Liberals Fuck You If You Don't Vote Conservative

[Alex H]

The folks at the Carbon Defence League have done it again. In the age where many people will vote for a candidate just because they are better looking, why not take it further? Pledge to vote for anyone other than Bush, and you could find yourself in bed with hot Liberal!


Originally posted by FTheVote.com
SEXY LIBERALS OF THE U.S. UNITE in taking back the government from the sexually repressed, right-wing, zealots in control! Everyone knows liberals are hotter than conservatives - we look hotter, we dress hotter, our ideas are hotter, and we are infinitely hotter in the sack. We must use this to our advantage - as one more weapon in a diverse arsenal to strip the conservatives of their power (by stripping them of their clothes first).

Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn't mind taking one for the team.

At Fuck The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election. FTV has not endorsed a single candidate but recommends strategic voting. We also encourage FTV fans to take road trips this summer to swing(er) states to collect pledges. If you collect a pledge let us know about it on the Swinger States page! Have safe fun fucking over Bush while fucking for votes.

F The Vote.com (http://www.fthevote.com/home.html)

http://www.fthevote.com/images/seated1.gif

[sampson]

This is quite possibly the dumbest link ever. <_<

I think the popularity of this site is best expressed on their feedback page. (http://www.fthevote.com/swinger.html)

[j2k4]

This fairly screams LOUNGE, don&#39;t you think? ;)

[Alex H]

I think it&#39;s newsworthy - Would you change your vote for sex?

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this...

[Rip The Jacker]

Well the thread&#39;s title is very creative. Congrats. :unsure:

[ZaZu]

I couldn&#39;t do it ..... theres no way I&#39;d knowingly fuck a conservative.....ain&#39;t they all dry and stale inside?....yeeech&#33; :x

[sampson]

Originally posted by Alex H@25 July 2004 - 23:47
I think it&#39;s newsworthy - Would you change your vote for sex?

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this...
newsworthy?? :lol: :lol:

I wouldn&#39;t change my vote for sex. Maybe that&#39;s because I get sex regularly though. If I only had a sexual encounter every four years like a presidential vote? Then I&#39;d vote any way she wanted me too. :lol: :lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@25 July 2004 - 23:58
This fairly screams LOUNGE, don&#39;t you think? ;)
Ok then, agreed.....

....only let&#39;s move this one while we&#39;re at it.

Sean John Puff P. Diddy Daddy Combs wants to get involved (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=119218)

[BigBank_Hank]

More proof as to why I will never vote for a liberal.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 July 2004 - 12:31
More proof as to why I will never vote for a liberal.
It would be nice if we all knew what you were talking about. <_<

You are a stilted thinker.

I sure would vote for a conservative....just not this time.

[BigBank_Hank]

It would be nice if we all knew what you were talking about.




QUOTE (FTheVote.com)
SEXY LIBERALS OF THE U.S. UNITE in taking back the government from the sexually repressed, right-wing, zealots in control&#33; Everyone knows liberals are hotter than conservatives - we look hotter, we dress hotter, our ideas are hotter, and we are infinitely hotter in the sack. We must use this to our advantage - as one more weapon in a diverse arsenal to strip the conservatives of their power (by stripping them of their clothes first).

Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn&#39;t mind taking one for the team.

At Fuck The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election. FTV has not endorsed a single candidate but recommends strategic voting. We also encourage FTV fans to take road trips this summer to swing(er) states to collect pledges. If you collect a pledge let us know about it on the Swinger States page&#33; Have safe fun fucking over Bush while fucking for votes.


I’m sorry I thought that it was quite obvious. <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 July 2004 - 12:42

It would be nice if we all knew what you were talking about.




QUOTE (FTheVote.com)
SEXY LIBERALS OF THE U.S. UNITE in taking back the government from the sexually repressed, right-wing, zealots in control&#33; Everyone knows liberals are hotter than conservatives - we look hotter, we dress hotter, our ideas are hotter, and we are infinitely hotter in the sack. We must use this to our advantage - as one more weapon in a diverse arsenal to strip the conservatives of their power (by stripping them of their clothes first).

