, there are asshole liberals out there
You're right about that one!
> but I find their beliefs a little more compassionate towards others. I
> don't like abortion, but I wish the pro-lifers would show the same
> compassion towards the already-born as they do to fetuses (like help
> the women who gave birth to those babys find employment to raise them).
Pro-lifers are compassionite by their own nature.
> Not to mention that more liberal eras like the 60's were fighting for
> the rights of non-whites, the disabled, women, gays, and people from
> forgien countries that didn't fit the 1950's brainwashed, WASP ideal of
> what a human being should be. (While people like Pat Robertson and
> Falwell were praising segragation.)
Actually, conservatives were the ones pioneering for civil rights. Not
liberals. And I don't agree with gay rights anyway. And show me
evidence that Pat Robertson and Falwell were praising segragation.
>I also find a lot of the
> mouthpeices of the conservitive movement to be very hateful,
> hypocritical and\or racist\sexist (Rush, Couliter, Vox Day, etc.)
> Maybe I have been exposed to too many of the jerks, but I guess I had
> to vent as well.
Oh that's all part of the liberal media.
For example Ann Coulter shows off the liberal agenda, so it's no wonder
they hate her.
Rush Limbaugh uses logic and reason in his political dialog. Liberals
just love to call him a dumbass.
But thanks for your input anyway, I hope to have further discussions
with you.
Conservative_X
Psycho Dave wrote:
>
> You are absolutely wrong on that point, or rather, your "brilliant"
> teacher is wrong. Here are the facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#Media_post-electoral_studies.2Frecounts
>
> All post election counts revealed that Al Gore actually won. This is
> not just some liberal website that supports Al Gore. This is a
> compilation of all the official facts, much of which is forgotten about
> because people have short memories.
>
> So your first attempt at conversion strikes out.
Hmm, I'll have to check this out, i'll get back to you on it.
> There were a number of overseas ballots missing postmarks or filled out
> in such a way that they were invalid under Florida law. A poll worker
> filled out the missing information on some absentee ballot
> applications; the Democrats moved to have the returned ballots thrown
> out because of this. These disputes added to the mass of litigation
> between parties to influence the counting of ballots. The largest group
> of disputed overseas ballots were military ballots, which the
> Republicans argued to have accepted. Your facts, or rather your
> teacher's, are incorrect. Thus, the argument you have based on these
> incorrect facts is also incorrect.
>
> Strike 2.
Isn't this proving what I already said. They got military ballots
thrown out (which by the way, voted for Gore) just because they thought
they would vote republican. I think that is total BS. Don't you?
> Strike 3. The idea of "liberal media bias" is not supported by reality.
> With CNN, Fox News, and all major news networks full of conservative
> commentators, and almost no liberal commentators, the idea of "liberal
> bias" in the media is ridiculous. Since Bush was elected, none of the
> media outlets have questioned the administration's policies, and in
> fact, have eagerly promoted falsehoods and misinformation from the
> white house.
Ok, for one, CNN is mostly liberal. I'll grant you that Fox news is
mostly conservative, but I hate when everyone says Fox News is baised
to conservatives. Look who they have on their channel, ALLEN COLMES!
He's one of the leftist liberals I've ever seen in my life.
By the way, the media is always negative of Bush. Remember the Katrina
incident, everybody talked BAD about Bush. Look at all the celebrities
talking shit abou them. Hollywood left has a lot of power.
> Worst of all, is the fact tha thte white house has weekly meetings with
> executives from all the majot news outlets where they give them
> briefings on what the latest buzzwords and talking points are, so that
> news readers will use them and promote the administration's agenda.
Um, could you show me some evidence for this. No offense, but this
sounds like a conspiracy theory.
> If that's all it took you to go from liberal to conservative, then you
> obviously aren't very bright, and you don't check facts before jumping
> into believing things.
Oh no, it took a lot of things, but mainly it was a year with that
brilliant teacher that showed me the way
> Oh boy, will your future posts be as inept and ill-researched as this
> one? It'll be fun to have a new village idiot!
Why are you so mean to me? I wasn't rude at all, so please be polite
back. And you will be hearing from me, I will be posting more of my
econ lessons and more of my thoughts on the current liberal media. And
is this forum a hevan for "villiage idiots"? Why do you say that?
Conservative_X
Pat Robertson wrote:
> Conservatives? WHAT conservatives! I see nothing in the current GOP
> leadership that is even remotely conservative; expanding the size of
> the federal government to historic levels hardly qualifies one as being
> fiscally responsible. Moreover, our Second Lady Lynn Cheney once wrote
> a book called 'Sisters,' which is filled with explicit lesbian sex;
> yes, fine family values there. The Nov. 7th election proved how
> disappointed America is with their leadership. To Conservative X, I
> recommend logging on to www.lewrockwell.com.
I don't know what you are talking about. The GOP has done a lot to be
fiscally as possible as it can be. And that Sisters book has me pissed
off, I wish something would be done about it. But i'll check out
lewrockwell.com
> I was saddened a few months ago when Harry Browne, my favorite
> Libertarian commentator, died of ALS. His foreign policy ideas were
> brilliant; he's burning in Hell, of course.
What were his foreign policy ideas? I hope there are military
intervention. I agree with american military intervention 100% Iraqi
war is a success regardless on what our liberal media has to say about
it.
Yaoi Huntress Earth
> > the conservatives these days leave me a little cold.>
> Why?
Cause I've met a good number of wacko ones in my life from an ultra
sex-phobic class mate who called teenagers "too stupid to know
anything" and had a barefly consealed hatrid toward anything sexual
(outside of sex and politics, she was rather pleasant to be around), an
otherwise cool professor who was very callous toward the poor because
they were "lazy", but my "favorite" has to be this fundy co-worker I
had for five years who mindlessly obeyed whatever the government and
700 Club told her and didn't give a shit about anything outside of what
those two sources told her to care about because she was going to
Heaven.
As for Coulter I think she tries too hard to be shocking and
in-your-face, which makes her seem annouying to me. You don't have to
resort to name-calling, being rude, or saying mean things to your point
across.
> Pro-lifers are compassionite by their own nature.
There are some that care very much about the baby (my mom is a
pro-life Democrat), but some in my eyes seem to care more about
punishing the woman for having sex. I think part of the problem is
that we need a good, long-term solution to unwanted pregancies such as
real sex education, baby simulators, better access to condoms and other
birth control, and just a way to teach people to have a healthier view
on sex and themselves.
I'm NOT saying that we should teach grade schoolers about VDs and
condoms; they're too little. But unlike my sex phobic classmate, a lot
of older kids aren't stupid and if they're given good information (not
lies on condom reliability or guilt) with abstance being a prefered
choice, but not the only one (like they do Europe), there's a good
chance they'll make a wise choice. Sure there are some idiots, though.
I also find those baby simulators to be a great teaching tool and
should be used more often in schools. This will help you think twice
about wanting to be a teen parent (some teen girls have babies because
they think it will make their happy\less lonely) once you're saddled
with a screaming baby.
> Actually, conservatives were the ones pioneering for civil rights. Not
> liberals. And I don't agree with gay rights anyway. And show me
> evidence that Pat Robertson and Falwell were praising segragation.
True a lot of southern dems were anti-Black, but most of them moved
on to be republicans after losing. I guess it kind of shows that
political affliation doesn't always garuntee liberal or conservitive.
Oh hell, forget it! I think I've finally realized something and that
is both of our sides have been being played for saps. The elites are
just playing us against each other (with the "liberal" media and
hateful commentators) just to keep us from seeing how screwed-over
we're getting.
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
>
> I don't know what you are talking about.
>
Either you are totally clueless, or you don't follow (or remember) the
news. Here's a hint for you. Conservatives are SUPPOSED to be fiscally
conservative, as well as socially conservative. Fiscal conservatives do
not believe in government waste, social programs that hand out money,
and they are for smaller budgets and smaller givernment.
The current regime, since 2000, has increased the federal budget to an
all time high.
The current regime, since 2000, has created social programs called
"faith based initiatives", which hand out money to religious
organizations that are almost exclusively of one single denomination
--evangelical.
The Current Regime, since 2000, has increased the size of government,
as well as it's spending, by creating dozens of new departments.
The Current Regime, since 2000, has started a completely unneccesary
war that is costing us at least 8 trillion dollars, and which has
succeeded in killing more iraqis in 3 years than Saddam Hussein did in
30.
> The GOP has done a lot to be
> fiscally as possible as it can be.
Can you rephrase that? How can you "be fiscally"?
> And that Sisters book has me pissed
> off, I wish something would be done about it. But i'll check out
> lewrockwell.com
What pissed you off about the book? What kinds of things do you think
the government should do about it? Give us some of your ideas on that.
> What were his foreign policy ideas? I hope there are military
> intervention. I agree with american military intervention 100% Iraqi
> war is a success regardless on what our liberal media has to say about
> it.
I suppose you'll say the same thing about the Vietnam war.
So how many US soldiers need to die in Iraq in order for you to think
that it was not such a good idea?
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'll have to check this out, i'll get back to you on it.
>
I'll call you on it later.
>
> Isn't this proving what I already said. They got military ballots
> thrown out (which by the way, voted for Gore) just because they thought
> they would vote republican. I think that is total BS. Don't you?
>
Nop, you got the basic facts all wrong. They only got rid of the
overseas ballots, and with good reason -- they were being tampered with
by people receiving them back in the states.
> Ok, for one, CNN is mostly liberal.
How do you reason that? Prove it. Name at least 3 liberals with their
own programs on that network
> I'll grant you that Fox news is
> mostly conservative,
Mostly? You are clueless. Not only does Fox corporation send orders to
it's news people on what it wants them to say (this was recently
uncovered by TIME magazine), but it literally has made itself the
official mouthpiece of the Bush administration.
> but I hate when everyone says Fox News is baised
> to conservatives.
Ha! Unlike several arch conservatives in the media, who say that Fox is
a breath of fresh air because they are the first all conservative
network.
> Look who they have on their channel, ALLEN COLMES!
Okay, stop right there. This statement alone set off the TROLL-O-Meter!
It's obviously you're Anti-marxist fanboy making up a new character, or
yet another person making up a new extreme character to play around.
Sorry, but it's too obvious from that statement.
> He's one of the leftist liberals I've ever seen in my life.
You never heard of Phil Donahue, Al Franken, or Ariana Hufington, have
you?
> By the way, the media is always negative of Bush. Remember the Katrina
> incident, everybody talked BAD about Bush. Look at all the celebrities
> talking shit abou them. Hollywood left has a lot of power.
Dildo. It wasn't the MEDIA who bad-mouthed Bush. It was people being
interviewed by the media. Name one talk show host or news
reader/commentator who bad mouthed Bush, and wasn't just reporting what
other people claimed.
> Um, could you show me some evidence for this. No offense, but this
> sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Sure, as soon as you show me that the media is liberally biassed.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/
> > If that's all it took you to go from liberal to conservative, then you
> > obviously aren't very bright, and you don't check facts before jumping
> > into believing things.
>
> Oh no, it took a lot of things, but mainly it was a year with that
> brilliant teacher that showed me the way
"The way"? Sounds more like you found JEEEEZUS!
> Why are you so mean to me? I wasn't rude at all, so please be polite
> back. And you will be hearing from me, I will be posting more of my
> econ lessons and more of my thoughts on the current liberal media. And
> is this forum a hevan for "villiage idiots"? Why do you say that?
It's clear to me that you're just another troll, looking to impersonate
everyone's fantasy of trully dumb conservative retards. Several things
you said gave it away, but this whole conversation sounds exactly like
something the guy behind our last village idiot would have cooked up.
Conservative_X
thanksgiving and all, spending time with the family. Anyway, on to my
response.
Psycho Dave wrote:
> I'll call you on it later.
As you should. I'm here for open discussion.
> Nop, you got the basic facts all wrong. They only got rid of the
> overseas ballots, and with good reason -- they were being tampered with
> by people receiving them back in the states.
Are you sure, can I see a link that says this? I have never heard this
side of the story.
> How do you reason that? Prove it. Name at least 3 liberals with their
> own programs on that network
Larry King, Jim Clancy, and Bill Press. Hell, Bill Press even wrote an
article trying to disprove the so called "myth" of liberal media bias.
He is wrong of course.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/column.billpress/
> Mostly? You are clueless. Not only does Fox corporation send orders to
> it's news people on what it wants them to say (this was recently
> uncovered by TIME magazine), but it literally has made itself the
> official mouthpiece of the Bush administration.
Can I see a link to this time article or another trustworthy source of
info that says this about Fox News? I'm curious about this.
> Ha! Unlike several arch conservatives in the media, who say that Fox is
> a breath of fresh air because they are the first all conservative
> network.
Then they are wrong. They have Alan Colmes, a long time jewish liberal.
And Bill O'rielly, a moderate independent.
> Okay, stop right there. This statement alone set off the TROLL-O-Meter!
> It's obviously you're Anti-marxist fanboy making up a new character, or
> yet another person making up a new extreme character to play around.
> Sorry, but it's too obvious from that statement.
How am I being a troll right there. Alan Colmes seems to be very far to
the left. Prove me wrong if I am wrong.
> You never heard of Phil Donahue, Al Franken, or Ariana Hufington, have
> you?
Who says I haven't? Does that excuse ALan Colmes from being a far left
liberal though?
> Dildo. It wasn't the MEDIA who bad-mouthed Bush. It was people being
> interviewed by the media. Name one talk show host or news
> reader/commentator who bad mouthed Bush, and wasn't just reporting what
> other people claimed.
Um, but don't you realize by showing coverage of all those people
saying that stuff it makes it seem they are agreeing with them? And
Name one talk show host that who bad mouthed Bush? Easy, Bill Maher. He
pretty much said it was all Bush, Brown's and FEMA's fault for Katrina
being a disaster. And i'm sure Al Franklin and Phil Donahue said that
also.
And why are you calling me a Dildo? Do you have some fantasy of me, or
is that just your idea of a lame insult?
> Sure, as soon as you show me that the media is liberally biassed.
> http://www.mediatransparency.org/
Hmm, i'll check out this website. Just like I checked out Lewrockwell.
> "The way"? Sounds more like you found JEEEEZUS!
Lol, I guess it does sound a little like that. I also found Jesus also,
but that's another story for another time.
> It's clear to me that you're just another troll, looking to impersonate
> everyone's fantasy of trully dumb conservative retards. Several things
> you said gave it away, but this whole conversation sounds exactly like
> something the guy behind our last village idiot would have cooked up.
Then you need to get your head fixed or something. I have showed
nothing of the normal traits of a troll. A troll seeks to disrupt a
community for kicks. I don't see myself disrupting anything.
Conservative_X
Psycho Dave wrote:
> Either you are totally clueless, or you don't follow (or remember) the
> news. Here's a hint for you. Conservatives are SUPPOSED to be fiscally
> conservative, as well as socially conservative. Fiscal conservatives do
> not believe in government waste, social programs that hand out money,
> and they are for smaller budgets and smaller givernment.
>
> The current regime, since 2000, has increased the federal budget to an
> all time high.
> The current regime, since 2000, has created social programs called
> "faith based initiatives", which hand out money to religious
> organizations that are almost exclusively of one single denomination
> --evangelical.
> The Current Regime, since 2000, has increased the size of government,
> as well as it's spending, by creating dozens of new departments.
> The Current Regime, since 2000, has started a completely unneccesary
> war that is costing us at least 8 trillion dollars, and which has
> succeeded in killing more iraqis in 3 years than Saddam Hussein did in
> 30.
>
At the moment, i'm tight on time, but I would like to respond to all of
this, call me on it later.
> Can you rephrase that? How can you "be fiscally"?
Oops, my bad. I mean't fiscally conservative.
> What pissed you off about the book? What kinds of things do you think
> the government should do about it? Give us some of your ideas on that.
The Lesbian scenes pissed me off. I think the government should censor
such material. I can discuss more on this later.
> I suppose you'll say the same thing about the Vietnam war.
Hmm, no, but it wasn't a failure because it was a bad idea.
> So how many US soldiers need to die in Iraq in order for you to think
> that it was not such a good idea?
Actually the death toll in Iraq is quite low compared to other wars. I
will go more into detail on this later.
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> Psycho Dave wrote:
>
> > Can you rephrase that? How can you "be fiscally"?
>
> Oops, my bad. I mean't fiscally conservative.
>
So how can you say that Conservative administrations have been
"fiscally" conservative, when every single administration since
Eisenhower has been big spenders who increase military actions,
military spending, the size of government? Nixon left with a 1 trillion
dollar deficit. Reagan left with a 3 trillion dollar deficit. GW Bush
is up to 8 trillion. How can you say that they are fiscally
responsible?
> > What pissed you off about the book? What kinds of things do you think
> > the government should do about it? Give us some of your ideas on that.
>
> The Lesbian scenes pissed me off. I think the government should censor
> such material. I can discuss more on this later.
I assume that you're referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's wife's
book, correct? Didn't you know it was FICTIONAL PORN?
Why should the government censor any books at all? Are we all babies
who cannot deal with nudity and sex, and reality? If it's Lynn Cheney's
book, it was made for adults.
I believe that there should be no censorship at all of anything, not
even art. Censorship is tyrrany.
> > I suppose you'll say the same thing about the Vietnam war.
>
> Hmm, no, but it wasn't a failure because it was a bad idea.
>
Sure it was a bad idea. It was ill-conceieved, poorly planned, and
stupidly executed. Like the Iraq war and the Korean war before it, No
clear goals were established. Soldiers did not see any point in their
fighting, and morale fell apart. After morale broke down, soldiers
began to commit war crimes for kicks. When US Soldiers screw up, we
lose important confidence from civilians, because without their
support, the war is lost. Republican administrations have a terrible
history in diplomacy. They never seem to be able to make friends with
hostile nations. Democratic administrations have done a far better job
at keeping our international neighbors liking us.
> > So how many US soldiers need to die in Iraq in order for you to think
> > that it was not such a good idea?
>
> Actually the death toll in Iraq is quite low compared to other wars. I
> will go more into detail on this later.
Sure, it's not as high as the vietnam war. But how many US soldiers
will have to die before you think it was a bad idea? Also -- why should
we have gone in the first place, since the whole war was based on what
are now very much acknowledged lies, falsehoods, and fudged
intelligence?
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> > Nop, you got the basic facts all wrong. They only got rid of the
> > overseas ballots, and with good reason -- they were being tampered with
> > by people receiving them back in the states.
>
> Are you sure, can I see a link that says this? I have never heard this
> side of the story.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#Controversy_in_Florida
> > How do you reason that? Prove it. Name at least 3 liberals with their
> > own programs on that network
>
> Larry King,
>
Larry King is no Liberal. He is a FLUFF interviewer, and treats all the
people he interviews with kid-gloves. He does not discuss or give his
opinions on politics. I would like to see one single example of how you
rate him a "liberal", since his program has absolutely nothing to do
with political commentary. He just interviews people, and they get to
tell him what he can't talk about.
> Jim Clancy,
How do you conclude that he is a liberal? where does he claim to be
liberal? He is not even a political pundit -- he just reports
international news.
> and Bill Press. Hell, Bill Press even wrote an
> article trying to disprove the so called "myth" of liberal media bias.
> He is wrong of course.
>
> http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/column.billpress/
Kindly point out where he is wrong. All you have to do is cound the
number of conservative pundits versus liberal ones on the networks, the
number of conservative op/ed pieces in the newspapers and magazines,
and you find exactly what he said -- conservative ones outnumber
moderates and liberals by a factor of 7 to 1. He's not the only person
who checked on this. I saw at least 3 articles where other people did
the same counts. Of all the conservative articles i read saying that
they're wrong, not one of them bothered to counter the actual facts.
They just ignored the facts and said that they were wrong.
> > Mostly? You are clueless. Not only does Fox corporation send orders to
> > it's news people on what it wants them to say (this was recently
> > uncovered by TIME magazine), but it literally has made itself the
> > official mouthpiece of the Bush administration.
>
> Can I see a link to this time article or another trustworthy source of
> info that says this about Fox News? I'm curious about this.
Time's article is not available on the web just yet. TWeb articles come
out a month or two later, but here are other articles.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/11/03/fox_news_paid_for_delays_travel.html
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/10/30/fox_thememo.html
http://corporatemediawatch.tribe.net/tribe/servlet/thread/42d6a0e0-9c64-4eef-904e-544f1da7d851?tribeId=25787f16-24b6-42c1-9a58-75bdd119c63c&threadid=42d6a0e0-9c64-4eef-904e-544f1da7d851&
Basically, someone got a hold of Fox's daily memo, which clearly shows
management telling reporters what political slant to take.
