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"?
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
-
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
jasontg wrote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
How is that a lie? Read the WHOLE speach. He was talking about roving wiretaps. "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," Bush said. "This is different from the NSA program." The NSA program has diffrent rules Here. So no, that was not a lie. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
jasontg wrote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
How is that a lie? Read the WHOLE speach. He was talking about roving wiretaps. "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," Bush said. "This is different from the NSA program." The NSA program has diffrent rules Here. So no, that was not a lie. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Ah, I see. Thank you for clearing that up. -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:
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 »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
someone in his position shouldn't be saying things like that
why not? he was provoking thought in an academic setting. is that only appropriate when it conforms to what the PC police want? Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry!
-
jasontg wrote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
How is that a lie? Read the WHOLE speach. He was talking about roving wiretaps. "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," Bush said. "This is different from the NSA program." The NSA program has diffrent rules Here. So no, that was not a lie. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
The NSA program has diffrent rules
Ah, well - as long as we're calling it something different... :rolleyes:
---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums
-
jasontg wrote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
How is that a lie? Read the WHOLE speach. He was talking about roving wiretaps. "I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," Bush said. "This is different from the NSA program." The NSA program has diffrent rules Here. So no, that was not a lie. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
Deceptions and more deceptions. You guys should vote Alex Jones[^] into office! Alex for president! :cool:
-
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"
His desertion from the National Guard. The tigress is here :-D
-
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?
As conspiracy theories go, it is far more rational to believe that the left, both in Europe as well as the US, conspired with Osama to bring about 9/11 than it is to believe that Bush used 9/11 in some sort of bizare conspiracy to secure Iraqi oil supplies or avenge his father, or do what ever the latest lefty theory is. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
His desertion from the National Guard. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote:
His desertion from the National Guard.
Actually, that would be an example of a lie on your part. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
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
So then you agree that wiretaps don't require a court order? That would be the case if, as you are saying, he lied here.
-
His desertion from the National Guard. The tigress is here :-D
-
So then you agree that wiretaps don't require a court order? That would be the case if, as you are saying, he lied here.
No, the context of the speach did not involve the secret NSA program (used by Carter, Clinton). When you tap someone overseas, it does not require a court order. Even if one end of the call comes, or is received from withing the US. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
No, the context of the speach did not involve the secret NSA program (used by Carter, Clinton). When you tap someone overseas, it does not require a court order. Even if one end of the call comes, or is received from withing the US. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I wasn't familiar with the speech. I just found it funny that by calling Bush a liar in that quote, he's essentially saying that wiretapping without a court order is legal since Bush stated the opposite (context aside). But I'm sure if you ask him whether wiretapping without a warrant is legal, he would say no.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
And that somehow means that American leftists are supporters of Osama Bin Laden?
As conspiracy theories go, it is far more rational to believe that the left, both in Europe as well as the US, conspired with Osama to bring about 9/11 than it is to believe that Bush used 9/11 in some sort of bizare conspiracy to secure Iraqi oil supplies or avenge his father, or do what ever the latest lefty theory is. "You get that which you tolerate"
I'm not sure about the reliability of the source -- it was first in my search, and there are many others -- but it seems credible: Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President[^]. This also goes along with statements from administration insiders, Richard Clark among them. The model fits the data. On the other hand, you'd have to be on the pipe to even consider a link between the "lefties" and Bin Laden.
-
I'm not sure about the reliability of the source -- it was first in my search, and there are many others -- but it seems credible: Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President[^]. This also goes along with statements from administration insiders, Richard Clark among them. The model fits the data. On the other hand, you'd have to be on the pipe to even consider a link between the "lefties" and Bin Laden.
Actually, Clinton drew up the plan for regime change. But more on you link. Look at this line : "The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)." Now how does the reporter go from this to Bush planed "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination"? And I would not call Richard Clark an administration insider. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Actually, Clinton drew up the plan for regime change. But more on you link. Look at this line : "The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)." Now how does the reporter go from this to Bush planed "A SECRET blueprint for US global domination"? And I would not call Richard Clark an administration insider. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
I didn't claim that it was good reportage, or that the headline was accurate; just that there is more evidence for the war being planned before 9/11 than for Stan's "lefty" plot. You're right, Richard Clark is not an administration insider, he's the president of Merck. Richard Clark_e_, however, is the one who was a part of the United States National Security Council from 1992-2003, serving as: * Special Advisor 2001-2003 * National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, 1998-2000 * Chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group, 1992-2003 Condoleeza Rice dealt with him extensively. I think most people would consider him a former administration insider. You wouldn't, and that's fine. But I would consider him knowledgeable, trustworthy, and privy to inside information on the details of the administration's dealings with terrorism, which is the issue being discussed.
