So....
-
link[^] Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion? Am I misinterpreting the constitution? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be read as "freedom of liberal speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for liberal causes"?
Did you even read the article? I now know you're just a troll, but I'll bite anyway... According to the article, the objectionable activity wasn't mere protest, but included "interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors, assaulting patients and damaging clinic property." I think most people would agree that those are criminal acts. So, yes, most liberals would think it's criminal to block entry to legal abortion clinics, to harass people trying to enter the clinics, and to bomb the clinics and shoot the staff, or threaten to do so. Are you saying that you disagree? Since you opened the door, why do "conservatives" think it's treasonous to criticize the president or his policies? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be limited to "free speech zones" or holding cells?
-
Did you even read the article? I now know you're just a troll, but I'll bite anyway... According to the article, the objectionable activity wasn't mere protest, but included "interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors, assaulting patients and damaging clinic property." I think most people would agree that those are criminal acts. So, yes, most liberals would think it's criminal to block entry to legal abortion clinics, to harass people trying to enter the clinics, and to bomb the clinics and shoot the staff, or threaten to do so. Are you saying that you disagree? Since you opened the door, why do "conservatives" think it's treasonous to criticize the president or his policies? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be limited to "free speech zones" or holding cells?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Did you even read the article?
Yes, but you obvisouly had a problem understanding it. There were some cases of threats and violence, but the vast majority of protests were peaceful. The result was that even though an act of violence is punishable by existing law, a court decided to outlaw ALL abortion protests, which of course is contrary to the constitution (hence the 8-0 decision). The fact of the matter is that abortion protests were not really violent. A couple people were killed over a 20 year period (compared to 50 million babies). Of course the left tries to paint a ridiculous portrait of violence in order to justify suppression of speech contrary to their own.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Since you opened the door, why do "conservatives" think it's treasonous to criticize the president or his policies? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be limited to "free speech zones" or holding cells?
Conservatives don't think it's treasonous to citicize the president and they frequently engage in criticism of him when they disagree. Some examples include the medical prescription bill, the education bill in his first year, his supreme court nomination, his handling of Iraq, the most recent port deal, etc.. The difference is the right does not seek to damage the country. They don't go overseas (cough...Jimmy Carter) and rally support against the nation. They don't call the president a murderer and a war criminal and falsely accuse him of lying. I don't mind liberals disagreeing with the war, but when they do so in such an intentionally damaging way, I DO have a problem. Here's a couple of nice quotes:
Person A said:
The U.S. Army and its agents take to the point where there is no significant difference between these crimes and those of Saddam. These crimes include the raping of women and taking them hostage, instead of their husbands.
And
Person B said:
And there`s no reason..., that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.
Guess who these quotes belong to.
-
link[^] Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion? Am I misinterpreting the constitution? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be read as "freedom of liberal speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for liberal causes"?
You don't make any sense because you're trying to tie two separate things together, but they are not the same. It is not patriotic to 'feed' Osama Bin Laden. You're believing the "us or them" rhetoric that Bush spewed. It's easy to understand the fact that Bush lied while also believing that Bin Laden is a terrorist. Iraq != Afghanistan. Civil protests, whether they are against abortion or anything else are not criminal. Physically blocking access to clinics or murdering doctors is criminal. These are two separate things.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
You don't make any sense because you're trying to tie two separate things together, but they are not the same. It is not patriotic to 'feed' Osama Bin Laden. You're believing the "us or them" rhetoric that Bush spewed. It's easy to understand the fact that Bush lied while also believing that Bin Laden is a terrorist. Iraq != Afghanistan. Civil protests, whether they are against abortion or anything else are not criminal. Physically blocking access to clinics or murdering doctors is criminal. These are two separate things.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
It is not patriotic to 'feed' Osama Bin Laden. You're believing the "us or them" rhetoric that Bush spewed. It's easy to understand the fact that Bush lied while also believing that Bin Laden is a terrorist. Iraq != Afghanistan.
I'm having trouble making sense of this. Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry. That's simply the way it works. Bush didn't lie. Everyone (including the UN and even France) stated that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war...probably in an effort to fuel the anti-American sentiment held by the American left...and it worked on the pawns.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Civil protests, whether they are against abortion or anything else are not criminal. Physically blocking access to clinics or murdering doctors is criminal. These are two separate things.
Protesting abortion was criminalized by leftists judges because some protesters were violent and (I think it was 2) doctors were killed in the past 30 years. If you kill a doctor or disturb the peace, there are local laws and statutes that address that. This in particular pertained to protests in general. We see a lot of attempts to outlaw freedom of speech coming from the left nowadays.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
It is not patriotic to 'feed' Osama Bin Laden. You're believing the "us or them" rhetoric that Bush spewed. It's easy to understand the fact that Bush lied while also believing that Bin Laden is a terrorist. Iraq != Afghanistan.