>
> > Ha! Unlike several arch conservatives in the media, who say that Fox is
> > a breath of fresh air because they are the first all conservative
> > network.
>
> Then they are wrong.
>
Prove it.
> They have Alan Colmes, a long time jewish liberal.
Colmes is a phoney. He does not represent any actual liberal point of
view.
> And Bill O'rielly, a moderate independent.
Moderate Independant? What -- just because he says so? I don't think
so. O'Reilly is clearly a conservative, and it's obvious from his
writing and by what he says on the air. If O'Reilly is "moderate", then
your scale of conservative and liberal is radically shifted to the
right. You probably would call John McCain and Barry Goldwater "commie
liberal pinkos".
>
> > Okay, stop right there. This statement alone set off the TROLL-O-Meter!
> > It's obviously you're Anti-marxist fanboy making up a new character, or
> > yet another person making up a new extreme character to play around.
> > Sorry, but it's too obvious from that statement.
>
> How am I being a troll right there. Alan Colmes seems to be very far to
> the left. Prove me wrong if I am wrong.
Please show me examples of what he wrote (like something that's
actualyl documented, rather than just from your already-proven-faulty
memory) that you consider to be "far left liberal".
> > You never heard of Phil Donahue, Al Franken, or Ariana Hufington, have
> > you?
>
> Who says I haven't? Does that excuse ALan Colmes from being a far left
> liberal though?
You need to establish that. I'm not convinced he is really liberal. You
have to provide what you think are liberal comments of his. Whenever
I've watched him, he doesn't seem to have much of a clearly defined
opinion on anything.
> > Dildo. It wasn't the MEDIA who bad-mouthed Bush. It was people being
> > interviewed by the media. Name one talk show host or news
> > reader/commentator who bad mouthed Bush, and wasn't just reporting what
> > other people claimed.
>
> Um, but don't you realize by showing coverage of all those people
> saying that stuff it makes it seem they are agreeing with them?
Well, sure, but only if the people watching the news are real morons.
If you honestly cannot separate the opinions of an interviewee from the
opinions of the interviewer, then you are a dumbass.
> And
> Name one talk show host that who bad mouthed Bush? Easy, Bill Maher. He
> pretty much said it was all Bush, Brown's and FEMA's fault for Katrina
> being a disaster. And i'm sure Al Franklin and Phil Donahue said that
> also.
Uh, that's not what I was asking. I was asking you to name one talk
show host form the news channels (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX) who
badmouthed Bush. Bill Mahr runs a show on HBO, which is not a news
channel. His program is a comedy/entertainment program, not a pundit
program.
> And why are you calling me a Dildo? Do you have some fantasy of me, or
> is that just your idea of a lame insult?
It's just what you are.
>
> > Sure, as soon as you show me that the media is liberally biassed.
>
> > http://www.mediatransparency.org/
>
> Hmm, i'll check out this website. Just like I checked out Lewrockwell.
>
Oh, does that mean you won't check it out at all?
> > "The way"? Sounds more like you found JEEEEZUS!
>
> Lol, I guess it does sound a little like that. I also found Jesus also,
> but that's another story for another time.
>
Was he hiding behind the local bar again?
> > It's clear to me that you're just another troll, looking to impersonate
> > everyone's fantasy of trully dumb conservative retards. Several things
> > you said gave it away, but this whole conversation sounds exactly like
> > something the guy behind our last village idiot would have cooked up.
>
> Then you need to get your head fixed or something. I have showed
> nothing of the normal traits of a troll.
Well, you got me there. Though you didn't show the NORMAL traits of a
troll, you did manage to show the EXTRAORDINARY traits of a troll.
> A troll seeks to disrupt a
> community for kicks. I don't see myself disrupting anything.
You can't disrupt anything if you tried. You need to be credible to do
that.
Conservative_X
Psycho Dave wrote:
> So how can you say that Conservative administrations have been
> "fiscally" conservative, when every single administration since
> Eisenhower has been big spenders who increase military actions,
> military spending, the size of government? Nixon left with a 1 trillion
> dollar deficit. Reagan left with a 3 trillion dollar deficit. GW Bush
> is up to 8 trillion. How can you say that they are fiscally
> responsible?
Hmm, even though they do that, they don't impede on business and they
don't rip me off out of my money, so i'm going to go with them being
fiscally conservative.
> I assume that you're referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's wife's
> book, correct? Didn't you know it was FICTIONAL PORN?
>
> Why should the government censor any books at all? Are we all babies
> who cannot deal with nudity and sex, and reality? If it's Lynn Cheney's
> book, it was made for adults.
>
> I believe that there should be no censorship at all of anything, not
> even art. Censorship is tyrrany.
You assumed right! And what, you don't think that prime time television
should be censored? OUR KIDS watch that stuff! And what if someone
takes a shit out on a lawn and calls it art? Should it not be censored
then? And aren't you overexaggerating it when you are calling
censorship "tyrrany"?
> Sure it was a bad idea. It was ill-conceieved, poorly planned, and
> stupidly executed. Like the Iraq war and the Korean war before it, No
> clear goals were established. Soldiers did not see any point in their
> fighting, and morale fell apart. After morale broke down, soldiers
> began to commit war crimes for kicks. When US Soldiers screw up, we
> lose important confidence from civilians, because without their
> support, the war is lost. Republican administrations have a terrible
> history in diplomacy. They never seem to be able to make friends with
> hostile nations. Democratic administrations have done a far better job
> at keeping our international neighbors liking us.
Even though i'll agree with you that it was terriibly executed, it sure
was a good idea in my book. I would have loved to create a democratic
south vietnam like we did with Korea. But unfortuantly, people didn't
want to re asses their tactics for that war and we lost.
> Sure, it's not as high as the vietnam war. But how many US soldiers
> will have to die before you think it was a bad idea? Also -- why should
> we have gone in the first place, since the whole war was based on what
> are now very much acknowledged lies, falsehoods, and fudged
> intelligence?
For the amount that have to die, I guess that would have to be our
entire military force in Iraq. And what lies? People seem to assume we
went in there for WMDs, but we didn't. We went in there because Saddam
Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors. People seem to forget that.
Please don't pull that "But some american soldiers DIED!" Yeah, well,
that's war.
Psycho Dave
> Psycho Dave wrote:
> > So how can you say that Conservative administrations have been
> > "fiscally" conservative, when every single administration since
> > Eisenhower has been big spenders who increase military actions,
> > military spending, the size of government? Nixon left with a 1 trillion
> > dollar deficit. Reagan left with a 3 trillion dollar deficit. GW Bush
> > is up to 8 trillion. How can you say that they are fiscally
> > responsible?
>
> Hmm, even though they do that, they don't impede on business and they
> don't rip me off out of my money, so i'm going to go with them being
> fiscally conservative.
So you're calling them fiscally conservative, despite the fact that
they do not meet the definition of fiscally conservative. Instead of
using the standard definition of fiscally conservative (which is "To
spend money wisely and frugally"), you are redefining "fiscally
conservative" to mean "anyone who does not directly take money from my
wallet."
You really are numb, aren't you? Like a typical clueless neocon, you
don't like to admit that you're wrong (or full of shit), so you
re-define words in an attempt to win. I don't know if you realize it or
not, but you look like an idiot who does not get the meaning of
"fiscally conservative". You don't seem to get that Republicans do not
need to take money directly out of your pocket -- they do it
indirectly. They do it by leaving the government in a big mess so that
the democrats have to clean up after them.
You may not want to admit it, or acknowledge it, but Clinton was far
more fiscally conservative than Nixon, Bush, and Reagan combined. He
took Reagan's 3 trillion dollar deficit, and made a 17 million dollar
surplus out of it, eliminated hundreds of duplicated and/or unneccesary
government programs, and streamlined various government agencies,
making the government cost less to all Americans. Clinton saved us
money. The Republicans wasted 20 billion dollars prosecuting the
whitewater and lewinsky cases -- which achieved nothing, and were a
total waste of your taxpayer dollars. That money would have been better
spent improving things, but instead the republican-controlled house and
senate decided that they should spend in on a big mud-slinging
campaign.
You do not know what fiscally conservative means.
> > I assume that you're referring to Vice President Dick Cheney's wife's
> > book, correct? Didn't you know it was FICTIONAL PORN?
> >
> > Why should the government censor any books at all? Are we all babies
> > who cannot deal with nudity and sex, and reality? If it's Lynn Cheney's
> > book, it was made for adults.
> >
> > I believe that there should be no censorship at all of anything, not
> > even art. Censorship is tyrrany.
>
> You assumed right! And what, you don't think that prime time television
> should be censored?
Nope. I think that a parental warning is all that is needed. I do not
think that *I* or any other adult needs to be treated like a child,
just because some irresponsible parents are letting their kids see the
occaisional boob or butt, or hear dirty words that *EVERYONE* hears on
a daily basis by the age of 2.
The pious attitude that people have -- the idea that seeing naked bums
and boobs will somehow traumatize kids -- is idiotic. The idea that we
have to "protect kids" from hearing foul language, because it might
somehow turn them into garbage-mouths is just retarded.
Censorship is totally stupid -- I see only the goriest violence cut out
of movies on commercial television, but they have to cover up a naked
boob or bum? What is worse for a kid to see? A guy being shot in the
head or having his arm chopped off, or a woman stepping out of a
shoawer? And I'm not talking about putting XXX hardcore porn on
television, either. I'm simply talking about television that can show
normal drama without hacking it to shreds because some sanctimonious,
pious sexophobic retards might be offended. If they will be offended,
they have the option to CHANGE THE CHANNEL or TURN OFF THE TV.
> OUR KIDS watch that stuff! And what if someone
> takes a shit out on a lawn and calls it art? Should it not be censored
> then?
So what. If you don't want to watch a man taking a shit on a lawn and
call it art, then you have the freedom of choice to NOT WATCH IT. It's
not like you are being forced to see it. As long as there is truth in
advertising (like putting warnings about what will be shown), then
parents can protect their kids by avoiding it.
> And aren't you overexaggerating it when you are calling
> censorship "tyrrany"?
Nope. Any attempt by a government to stop free speech is tyrrany. I
don't even believe in the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument.
I beleive that free speech should be absolute. I beleive that we should
allow Nazis and Klansmen to say what they want, because those people
punish themselves by revealing how stupid their opinions are. No speech
is so terrible that people should be protected from it. Any stupid,
insane, or idiotic comment made in public or on the airwaves is easily
trashed by responding to it with intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive
replies. If you have a Nazi or a Klansman on Television talking trash,
just put an educated, well-mannered person on to balance it out, and
make mincemeat of the idiotic Nazi shit. If some born-again retard
wants to talk about making government follow the Old Testament Laws,
then put an educated person on to counter his idiocy.
(About Vietnam)
>
> Even though i'll agree with you that it was terriibly executed, it sure
> was a good idea in my book. I would have loved to create a democratic
> south vietnam like we did with Korea. But unfortuantly, people didn't
> want to re asses their tactics for that war and we lost.
It's not up to the USA to determine what government other countries
should have. In the true spirit of democracy and freedom of choice, I
leave it up to foreign countries and their citizens to decide that for
themselves.
> > Sure, it's not as high as the vietnam war. But how many US soldiers
> > will have to die before you think it was a bad idea? Also -- why should
> > we have gone in the first place, since the whole war was based on what
> > are now very much acknowledged lies, falsehoods, and fudged
> > intelligence?
>
> For the amount that have to die, I guess that would have to be our
> entire military force in Iraq.
Oh, that's just brilliant! Just keep throwing our soldiers at the
problem, never giving them specific things to accomplish other than
some vague idea of "keeping the peace". That's really smart -- we'll
just repeat what we did in vietnam over and over again until "we get it
right". Never mind changing strategy or having clearly defined goals.
You know there is a reason why Republican crusades never have clearly
defined goals. It's because there is never an intent to conclude the
wars they start. They simply want to have a war, period, so that the
industries that make huge profits from selling weapons systems can keep
the cash flowing in. All it costs is a little blood from Americans, a
little more blood from our enemies, and more taxes to pay for it.
> And what lies? People seem to assume we
> went in there for WMDs, but we didn't.
You don't seem to rememebr that the reason we went WAS ALL ABOUT WMDs.
The Bush administration hammered that message home week after week
during the buildup to the war, saying that Hussein was planning to
attack us with Nuclear weapons.
It's detailed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments%27_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq
Here are statements that George W. Bush made prior to the Invasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis#Statements_by_U.S._President_G.W._Bush
> We went in there because Saddam
> Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors. People seem to forget that.
WRONG, Dildo!
Hussein did not KICK THEM OUT. The USA warned that they needed to get
out because we were invading!
Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution
1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in
December 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of possible nuclear, chemical,
and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S.
invasion of Iraq in spring 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass
destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this
time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully
dismantled Iraq's unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.
> Please don't pull that "But some american soldiers DIED!" Yeah, well,
> that's war.
LIke virtually all of the conservative trolls I've known, you can't get
ANY of your facts correct, and completely fail to substantiate your
claims with any kind of backing at all.
Conservative_X
I'm assuming you mean fiscally conservative is economically
conservative. If that is so, then Bush definitely fits that catagory.
> Nope. I think that a parental warning is all that is needed. I do not
> think that *I* or any other adult needs to be treated like a child,
> just because some irresponsible parents are letting their kids see the
> occaisional boob or butt, or hear dirty words that *EVERYONE* hears on
> a daily basis by the age of 2.
>
> The pious attitude that people have -- the idea that seeing naked bums
> and boobs will somehow traumatize kids -- is idiotic. The idea that we
> have to "protect kids" from hearing foul language, because it might
> somehow turn them into garbage-mouths is just retarded.
>
> Censorship is totally stupid -- I see only the goriest violence cut out
> of movies on commercial television, but they have to cover up a naked
> boob or bum? What is worse for a kid to see? A guy being shot in the
> head or having his arm chopped off, or a woman stepping out of a
> shoawer? And I'm not talking about putting XXX hardcore porn on
> television, either. I'm simply talking about television that can show
> normal drama without hacking it to shreds because some sanctimonious,
> pious sexophobic retards might be offended. If they will be offended,
> they have the option to CHANGE THE CHANNEL or TURN OFF THE TV.
Huh? Censorship is stupid? We need to protect children's frail minds
from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge into
degeneracy.
> So what. If you don't want to watch a man taking a shit on a lawn and
> call it art, then you have the freedom of choice to NOT WATCH IT. It's
> not like you are being forced to see it. As long as there is truth in
> advertising (like putting warnings about what will be shown), then
> parents can protect their kids by avoiding it.
Wait, are you telling me that public defecation should be allowed or
am I just misunderstanding you?
> Nope. Any attempt by a government to stop free speech is tyrrany. I
> don't even believe in the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument.
> I beleive that free speech should be absolute. I beleive that we should
> allow Nazis and Klansmen to say what they want, because those people
> punish themselves by revealing how stupid their opinions are. No speech
> is so terrible that people should be protected from it. Any stupid,
> insane, or idiotic comment made in public or on the airwaves is easily
> trashed by responding to it with intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive
> replies. If you have a Nazi or a Klansman on Television talking trash,
> just put an educated, well-mannered person on to balance it out, and
> make mincemeat of the idiotic Nazi shit. If some born-again retard
> wants to talk about making government follow the Old Testament Laws,
> then put an educated person on to counter his idiocy.
Wait wait wait....are you telling me that you should be ALLOWED to yell
fire in a crowded theater? And I do agree with free speech, as long as
it's not against american morals and traditions. I think if someone is
saying america should be blown up, that person should be arrested.
> It's not up to the USA to determine what government other countries
> should have. In the true spirit of democracy and freedom of choice, I
> leave it up to foreign countries and their citizens to decide that for
> themselves.
Woah, step back there mister. Right there you are now calling many
actions done by our government in history bad. Are you saying that? And
why do you feel this way. You don't believe america has the right to
police the world? Personally, I don't think we do it enough. We are
america. Time to lift up your skirt and wear some pants AMERICA!
> Oh, that's just brilliant! Just keep throwing our soldiers at the
> problem, never giving them specific things to accomplish other than
> some vague idea of "keeping the peace". That's really smart -- we'll
> just repeat what we did in vietnam over and over again until "we get it
> right". Never mind changing strategy or having clearly defined goals.
>
> You know there is a reason why Republican crusades never have clearly
> defined goals. It's because there is never an intent to conclude the
> wars they start. They simply want to have a war, period, so that the
> industries that make huge profits from selling weapons systems can keep
> the cash flowing in. All it costs is a little blood from Americans, a
> little more blood from our enemies, and more taxes to pay for it.
There isn't a high mortality rate in this Iraqi war. Show me otherwise.
I'm convinced it's just minor and things that our media just blows out
of proportion.
> You don't seem to rememebr that the reason we went WAS ALL ABOUT WMDs.
> The Bush administration hammered that message home week after week
> during the buildup to the war, saying that Hussein was planning to
> attack us with Nuclear weapons.
>
> It's detailed here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments%27_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq
>
> Here are statements that George W. Bush made prior to the Invasion:
Yes, I remember this, but we didn't go in there because of WMDs, it was
because he refused to let inspectors see some areas.
> WRONG, Dildo!
>
> Hussein did not KICK THEM OUT. The USA warned that they needed to get
> out because we were invading!
> Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution
> 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in
> December 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of possible nuclear, chemical,
> and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S.
> invasion of Iraq in spring 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass
> destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this
> time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully
> dismantled Iraq's unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.
Are you telling me the UN found no evidence of WMDs? I specifically
remember people saying that he did not let them in certain areas. Were
they right not on that?
> LIke virtually all of the conservative trolls I've known, you can't get
> ANY of your facts correct, and completely fail to substantiate your
> claims with any kind of backing at all.
But in war people die. And this war has had such a low mortality rate
that it's almost a miracle.
Psycho Dave
What, you have nothing to say to what i wrote above? Typical.
You must be hoping that I'm not paying attention, because it's obvious
you're just weaseling out of the fact that you were wrong. Now you're
trying to redefine what "fiscally conservative" means, or playing dumb.
Are you really so dumb, that you don't know what "fiscally
conservative" means when people talk about political administrations? I
can't believe that you are dumb enough to have thought that
"economically conservative" and "fiscally conservative" are the same.
If you did, then you obviously need to go back to your "brilliant
teacher" and apologise to her for not learning... or smack her if she
taught you that.
> > Nope. I think that a parental warning is all that is needed. I do not
> > think that *I* or any other adult needs to be treated like a child,
> > just because some irresponsible parents are letting their kids see the
> > occaisional boob or butt, or hear dirty words that *EVERYONE* hears on
> > a daily basis by the age of 2.
> >
> > The pious attitude that people have -- the idea that seeing naked bums
> > and boobs will somehow traumatize kids -- is idiotic. The idea that we
> > have to "protect kids" from hearing foul language, because it might
> > somehow turn them into garbage-mouths is just retarded.
> >
> > Censorship is totally stupid -- I see only the goriest violence cut out
> > of movies on commercial television, but they have to cover up a naked
> > boob or bum? What is worse for a kid to see? A guy being shot in the
> > head or having his arm chopped off, or a woman stepping out of a
> > shoawer? And I'm not talking about putting XXX hardcore porn on
> > television, either. I'm simply talking about television that can show
> > normal drama without hacking it to shreds because some sanctimonious,
> > pious sexophobic retards might be offended. If they will be offended,
> > they have the option to CHANGE THE CHANNEL or TURN OFF THE TV.
>
> Huh? Censorship is stupid?
It always has been. It's a petty way that people with power get to
punish those who criticize them.
> We need to protect children's frail minds
> from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge into
> degeneracy.
Bullshit. If that were true, then all of Europe would be in ruins, and
crawling with degeneracy. In case you haven't been there -- it isn't.
Most European countries have very lax censorship on their television.
You can see full frontal nudity and hear fowl language on regular TV in
most western European states. If they were suffering from degeneracy,
there would be high crime rates, junkies everywhere, and kids would be
flunking out of school.
But of course, knowing most conservatives, they'd assume that sipping
tea, discussing socialism at a cafe, or speaking several languages was
degenerate. All those Nascar conservatives don't think anything of
people unless they can consume large amounts of piss-cheap beer, eat a
rack of ribs big enough to make you puke, and yell "yeee-haw" at the
appropriate times.
> > So what. If you don't want to watch a man taking a shit on a lawn and
> > call it art, then you have the freedom of choice to NOT WATCH IT. It's
> > not like you are being forced to see it. As long as there is truth in
> > advertising (like putting warnings about what will be shown), then
> > parents can protect their kids by avoiding it.
>
> Wait, are you telling me that public defecation should be allowed or
> am I just misunderstanding you?
You're misunderstanding me. that's normal for conservatives who can't
keep their mind on the issues in these discussions. Let me help you
out. You talked about art. You mentioned that you didn't want to see a
guy take a shit and call it art. Assuming we go to exhibits and museums
to see art, I am making a reference to paying money or otherwise
attending an art show, where one potential item on display is a guy
taking a shit. If you don't want to see a guy shitting for art, you
have the democratic option of NOT GOING TO THE SHOW.
But why would you be against public defication, considering that people
let their dogs shit right in the open, then take out little plastic
baggies and pick it up in to throw it away. I don't think that shit is
any worse when people squeeze it out.
Would you advocate putting pants on animals so kis don't see their
boucing, dangling testicles? Or should we prosecute people whose dogs
fuck in public?
> Wait wait wait....are you telling me that you should be ALLOWED to yell
> fire in a crowded theater?
That's ot even an issue. I've been going to the theater a couple of
times a week for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone yell
fire in a crowded theater. I don't think I ever will hear it before I
die, either. It's a non-issue.
> And I do agree with free speech, as long as
> it's not against american morals and traditions.
then you do not believe in free speech. Free speech is absolute. Think
of all the great social changes that happened when someone decided to
speak up against "traditional morality". The American Revolution was
just that -- it was people looking for change, and the traditional
moralitry of the day was that you could not criticize or disagree with
the King. So much for that tradition. Then we had the tradition of
slavery, the tradition of prohibiting women from voting, the tradition
of keeping black people "in their place" socially, the tradition of
prohibiting interracial marriage... I can go on and on.
You cannot have social change without going against someone else's
moral and traditional values. If you advocate punishing people for
"going against morals and traditions", then you condemn the founding
fathers, the emancipators of slaves, women seeking to vote, and black
people seeking civil rights.
Sure, Maybe we need good, honest, trustworthy, straight-and-narrow guys
like Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramhoff, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley being
guardians of morality and traditional values! Those are good
conservative men you can trust!
> I think if someone is
> saying america should be blown up, that person should be arrested.
If you really believe that, then you don't have a clue about what the
constitution is all about, and you really should stop making an ass of
yourself by spewing such crap.
I believe that a crime is only a crime when it involves an action, and
damage. People say all sorts of hasty, stupid things all the time which
they never really mean, and which they never act upon. If we punished
everyone every time they said something shocking, then we would be
putting most of the country behind bars. Nothing is so terrible that it
should be punished for being said. Stupid people pay for stupid
comments with their dignity and their self-embarrassment.
Only when a stupid or outrageous comment is accompanied by action
should it be punished, and only if that action damages people or
property.
Thoughts and words cannot be crimes. They do not harm, and cost nobody
anything.
> > It's not up to the USA to determine what government other countries
> > should have. In the true spirit of democracy and freedom of choice, I
> > leave it up to foreign countries and their citizens to decide that for
> > themselves.
>
> Woah, step back there mister. Right there you are now calling many
> actions done by our government in history bad. Are you saying that?
Yeah, so? Are you trying to say that the US government never did any
bad things, ever?
What about slavery? What about 200 years of cheating Native Americans
out f their land and income? It's 200 yeas since we arrived, and we
still cannot treat native americans like human beings -- Did you hear
how Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, and Ralph Reed of the Christian
COalition ripped off Texas Indian tribes? Nice guys.
>And
> why do you feel this way. You don't believe america has the right to
> police the world? Personally, I don't think we do it enough. We are
> america. Time to lift up your skirt and wear some pants AMERICA!
Then we'll end up like the Roman Empire. They policed as much of the
world as they could, until they ran out of resources to keep policing,
and then we got the dark ages. You have to be a troll, saying such
stupid crap. Either that, or you're a kid who's too stupid to know any
better.
> > Oh, that's just brilliant! Just keep throwing our soldiers at the
> > problem, never giving them specific things to accomplish other than
> > some vague idea of "keeping the peace". That's really smart -- we'll
> > just repeat what we did in vietnam over and over again until "we get it
> > right". Never mind changing strategy or having clearly defined goals.
> >
> > You know there is a reason why Republican crusades never have clearly
> > defined goals. It's because there is never an intent to conclude the
> > wars they start. They simply want to have a war, period, so that the
> > industries that make huge profits from selling weapons systems can keep
> > the cash flowing in. All it costs is a little blood from Americans, a
> > little more blood from our enemies, and more taxes to pay for it.
>
> There isn't a high mortality rate in this Iraqi war. Show me otherwise.
> I'm convinced it's just minor and things that our media just blows out
> of proportion.
Hmmm. Only if you look at American losses. The problem is that the
Iraqi losses are
upwards of 100,000 people. That's far more than Saddam Hussein could
kill in 4 years. I mean, look at how many Iraqi civilians were killed
by Saddam, and compare it to the last 4 years. We killed more Iraqi
civilians than Saddam could in 20 years.
> > You don't seem to rememebr that the reason we went WAS ALL ABOUT WMDs.
> > The Bush administration hammered that message home week after week
> > during the buildup to the war, saying that Hussein was planning to
> > attack us with Nuclear weapons.
> >
> > It's detailed here:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments%27_pre-war_positions_on_invasion_of_Iraq
> >
> > Here are statements that George W. Bush made prior to the Invasion:
>
> Yes, I remember this, but we didn't go in there because of WMDs, it was
> because he refused to let inspectors see some areas.
You really need to go read your facts. I gave you the links to the
facts already. That you choose to ignore them is your fault. The UN
inspection team was satisfied that everything was accounted for, except
a few things which could easily be the result of misplaced information.
Hans Blix was satisfied with the level of cooperation from the Iraqis.
He said so in his report.
> Are you telling me the UN found no evidence of WMDs? I specifically
> remember people saying that he did not let them in certain areas. Were
> they right not on that?
Lots of US government flunkies said lots of bullshit to counter the
facts, because Bush wanted his war, and he pushed to get it. That meant
lies and distortions.
> > LIke virtually all of the conservative trolls I've known, you can't get
> > ANY of your facts correct, and completely fail to substantiate your
> > claims with any kind of backing at all.
>
> But in war people die. And this war has had such a low mortality rate
> that it's almost a miracle.
I don't call 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians a miracle.
But your last comment seems to think that I was actually arguing that
too many US soldiers died. I never said that. I merely have said that
the war has no point, and it was started on a series of lies fabricated
by the Bush administration. You have gotten abslutely no facts correct
yet. You should ust give up before you make a bigger ass of yourself.
Conservative_X
Then please explain to me the differences between economic conservative
and fiscal conservative.
> > Huh? Censorship is stupid?
>
> It always has been. It's a petty way that people with power get to
> punish those who criticize them.
Some things just need to be censored.
> > We need to protect children's frail minds
> > from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge into
> > degeneracy.
>
> Bullshit. If that were true, then all of Europe would be in ruins, and
> crawling with degeneracy. In case you haven't been there -- it isn't.
> Most European countries have very lax censorship on their television.
> You can see full frontal nudity and hear fowl language on regular TV in
> most western European states. If they were suffering from degeneracy,
> there would be high crime rates, junkies everywhere, and kids would be
> flunking out of school.
Actually, Europe is at the moment being islamified. I'll get some
articles on that in a bit.
But Europe certainly won't be the same for much longer. It hasn't been
the bastian of society as many liberals make it to be anyway. Look at
italy, beautiful country, but falling apart.
> But of course, knowing most conservatives, they'd assume that sipping
> tea, discussing socialism at a cafe, or speaking several languages was
> degenerate. All those Nascar conservatives don't think anything of
> people unless they can consume large amounts of piss-cheap beer, eat a
> rack of ribs big enough to make you puke, and yell "yeee-haw" at the
> appropriate times.
You say that like it's a bad thing. ;-)
> You're misunderstanding me. that's normal for conservatives who can't
> keep their mind on the issues in these discussions. Let me help you
> out. You talked about art. You mentioned that you didn't want to see a
> guy take a shit and call it art. Assuming we go to exhibits and museums
> to see art, I am making a reference to paying money or otherwise
> attending an art show, where one potential item on display is a guy
> taking a shit. If you don't want to see a guy shitting for art, you
> have the democratic option of NOT GOING TO THE SHOW.
Well, I don't know. I think such filth should be shut down if that
existed.
> But why would you be against public defication, considering that people
> let their dogs shit right in the open, then take out little plastic
> baggies and pick it up in to throw it away. I don't think that shit is
> any worse when people squeeze it out.
Huh? So people should just be allowed to shit and piss in public?
That's pretty sick if you ask me.
> Would you advocate putting pants on animals so kis don't see their
> boucing, dangling testicles? Or should we prosecute people whose dogs
> fuck in public?
No, why would I be for that?
> That's ot even an issue. I've been going to the theater a couple of
> times a week for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone yell
> fire in a crowded theater. I don't think I ever will hear it before I
> die, either. It's a non-issue.
And having both the President and vice president dying is pretty much a
non issue, but we still have the line of succession. So answer me,
should people be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?
> then you do not believe in free speech. Free speech is absolute. Think
> of all the great social changes that happened when someone decided to
> speak up against "traditional morality". The American Revolution was
> just that -- it was people looking for change, and the traditional
> moralitry of the day was that you could not criticize or disagree with
> the King. So much for that tradition. Then we had the tradition of
> slavery, the tradition of prohibiting women from voting, the tradition
> of keeping black people "in their place" socially, the tradition of
> prohibiting interracial marriage... I can go on and on.
Yeah, but all the revolutionaries were still stauch conservative men.
American moral and traditions on todays standard are just great. We
don't need things like gay marriage, polygamy, and a non religious
based government.
> You cannot have social change without going against someone else's
> moral and traditional values. If you advocate punishing people for
> "going against morals and traditions", then you condemn the founding
> fathers, the emancipators of slaves, women seeking to vote, and black
> people seeking civil rights.
No, I don't. I am against people who want to bring america into some
strange age where gays can marry, america isn't the leading military
force in the world, and where islamic fundementalists are in congress.
> Sure, Maybe we need good, honest, trustworthy, straight-and-narrow guys
> like Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramhoff, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley being
> guardians of morality and traditional values! Those are good
> conservative men you can trust!
What about good conservative men like George W Bush, Pat Bucanon, and
Rush Limbaugh?
> If you really believe that, then you don't have a clue about what the
> constitution is all about, and you really should stop making an ass of
> yourself by spewing such crap.
How am I making an ass of myself?
> I believe that a crime is only a crime when it involves an action, and
> damage. People say all sorts of hasty, stupid things all the time which
> they never really mean, and which they never act upon. If we punished
> everyone every time they said something shocking, then we would be
> putting most of the country behind bars. Nothing is so terrible that it
> should be punished for being said. Stupid people pay for stupid
> comments with their dignity and their self-embarrassment.
So people should be allowed to picket funerals and send threatening
letters?
> Only when a stupid or outrageous comment is accompanied by action
> should it be punished, and only if that action damages people or
> property.
>
> Thoughts and words cannot be crimes. They do not harm, and cost nobody
> anything.
Words hurt too you know. Don't you follow that rule?
> Yeah, so? Are you trying to say that the US government never did any
> bad things, ever?
>
> What about slavery? What about 200 years of cheating Native Americans
> out f their land and income? It's 200 yeas since we arrived, and we
> still cannot treat native americans like human beings -- Did you hear
> how Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, and Ralph Reed of the Christian
> COalition ripped off Texas Indian tribes? Nice guys.
Yeah, what about the freedom we gave to south koreans? What about
Japan? What about south america? What about Central America? What about
Africa? What about Russia? What about Mexico?
> Then we'll end up like the Roman Empire. They policed as much of the
> world as they could, until they ran out of resources to keep policing,
> and then we got the dark ages. You have to be a troll, saying such
> stupid crap. Either that, or you're a kid who's too stupid to know any
> better.
>
I believe that america will last forever, and will never be defeated.
That is my belief.
> I don't call 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians a miracle.
>
> But your last comment seems to think that I was actually arguing that
> too many US soldiers died. I never said that. I merely have said that
> the war has no point, and it was started on a series of lies fabricated
> by the Bush administration. You have gotten abslutely no facts correct
> yet. You should ust give up before you make a bigger ass of yourself.
100,000 dead iraqi's is pretty much nothing.
Conservative_X
Psycho Dave wrote:
> Conservative_X wrote:
>
> > > Nop, you got the basic facts all wrong. They only got rid of the
> > > overseas ballots, and with good reason -- they were being tampered with
> > > by people receiving them back in the states.
> >
> > Are you sure, can I see a link that says this? I have never heard this
> > side of the story.
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#Controversy_in_Florida
>
> > > How do you reason that? Prove it. Name at least 3 liberals with their
> > > own programs on that network
> >
> > Larry King,
> >
>
> Larry King is no Liberal. He is a FLUFF interviewer, and treats all the
> people he interviews with kid-gloves. He does not discuss or give his
> opinions on politics. I would like to see one single example of how you
> rate him a "liberal", since his program has absolutely nothing to do
> with political commentary. He just interviews people, and they get to
> tell him what he can't talk about.
What do you mean he's no liberal???
"For a long while, Rush Limbaugh and activist liberal Democrat Larry
King engaged in a battle. Both have mounted massive offensives against
one another. Although King regarded Limbaugh as a "right-wing kook,"
Rush was invited on Larry King Live for an interview. When Rush showed
up in his trademarked suit and tie - he was miffed to learn that Wheel
of Fortune host Pat Sajak, not King, would be conducting the interview.
Rush later released this statement: "I want to salute the producers of
Survivor II and CBS. I want to salute them for their courage, boldness
and conviction. They have decided to go ahead and air their finale
tonight, despite the fact that I will be appearing live for the full
hour on Larry King Live on CNN with guest host Pat Sajak."
From
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/pundits/rush-limbaugh/
I will write up a list of reasons that he is liberal also. But he is a
self describe liberal democrat.
> > Jim Clancy,
>
> How do you conclude that he is a liberal? where does he claim to be
> liberal? He is not even a political pundit -- he just reports
> international news.
Hmm, I just figured he's a libreal.
> > > Ha! Unlike several arch conservatives in the media, who say that Fox is
> > > a breath of fresh air because they are the first all conservative
> > > network.
> >
> > Then they are wrong.
> >
>
> Prove it.
Sure will!
> > They have Alan Colmes, a long time jewish liberal.
>
> Colmes is a phoney. He does not represent any actual liberal point of
> view.
Oh really? Alan Colmes supports a socialised medicine, gay marriage,
withdrawl of all military forces in the world, and is a self professed
liberal.
Hell, conservative jews hate him.
"They are not. Neither are Colmes, Kaufman and Dorchen. And none of
them have the right to use their Jewish birth as a shield for their
anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic views. Identity as a Jew is
important in this debate only when that identity means a binding tie to
the Jewish nation as a whole and to the God that bound that nation
together at Sinai."
He also wrote a book called Red, White & Liberal : How Left Is Right &
Right Is Wrong
Now tell me how he is NOT liberal.
> > And Bill O'rielly, a moderate independent.
>
> Moderate Independant? What -- just because he says so? I don't think
> so. O'Reilly is clearly a conservative, and it's obvious from his
> writing and by what he says on the air. If O'Reilly is "moderate", then
> your scale of conservative and liberal is radically shifted to the
> right. You probably would call John McCain and Barry Goldwater "commie
> liberal pinkos".
He's for gay marriage, against the death penalty, and didn't vote for
bush. Should I come up with a list of more reasons why?
> > > You never heard of Phil Donahue, Al Franken, or Ariana Hufington, have
> > > you?
> >
> > Who says I haven't? Does that excuse ALan Colmes from being a far left
> > liberal though?
>
> You need to establish that. I'm not convinced he is really liberal. You
> have to provide what you think are liberal comments of his. Whenever
> I've watched him, he doesn't seem to have much of a clearly defined
> opinion on anything.
Then you've never actually watched him.
> Oh, does that mean you won't check it out at all?
It means what I said.
> Was he hiding behind the local bar again?
Haha, no. You are funny, I grant you that. But no, he touched my heart
in many ways. I hope he also touches you. Maybe I can help you with
that.
> Well, you got me there. Though you didn't show the NORMAL traits of a
> troll, you did manage to show the EXTRAORDINARY traits of a troll.
And what "Extraodinary" traits might those be hmm?
> You can't disrupt anything if you tried. You need to be credible to do
> that.
Anyone can, I could simply keep posting links to shock images, then
BAM, the community is disrupted.
Conservative_X
Psycho Dave
Not until you explain exactly what George W. Bush has done to be
"fiscally conservative" as well as "economically conservative". I do
not believe he has done anything notable in either area, and I think
it's pretty well documented. But I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt. Please explain specific things Bush has done to be economically
and fiscally conservative.
You know, economists, even conservative ones, have said that the
decline of the value of US dollar overseas, particularly against the
Euro, is a sure indicator that Bush is failing in terms of his economic
policy. When he took office, the Dollar was worth 1.75 times what a
Euro was. Since he took office, the Dollar is now worth about 0.75
Euros and falling. Economist, even conservative ones, say that this is
because the President and his staff have not done anything to
balance the economy or pay off foreign debts. This does not strike me
as economically or fiscally conservative. It strikes me as lazy,
stupid, and retarded.
> > > Huh? Censorship is stupid?
> >
> > It always has been. It's a petty way that people with power get to
> > punish those who criticize them.
>
> Some things just need to be censored.
Why? It seems to me that dirty words are harmless, and that most kids
hear them from their parents hundreds of times before they are old
enough to know what they mean.
> > > We need to protect children's frail minds
> > > from that kind of crap. if not, our society will plundge into
> > > degeneracy.
> >
> > Bullshit. If that were true, then all of Europe would be in ruins, and
> > crawling with degeneracy. In case you haven't been there -- it isn't.
> > Most European countries have very lax censorship on their television.
> > You can see full frontal nudity and hear fowl language on regular TV in
> > most western European states. If they were suffering from degeneracy,
> > there would be high crime rates, junkies everywhere, and kids would be
> > flunking out of school.
>
> Actually, Europe is at the moment being islamified.
But that doesn't mean that they have become degenerate. They have only
allowed lots of Muslims to move in. So hasn't the USA. We actually have
a larger population of Muslims than all of Europe combined. Right now,
Europe has a Muslim population of between 350 and 500 thousand. The USA
has a Muslim population of 950 thousand. So if Europe is degenerate
because of the Muslims, then the USA must be worse, according to your
logic.
> I'll get some
> articles on that in a bit.
> But Europe certainly won't be the same for much longer. It hasn't been
> the bastian of society as many liberals make it to be anyway. Look at
> italy, beautiful country, but falling apart.
So what about the rest of Europe? Italy is only one country. England,
Germany, belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Estonia,
latvia, Lithuania, Russia, poland, and other countries all have very
racey television with nudity and dirty words (that's the issue,
remember? You claimed that if kids are exposed to nudity and swears on
TV, that society would become degenerate), yet they have higher
education grades than the USA, they speak several languages on average,
and they have crime rates that are miniscule compared to the USA's.
What is so degenerate about them and their lack of censorship?
> > But of course, knowing most conservatives, they'd assume that sipping
> > tea, discussing socialism at a cafe, or speaking several languages was
> > degenerate. All those Nascar conservatives don't think anything of
> > people unless they can consume large amounts of piss-cheap beer, eat a
> > rack of ribs big enough to make you puke, and yell "yeee-haw" at the
> > appropriate times.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing. ;-)
What is good about being a fat, illiterate, drunken, trailer-park
resident who lives to see cars go around in circles? i suppose we
should all aspire to live in a trailer park, huh?
> Well, I don't know. I think such filth should be shut down if that
> existed.