I'm having trouble making sense of this. Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry. That's simply the way it works. Bush didn't lie. Everyone (including the UN and even France) stated that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war...probably in an effort to fuel the anti-American sentiment held by the American left...and it worked on the pawns.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Civil protests, whether they are against abortion or anything else are not criminal. Physically blocking access to clinics or murdering doctors is criminal. These are two separate things.
Protesting abortion was criminalized by leftists judges because some protesters were violent and (I think it was 2) doctors were killed in the past 30 years. If you kill a doctor or disturb the peace, there are local laws and statutes that address that. This in particular pertained to protests in general. We see a lot of attempts to outlaw freedom of speech coming from the left nowadays.
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days.
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
espeir wrote:
Bush didn't lie.
Right, whatever.
espeir wrote:
In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war...probably in an effort to fuel the anti-American sentiment held by the American left
Are you suggesting that Saddam was sitting around plotting one day and thought to himself, "If I get rid of my weapons, that will make American liberals sympathetic to my cause."? You'd have to be nuts to think that.
espeir wrote:
We see a lot of attempts to outlaw freedom of speech coming from the left nowadays.
Yes, like Free-Speech Zones"... oh, wait, that was Bush.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days.
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
espeir wrote:
Bush didn't lie.
Right, whatever.
espeir wrote:
In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war...probably in an effort to fuel the anti-American sentiment held by the American left
Are you suggesting that Saddam was sitting around plotting one day and thought to himself, "If I get rid of my weapons, that will make American liberals sympathetic to my cause."? You'd have to be nuts to think that.
espeir wrote:
We see a lot of attempts to outlaw freedom of speech coming from the left nowadays.
Yes, like Free-Speech Zones"... oh, wait, that was Bush.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
No, I'm saying that they appear to have the same feelings towards the US. Do they explicitely support him? I don't think so, but it is kind of odd, don't you think?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Right, whatever.
Are you equally prepared to say that the United Nations lied to the world? They made the exact same claims. Remember all those resolutions?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Are you suggesting that Saddam was sitting around plotting one day and thought to himself, "If I get rid of my weapons, that will make American liberals sympathetic to my cause."? You'd have to be nuts to think that.
More or less yes. The reason for the war was publicly stated as having a lot to do with WMD. Saddam would have to be nuts not to think of hiding it or getting rid of it before they were invaded.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Yes, like Free-Speech Zones"... oh, wait, that was Bush.
How is that suppression of speech? You're not entitled to physical proximty to the president. Here's a good example of leftist thought control: http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Njg4NDM3MyZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=[^]
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
It is not patriotic to 'feed' Osama Bin Laden. You're believing the "us or them" rhetoric that Bush spewed. It's easy to understand the fact that Bush lied while also believing that Bin Laden is a terrorist. Iraq != Afghanistan.
I'm having trouble making sense of this. Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry. That's simply the way it works. Bush didn't lie. Everyone (including the UN and even France) stated that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war...probably in an effort to fuel the anti-American sentiment held by the American left...and it worked on the pawns.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Civil protests, whether they are against abortion or anything else are not criminal. Physically blocking access to clinics or murdering doctors is criminal. These are two separate things.
Protesting abortion was criminalized by leftists judges because some protesters were violent and (I think it was 2) doctors were killed in the past 30 years. If you kill a doctor or disturb the peace, there are local laws and statutes that address that. This in particular pertained to protests in general. We see a lot of attempts to outlaw freedom of speech coming from the left nowadays.
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry.
Yeah, so what? Does that mean that Kerry is a terrorist or that Osama is a Democrat? If Osama says that the Earth is spherical, do you say it's a lie just because he's a terrorist? C'mon dude, get some common sense! Oh and speaking of Osama, it's been almost 5 years already. Where the hell is he? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
-
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry.
Yeah, so what? Does that mean that Kerry is a terrorist or that Osama is a Democrat? If Osama says that the Earth is spherical, do you say it's a lie just because he's a terrorist? C'mon dude, get some common sense! Oh and speaking of Osama, it's been almost 5 years already. Where the hell is he? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Yeah, so what? Does that mean that Kerry is a terrorist or that Osama is a Democrat? If Osama says that the Earth is spherical, do you say it's a lie just because he's a terrorist? C'mon dude, get some common sense!
If a basketball is round and a baseball is round, does that make a basketball a baseball? I'm not saying one IS the other in entirety, but there is apparently a significant overlap in ideology.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Oh and speaking of Osama, it's been almost 5 years already. Where the hell is he?
Have you checked Howard Dean's house?