Why? What if people WANT to see art involving poop? What if they are
willing to pay for it? Would you stop free enterprise just because you
wouldn't buy that product (paying to watch a guy crap)? It's capitalism
at work.
> > But why would you be against public defication, considering that people
> > let their dogs shit right in the open, then take out little plastic
> > baggies and pick it up in to throw it away. I don't think that shit is
> > any worse when people squeeze it out.
>
> Huh? So people should just be allowed to shit and piss in public?
> That's pretty sick if you ask me.
That's not what i'm saying. I'm saying that bodily functions cannot be
considered filth. Most people would not want to poop in public, because
toilets are more comfortable, and most people don't want to be seen
naked in public.
> > Would you advocate putting pants on animals so kis don't see their
> > boucing, dangling testicles? Or should we prosecute people whose dogs
> > fuck in public?
>
> No, why would I be for that?
So what is different about seeing animal's sex organs inpublic and
seeing human sex organs in public? If you walk down the street, ans see
two dogs fucking, and your kid is with you, do you cover his eyes, or
do you throw a rock at the dogs?
> > That's ot even an issue. I've been going to the theater a couple of
> > times a week for the last 40 years, and I've never heard anyone yell
> > fire in a crowded theater. I don't think I ever will hear it before I
> > die, either. It's a non-issue.
>
> And having both the President and vice president dying is pretty much a
> non issue, but we still have the line of succession. So answer me,
> should people be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater?
The question should be, should they be punished for it, if nothing
happens? I believe the theater owner has the right to kick them out of
the theater for disruption. but if the person who yells fire in a
crowded theater does not cause any people to rush to the doors and get
trampled, then no crime has been committed. Besides, I believe modern
technologies like smoke and fire alarms would be obeyed before anyone
heard a screaming man yelling "fire".
The answer is NO. Yeling fire in a crowded theater should only be
punished IF PEOPLE GET HURT AS A DIRECT RESULT.
> > then you do not believe in free speech. Free speech is absolute. Think
> > of all the great social changes that happened when someone decided to
> > speak up against "traditional morality". The American Revolution was
> > just that -- it was people looking for change, and the traditional
> > moralitry of the day was that you could not criticize or disagree with
> > the King. So much for that tradition. Then we had the tradition of
> > slavery, the tradition of prohibiting women from voting, the tradition
> > of keeping black people "in their place" socially, the tradition of
> > prohibiting interracial marriage... I can go on and on.
>
> Yeah, but all the revolutionaries were still stauch conservative men.
> American moral and traditions on todays standard are just great. We
> don't need things like gay marriage, polygamy, and a non religious
> based government.
We never had a religious based government to begin with.
Thomas Jefferson was not religious, neither was thomas Paine. Jefferson
had his own Bible made, where he cherry picked parts that the liked,
and left out parts that he didn't like. I have a collection of
statements about religion from our founding fathers that you might not
be aware of. This tells you what they thought about religion and
Christianity in general.
http://aok.taxreligion.org/archive/writings/aok%20outreach/What%20They%20Said%20About%20Religion.pdf
Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and other founding fathers,
all said things about religion and Christianity, which many American
Christians might not want to hear.
You also seem to be missing the point. They may be conservative by
MODERN STANDARDS. At the time of the revolution, they were most
definitely LIBERAL by the standards of that era. You know, back in the
1960's many Republicans were considered liberal, and many democrats
were considered conservative. The 1980's changed all that, when the
Republican National Convention of 1978 set a new precidence for what
the republican party would represent from then on. Since 1980, liberal
republicans have become an endangered species. Many of them left after
that convention and moved to the democratic party.
> > You cannot have social change without going against someone else's
> > moral and traditional values. If you advocate punishing people for
> > "going against morals and traditions", then you condemn the founding
> > fathers, the emancipators of slaves, women seeking to vote, and black
> > people seeking civil rights.
>
> No, I don't. I am against people who want to bring america into some
> strange age where gays can marry, america isn't the leading military
> force in the world, and where islamic fundementalists are in congress.
Then you don't believe in free speech, Democracy, freedom of choice, or
freedom of religion.
> > Sure, Maybe we need good, honest, trustworthy, straight-and-narrow guys
> > like Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramhoff, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley being
> > guardians of morality and traditional values! Those are good
> > conservative men you can trust!
>
> What about good conservative men like George W Bush, Pat Bucanon, and
> Rush Limbaugh?
They are no more honest than the dingbats I named above. Pat Buchanan
is an anti-semite. Rush Limbaugh isa racist, and George W. Bush has
lied since his first day in office.
> > If you really believe that, then you don't have a clue about what the
> > constitution is all about, and you really should stop making an ass of
> > yourself by spewing such crap.
>
> How am I making an ass of myself?
I'll leave that for you to figure out. It's more fun for the others
reading this if you're clueless.
> > I believe that a crime is only a crime when it involves an action, and
> > damage. People say all sorts of hasty, stupid things all the time which
> > they never really mean, and which they never act upon. If we punished
> > everyone every time they said something shocking, then we would be
> > putting most of the country behind bars. Nothing is so terrible that it
> > should be punished for being said. Stupid people pay for stupid
> > comments with their dignity and their self-embarrassment.
>
> So people should be allowed to picket funerals and send threatening
> letters?
Picketing funerals is not the same as saying "I am going to kill you".
However, a funeral is usually considered a private event, and they
already have local police laws keeping unwanted people from getting too
close to the funeral.
Threatening letters are ACTIONS, not simply speech. If you write a
death threat or a threat of violence to someone, and they tell the
cops, you will be arested and questioned, maybe even prosecuted for it.
It's ceases to be free speech when you threaten people.
> > Only when a stupid or outrageous comment is accompanied by action
> > should it be punished, and only if that action damages people or
> > property.
> >
> > Thoughts and words cannot be crimes. They do not harm, and cost nobody
> > anything.
>
> Words hurt too you know. Don't you follow that rule?
No. Not at all. If I call you a jackass, for example, does it really
hurt you in a measurable way, or do you just retort by calling me a
godless commie pinko? Are you going to have to see a psychiatrist if
someone calls you a loser? I don't think so. I think that if being
called names hurts you that badly, then you should have seen a shrink a
long time ago.
> > Yeah, so? Are you trying to say that the US government never did any
> > bad things, ever?
> >
> > What about slavery? What about 200 years of cheating Native Americans
> > out f their land and income? It's 200 yeas since we arrived, and we
> > still cannot treat native americans like human beings -- Did you hear
> > how Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, and Ralph Reed of the Christian
> > COalition ripped off Texas Indian tribes? Nice guys.
>
> Yeah, what about the freedom we gave to south koreans? What about
> Japan? What about south america? What about Central America? What about
> Africa? What about Russia? What about Mexico?
All nations have done bad things at one time or another. I do not think
it's productive to ignore our faults.
We have invaded many nations, and imposed dictatorships on people, all
for the sake of "protecting capitalism" (actually it was usually to
protect the profits of the companies who stood the risk of losing their
power and free rides in foreign countries). Christopher Columbus's men
ended up slaughtering over 1 million Arawak Indians after they set up a
colony in Hispaniola (Haiti). We should not forget any of these things.
They are facts. They are history. We should not dwell on them, though.
We need to remember that with power comes the possibility of abuse, and
that these lessons from history should be learned so that American can
be a better nation in the future.
If we did not invade Iran in 1953, and impose a dictatorship on their
democratic and progressive pro-western government, we never would have
had the Iran Hostage situation from 1979. We wouldn't be seeing the
Islamic uprisings against us.
Conservative foriegn policy, over the last century, has CREATED the
Islamic backlash that we're dealing with now.
> > Then we'll end up like the Roman Empire. They policed as much of the
> > world as they could, until they ran out of resources to keep policing,
> > and then we got the dark ages. You have to be a troll, saying such
> > stupid crap. Either that, or you're a kid who's too stupid to know any
> > better.
> >
>
> I believe that america will last forever, and will never be defeated.
> That is my belief.
Well, whooptie-fucking doo for you. You can believe whatever you want.
It doesn't neccesarily make it true. I certianly hope that America
lasts forever, but i do not see that as being possible with the current
morons in charge of the white house. The USA has done better, and been
more respected in the past, when we took a more cooperative approach to
foreign policy, as opposed to the "dictate to the rest of the world"
approach of Bush and other conservative administrations. Bad ideas like
theirs has caused us more problems than they have solved.
> > I don't call 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians a miracle.
> >
> > But your last comment seems to think that I was actually arguing that
> > too many US soldiers died. I never said that. I merely have said that
> > the war has no point, and it was started on a series of lies fabricated
> > by the Bush administration. You have gotten abslutely no facts correct
> > yet. You should ust give up before you make a bigger ass of yourself.
>
> 100,000 dead iraqi's is pretty much nothing.
Spoken like a real member of "the culture of LIFE"! Hahahahaha! You
care a lot about aborted fetuses and Terri Schaivo, but if US Soldiers
are killing and tortuing heathens, you suddenly think "who cares?"
You're too much like the Antimarxist Fanboy, who says that "6 million
dead Jews was a good start!".
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> Psycho Dave wrote:
> > Conservative_X wrote:
>
You don't get it, do you? Larry King is NOT A POLITICAL COMMENTATOR or
PUNDIT. He just does fluff interviews where the interviewee gets to
decide which questions he/she will answer. It's never contraversial.
King never dishes out his opinions on politics on his show.
When you compare the sheer NUMBER of conservative pundits, they always
outnumber liberal pundits by at least 10 to 1.
> > > Jim Clancy,
> >
> > How do you conclude that he is a liberal? where does he claim to be
> > liberal? He is not even a political pundit -- he just reports
> > international news.
>
> Hmm, I just figured he's a libreal.
You "just figured"? Based on what? Can you show me any quotes of his?
He is a REPORTER/Journalist. He is NOT A PUNDIT. He does not dish out
political opinions and commentary. he merely reports the news.
> > > > Ha! Unlike several arch conservatives in the media, who say that Fox is
> > > > a breath of fresh air because they are the first all conservative
> > > > network.
> > >
> > > Then they are wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Sure will!
>
How long will that take?
> > > They have Alan Colmes, a long time jewish liberal.
> >
> > Colmes is a phoney. He does not represent any actual liberal point of
> > view.
>
> Oh really? Alan Colmes supports a socialised medicine, gay marriage,
> withdrawl of all military forces in the world, and is a self professed
> liberal.
> Hell, conservative jews hate him.
>
> "They are not. Neither are Colmes, Kaufman and Dorchen. And none of
> them have the right to use their Jewish birth as a shield for their
> anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic views. Identity as a Jew is
> important in this debate only when that identity means a binding tie to
> the Jewish nation as a whole and to the God that bound that nation
> together at Sinai."
>
> http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2006/07/26/self-hating_jews_and_the_jewish_state?page=full&comments=true
>
> He also wrote a book called Red, White & Liberal : How Left Is Right &
> Right Is Wrong
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Red-White-Liberal-Right-Wrong/dp/B000C4SQSC/sr=8-1/qid=1164908671/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-2234543-1741768?ie=UTF8&s=books
>
> Now tell me how he is NOT liberal.
Colms' only purpose in being there is to be ganged up on by Sean
Hannity and his (nearly always) conservative guests. Colms does not
represent the democratic party's views ever. he represents his own
quack liberal views, and is so weak and flimsy most of the time that he
gives liberalism a bad name -- and that's why they have him on.
Show me a list of guests on any of those programs, and I'll show you
that 99% of them are conservatives, and never are they challenged about
anything. They are there for Hannity to agree with them, pat them on
the back, and then gang up on Colms, who hardly gets to say anything.
> > > And Bill O'rielly, a moderate independent.
> >
> > Moderate Independant? What -- just because he says so? I don't think
> > so. O'Reilly is clearly a conservative, and it's obvious from his
> > writing and by what he says on the air. If O'Reilly is "moderate", then
> > your scale of conservative and liberal is radically shifted to the
> > right. You probably would call John McCain and Barry Goldwater "commie
> > liberal pinkos".
>
> He's for gay marriage, against the death penalty, and didn't vote for
> bush. Should I come up with a list of more reasons why?
Try watching his fucking program. He is the most gung-ho George W. Bush
fan ever. Virtually everything O'Reilly says is what the Bush
administration's speaking points are. It's almost as if Condy Rice
briefs him before every show. Just yesterday, he complained that NBC
said that Iraq was in a state of civil war. He said that NBC and the
democrats want the USA to win the war, and want the terrorists to win.
This is not a "moderate" or "liberal" point of view. This is how
ULTRACONSERVATIVES SPEAK. What about the bullshit about his "War on
Christmas"? Moderates could give a flying fart if more people said
"happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", but he goes off the
chart, constantly referring to "baby Jesus". Come on, everyone knows
that Jesus fucking grew the fuck up and became a man!
The idea that O'Reilly is anything but an ultra-conservative is pure
idiocy.
>
> > Was he hiding behind the local bar again?
>
> Haha, no. You are funny, I grant you that. But no, he touched my heart
> in many ways. I hope he also touches you. Maybe I can help you with
> that.
>
Jesus touched you in many ways? Did you report it to the police? Were
they good touches or bad touches?
> > Well, you got me there. Though you didn't show the NORMAL traits of a
> > troll, you did manage to show the EXTRAORDINARY traits of a troll.
>
> And what "Extraodinary" traits might those be hmm?
>
I can't beleive I need to explain that. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Let's see... Should I be nice, or should I talk down to you? Hmmm... I
think I'll just leave it at "I'll let you take a guess".
> > You can't disrupt anything if you tried. You need to be credible to do
> > that.
>
> Anyone can, I could simply keep posting links to shock images, then
> BAM, the community is disrupted.
Uh... I don't think that Google allows you to post porn, and that they
block it. But you can try. I doubt you'll get far before they block you
or delete your account.
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> Psycho Dave, are you still there? Or are you abandoning the debate?
Sheesh, it's only one day.
Conservative_X
wile. Well, my internet was shut off, and it took a wile to get it
back. I'll respond later today, but I just wanted to let you guys know
I am not gone.
Conservative_X
my responses in working (plus i'm working on more articles that i'll
make into other topics here..) But I am in the middle of something,
should expect an response by next afternoon. Just wanted to let you
know i'm still here to kick your ass Psycho Dave. ;-)
Conservative_X
>>"fiscally conservative" as well as "economically conservative". I do
>>not believe he has done anything notable in either area, and I think
>>it's pretty well documented. But I'll give you the benefit of the
>>doubt. Please explain specific things Bush has done to be economically
>>and fiscally conservative.
>>You know, economists, even conservative ones, have said that the
>>decline of the value of US dollar overseas, particularly against the
>>Euro, is a sure indicator that Bush is failing in terms of his economic
>>policy. When he took office, the Dollar was worth 1.75 times what a
>>Euro was. Since he took office, the Dollar is now worth about 0.75
>>Euros and falling. Economist, even conservative ones, say that this is
>>because the President and his staff have not done anything to
>>balance the economy or pay off foreign debts. This does not strike me
>>as economically or fiscally conservative. It strikes me as lazy,
>>stupid, and retarded.
But I dont' get what the difference between fiscal conservative and
economic conservative. Tell me the differences, I always thought they
were the same.
And show me where economic conservative are saying Bush is doing a bad
job. I find that laughable.
>Why? It seems to me that dirty words are harmless, and that most kids
>hear them from their parents hundreds of times before they are old
>enough to know what they mean.
Dirty words are HARMLESS???? I thought even you liberals knew that
words hurt.......you insensitive prude.
> Actually, Europe is at the moment being islamified.
>But that doesn't mean that they have become degenerate. They have only
>allowed lots of Muslims to move in. So hasn't the USA. We actually have
>a larger population of Muslims than all of Europe combined. Right now,
>Europe has a Muslim population of between 350 and 500 thousand. The USA
>has a Muslim population of 950 thousand. So if Europe is degenerate
>because of the Muslims, then the USA must be worse, according to your
>logic.
Have you not been reading-watching the news? Europe is going under an
islamic immigrant invasion. I'll get you some articles later, but you
used time before, and they even agree with my opinion, so you can't
beat that!
>So what about the rest of Europe? Italy is only one country. England,
>Germany, belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Estonia,
>latvia, Lithuania, Russia, poland, and other countries all have very
>racey television with nudity and dirty words (that's the issue,
>remember? You claimed that if kids are exposed to nudity and swears on
>TV, that society would become degenerate), yet they have higher
>education grades than the USA, they speak several languages on average,
>and they have crime rates that are miniscule compared to the USA's.
Actually, most of europe except for england is breaking down.
>What is so degenerate about them and their lack of censorship?
The list goes on, pedophilia, homosexuality, little kids drinking,
orgies on the streets.
>What is good about being a fat, illiterate, drunken, trailer-park
>resident who lives to see cars go around in circles? i suppose we
>should all aspire to live in a trailer park, huh?
You're just stereotyping. The average nascar fan (like me) is an
intellegent person. So what if we like to yell Yee-haw and eat and
drink until we puke at times? It's all good fun.
>Why? What if people WANT to see art involving poop? What if they are
>willing to pay for it? Would you stop free enterprise just because you
>wouldn't buy that product (paying to watch a guy crap)? It's capitalism
>at work.
Too bad for those people, since it's not capitalism at work, it's
degeneracy at work.
>That's not what i'm saying. I'm saying that bodily functions cannot be
>considered filth. Most people would not want to poop in public, because
>toilets are more comfortable, and most people don't want to be seen
>naked in public.
But if they did, shouldn't they be arrested.
>So what is different about seeing animal's sex organs inpublic and
>seeing human sex organs in public?
They're very different, how can you say something so dumb?
>If you walk down the street, ans see
>two dogs fucking, and your kid is with you, do you cover his eyes, or
>do you throw a rock at the dogs?
I'd cover my kids eyes, and maybe throw a rock at the dogs for a laugh.
>The question should be, should they be punished for it, if nothing
>happens? I believe the theater owner has the right to kick them out of
>the theater for disruption. but if the person who yells fire in a
>crowded theater does not cause any people to rush to the doors and get
>trampled, then no crime has been committed. Besides, I believe modern
>technologies like smoke and fire alarms would be obeyed before anyone
>heard a screaming man yelling "fire".
>The answer is NO. Yeling fire in a crowded theater should only be
>punished IF PEOPLE GET HURT AS A DIRECT RESULT.
The answer is YES! Regardless on what happens, the person in question
should be punished severly.
>We never had a religious based government to begin with.
Uh, I think we did. Why is this ONE NATION UNDER GOD? Why did we have
the ten commandments until asshole liberals took it out of the court
houses?
>You also seem to be missing the point. They may be conservative by
>MODERN STANDARDS. At the time of the revolution, they were most
>definitely LIBERAL by the standards of that era. You know, back in the
>1960's many Republicans were considered liberal, and many democrats
>were considered conservative. The 1980's changed all that, when the
>Republican National Convention of 1978 set a new precidence for what
>the republican party would represent from then on. Since 1980, liberal
>republicans have become an endangered species. Many of them left after
>that convention and moved to the democratic party.
Sure, they were liberal by that time period. But now they are
conservatives, and we should NOT betray their ideals to a buntch of
libers.
>Then you don't believe in free speech, Democracy, freedom of choice, or
>freedom of religion.
Oh I do. I just believe there ought to be limits to freedom and
democracy.
>They are no more honest than the dingbats I named above. Pat Buchanan
>is an anti-semite. Rush Limbaugh isa racist, and George W. Bush has
>lied since his first day in office.
Prove it, show me quotes from them with a reliable source that shows
they are what you say they are.
>I'll leave that for you to figure out. It's more fun for the others
>reading this if you're clueless.
I think you're the one that's clueless.
>Picketing funerals is not the same as saying "I am going to kill you".
>However, a funeral is usually considered a private event, and they
>already have local police laws keeping unwanted people from getting too
>close to the funeral.
It is the same as I'm going to kill you.
>Threatening letters are ACTIONS, not simply speech. If you write a
>death threat or a threat of violence to someone, and they tell the
>cops, you will be arested and questioned, maybe even prosecuted for it.
>It's ceases to be free speech when you threaten people.
IT IS SIMPLY SPEECH. What are you talking about?
>No. Not at all. If I call you a jackass, for example, does it really
>hurt you in a measurable way, or do you just retort by calling me a
>godless commie pinko? Are you going to have to see a psychiatrist if
>someone calls you a loser? I don't think so. I think that if being
>called names hurts you that badly, then you should have seen a shrink a
>long time ago.
Actually, it's a mixed bag at times. Sometimes, it REALLY hurts me to
be called a name for some weird reason. But I'd never call you a pinko
commie, since aren't you a libertarian?
>All nations have done bad things at one time or another. I do not think
>it's productive to ignore our faults.
I disagree that america has ever done a bad thing.
>Christopher Columbus's men
>ended up slaughtering over 1 million Arawak Indians after they set up a
>colony in Hispaniola (Haiti).
Yeah, so? They attacked him first.
>If we did not invade Iran in 1953, and impose a dictatorship on their
>democratic and progressive pro-western government, we never would have
>had the Iran Hostage situation from 1979. We wouldn't be seeing the
>Islamic uprisings against us.
HUH? What are you talking about? What is this incident you are talking
about? I've never read it in a school history book or any other book.
Please link me with a reliable source for this information. I think
you're making it up.
>Conservative foriegn policy, over the last century, has CREATED the
>Islamic backlash that we're dealing with now.
Nope, it's islamics wanting to kill good christian men that has caused
the backlash.
>Well, whooptie-fucking doo for you. You can believe whatever you want.
>It doesn't neccesarily make it true.
Yes it does. Jesus is real, god is real, Noah's arc happened. And I
believe these things.
>I certianly hope that America
>lasts forever,
Somehow, I doubt that.
>but i do not see that as being possible with the current
>morons in charge of the white house.
They're just as great as Reagan was. And Reagan made america great
again, don't you think?
>The USA has done better, and been
>more respected in the past, when we took a more cooperative approach to
>foreign policy, as opposed to the "dictate to the rest of the world"
>approach of Bush and other conservative administrations. Bad ideas like
>theirs has caused us more problems than they have solved.
But the dictate the rest of hte world is a GREAT policy. I don't give a
fuck about world pecae, and neither should you. We should think only
about america, and crush all those who get in our way.
> Spoken like a real member of "the culture of LIFE"! Hahahahaha! You
> care a lot about aborted fetuses and Terri Schaivo, but if US Soldiers
> are killing and tortuing heathens, you suddenly think "who cares?"
I think you have the culture of life mistaken. The culture of life
cares only about INNOCENT life. Iraqi's are not innocent life. And you
misunderstand me really, I'm saying that 100,000 dead is not a lot.
>You're too much like the Antimarxist Fanboy, who says that "6 million
>dead Jews was a good start!".
Wrong, i'm not an anti-semite. You're just trying to demonize me.
Conservative_X
>PUNDIT. He just does fluff interviews where the interviewee gets to
>decide which questions he/she will answer. It's never contraversial.
>King never dishes out his opinions on politics on his show.
>When you compare the sheer NUMBER of conservative pundits, they always
>outnumber liberal pundits by at least 10 to 1.
What don't YOU GET? It doesn't matter if he's not a pundit, he's a
liberal, and you told me to name you a liberal with their own show.
YOu've been pwned.
>You "just figured"? Based on what? Can you show me any quotes of his?
>He is a REPORTER/Journalist. He is NOT A PUNDIT. He does not dish out
>political opinions and commentary. he merely reports the news.
I just figured because I JUST FIGURED. OK? Seesh, lay off me.
>Colms' only purpose in being there is to be ganged up on by Sean
>Hannity and his (nearly always) conservative guests. Colms does not
>represent the democratic party's views ever. he represents his own
>quack liberal views, and is so weak and flimsy most of the time that he
>gives liberalism a bad name -- and that's why they have him on.
What are his quick views? And he's not weak and flimsy, and i'll prove
it!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOEaNNqvq80
Here he is trying to beat the master Ann Coulter.
>Show me a list of guests on any of those programs, and I'll show you
>that 99% of them are conservatives, and never are they challenged about
>anything. They are there for Hannity to agree with them, pat them on
>the back, and then gang up on Colms, who hardly gets to say anything
Yeah? I see a lot of liberals on there. Bill Maher, some black democrat
liberal from tennesse (forgot his name) The list goes on. I'll find a
list though later.
>Try watching his fucking program. He is the most gung-ho George W. Bush
>fan ever.
Really, then whyt does he disagree with some of bush's policies?
>Virtually everything O'Reilly says is what the Bush
>administration's speaking points are.
Prove it.
>Just yesterday, he complained that NBC
>said that Iraq was in a state of civil war. He said that NBC and the
>democrats want the USA to win the war, and want the terrorists to win.
>This is not a "moderate" or "liberal" point of view. This is how
>ULTRACONSERVATIVES SPEAK.
Or maybe it's just the truth.
>What about the bullshit about his "War on
>Christmas"? Moderates could give a flying fart if more people said
>happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", but he goes off the
>chart, constantly referring to "baby Jesus". Come on, everyone knows
>that Jesus fucking grew the fuck up and became a man!
Um, there is a war on christmas though in america by the secular left
and even the secular jews and William A. Donohue puts it.
>The idea that O'Reilly is anything but an ultra-conservative is pure
>idiocy.
Oh why's that? Why is he anti-death penalty then? Why is he pro gay?
Why is he secular then?
>Jesus touched you in many ways? Did you report it to the police? Were
>they good touches or bad touches?
Man, that is some vile shit you said. You have your mind in the gutter.
But do you me to tell you about how jesus saves or not?
>I can't beleive I need to explain that. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
>Let's see... Should I be nice, or should I talk down to you? Hmmm... I
>think I'll just leave it at "I'll let you take a guess".
I'm asking since it's an absurd accusation.
>Uh... I don't think that Google allows you to post porn, and that they
>block it. But you can try. I doubt you'll get far before they block you
>or delete your account.
Um. you're not getting the point dude. The point is that it's EASY to
troll (even if google blocks it) and that if I wanted to to troll, I
would have. YOu're just clueless aren't you?
Psycho Dave
Conservative_X wrote:
> >You don't get it, do you? Larry King is NOT A POLITICAL COMMENTATOR or
> >PUNDIT. He just does fluff interviews where the interviewee gets to
> >decide which questions he/she will answer. It's never contraversial.
> >King never dishes out his opinions on politics on his show.
>
> >When you compare the sheer NUMBER of conservative pundits, they always
> >outnumber liberal pundits by at least 10 to 1.
>
> What don't YOU GET? It doesn't matter if he's not a pundit, he's a
> liberal, and you told me to name you a liberal with their own show.
>
> YOu've been pwned.
>
You forget. I asked how many liberal PUNDITS have their own shows. Not
just liberals. If a "liberal" had a cooking show or a movie-review
program, it's not the same thing as having a pundit program where they
assert political views. Larry King is not, nor has he ever been a
pundit, period.
> >You "just figured"? Based on what? Can you show me any quotes of his?
> >He is a REPORTER/Journalist. He is NOT A PUNDIT. He does not dish out
> >political opinions and commentary. he merely reports the news.
>
> I just figured because I JUST FIGURED. OK? Seesh, lay off me.
No, I won't. If you can't come up with a rational explanation as to how
you "just figured", then your opinion is as good as dogshit.
> >Colms' only purpose in being there is to be ganged up on by Sean
> >Hannity and his (nearly always) conservative guests. Colms does not
> >represent the democratic party's views ever. he represents his own
> >quack liberal views, and is so weak and flimsy most of the time that he
> >gives liberalism a bad name -- and that's why they have him on.
>
> What are his quick views? And he's not weak and flimsy, and i'll prove
> it!
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=rOEaNNqvq80
>
> Here he is trying to beat the master Ann Coulter.
>
This is just more evidence that you're a troll. You're using a media
clip that not only doesn't demonstrate what you were trying to say, but
it's from Media Matters, which is generally critical of right wing
media. Come on, admit that you're just trying to imitate a conservative
retard. It's too painfully obvious now.
> >Show me a list of guests on any of those programs, and I'll show you
> >that 99% of them are conservatives, and never are they challenged about
> >anything. They are there for Hannity to agree with them, pat them on
> >the back, and then gang up on Colms, who hardly gets to say anything
>
> Yeah? I see a lot of liberals on there. Bill Maher, some black democrat
> liberal from tennesse (forgot his name) The list goes on. I'll find a
> list though later.
Bill Maher and "some black democrat from Tennesse"? Thats "a lot of
liberals"??
You can't even name the guy, and you expect me to take you seriously
when you deny that there are a lot of liberal pundits on the air? You
named 1 guy, and you can't even name "some black guy". You're following
all the cliches about conservatives so well, how can you NOT be a
troll?
> >Try watching his fucking program. He is the most gung-ho George W. Bush
> >fan ever.
>
> Really, then whyt does he disagree with some of bush's policies?
Disagreeing with one or two policies doesn't make him against Bush, you
dildo.
Give me one quote of his where he criticizes the president.
Give me one quote of his where he doesn't promote a conservative value.
I'm talking QUOTES, not just saying you heard him say something. Go do
some fucking research and pull actual quotes that he made, verbatum, or
your opinion is not worth shit.
> >Virtually everything O'Reilly says is what the Bush
> >administration's speaking points are.
>
> Prove it.
* "I just wish Katrina had only hit the United Nations building,
nothing else, just had flooded them out, and I wouldn't have rescued
them." --on his radio show, Sept. 14. 2005
* Finally, the ACLU -- we talked about this yesterday and I -- and, you
know, I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous
organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far.
There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al
Qaeda."
(Only ultraconservative whack jobs criticize the ACLU, and compare them
to communists or Hitler)
* "Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro
probably is. And so would Mao Zedong." (19 January 2005)
* "We'd save lives because Mexican wetbacks, whatever you want to call
them, the coyotes--they're going to do what they're doing now, all
right, so people aren't going to die in the desert." (6 February 2001)
* "That's my advice to all homosexuals, whether they're in the Boy
Scouts, or in the Army or in high school: Shut up, don't tell anybody
what you do, your life will be a lot easier." (7 July 2000)
* "If Jimmy Carter were president today, we'd all be speaking Arabic.
And we still wouldn't know squat about history or geography." (21 July
2005)
* "I know now is not the time to be assigning blame and all that. But
there comes a time when you have to call it like you see it. Tinsel
Town would rather see New Orleans fall into the Gulf than pass up an
opportunity to beat up on the President."
* "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military
recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds.
Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead,"
* "You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and
the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines
that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on
terror, with 3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody got it?
Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those
clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them
immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and
just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining
everything and they don't care, couldn't care less."
So please tell me which of the above quotes are "moderate" or "liberal"
in their nature. Bill O'Reilly seems to make nothing but
ultra-conservative whack-job statements. PLease find similar quotes
where he actually criticizes Bush or the Iraq war policy -- or any Bush
administration policy.
> >Just yesterday, he complained that NBC
> >said that Iraq was in a state of civil war. He said that NBC and the
> >democrats want the USA to win the war, and want the terrorists to win.
> >This is not a "moderate" or "liberal" point of view. This is how
> >ULTRACONSERVATIVES SPEAK.
>
> Or maybe it's just the truth.
If you think it's the truth, then that clearly puts you in the realm of
being an ultraconservative whack-job. But then again, I had you pinned
on your second or third message.
Do you REALLY believe that "liberals" want the USA to LOSE a war?
Do you REALLY believe that "liberals" actually WANT terrorists to
attack us?
Do you REALLY believe that "liberals" actually want Terrorists to win?
If you do, please find at least one quote from a prominant liberal
(That means a very famous and outspoken liberal, in case you didn't
know) where they actually say that they want the USA to lose the war
and for terrorists to win and attack us. Good luck finding one.
>
> >What about the bullshit about his "War on
> >Christmas"? Moderates could give a flying fart if more people said
> >happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", but he goes off the
> >chart, constantly referring to "baby Jesus". Come on, everyone knows
> >that Jesus fucking grew the fuck up and became a man!
>
> Um, there is a war on christmas though in america by the secular left
> and even the secular jews and William A. Donohue puts it.
If you believe in the war on Christmas, then you must be aware that
it's been going on since the 19th century -- "Happy Holidays" has been
used for at least 150 years, or longer. Remember the Puritans? They had
a war on Christmas. Yes, those fine CHRISTIANS never celebrated
Christmas, because it was considered a minor holiday, less important
that the Epiphany and Easter. So the war on Christmas goes back 300
years, and was promoted by CHRISTIANS!
People who believe in the war on Christmas are dumabasses who don't
know diddlly-shit about history.
> >The idea that O'Reilly is anything but an ultra-conservative is pure
> >idiocy.
>
> Oh why's that? Why is he anti-death penalty then? Why is he pro gay?
> Why is he secular then?
He is not Secular. If he was secular he would not care at all about
Jesus or Christmas, which he obviously does. He's a catholic, you
idiot.
> >Jesus touched you in many ways? Did you report it to the police? Were
> >they good touches or bad touches?
>
> Man, that is some vile shit you said. You have your mind in the gutter.
> But do you me to tell you about how jesus saves or not?
Jesus enslaves. People who follow Jesus have given up thinking. They
are slaves to traditions that were outdated 100 years ago.
> Um. you're not getting the point dude. The point is that it's EASY to
> troll (even if google blocks it) and that if I wanted to to troll, I
> would have. YOu're just clueless aren't you?
You said you could easily DISRUPT this group by posting porn. I said
"try it."
Can't you fucking read and retain what you read? What a dildo!
theext...@gmail.com
Political Affiliation:
"You might be wondering if whether I'm conservative, liberal,
libertarian, or exactly what... See, I don't want to fit any of those
labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I
see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to
fight it. That's my political position."
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767905299&view=excerpt
On Clinton:
"was not about sex. This is about honesty and cruelty. For Mr. Clinton,
it was about undermining the justice system."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29294,00.html
Most conservatives I'd say were against it simply because he had sex
with the woman, not because he lied. Thus it's a moderate point of
view. In fact, Clinton tried to audit him with the IRS.
He supports Gun Control:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml
He takes a strong stance on child abusers:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182307,00.html
Most conservatives do not.
That is just a small sample I was able to find on him in just TEN
MINUTES! So Psycho Dave, your views are wild and foolish. Just quit
trying to argue with Bill's fans.
Psycho Dave
theext...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your views on O'reillys politics is quite stupid.
>
>
> Political Affiliation:
>
> "You might be wondering if whether I'm conservative, liberal,
> libertarian, or exactly what... See, I don't want to fit any of those
> labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I
> see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to
> fight it. That's my political position."
>
> http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767905299&view=excerpt
>
Okay, so Bill "doesn't want to fit any of those labels", the problem is
that every time he opens his mouth, he says things that clearly
identify him as a conservative.
Essentially, you are arguing that O'Reilly is not a conservative,
BECAUSE HE SAYS SO.
I don't give a flying fart what Bill O'Reilly has to say about not
being a conservative. Most of what he says clearly is of a conservative
perspective.
>
> On Clinton:
>
> "was not about sex. This is about honesty and cruelty. For Mr. Clinton,
> it was about undermining the justice system."
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29294,00.html
That is a conservative viewpoint. Only conservatives think that clinton
was "manipulating the justice system" in the Lewinsky case. If he
wanted to appear like a moderate, he would have mentioned what a waste
it was for the Republicans to spend all that money on something that
wasn't even a crime (adultery). If they didn't obsess over trying to
defame Clinton, we might have billions of extra dollars to spend on
things that actually mattered.
Only conservatives think that Clinton did anything wrong in Whitewater.
Only conservatives think he murdered Vince Foster.
> Most conservatives I'd say were against it simply because he had sex
> with the woman, not because he lied. Thus it's a moderate point of
> view. In fact, Clinton tried to audit him with the IRS.
Uh, were you high or just not paying attention?
>
> He supports Gun Control:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml
>
Yeah. Does that instantly make him not a conservative whack-job?
> He takes a strong stance on child abusers:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182307,00.html
>
> Most conservatives do not.
What -- are you saying that most conservatives don't care about
children getting abused?
Even I don't think that they think that.
> That is just a small sample I was able to find on him in just TEN
> MINUTES! So Psycho Dave, your views are wild and foolish. Just quit
> trying to argue with Bill's fans.
Basically, you say that O'Reilly is not a conservative, BECAUSE HE SAYS
SO. However, I found plenty of quotes that he made which are clearly
conservative and whack-jobby. You can try to spin the "oh, he doesn't
want to fit any labels" bullshit, but the fact is that he supports
Bush, and didn't hold to his promise to apologise if no weapons of mass
destruction were found in Iraq. He is still one of Bush's best
cheerleaders.
Besides, you're way off topic again. Please learn to stick to the topic.
Psycho Dave
liar. He has contradicted himself numerous times, especially after
being interviewed.
Check this out:
(1) During his "Talking Points Memo" on the January 19 edition of FOX
News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly declared that "there's nothing
wrong with grilling Condoleezza Rice about policy, but implying Dr.
Rice is not sympathetic to the troops is way over the line." Later, he
opined, "Boxer also went over the line by saying to Dr. Rice, 'Hey, you
know, you put the troops in the background for your ideological loyalty
to [President] Bush.' That's what she said."
(2) And on his radio show earlier that day, O'Reilly opined that "to
say that Condoleezza Rice doesn't have respect for the troops --
'overwhelmed the respect for the troops'-- cheap shot all day long."
(3) O'Reilly falsely claimed in his "Talking Points" that Boxer
"authored the airport security bill, the one that shakes down grandma
before she gets on the plane." O'Reilly also attacked Boxer for this
bill on the radio:
O'REILLY: She sponsored a bill, the Aviation Security Act, where they
shake you down to get on a plane. She likes that. "Let's shake
everybody down. Let's get granny, turn her upside down and hold her by
the ankles." She's big on that. So, she was the sponsor of that. Next
time you go in and some pinhead grabs your crotch, thank Barbara Boxer
for that. Okay?
In fact, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, former Democratic senator from South
Carolina, was the lead sponsor and putative author of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (S.1447[107]). Boxer was merely one of 30
cosponsors of the bill, a list that also includes Senators John Warner
(R-VA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Ted Stevens (R-AK). Moreover, the law
accomplished much more than simply tightening passenger screening
procedures; it created the Transportation Security Administration,
which put all airport screening in the hands of federal workers rather
than private security contractors; fortified cockpit doors on
airplanes; provided for federal marshals on flights; and upgraded
baggage screening technology at airports. Moreover, the act won
near-universal support. The act passed the Senate by a voice vote (that
is, it was so uncontroversial that a roll call vote was deemed
unnecessary) and passed the House 410-9.
(4) O'Reilly falsely claimed that Boxer and her supporters "don't want
the Patriot Act ... even though yesterday we learned that, under the
Patriot Act, they caught this guy in New York who was settin' up
attacks all day long because they monitored his Internet, library
correspondence with Al Qaeda." But Boxer voted for the Patriot Act, and
a Media Matters for America search produced no evidence that Boxer has
advocated repealing it. Rather, Boxer has introduced a bill, the
Library and Bookseller Act (S.1158 [108]) that would repeal one element
of the Patriot Act by forbidding FBI agents from obtaining court orders
"for the sole purpose of searching for, or seizing from, a bookseller
or library documentary materials that contain personally identifiable
information concerning a patron," according to the Library of Congress
summary of the bill.
(5) In the article you cited earlier, he spoke admiringly of John
Kerry, calling him "a real Patriot", and how unfortunate it was for
those swift-boat guys to tell lies about him, but that same week, on
his program, the Radio Factor, he said "You got me at 8 o'clock. And
everybody knows I was tryin' to be fair to Kerry. You got [Sean]
Hannity who thinks Kerry's the devil, and [Alan] Colmes who thinks
Kerry is St. Francis of Assisi. They're at 9. So, one guy doesn't like
him the other guy loves him. And then, you got [Greta] Van Sustren at
10, whose husband worked for Kerry. Raised money for him. Okay? Do the
math. "FOX News attacked me" -- aw, you're a -- he's a sissy. He's a
sissy. I knew it when he couldn't throw the ball at Fenway Park -- he's
a sissy. You're a sissy. Yeah, Senator, with all due respect, you're a
sissy. Get the kids health insurance, I'm with you -- you're a sissy."
(6) When a young woman was raped and killed, O'reilly did what
conservatives usually do when talking about women who get raped -- he
blamed the victim, saying "Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to
college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter
top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in
the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by
herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All
right. Now she's out of her mind, drunk. And the thug takes her over to
New Jersey in the cab and kills her and rapes her and does all these
terrible things to her. And the thug is so stupid, he uses her cell
phone, and the cops trace it back to him and they -- and they arrest
him and charge him with murder. He had a prostitute girlfriend with
him, and she's charged as an accessory to murder. But Jennifer Moore is
in the ground. She's dead."