-
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry.
Yeah, so what? Does that mean that Kerry is a terrorist or that Osama is a Democrat? If Osama says that the Earth is spherical, do you say it's a lie just because he's a terrorist? C'mon dude, get some common sense! Oh and speaking of Osama, it's been almost 5 years already. Where the hell is he? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Where the hell is he?
Oh, didn't you hear? We stopped looking for him almost 4 years ago.
President Bush said March 13, 2002:
I don't know where he [Osama Bin Laden] is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him.
:rolleyes: -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry.
Yeah, so what? Does that mean that Kerry is a terrorist or that Osama is a Democrat? If Osama says that the Earth is spherical, do you say it's a lie just because he's a terrorist? C'mon dude, get some common sense! Oh and speaking of Osama, it's been almost 5 years already. Where the hell is he? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
He is in this satellite photo[^] Unfortunately, he was gone by the time they found him and had men in the area. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
He is in this satellite photo[^] Unfortunately, he was gone by the time they found him and had men in the area. BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wrightbrianwelsch wrote:
Unfortunately, he was gone by the time they found him and had men in the area.
I think they finally caught him though. Check this[^] out. :-) Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
-
brianwelsch wrote:
Unfortunately, he was gone by the time they found him and had men in the area.
I think they finally caught him though. Check this[^] out. :-) Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
:-D BW
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
-- Steven Wright -
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
No, I'm saying that they appear to have the same feelings towards the US. Do they explicitely support him? I don't think so, but it is kind of odd, don't you think?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Right, whatever.
Are you equally prepared to say that the United Nations lied to the world? They made the exact same claims. Remember all those resolutions?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Are you suggesting that Saddam was sitting around plotting one day and thought to himself, "If I get rid of my weapons, that will make American liberals sympathetic to my cause."? You'd have to be nuts to think that.
More or less yes. The reason for the war was publicly stated as having a lot to do with WMD. Saddam would have to be nuts not to think of hiding it or getting rid of it before they were invaded.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Yes, like Free-Speech Zones"... oh, wait, that was Bush.
How is that suppression of speech? You're not entitled to physical proximty to the president. Here's a good example of leftist thought control: http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Njg4NDM3MyZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=[^]
espeir wrote:
Do they explicitely support him? I don't think so, but it is kind of odd, don't you think?
It's not really odd when you realize that nobody likes neocolonialism, whether you're whack-job terrorist or a democratic leftist. What is odd is that anyone does support neocolonialism.
espeir wrote:
Saddam would have to be nuts not to think of hiding it or getting rid of it before they were invaded.
I agree with that, but extending it to say that he did it for support from the left is stretching.
espeir wrote:
You're not entitled to physical proximty to the president.
But they are entitled to protest without being corralled into out-of-the-way places.
espeir wrote:
Here's a good example of leftist thought control
"comments that innate ability may explain why few women reach top science posts" I'm not a fan of political correctness, but someone in his position shouldn't be saying things like that. I don't think this is some coordinated suppression of his thoughts by the left though.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Did you even read the article?
Yes, but you obvisouly had a problem understanding it. There were some cases of threats and violence, but the vast majority of protests were peaceful. The result was that even though an act of violence is punishable by existing law, a court decided to outlaw ALL abortion protests, which of course is contrary to the constitution (hence the 8-0 decision). The fact of the matter is that abortion protests were not really violent. A couple people were killed over a 20 year period (compared to 50 million babies). Of course the left tries to paint a ridiculous portrait of violence in order to justify suppression of speech contrary to their own.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Since you opened the door, why do "conservatives" think it's treasonous to criticize the president or his policies? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be limited to "free speech zones" or holding cells?
Conservatives don't think it's treasonous to citicize the president and they frequently engage in criticism of him when they disagree. Some examples include the medical prescription bill, the education bill in his first year, his supreme court nomination, his handling of Iraq, the most recent port deal, etc.. The difference is the right does not seek to damage the country. They don't go overseas (cough...Jimmy Carter) and rally support against the nation. They don't call the president a murderer and a war criminal and falsely accuse him of lying. I don't mind liberals disagreeing with the war, but when they do so in such an intentionally damaging way, I DO have a problem. Here's a couple of nice quotes:
Person A said:
The U.S. Army and its agents take to the point where there is no significant difference between these crimes and those of Saddam. These crimes include the raping of women and taking them hostage, instead of their husbands.
And
Person B said:
And there`s no reason..., that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.