(7) But of course, when he needs a scapegoat for the alleged war on
Christmas, who better to choose than THE JEWS? I'll leave you with this
transcript:
>From the December 3 broadcast of the nationally syndicated The Radio
Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER: I agree with what you've been saying recently -- you're
concerned about the secularization of Christmas and -- I'm concerned
about the secularization of Jews and about the -- and Christmas going
into schools.
When I was growing up -- I'm Jewish, but I was not in a very Jewish
area. There were some Jews there but, I was kind of -- grew up with a
resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to
Christianity --
O'REILLY: Were they?
CALLER: Yeah, when I got to college I found out -- that's true. A lot
of people were. I found that millions of dollars were spent trying to
convert --
O'REILLY: I mean that you really believe that people were trying to
convert -- you personally -- were trying to make you change from being
Jewish to Christian?
CALLER: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: How do they do that?
CALLER: Well, for example, there are various organizations in the
colleges that go to people -- try to invite you to Bible study groups
--
O'REILLY: Yeah, I know, but -- I mean, you don't have to go. I mean
they do that to me. They come -- the Jehovah's Witnesses come to my
door and invite me places. I mean, I don't care -- I just say no, get
outta here.
CALLER: The thing is, is when you have -- for example, Christmas carols
or gift exchanges being done in school, that kind of sets the kids up
to being converted.
O'REILLY: Yeah, but you give gifts on Hanukkah, don't you?
CALLER: No, there's not really a Jewish tradition of giving gifts on --
O'REILLY: Well, the seven candles [sic], you get a gift for every
night, don't you?
CALLER: Actually, the Jews give gifts on --
O'REILLY: All right. Well, what I'm tellin' you, [caller], is I think
you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian
nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And
you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] -- if you are really
offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a
country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's
my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the
holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you
don't wanna hear about it? Impossible.
And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be
insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about.
theext...@gmail.com
conservative, who's moderate and who is a liberal. Please tell me what
makes someone a conservative or a liberal if it is not them alligning
themselves with said parties. If you're in the Republican party, you're
a conservative, Democrat liberal, end of story.
Also, I couldn't ignore this odd comment you made:
"If we did not invade Iran in 1953, and impose a dictatorship on their
democratic and progressive pro-western government, we never would have
had the Iran Hostage situation from 1979. We wouldn't be seeing the
Islamic uprisings against us."
Uh, Islamic fascist hate us for having non-muslims on their holy land
back during the Gulf War.
Do you even know the main reason why Osama Bin Ladin hates us? We
aided muslim insurgents, because they were fighting for freedom from
communist, back in the 1980's. I still have some respect for them, but
now they are attacking us because they see us like the Soviet Union.
It has nothing to do with Iran in the 1950's. Are you drunk?
Psycho Dave
> Psycho Dave, you seem to think that somehow YOU decide who's
> conservative, who's moderate and who is a liberal. Please tell me what
> makes someone a conservative or a liberal if it is not them alligning
> themselves with said parties. If you're in the Republican party, you're
> a conservative, Democrat liberal, end of story.
Well, that shows what a simplistic and childish view you have of
politics. Are you a teenager or something? You seem to have the
political insight of 12-year-old. But then again, since I already
sussed you out as a troll, it's probably all part of your act.
A Conservative is a person who believes:
(1) In maintaining the status quo (preventing change)
(2) Maintaining "traditional values"
(3) in the superiority of their culture over all others.
(4) That the old ways were the best
(5) Western Christian values are the best guide for society.
(6) The morality and permanance of our culture is more important than
individual freedom.
A Liberal believes:
(1) The Status quo must be allowed to change where society wants it,
within reason.
(2) That society must change and evolve to correct mistakes and
injustices
(3) All cultures have values that we can learn from, not just White
western Christian ones.
(4) Old ways must make way for new adaptations
(5) Western Christian values are not neccesarily the only values that
have merit
(6) The freedom of the individual outweighs the importance of tradition
and permanace of certain cultural beliefs.
Republicans and democrats are just 2 US political parties. The ideology
inherent in them has changed over the years. In the 19th century,
Republicans were actually the more liberal party, while the democrats
were conservative. Shifts in demographics over the decades made
republican and democratic ideologies alter in the 1920s, the 1950s, and
the latest big shift was in the late 1970s, when the Republican party's
national convention adopted a far right policy that it has stuck with
since 1980. Prior to that convention, the Republican party included men
like Barry Goldwater, who promoted many ideas that modern republicans
would find too liberal -- and Goldwater was one of the most celebrated
conservatives of his day. Moderate republicans slowly left the party to
join the democratic party, which has actually maintained it's more
centrist views.
There are still "conservative democrats" and "liberal republicans (like
Arnold Schwartzenegger).
Your over-simplified, and juvenile rendition of politics makes we
wonder if you even have a clue as to how shallow and retarded you seem.
>
> Also, I couldn't ignore this odd comment you made:
>
>
> "If we did not invade Iran in 1953, and impose a dictatorship on their
> democratic and progressive pro-western government, we never would have
> had the Iran Hostage situation from 1979. We wouldn't be seeing the
> Islamic uprisings against us."
>
What's odd about it?
Did we NOT invade Iran back in 1953, with operation Ajax?
Did we not depose a democratically and progressive government?
Did we not place a dictator (The Shah) in charge of the country?
Did the Shah NOT opress the people of Iran, with full US support?
Did the people of Iran NOT hate the USA for what happened between 1953
and 1979?
Did the people of Iran not hate us when we protected the Shah, after we
helped him escape?
Did Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran NOT get helped by the growing
resentment toward the Shah and his opression?
Do you think that Islamic Fundamentalists around the world hate us
because our foreign policy has been flawed for the last 50 years?
> Uh, Islamic fascist hate us for having non-muslims on their holy land
> back during the Gulf War.
Wrong. That is not even close to correct. That is a Bush administration
assertion which has never been true. Muslims have always welcomed
outsiders -- it's been a traditional part of their culture. They hate
us because of what happened to palestine in the 1940s, what happened in
Iran in the 1950s, and incident after incident where the USA either
backed dictators who opressed muslims, or where the USA blindly
supported Israel's wars.
> Do you even know the main reason why Osama Bin Ladin hates us?
Yes. The question is "do you know?" I have actual quotes of Bin Laden's
to go by, as opposed to you with your Bush administration assertions
about what he believes.
"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government
is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are
extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its
support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March
1997
" . . . For the American forces to expect anything from me personally
reflects a very narrow perception. Thousands of millions of Muslims are
angry. The Americans should expect reactions from the Muslim world that
are proportionate to the injustice they inflict." to Time Magazine Dec
1998
"As for their accusations of terrorizing the innocent, the children,
and the women, these are in the category of 'accusing others with their
own affliction in order to fool the masses.' The evidence
overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women
and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this
are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more
than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and
medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the
Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of
Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who
massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history. Not
to forget the dropping of the H-bombs on cities with their entire
populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a
premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Osama bin Laden" - In Nida'ul Islam magazine October-November 1996
I never found so much as a single quote from any Islamic terrorist or
group of terrorists who claimed that they hate America "Because of our
freedom", "Because we are powerful", "Because we're democratic", or any
of that other Bush administration self-righteous nonsense.
> We
> aided muslim insurgents, because they were fighting for freedom from
> communist, back in the 1980's. I still have some respect for them, but
> now they are attacking us because they see us like the Soviet Union.
> It has nothing to do with Iran in the 1950's. Are you drunk?
It has something to do with Iran in the 1950s, as well as lots of other
things that the USA has done in the middle east which caused Muslim
people to be opressed. The USA helped Saddam Hussein in the early 80's.
He seized power, and went to Reagan for help. Reagan gave him lots of
money and weapons in return for him to attack Iran. He started one of
the bloodiest wars in the middle east, with the help of USA and Ronald
Reagan. It never would have happened if the USA did not give him all
the weapons and money when he asked. He used that not only to attack
Iran, but to secure his own power following his takeover. The USA Made
Saddam Hussein a bigger problem to the world than he would have been if
we ignored him and let one of his generals just assassinate him. With
US Aid, Hussein was able to increase and hold onto power. The USA has
also had a role in Indonesia's opression of Islamic countries. In his
quest to own the entire pacific rim, Suharto used help from the USA,
from 1974 until recently, to invade island after island in the pacific
rim. Despite the fact that Indonesia is a muslim nation, it opressed
other muslim independant states with reckless abandon. Suharto even
opressed Christians and Buddhists. The USA kept pumping money into it,
because it was "good for business" -- Suharto used his newly-conquered
neighbors for cheap labor, and many US companies used these conquered,
opressed people.
Nearly all of our problems with the middle east stem from oil companies
trying to control the governments of the countries that they drill oil
in. When the governments get tired of oil companies from foreign
countries telling them how to run their countries, and kick them out,
they always go to the US government, and if a conservative is in the
white house, they get an invasion or some military action. If the USA
just let other countries do their own thin with reguard to their oil,
we would not have the mess we have today. George W. Bush has only made
the situation worse than it ever has been in World history. The war on
terror has backfired.
theext...@gmail.com
politics. Are you a teenager or something? You seem to have the
political insight of 12-year-old. But then again, since I already
sussed you out as a troll, it's probably all part of your act.
A Conservative is a person who believes:
(1) In maintaining the status quo (preventing change)
(2) Maintaining "traditional values"
(3) in the superiority of their culture over all others.
(4) That the old ways were the best
(5) Western Christian values are the best guide for society.
(6) The morality and permanance of our culture is more important than
individual freedom. "
This seems like a rather simplistic view on Conservatives. I'm a
Libertarian, and they are normally conservative. I don't seek to
inject Jesus into society, and do not believe in traditional values.
Please be less general.
"A Liberal believes:
(1) The Status quo must be allowed to change where society wants it,
within reason.
(2) That society must change and evolve to correct mistakes and
injustices
(3) All cultures have values that we can learn from, not just White
western Christian ones.
(4) Old ways must make way for new adaptations
(5) Western Christian values are not neccesarily the only values that
have merit
(6) The freedom of the individual outweighs the importance of tradition
and permanace of certain cultural beliefs. "
With the history of Liberal parties in America, Europe, and Russia, can
you really say they always stand for that stuff? Basically if you're a
Liberal you have to hate religion, hate guns, and hate many of the
processes that make up America. You believe corporations are evil, and
that civil rights should be sacrificed for things like welfare or free
healthcare.
"Republicans and democrats are just 2 US political parties. The
ideology
inherent in them has changed over the years. In the 19th century,
Republicans were actually the more liberal party, while the democrats
were conservative. Shifts in demographics over the decades made
republican and democratic ideologies alter in the 1920s, the 1950s, and
the latest big shift was in the late 1970s, when the Republican party's
national convention adopted a far right policy that it has stuck with
since 1980. Prior to that convention, the Republican party included men
like Barry Goldwater, who promoted many ideas that modern republicans
would find too liberal -- and Goldwater was one of the most celebrated
conservatives of his day. Moderate republicans slowly left the party to
join the democratic party, which has actually maintained it's more
centrist views. "
There still is libertarian republicans. And centrist are retarded.
"There are still "conservative democrats" and "liberal republicans
(like
Arnold Schwartzenegger). "
How is Schwartzenegger Liberal?
"Your over-simplified, and juvenile rendition of politics makes we
wonder if you even have a clue as to how shallow and retarded you seem.
"
I should ask the same thing.
"What's odd about it?
Did we NOT invade Iran back in 1953, with operation Ajax?
Did we not depose a democratically and progressive government?
Did we not place a dictator (The Shah) in charge of the country?
Did the Shah NOT opress the people of Iran, with full US support?
Did the people of Iran NOT hate the USA for what happened between 1953
and 1979?
Did the people of Iran not hate us when we protected the Shah, after we
helped him escape?
Did Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran NOT get helped by the growing
resentment toward the Shah and his opression?
Do you think that Islamic Fundamentalists around the world hate us
because our foreign policy has been flawed for the last 50 years? "
Did we invade Iran in 1953? Were we landing troops and tanks and
storming the capital?
Did we depose a democratic leader or a power hungry communist who
wanted to own all the corporations? (Remember the Tudah party?)
Did we not just give them a figurehead (the Shah was a monarchy) while
it was ruled by the military? Do you know what the title Shah meant?
Did the Shah not introduce a much better system than the communist
before him and the muslim fundementalist after him?
Should we be hated for helping a legitamite leader of a country when he
seeks asylum?
Do you think muslim fundementalist hate us for foregin policy or
because we are heathens?
"Wrong. That is not even close to correct. That is a Bush
administration
assertion which has never been true. Muslims have always welcomed
outsiders -- it's been a traditional part of their culture. They hate
us because of what happened to palestine in the 1940s, what happened in
Iran in the 1950s, and incident after incident where the USA either
backed dictators who opressed muslims, or where the USA blindly
supported Israel's wars. "
Everything I've read says that they hate us simply because we are in
Saudi Arabia. Where you've been?
"Yes. The question is "do you know?" I have actual quotes of Bin
Laden's
to go by, as opposed to you with your Bush administration assertions
about what he believes. "
Yeah, and you actually believe those quotes?
"I never found so much as a single quote from any Islamic terrorist or
group of terrorists who claimed that they hate America "Because of our
freedom", "Because we are powerful", "Because we're democratic", or any
of that other Bush administration self-righteous nonsense. "
So you believe it because they SAY SO?
"It has something to do with Iran in the 1950s, as well as lots of
other
things that the USA has done in the middle east which caused Muslim
people to be opressed."
The Shah was muslim, he didn't oppress the mosque. The communists
before him actually oppressed them more.
"The USA helped Saddam Hussein in the early 80's.
He seized power, and went to Reagan for help. Reagan gave him lots of
money and weapons in return for him to attack Iran. He started one of
the bloodiest wars in the middle east, with the help of USA and Ronald
Reagan. It never would have happened if the USA did not give him all
the weapons and money when he asked. He used that not only to attack
Iran, but to secure his own power following his takeover. The USA Made
Saddam Hussein a bigger problem to the world than he would have been if
we ignored him and let one of his generals just assassinate him. With
US Aid, Hussein was able to increase and hold onto power."
So you're really blaming Reagan for the bad things Saddam did? You do
not think it was in the american publics best interest to free hostages
in Iran with US arms or get Iraq to attack Iran (turn your enemies
against eachother) and you really blame America for all the kurds and
muslims oppressed? Can you really say muslim fundementalist also hate
us for that? Any sources?
"The USA has
also had a role in Indonesia's opression of Islamic countries. In his
quest to own the entire pacific rim, Suharto used help from the USA,
from 1974 until recently, to invade island after island in the pacific
rim. Despite the fact that Indonesia is a muslim nation, it opressed
other muslim independant states with reckless abandon. Suharto even
opressed Christians and Buddhists. The USA kept pumping money into it,
because it was "good for business" -- Suharto used his newly-conquered
neighbors for cheap labor, and many US companies used these conquered,
opressed people. "
Name the little island nations Indonesia invaded. Did he invalde
Malaysia or Papa New Guinea? I believe he was one of the least brutal
dictators in history. He even freed from political prisoners who were
imprisoned from the former communist in power (surprised?)
He did not have a major slave trade, and the US stopped trade with
Suharto in 1998, that is not recently, and Suharto is no longer in
power.
"Nearly all of our problems with the middle east stem from oil
companies
trying to control the governments of the countries that they drill oil
in. When the governments get tired of oil companies from foreign
countries telling them how to run their countries, and kick them out,
they always go to the US government, and if a conservative is in the
white house, they get an invasion or some military action. If the USA
just let other countries do their own thin with reguard to their oil,
we would not have the mess we have today. George W. Bush has only made
the situation worse than it ever has been in World history. The war on
terror has backfired. "
Yeah, blame companies on EVERYTHING!
theext...@gmail.com
Psycho Dave
theext...@gmail.com wrote:
> This seems like a rather simplistic view on Conservatives. I'm a
> Libertarian, and they are normally conservative. I don't seek to
> inject Jesus into society, and do not believe in traditional values.
> Please be less general.
So you're socially liberal, economically conservative.
> With the history of Liberal parties in America, Europe, and Russia, can
> you really say they always stand for that stuff?
We're discussing US politics, not the movements in other countries.
> Basically if you're a Liberal you have to hate religion, hate guns, and hate many of the
> processes that make up America.
That's a completely baseless, inaccurate, and patently extremist
explanation of what liberals believe. If "liberals" are supposed to
hate religion, then bill Clinton and Al Gore would not be southern
Baptists, and would not go to churches on Sunday, and their fellow
churchgoers would have thrown them out long ago. Nearly all "liberals"
in the democratic party belong to churches, go to them, and believe in
God.
Likewise, if all liberals hate guns, why do so many of them own them
and use them? Liberals do not hate guns, they only want there to be
more common-sense regulation of them. We regulate cars far more than
guns, and cars are not intended to kill people.
And just what do you mean by "hate many of the processes that make up
America"? What - -like voting, paying taxes, having discussions about
issues, going to school, getting a job, buying things? What processes
ae you talking about?
> You believe corporations are evil,
Not true at all. SOME corporations are certainly more concerned with
their own profits than they are about what's best for America and it's
citizens. Plenty of corporations (like the one I work for) is actually
in the business of helping Americans achieve their dreams, by helping
them find finances to fulfill them. Many corporations actively give
back to the community, and donate to good causes that help people.
It is the corporations like Enron, Anderson-Little, Bechtel,
Haliburton, Tyco, and various others, which regularly rip-off the
government, taxpayers, and customers, that are "evil", and which we
need to punish and regulate to prevent further abuse. A company which
intentionally (like Enron) seeks to rip-off it's customers and create
phoney power-outages to justify over-charging customers, just to make a
profit, is Un-American, unless you agree that lying, cheating,
Stealing, ripping off others, and paying politicians off to ignore your
crimes is "the American way". I don't believe it is, though
historically, it's happened.
> and
> that civil rights should be sacrificed for things like welfare or free
> healthcare.
Uh, I can't think of any civil rights that we ever sacrificed for
welfare or healthcare. Please tell me what "rights" we gave up with
welfare. Please tell me how many rights the Clinton Healthcare plan
would have taken away.
In fact, the Bush administration has attacked civil rights quite
severely since 9-11, all for the sake of "protecting Americans". The
right of Habeas Corpus was taken away from many people under Bush's
rule. Do you know what that is, and why it's been so important to US
Law since our founding? Bush is actually destroying one of the chief
things that makes America's identity unique and good in the world.
>
> There still is libertarian republicans. And centrist are retarded.
>
Spoken like a true extremist retard.
> "There are still "conservative democrats" and "liberal republicans
> (like Arnold Schwartzenegger). "
>
> How is Schwartzenegger Liberal?
Well, let's see, he's not against gay marriage, made some very liberal
pollution-control initiatives, appointed several democrats in key
positions in his administration (against the advice of the republican
party), and is socially, not conservative at all.
>
> Did we invade Iran in 1953? Were we landing troops and tanks and
> storming the capital?
>
Why don't you do some research on it and find out for yourself?
> Did we depose a democratic leader or a power hungry communist who
> wanted to own all the corporations? (Remember the Tudah party?)
> Did we not just give them a figurehead (the Shah was a monarchy) while
> it was ruled by the military? Do you know what the title Shah meant?
The "official government version" of operation Ajax is one thing. What
history actually tells us, in retrospect, is quite different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
> Did the Shah not introduce a much better system than the communist
> before him and the muslim fundementalist after him?
Iran was not a communist country. They were a democratic republic,
which fairly elected a socialist head of state, and their senate voted
to implement some socialist reforms. Socialism is not communism. If you
equate socialists with Stalinist and Maoists, then you are a moron.
Prior to the Shah, Iran was a democratic country with free election and
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. After the US planted the
Shah in power, it became a totalitarian dictatorship with no freedom of
the press or free speech. Do you prefer free speech and free press, or
not?
> Should we be hated for helping a legitamite leader of a country when he
> seeks asylum?
Not if he is a brutal dictator. Would you offer assylum to Adolph
Hitler (not the kind of assylum that involves psychiatric or penal
imprisonment)?
>
> Do you think muslim fundementalist hate us for foregin policy or
> because we are heathens?
>
Mostly for our foreign policy. Undoubtedly some hate us for not being
muslim, but then again, plenty of Americans hate Muslims for the same
reason.
>
> Everything I've read says that they hate us simply because we are in
> Saudi Arabia. Where you've been?
>
Show it. Don't just claim it, show it. Give me actual quotes from the
people that hate us. I showed plenty of quotes that backed up what I
said.
> "Yes. The question is "do you know?" I have actual quotes of Bin
> Laden's
> to go by, as opposed to you with your Bush administration assertions
> about what he believes. "
>
> Yeah, and you actually believe those quotes?
Are you saying that George Bush knows what bin Laden thinks better than
Bin Laden's own mouth does?
> "I never found so much as a single quote from any Islamic terrorist or
> group of terrorists who claimed that they hate America "Because of our
> freedom", "Because we are powerful", "Because we're democratic", or any
> of that other Bush administration self-righteous nonsense. "
>
>
> So you believe it because they SAY SO?
What reason do I have to doubt then when they explain why they hate us?
Are they always dishonest, or do they ever give straight answers?
> "It has something to do with Iran in the 1950s, as well as lots of
> other
> things that the USA has done in the middle east which caused Muslim
> people to be opressed."
>
> The Shah was muslim, he didn't oppress the mosque.
Actually, the Shah did opress Muslims. He opressed the Shiite sect, and
outlawed his critics. Shiites had to deal with the typical dictator
tactics of midnight visitaions, disappearances, imprisonment without
trial, torture, and forced deportation, just for speaking their mind.
> The communists
> before him actually oppressed them more.
Please show proof of this. There was no communist government in Iran.
It was a democracy with a socialist president. That does not make it
communist.
>
> So you're really blaming Reagan for the bad things Saddam did?
>
He has to share some of the blame for giving him money and weapons.
> You do
> not think it was in the american publics best interest to free hostages
> in Iran with US arms or get Iraq to attack Iran (turn your enemies
> against eachother)
It was in our best interest to get the hostages back, but through
diplomacy.
It was not in our interest to help Hussein start a pointless war that
killed millions of people.
> and you really blame America for all the kurds and
> muslims oppressed?
Actually, The Reagan administration knew he was doing it, and said
nothing about it when they found out. They actually refused to
criticize Hussein for it. In fact, the Kurds were labeled terrorists by
the CIA and Turkish government.
> Can you really say muslim fundementalist also hate
> us for that? Any sources?
Let's see some sources from you proving your assertions. I've already
given plenty.
> "The USA has
> Name the little island nations Indonesia invaded. Did he invalde
> Malaysia or Papa New Guinea? I believe he was one of the least brutal
> dictators in history. He even freed from political prisoners who were
> imprisoned from the former communist in power (surprised?)
> He did not have a major slave trade, and the US stopped trade with
> Suharto in 1998, that is not recently, and Suharto is no longer in
> power.
East Timor
Java
Bali
Aceh
Kalimantan
East Nussa Tenggara
West Nussa Tenggara
The claim was that these Islands were "hisotrically part of Indonesia"
-- sort of like what China keeps saying every time it invades and takes
over a country.
> Yeah, blame companies on EVERYTHING!
Only for what they are guilty of.
theext...@gmail.com
I don't know if I'd say socially liberal. I mean I am pro-gun, I am
not pro enviromental issues, and I don't agree with liberal views on
things like safety regulations or even child abuse.
"We're discussing US politics, not the movements in other countries. "
Uh when I said America, I meant the United States. I was simply adding
to the number of liberal failures. The fact that you can tell I was
simply comparing our liberal movements with other countries and how
much they have failed shows how retarded you are.
"That's a completely baseless, inaccurate, and patently extremist
explanation of what liberals believe. If "liberals" are supposed to
hate religion, then bill Clinton and Al Gore would not be southern
Baptists, and would not go to churches on Sunday, and their fellow
churchgoers would have thrown them out long ago. Nearly all "liberals"
in the democratic party belong to churches, go to them, and believe in
God. "
Yeah, but they always want to tear down anything christian. Almost
every liberal takes a stance against creationism, even when it's not
trying to erode or replace evolution. They see religion as an enemy,
plain and simple.
"Likewise, if all liberals hate guns, why do so many of them own them
and use them? Liberals do not hate guns, they only want there to be
more common-sense regulation of them. We regulate cars far more than
guns, and cars are not intended to kill people. "
Yeah, that's what they say, but gun control really equals illegalizing
guns. I mean, can you name one liberal country (since the US isn't
liberal if you didn't know) that allows even handgun ownership? Gun
control movements are never for just some more regulations when it
comes to gun ownership. They want to take them away.
"And just what do you mean by "hate many of the processes that make up
America"? What - -like voting, paying taxes, having discussions about
issues, going to school, getting a job, buying things? What processes
ae you talking about? "
No, I mean like civil liberties. I mean like the freedom to not have
government tell you when to pay for this and what to pay for, where to
send your kids to school, and what to invest in. Liberals want the
state to control everything, it's been done before. I hope I won't
need to give off examples. *rolls eyes*
"Not true at all. SOME corporations are certainly more concerned with
their own profits than they are about what's best for America and it's
citizens. Plenty of corporations (like the one I work for) is actually
in the business of helping Americans achieve their dreams, by helping
them find finances to fulfill them. Many corporations actively give
back to the community, and donate to good causes that help people.
It is the corporations like Enron, Anderson-Little, Bechtel,
Haliburton, Tyco, and various others, which regularly rip-off the
government, taxpayers, and customers, that are "evil", and which we
need to punish and regulate to prevent further abuse. A company which
intentionally (like Enron) seeks to rip-off it's customers and create
phoney power-outages to justify over-charging customers, just to make a
profit, is Un-American, unless you agree that lying, cheating,
Stealing, ripping off others, and paying politicians off to ignore your
crimes is "the American way". I don't believe it is, though
historically, it's happened. "
So only the big ones are bad? Name the one you work at, and compare
and constrast the differences between it and companies like Halliburton
and Tyco. And I mean how they work and how they affect citizens. Do
that, and I might take you seriously.
"Uh, I can't think of any civil rights that we ever sacrificed for
welfare or healthcare. Please tell me what "rights" we gave up with
welfare. Please tell me how many rights the Clinton Healthcare plan
would have taken away. "
I'm talking about the right to not have to pay for other peoples well
being.
"In fact, the Bush administration has attacked civil rights quite
severely since 9-11, all for the sake of "protecting Americans". The
right of Habeas Corpus was taken away from many people under Bush's
rule. Do you know what that is, and why it's been so important to US
Law since our founding? Bush is actually destroying one of the chief
things that makes America's identity unique and good in the world. "
Can you name anyone imprisoned for their politics because of Bush's
policies? Is there intense rioting in the streets and civil war
brewing because of Bush's policies? Has anyone really been seriously
affected from the PATROIT act? No.
"> Did we invade Iran in 1953? Were we landing troops and tanks and
> storming the capital?
Why don't you do some research on it and find out for yourself? "
Give me some pictures of US troops in Iran.
"Iran was not a communist country. They were a democratic republic,
which fairly elected a socialist head of state, and their senate voted
to implement some socialist reforms. Socialism is not communism. If you
equate socialists with Stalinist and Maoists, then you are a moron.
Prior to the Shah, Iran was a democratic country with free election and
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. After the US planted the
Shah in power, it became a totalitarian dictatorship with no freedom of
the press or free speech. Do you prefer free speech and free press, or
not? "
Okay, I'm going to ask you to compare and contrast again. Compare how
life was like in Iran during the early 50's, and how life was under the
Shah. Better yet, do that with the Shah and the Islamic republic of
Iran. The Shah was the least brutal of the three! Under President
Mohammed Mossadegh, all companies were controlled by the state, and
even critizing the Soviet Union or the Tudah Party was illegal. Oh
yeah, did you forget he alligned himseif with the Soviet Union. It was
the Cold War, and THEY WERE OUR ENEMIES!! Under the Islamic Republic
of Iran, mass purges and executions have happened, which didn't happen
under the Shah. But please feel free to show me how the Shah was
oppressive.
"Not if he is a brutal dictator. Would you offer assylum to Adolph
Hitler (not the kind of assylum that involves psychiatric or penal
imprisonment)? "
The Shah was the legitamite ruler of Iran.
"Mostly for our foreign policy. Undoubtedly some hate us for not being
muslim, but then again, plenty of Americans hate Muslims for the same
reason. "
Undoubtedly most of them hate us for our religious views.
"Show it. Don't just claim it, show it. Give me actual quotes from the
people that hate us. I showed plenty of quotes that backed up what I
said. "
Just google search: Osama wants the US out and find out for yourself.
I'm not going to hold your hand through it.
"Are you saying that George Bush knows what bin Laden thinks better
than
Bin Laden's own mouth does? "
No, I'm saying I know more about Bin Ladin than you.
"What reason do I have to doubt then when they explain why they hate
us?
Are they always dishonest, or do they ever give straight answers? "
Propaganda? Ever heard of it?
"Actually, the Shah did opress Muslims. He opressed the Shiite sect,
and
outlawed his critics. Shiites had to deal with the typical dictator
tactics of midnight visitaions, disappearances, imprisonment without
trial, torture, and forced deportation, just for speaking their mind. "
The Shah was muslim, and Iran is mostly Shiite. Can you connect the
dots? Was he oppressing the very religion he was apart of, or jailing
a few terrorist?
"Please show proof of this. There was no communist government in Iran.
It was a democracy with a socialist president. That does not make it
communist. "
He had communist policies, same difference.
"He has to share some of the blame for giving him money and weapons. "
He didn't tell them how to use them now did they?
"It was in our best interest to get the hostages back, but through
diplomacy.
It was not in our interest to help Hussein start a pointless war that
killed millions of people. "
Enemies attacking eachother? I like the sound of that.
"Actually, The Reagan administration knew he was doing it, and said
nothing about it when they found out. They actually refused to
criticize Hussein for it. In fact, the Kurds were labeled terrorists by
the CIA and Turkish government. "
Were they referring to Kurds in general or the Kurdistan Workers Party,
a communist militant group active in Turkey?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers_Party
Your oblivion to facts amazes me.
"East Timor
Java
Bali
Aceh
Kalimantan
East Nussa Tenggara
West Nussa Tenggara "
Yeah, East Timor, which was basically given to Indonesia by the
Portuguese. It was up for grabs. It's doing pretty good now.
"Java
Bali
Aceh
Kalimantan
East Nussa Tenggara
West Nussa Tenggara "
The rest HAVE historically been part of Indonesia. It is not the same
situation as with Tibet and China. Not as brutal either.
"Only for what they are guilty of. "
You mean what you accuse them of.
Psycho Dave
theext...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't know if I'd say socially liberal. I mean I am pro-gun, I am
> not pro enviromental issues, and I don't agree with liberal views on
> things like safety regulations or even child abuse.
So you don't think that safety should be regulated? Do you think that
the public can have any say telling a company that produces toxic waste
or combustible chamicals that they cannot build their factory next to a
thickly populated area, or how to store their chemicals to prevent them
from being a hazard to workers and the general public?
If you believe that the public cannot tell a company these things, then
you are admitting that you are a sociopath.
> "We're discussing US politics, not the movements in other countries. "
>
> Uh when I said America, I meant the United States. I was simply adding
> to the number of liberal failures. The fact that you can tell I was
> simply comparing our liberal movements with other countries and how
> much they have failed shows how retarded you are.
No you weren't. You asked "With the history of Liberal parties in
America, Europe, and Russia, can you really say they always stand for
that stuff?" as though "liberalism" always equates to the same thing in
every country. You're the retard here, because you are ignoring the
liberal successes in Europe and America.
It was socialism that made the 1950s the economic boom it was. The
government gave all sorts of social benefits to soldiers returning from
WW2 that the never had before. When the government makes a program to
give housing discounts to soldiers who are starting families -- that's
socialism. When the government gives medical benefits to wounded
soldiers after the war, for the rest of their lives -- that's
socialism. When the government gives free college tuition to soldiers
returning from the war -- that's socialism. The new deal was socialism,
and it did a lot to relieve the depression.
Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Holland, Belgium -- these are all
socialist countries with welfare systems that offer cradle-to-grave
coverage. These countries all have very low poverty, virtually no
homeless people, and they have better educations and live just as good
as we do. Socialism was a success in those countries -- it was done
correctly, and has worked.
>> "That's a completely baseless, inaccurate, and patently extremist
>> explanation of what liberals believe. If "liberals" are supposed to
>> hate religion, then bill Clinton and Al Gore would not be southern
>> Baptists, and would not go to churches on Sunday, and their fellow
>> churchgoers would have thrown them out long ago. Nearly all "liberals"
>> in the democratic party belong to churches, go to them, and believe in
>> God. "
>
> Yeah, but they always want to tear down anything christian. Almost
> every liberal takes a stance against creationism,
It's not LIBERALS that stand against creationism. It's EDUCATED people
who actually know science. If you think creationism has any merit
whatsoever, then you are either a scientific illiterate, a dumbass for
believing creationist propaganda, or you never actually researched it
beyond the surface level. I can show you that most of it's proponents
are quacks, have phoney degrees that they purchased online from diploma
mills, or never actually conducted any actual science work.
Liberals do not "try to tear down" anything Christian. They are only
against those Christian fundamentalist wha-jobs who try to legislate
Christianity on non-Christians.
> even when it's not
> trying to erode or replace evolution. They see religion as an enemy,
> plain and simple.
Creationism is a bad joke. If you take it seriously, then you are just
dumb.
> Yeah, that's what they say, but gun control really equals illegalizing
> guns.
Prove it. Every piece of gun control legislation being fought for
currently is about tracking gun purchases and background checks to
prevent criminals and insane people from buying them. The only thing
they've tried to illegalize are assault weapons.
> I mean, can you name one liberal country (since the US isn't
> liberal if you didn't know) that allows even handgun ownership?
Norway. They actually relaxed their gun laws a couple of years ago.
> Gun
> control movements are never for just some more regulations when it
> comes to gun ownership. They want to take them away.
I always thought they simply wanted to control who gets them -- like
preventing criminals, whackos, and other nut-jobs from getting them. I
don't think that people with violent criminal records should be allowed
to buy guns easily. I also do not think that rich people should be
allowed to buy their own private arsenals or hire private armies.
> "And just what do you mean by "hate many of the processes that make up
> America"? What - -like voting, paying taxes, having discussions about
> issues, going to school, getting a job, buying things? What processes
> ae you talking about? "
>
> No, I mean like civil liberties. I mean like the freedom to not have
> government tell you when to pay for this and what to pay for,
Can you give specific examples of this?
> where to send your kids to school,
When the fuck has the government ever told you where to send your kids
to school? Home schooling has been available for decades. Charter
schools and bording schools are everywhere (We have several of the
oldest private grammar schools in America in Massachusetts). If you
don't want to use the FREE public school that the government offers,
then you have the option to send your kids elsewhere.
> and what to invest in.
Huh? You need to list some specifics here... I have never been told
what to invest in, much less to invest at all.
> Liberals want the
> state to control everything, it's been done before. I hope I won't
> need to give off examples. *rolls eyes*
And conservatives don't? Perhaps you are unaware of the legislation
that some republicans have tried to enact -- the constitution
restoration act, a feeble attempt to undo the power that the Supreme
court has over state and local courts. It has been a precidence for
over a century that the federal courts rulings have precidence over
state and local courts, and that states cannot construct laws that
violate the constitution of the USA. "States Rights advocates" are
trying to overturn 150 years of precidence and go back to the pre-civil
war days, when states could pass laws that disallowed black people from
voting, or prevented women from working.
>> "Not true at all. SOME corporations are certainly more concerned with
>> their own profits than they are about what's best for America and it's
>> citizens. Plenty of corporations (like the one I work for) is actually
>> in the business of helping Americans achieve their dreams, by helping
>> them find finances to fulfill them. Many corporations actively give
>> back to the community, and donate to good causes that help people.
>>
>> It is the corporations like Enron, Anderson-Little, Bechtel,
>> Haliburton, Tyco, and various others, which regularly rip-off the
>> government, taxpayers, and customers, that are "evil", and which we
>> need to punish and regulate to prevent further abuse. A company which
>> intentionally (like Enron) seeks to rip-off it's customers and create
>> phoney power-outages to justify over-charging customers, just to make a
>> profit, is Un-American, unless you agree that lying, cheating,
>> Stealing, ripping off others, and paying politicians off to ignore your
>> crimes is "the American way". I don't believe it is, though
>> historically, it's happened. "
>
> So only the big ones are bad? Name the one you work at, and compare
> and constrast the differences between it and companies like Halliburton
> and Tyco. And I mean how they work and how they affect citizens. Do
> that, and I might take you seriously.
Didn't you fucking READ what I wrote? I say that some corporations have
done illegal things, and broke laws, and intentionally ripped people
off -- and you interpret that as "only big corporations are bad".
Are you illiterate? It sure looks like you couldn't comprehend plain
English. How can anyone argue with you if you can't even read fucking
English correctly. Have you been hitting the corn-pone, or are you too
memerized by watching the shiney NASCAR cars go around the track over
and over again?
>> "Uh, I can't think of any civil rights that we ever sacrificed for
>> welfare or healthcare. Please tell me what "rights" we gave up with
>> welfare. Please tell me how many rights the Clinton Healthcare plan
>> would have taken away. "
>
> I'm talking about the right to not have to pay for other peoples well
> being.
Where in the constitution is that right outlined?
Also -- if your grandma was sick (from a totally curable, common
condition), and had no insurance, and was in serious financial need,
and your familiy did not have the money to loan her, would you have any
trouble if everyone just agreed to let her die of her condition?
I think having a government-given safety net is good social policy.
People work hard, pay taxes, fight in wars, vote, and contribute to
society. I think government should take care of people who fall through
the holes of the net.
> Can you name anyone imprisoned for their politics because of Bush's
> policies? Is there intense rioting in the streets and civil war
> brewing because of Bush's policies? Has anyone really been seriously
> affected from the PATROIT act? No.
Ask all the people who were sent to guantanamo bay. Most of the people
there are only accused of being a terrorist, sometimes by people who
are not credible. They are not given habeas corpus, and are tortured.
IN America, our consitution forbids punishing people without (a) facing
their accusors (b) A fair and speedy trial, and (c) representation by a
lawyer.
Some of the people who were rendered were US citizens whose only crime
was being accused by someone else, or having a name that was similar to
a known terrorist, or even something stupid like just looking
suspicious.
> "> Did we invade Iran in 1953? Were we landing troops and tanks and
> > storming the capital?
>
> Why don't you do some research on it and find out for yourself? "
>
>
> Give me some pictures of US troops in Iran.
>
Did you even look at the link I provided? It clearly described US
efforts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
> Okay, I'm going to ask you to compare and contrast again. Compare how
> life was like in Iran during the early 50's, and how life was under the
> Shah. Better yet, do that with the Shah and the Islamic republic of
> Iran. The Shah was the least brutal of the three! Under President
> Mohammed Mossadegh, all companies were controlled by the state, and
> even critizing the Soviet Union or the Tudah Party was illegal. Oh
> yeah, did you forget he alligned himseif with the Soviet Union. It was
> the Cold War, and THEY WERE OUR ENEMIES!! Under the Islamic Republic
> of Iran, mass purges and executions have happened, which didn't happen
> under the Shah. But please feel free to show me how the Shah was
> oppressive.
I get the impression that you're just making up all that shit as you
go, just a bunch of assertions to avoid research.
How about you find relevent links on the web that describe the
conditions in Iran before and after Mohammed Mossadegh, befoe and after
the Shah, and before and after the revolution of 1979. Sure -- I know
conditions after the revoution were not better than they were prior to
the ousting of the Shah, but if we never invaded, the revolution would
not have been directed against the USA.
> "Not if he is a brutal dictator. Would you offer assylum to Adolph
> Hitler (not the kind of assylum that involves psychiatric or penal
> imprisonment)? "
>
> The Shah was the legitamite ruler of Iran.
Uh... No he wasn't. He was forced by the voting public and the
parliament to step down.
> "Mostly for our foreign policy. Undoubtedly some hate us for not being
> muslim, but then again, plenty of Americans hate Muslims for the same
> reason. "
>
> Undoubtedly most of them hate us for our religious views.