Guess who these quotes belong to.
espeir wrote:
a court decided to outlaw ALL abortion protests
Actually, they didn't. They issued an injunction against Scheidler, his Pro-Life Action League, Randall Terry, and Operation Rescue. It bars violence, intimidation and extortion, but protects the anti-abortion protesters' rights to pray, speak or leaflet peacefully on public property. It states: "the District Court entered a permanent nationwide injunction prohibiting petitioners* from obstructing access to the clinics, trespassing on clinic property, damaging clinic property, or using violence or threats of violence against the clinics, their employees, or their patients." * and by "petitioners" it means the original defendents: Scheidler, his Pro-Life Action League, Randall Terry, and Operation Rescue. Here's a quote from Scheidler: "You can try for 50 years to do it the nice way or you can do it next week the nasty way." Gee, I wonder why they would want to issue an injuction against him. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: "We're not talking about conduct that is lawful... To paint a picture where we're talking about pure speech is not entirely accurate." Englert: "But we're not talking about extortion." What the Supreme court found was that "abortion clinics cannot rely on federal laws against racketeering and extortion to prevent demonstrations against abortions." ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
It is not patriotic to 'feed' Osama Bin Laden. You're believing the "us or them" rhetoric that Bush spewed. It's easy to understand the fact that Bush lied while also believing that Bin Laden is a terrorist. Iraq != Afghanistan.
I'm having trouble making sense of this. Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days. The quotes I provided were from both Osama Bin Laden and John Kerry. That's simply the way it works. Bush didn't lie. Everyone (including the UN and even France) stated that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war...probably in an effort to fuel the anti-American sentiment held by the American left...and it worked on the pawns.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Civil protests, whether they are against abortion or anything else are not criminal. Physically blocking access to clinics or murdering doctors is criminal. These are two separate things.
Protesting abortion was criminalized by leftists judges because some protesters were violent and (I think it was 2) doctors were killed in the past 30 years. If you kill a doctor or disturb the peace, there are local laws and statutes that address that. This in particular pertained to protests in general. We see a lot of attempts to outlaw freedom of speech coming from the left nowadays.
espeir wrote:
Osama Bin Laden sounds like an American leftist these days.
Except for his views on women and gays. He sounds a lot closer to conservatives when it comes to social issues.
espeir wrote:
In fact we know that he had WMD, but got rid of them sometime before the war
We know that, huh? ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
link[^] Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion? Am I misinterpreting the constitution? Should "freedom of speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" actually be read as "freedom of liberal speech" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for liberal causes"?
man, are you confused. The reason it's OK to say "Bush Lied" is because, in fact, he did. The reason people are concerned abbout protesters at abortion clinic is because a lot of them cross the line - physically assaulting people, throwing bloodon them, etc.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Yeah, so what? Does that mean that Kerry is a terrorist or that Osama is a Democrat? If Osama says that the Earth is spherical, do you say it's a lie just because he's a terrorist? C'mon dude, get some common sense!
If a basketball is round and a baseball is round, does that make a basketball a baseball? I'm not saying one IS the other in entirety, but there is apparently a significant overlap in ideology.
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
Oh and speaking of Osama, it's been almost 5 years already. Where the hell is he?
Have you checked Howard Dean's house?
espeir wrote:
If a basketball is round and a baseball is round, does that make a basketball a baseball? I'm not saying one IS the other in entirety, but there is apparently a significant overlap in ideology.
I'm beginning to understand your logic[^]. Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt
-
espeir wrote:
Why do liberals think it's patriotic to feed Osama Bin Laden with such precious lines like "Bush Lied", but they think it's criminal to protest abortion?
I'm libertarian, not liberal in the american sense, but I am pro-choice. Personaly, I don't have a problem with it, unless it descends inot the kind of shit we have to deal with in the UK with aniumal rights protesters. Harrasment, threats of violence, etc. These are of course, all acts which are punishable under existing law. There is of course the fact that libruls think the protests might cause some women to make "the wrong choice". Personally, I think unless you really ain't squeamish about the whole abortion thing and accept it for what it is - terminating a potential life because you do not wish to bring into the world, then you probably shouldn't be having one. My favourite essay on the subject[^] Ryan
Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings, He made their brutish venom. He made their horrid wings. All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small, All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
pro-choice
On everything or just some things?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
terminating a potential life because you do not wish to bring into the world, then you probably shouldn't be having one.
Which means you probably should not have been having sex in the first place. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 19:05 Tuesday 28th February, 2006
-
man, are you confused. The reason it's OK to say "Bush Lied" is because, in fact, he did. The reason people are concerned abbout protesters at abortion clinic is because a lot of them cross the line - physically assaulting people, throwing bloodon them, etc.
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
The reason it's OK to say "Bush Lied" is because, in fact, he did.
Fact? Ok, what did he lie about? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I'll admit that I haven't done much research on this topic, but off the top of my head I thought this one was a pretty good example:
President Bush said April 20, 2004:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
-J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