Prove it.
> "Show it. Don't just claim it, show it. Give me actual quotes from the
> people that hate us. I showed plenty of quotes that backed up what I
> said. "
>
> Just google search: Osama wants the US out and find out for yourself.
> I'm not going to hold your hand through it.
Yeah, dipshit, I did that. I found the same article that I quoted from
in the first few minutes.
> "Are you saying that George Bush knows what bin Laden thinks better
> than
> Bin Laden's own mouth does? "
>
> No, I'm saying I know more about Bin Ladin than you.
Obviously, you don't since you can't find links that contradict what i
already found about Bin Laden.
> "What reason do I have to doubt then when they explain why they hate
> us?
> Are they always dishonest, or do they ever give straight answers? "
>
> Propaganda? Ever heard of it?
Yeah, so far, you appear to be a sucker for right wing propaganda, as
well as a maker of your own.
> "Actually, the Shah did opress Muslims. He opressed the Shiite sect,
> and
> outlawed his critics. Shiites had to deal with the typical dictator
> tactics of midnight visitaions, disappearances, imprisonment without
> trial, torture, and forced deportation, just for speaking their mind. "
>
>
> The Shah was muslim, and Iran is mostly Shiite. Can you connect the
> dots? Was he oppressing the very religion he was apart of, or jailing
> a few terrorist?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Modernization_and_autocracy
"ith Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent
leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian
Gulf. In 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so
that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz
(Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion, which he claimed was a
response, among other things, to the Soviet Union's support of Iranian
Communist militias and parties, particularly the Tudeh Party. In
addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few
remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz. [5] The Shah
also authorized the creation of the secret police force, SAVAK
(National Organization for Information and Security, which was
organized with the help of the CIA.).This infamous agency operated its
own secret prison, used torture extensively, assassinated dissidents,
and kept the CIA informed.
He made major changes to curb the power of certain ancient elite
factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the
benefit of more than four million small farmers. In the White
Revolution, he took a number of major modernization measures, including
extending suffrage to women, much to the discontent and opposition of
the Islamic clergy. He instituted exams for Islamic theologians to
become established clerics, which were widely unpopular and broke
centuries-old religious traditions. The mullahs were accustomed to
having total control over admission to their ranks."
Murder, torture, secret police? Oh, he was a reallynice guy. Kinda
reminds me of George W. Bush. No wonder you like him.
> "Please show proof of this. There was no communist government in Iran.
> It was a democracy with a socialist president. That does not make it
> communist. "
>
> He had communist policies, same difference.
Please provide evidence of this. i have an article on the history of
Mossedegh, and so far, everything you claimed is contradicted by it.
Since you dispense all of your assertions off the top of your head, and
don't actually try to research your facts, I challenge you to find
web-links about Mossadegh that illustrate his communist policies.
According to Wikipedia, he was anti-communist, and had a shaky
relationship with the communist party, that was often strained. They
protested against him on several occaisions.
> "He has to share some of the blame for giving him money and weapons. "
>
>
> He didn't tell them how to use them now did they?
I think that Hussein told him exactly how he was going to use them. He
expressed an interest in invading Iran as a favor for USA.
> "It was in our best interest to get the hostages back, but through
> diplomacy.
> It was not in our interest to help Hussein start a pointless war that
> killed millions of people. "
>
> Enemies attacking eachother? I like the sound of that.
Just think of ther sounds of women and babies screaming and dying for
no good reason. Is it still warming to the cockels of your heart? If
you say yes, then you are definitely a sociopath.
> Were they referring to Kurds in general or the Kurdistan Workers Party,
> a communist militant group active in Turkey?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers_Party
>
> Your oblivion to facts amazes me.
Actually the US policy was that because some kurds were commies, none
could be trusted.
> "East Timor
> Java
> Bali
> Aceh
> Kalimantan
> East Nussa Tenggara
> West Nussa Tenggara "
>
>
> Yeah, East Timor, which was basically given to Indonesia by the
> Portuguese. It was up for grabs. It's doing pretty good now.
Yeah, it's going pretty good now -- after they spent 30 years being
tortured, killed, raped, and used as slave labor and "playthings for
screwball soldiers looking for some fun". 30 years of tougn women
getting raped just because occupying soldiers could get away with it
without fear of being punished. They are okay NOW, because of foreign
pressure to allow them to vote for independence! Indonesia caved in
under pressure from the USA and other countries (Clinton was president
at the time), and allowed them to vote on their independence. It was
voted overwealmingly. Right after the got independence, the Indonesians
tried to take it away again.
> "Java
> Bali
> Aceh
> Kalimantan
> East Nussa Tenggara
> West Nussa Tenggara "
>
> The rest HAVE historically been part of Indonesia. It is not the same
> situation as with Tibet and China. Not as brutal either.
Not as brutal as China in all cases, but essentially, when your country
is invaded by soldiers one day, and they just take control of
everything, and say who owns property and who doesn't, and point guns
at you, and threaten you if you don't obey, it's not pleasant.
>
> "Only for what they are guilty of. "
>
>
> You mean what you accuse them of.
Yeah, but unlike your accusations, I actually have proof to back mine
up. You just make shit up and try to pass it off as fact.
theext...@gmail.com
the public can have any say telling a company that produces toxic waste
or combustible chamicals that they cannot build their factory next to a
thickly populated area, or how to store their chemicals to prevent them
from being a hazard to workers and the general public?
If you believe that the public cannot tell a company these things, then
you are admitting that you are a sociopath. "
The public can have all the say they want about toxic waste, I just do
not believe in unfair regulations on companies in the name of
enviroment. I am not a sociopath.
"No you weren't. You asked "With the history of Liberal parties in
America, Europe, and Russia, can you really say they always stand for
that stuff?" as though "liberalism" always equates to the same thing in
every country. You're the retard here, because you are ignoring the
liberal successes in Europe and America. "
Liberalism has a universal defintion, does it not? You keep acting
like a retard, and I have to do the work debunking you!
"It was socialism that made the 1950s the economic boom it was. The
government gave all sorts of social benefits to soldiers returning from
WW2 that the never had before. When the government makes a program to
give housing discounts to soldiers who are starting families -- that's
socialism. When the government gives medical benefits to wounded
soldiers after the war, for the rest of their lives -- that's
socialism. When the government gives free college tuition to soldiers
returning from the war -- that's socialism. The new deal was socialism,
and it did a lot to relieve the depression."
It was socialism that boomed the economy in the 1950's? Did he have
any socialist administrations during the 1950's? Let's see:
Harry S. Truman
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Both were not socialist, nor did we have a majority of socialist in the
senate or congress, or in any level of american politics. So that
assertion is just plain stupid.
The New Deal plan was in the 1940's by the way, and was defeated by the
much more successful Fair Deal. Anyone who thinks the New Deal was
anything but buracratic and fascist is stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Deal
While many of the Fair Deal's plans didn't go through, it's what helped
unemployment.
"Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Holland, Belgium -- these are all
socialist countries with welfare systems that offer cradle-to-grave
coverage."
So? Can you honestly say you want cradle-to-grave coverage?
"These countries all have very low poverty, virtually no
homeless people, and they have better educations and live just as good
as we do. Socialism was a success in those countries -- it was done
correctly, and has worked. "
Uh...prove it. There's a twice ammount of homeless problem in Sweden,
Finland, Iceland and the other countries you included, and countries
like Canada (liberal) also have that problem. Where do you get this
idea they have lower unemployment?
"It's not LIBERALS that stand against creationism. It's EDUCATED people
who actually know science. If you think creationism has any merit
whatsoever, then you are either a scientific illiterate, a dumbass for
believing creationist propaganda, or you never actually researched it
beyond the surface level."
Name one Liberal who is for creationism and I'll back off the claim. I
still don't see why we cannot have equal coverage because LIBERALS, yes
liberals get offended.
"I can show you that most of it's proponents
are quacks, have phoney degrees that they purchased online from diploma
mills, or never actually conducted any actual science work. "
You mean beyond Ken Hovind? By all means, please try.
"Liberals do not "try to tear down" anything Christian. They are only
against those Christian fundamentalist wha-jobs who try to legislate
Christianity on non-Christians. "
How is prayer in school in the United States forcing non-christians to
become christian? How was Ake Green a threat to Swedish stability? In
the United States and abroad, there's many cases of the Left trying to
tear down religion, in particular Christianity.
"Creationism is a bad joke. If you take it seriously, then you are just
dumb. "
You mean, because you say so?
"Prove it. Every piece of gun control legislation being fought for
currently is about tracking gun purchases and background checks to
prevent criminals and insane people from buying them."
So all those soccer moms and fraigle men don't want to ban guns? New
to me.
"The only thing
they've tried to illegalize are assault weapons. "
I think if it's semi-automatic and doesn't have a gernade launcher
attached to it, it should be okay for citizens to have it. If you are
against assault weapons, then you're probably looking to just ban any
gun you can.
"
Norway. They actually relaxed their gun laws a couple of years ago. "
That's new to me. Prove it. Also, one country is not enough. If you
can show me a few other liberal countries that allow firearms to even
close to the degree the US does, I will drop the claim. You say it,
you prove it.
"I always thought they simply wanted to control who gets them -- like
preventing criminals, whackos, and other nut-jobs from getting them. I
don't think that people with violent criminal records should be allowed
to buy guns easily. I also do not think that rich people should be
allowed to buy their own private arsenals or hire private armies. '
Are hunters whackjobs? Most people for gun control don't even want
hunters to have them!!!!
"Can you give specific examples of this?"
Like not having to pay taxes that won't benefit you, dumbass?
"When the fuck has the government ever told you where to send your kids
to school? Home schooling has been available for decades. Charter
schools and bording schools are everywhere (We have several of the
oldest private grammar schools in America in Massachusetts). If you
don't want to use the FREE public school that the government offers,
then you have the option to send your kids elsewhere. "
It hasn't yet. But socialism and liberalism is for more state control,
and that means goodbye private schools.
"Huh? You need to list some specifics here... I have never been told
what to invest in, much less to invest at all. "
Taxes, taxes, taxes. How do I keep beating you with a few sentences?
"And conservatives don't? Perhaps you are unaware of the legislation
that some republicans have tried to enact -- the constitution
restoration act, a feeble attempt to undo the power that the Supreme
court has over state and local courts. It has been a precidence for
over a century that the federal courts rulings have precidence over
state and local courts, and that states cannot construct laws that
violate the constitution of the USA. "States Rights advocates" are
trying to overturn 150 years of precidence and go back to the pre-civil
war days, when states could pass laws that disallowed black people from
voting, or prevented women from working. "
Conservative administrations have not tried to tear down the 3 branches
of government. In fact, State rights would guarrentee the basic rights
and processes of america in case the 3 branches have failed. You can't
argue with that. Simply trying to change the way America is done is
not trying to give the state control over everything. Reagan did not
believe in state control, for example. Or did you forget that?
"Didn't you fucking READ what I wrote? I say that some corporations
have
done illegal things, and broke laws, and intentionally ripped people
off -- and you interpret that as "only big corporations are bad". "
"Are you illiterate? It sure looks like you couldn't comprehend plain
English. How can anyone argue with you if you can't even read fucking
English correctly. "
All the corporations you listed were "big." I doubt the fast food
stand you work at counts as a corporation that helps the comman man,
but you haven't told me how YOUR workplace differs from the
corporations you listed, and you haven't backed up your assertions.
Seriously, are you just fooling with me?
"Have you been hitting the corn-pone, or are you too
memerized by watching the shiney NASCAR cars go around the track over
and over again? "
Wow, what a sad comeback. Yeah, I was watching the shiney NASCAR cars,
or just reading up on the facts. But by all means, keep saying I
shove hotdogs up my ass and go YEE-HAW when my football team wins.
Hehe.
"Where in the constitution is that right outlined? "
Where isn't it? Not going to go hold your hand.
"Also -- if your grandma was sick (from a totally curable, common
condition), and had no insurance, and was in serious financial need,
and your familiy did not have the money to loan her, would you have any
trouble if everyone just agreed to let her die of her condition? "
Why waste money on people who aren't going to live for much longer
anyway? I never knew my grandma, so how does that situation even
relate to me?
"I think having a government-given safety net is good social policy.
People work hard, pay taxes, fight in wars, vote, and contribute to
society. I think government should take care of people who fall through
the holes of the net. "
Save them from crime yes, but not force them to pay for people they
probably hate. I hate a lot of people.
"Ask all the people who were sent to guantanamo bay. Most of the people
there are only accused of being a terrorist, sometimes by people who
are not credible. They are not given habeas corpus, and are tortured.
IN America, our consitution forbids punishing people without (a) facing
their accusors (b) A fair and speedy trial, and (c) representation by a
lawyer. "
AMERICAN CITIZENS you fucking idiot! I'm not talking about a few
mistakes concering people FROM OTHER COUNTRIES!!!! Terrorism is not
protected under the constitution by the way.
"Some of the people who were rendered were US citizens whose only crime
was being accused by someone else, or having a name that was similar to
a known terrorist, or even something stupid like just looking
suspicious. "
Name one american citizen. Has any flag waving, bible carrying,
patroit been unfairly jailed because of Bush? Again, I don't think
Bush has done awful things, and you try to make it seem we are in a
nuclear war because of him. You are simply a fucking idiot.
"Did you even look at the link I provided? It clearly described US
efforts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh "
US TROOPS! As in US soldierrs. Not as in US interference fuckhead.
"I get the impression that you're just making up all that shit as you
go, just a bunch of assertions to avoid research. "
Uh....
"How about you find relevent links on the web that describe the
conditions in Iran before and after Mohammed Mossadegh, befoe and after
the Shah, and before and after the revolution of 1979. Sure -- I know
conditions after the revoution were not better than they were prior to
the ousting of the Shah, but if we never invaded, the revolution would
not have been directed against the USA. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Islamic_Revolution_and_war_with_Iraq_.281979.E2.80.9388.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh#Legacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Revolution
You're right, if Mossadegh had been left in power, a democratic
revolution might have overthrown him, and Iran would be friendly to the
US. Mossadegh was an enemy of the U.S.!!! What do you think
constitutes being an enemy to the U.S.? He doesn't fall under that?
Is Hugo Chavez not an enemy of the U.S. by being a power-hungry
dictator who accepted weapons from Spain with the hopes of well,
attacking nearby nations and directing a lot of anger at the U.S.? If
you don't think that, you have a warped worldview.
"Uh... No he wasn't. He was forced by the voting public and the
parliament to step down. "
I thought he was OVERTHROWN during the Iranian revolution which was
mostly set up by the high islamic clerics, not the entire Iranian
public.
http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch29ir.html
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/SHIA/REV.HTM
AL-QAEDA'S INTELLECTUAL LEGACY:
NEW RADICAL ISLAMIC THINKING
JUSTIFYING THE GENOCIDE OF INFIDELS
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp508.htm
"Yeah, dipshit, I did that. I found the same article that I quoted from
in the first few minutes."
Did you even do the damn google search?
"Obviously, you don't since you can't find links that contradict what i
already found about Bin Laden. "
Just did. Reep and weep bitch.
"Yeah, so far, you appear to be a sucker for right wing propaganda, as
well as a maker of your own. "
Libertarians are not actually right-wing. Learn your political
spectrum turd burglerer.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi#Modernization_and_...
"ith Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent
leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian
Gulf. In 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so
that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz
(Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion, which he claimed was a
response, among other things, to the Soviet Union's support of Iranian
Communist militias and parties, particularly the Tudeh Party. In
addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few
remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz. [5] The Shah
also authorized the creation of the secret police force, SAVAK
(National Organization for Information and Security, which was
organized with the help of the CIA.).This infamous agency operated its
own secret prison, used torture extensively, assassinated dissidents,
and kept the CIA informed.
He made major changes to curb the power of certain ancient elite
factions by expropriating large and medium-sized estates for the
benefit of more than four million small farmers. In the White
Revolution, he took a number of major modernization measures, including
extending suffrage to women, much to the discontent and opposition of
the Islamic clergy. He instituted exams for Islamic theologians to
become established clerics, which were widely unpopular and broke
centuries-old religious traditions. The mullahs were accustomed to
having total control over admission to their ranks." "
Uh...sorry. Jailing a few terrorist who happened to be religious
fundementalist doesn't constitute him oppressing the Shiite religion.
Did he close down their mosque and send them all to concetration camps
or something? Did you even read the damn blurb you copied and pasted?
"Murder, torture, secret police? Oh, he was a reallynice guy. Kinda
reminds me of George W. Bush. No wonder you like him. "
It does? Great. Just George Bush doesn't do any of those things. All
I've ever read about SAVAK is that it ruthlessly FOUND the enemies of
Iran, not that it was ruthlessly brutal to them. Fool.
"Please provide evidence of this. i have an article on the history of
Mossedegh, and so far, everything you claimed is contradicted by it.
Since you dispense all of your assertions off the top of your head, and
don't actually try to research your facts, I challenge you to find
web-links about Mossadegh that illustrate his communist policies. "
Long Live Mossadegh and Communism!
Mossadegh was included in that movie Bowling For Columbines list of US
atrocities, but jwebsites have analyzed that list and showed the truth:
http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/montage.htm
What Moore fails to mention in his two sentence summary is that
Mohammed Mossadeq was a power-hungry wannabe socialist dictator who had
come to power through dubious means. Originally appointed Prime
Minister in 1951, Mossadeq was dismissed from office a year later for
unconstitutionally trying to take control of the armed forces.
After being fired, Mossadeq took control of Iran's elected parliament
and ordered Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran's constitutional monarch, to
re-appoint him as Prime Minister, to which the Shah obliged. Once back
in power, Mossadeq openly declared himself to be a communist and moved
to implement a series of foolish nationalization schemes that threw out
western investment and badly crippled Iran's economy, creating
tripple-digit inflation. As time went on, Mossadeq began to greatly
consolidate his power, ramming a bill through Parliament that granted
himself dictatorial powers, and forcing the Shah to grant him full
control over the armed forces. He proceeded to hold a blatantly rigged
referendum to "ratify" his actions, and claimed he had obtained victory
with 98% of the vote.
" It was at this point that according to Moore the US "installed" the
Shah as "dictator." For whatever his faults, the Shah had always been
Iran's constitutional Head of State. Mossadeq had no right or public
mandate to overthrow Iran's legal ruler, nor did he have any right or
public mandate to even be Prime Minister, let alone implement his
radical Soviet-style reforms. The Churchill and Eisenhower
administrations assisted the Shah's return from exile, and return to
the throne. They did not "install" him, they returned him to the
position he had legally held since 1941."
"According to Wikipedia, he was anti-communist, and had a shaky
relationship with the communist party, that was often strained. They
protested against him on several occaisions. "
I couldn't find the keyword anti-communist in any of the articles
related to him.
"I think that Hussein told him exactly how he was going to use them. He
expressed an interest in invading Iran as a favor for USA. "
Prove it.
"Just think of ther sounds of women and babies screaming and dying for
no good reason. Is it still warming to the cockels of your heart? If
you say yes, then you are definitely a sociopath. "
Oh yeah, I also love baby hangings and genital aputations!
"Actually the US policy was that because some kurds were commies, none
could be trusted. "
Give me quotes were they say no kurds whatsoever cannot be trusted
and/or that all kurds are commies.
"Yeah, it's going pretty good now -- after they spent 30 years being
tortured, killed, raped, and used as slave labor and "playthings for
screwball soldiers looking for some fun". 30 years of tougn women
getting raped just because occupying soldiers could get away with it
without fear of being punished. They are okay NOW, because of foreign
pressure to allow them to vote for independence! Indonesia caved in
under pressure from the USA and other countries (Clinton was president
at the time), and allowed them to vote on their independence. It was
voted overwealmingly. Right after the got independence, the Indonesians
tried to take it away again. "
You not only exaggerate what Indonesia did to them, but fail to answer
if East Timor is better off than ever. It is, deal with it.
"Not as brutal as China in all cases, but essentially, when your
country
is invaded by soldiers one day, and they just take control of
everything, and say who owns property and who doesn't, and point guns
at you, and threaten you if you don't obey, it's not pleasant. "
Just that didn't happen in Indonesia. China does that, not Indonesia.
Anyone who equates Suharto to Mao is a retard.
"Yeah, but unlike your accusations, I actually have proof to back mine
up. You just make shit up and try to pass it off as fact."
Proof isn't making shit up.