Believe it or not, even the most seemingly deeply rooted right-wing ideologue can be manipulated by sex. As we all know, the sex drive is a powerful beast that has the potential to change people. People lie for sex, they cheat for sex, they even kill for sex - and you can be sure that they will change the way they think (and therefore vote) for sex. All you need to be armed with are your sexy progressive values, a razor-sharp wit, your genitalia, and a mindset that doesn&#39;t mind taking one for the team.

At Fuck The Vote we provide a Pledge Sheet that can be used conveniently before becoming physically intimate with a conservative, The Pledge Sheet asks the signee to make a promise to vote for anyone but George Bush in the November election. FTV has not endorsed a single candidate but recommends strategic voting. We also encourage FTV fans to take road trips this summer to swing(er) states to collect pledges. If you collect a pledge let us know about it on the Swinger States page&#33; Have safe fun fucking over Bush while fucking for votes.


I’m sorry I thought that it was quite obvious. <_<
Hence my comment.....


You are a stilted thinker.

.....for grouping all liberals together due to a "get out and vote" posting. <_<

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Alex H@25 July 2004 - 22:47
I think it&#39;s newsworthy - Would you change your vote for sex?

It will be interesting to see what becomes of this...
I agree that it&#39;s a good social question, perhaps talk club.
I wouldn&#39;t change my vote for sex, but then as one that has been tagged with a "liberal" ticket because i think so little of Bush i don&#39;t have to worry about getting sex anyway. :lol: ( it does help of course that i am married to the worlds most beautiful woman).
The site is purely for fun and i think at least one person took it seriously by the looks of it. My state of NM is apparently a swing state so i am going to advise all my single friends to pretend to be Bush supporters and thereby get them laid... :lol:

Of course my opinion is that if Bush gets in again we will be f@#**d plenty for the next 4 years....bend over and brace :lol: :lol:

[Alex H]

Originally posted by vidcc@26 July 2004 - 17:47
i am married to the worlds most beautiful woman).
My girlfriend never said she was married :huh:

[BigBank_Hank]

Vid you must be in heaven tonight with a Clinton on every station on the TV :lol: I have my TV unplugged ATM :D

[Darth Sushi]

Originally posted by Alex H@26 July 2004 - 06:47
I think it&#39;s newsworthy - Would you change your vote for sex?
If she&#39;s hot...yeah. After all, my slong also has a head of it&#39;s own. :rolleyes: Besides, the only Bush I trust is the one I can tap. ;)

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 July 2004 - 20:56
Vid you must be in heaven tonight with a Clinton on every station on the TV :lol: I have my TV unplugged ATM :D
Why unplug the tube?
Afraid Clinton would comandeer the Cartoon Network too?

[Busyman]

I was at my mom&#39;s house and she had the Dem Convention playing.

The only person I watched was Clinton. Compared to Clinton, Kerry is Lerch.

I grew tired of the Kerry Dick Sucking Contest (I unfortunately could hear the Convention in the backround). <_<

He is Joe Blow politician to me.

[BigBank_Hank]

You are correct Busyman, but he did serve in Vietnam.

[j2k4]

I&#39;m not voting Conservative, I&#39;m voting for Bush.

How do I get the sexual benefit? :huh:

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 July 2004 - 15:35
I&#39;m not voting Conservative, I&#39;m voting for Bush.

How do I get the sexual benefit? :huh:
Congratulations&#33;

You&#39;re prize is herpes.
Check your mail.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker+27 July 2004 - 20:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 27 July 2004 - 20:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@27 July 2004 - 15:35
I&#39;m not voting Conservative, I&#39;m voting for Bush.

How do I get the sexual benefit? :huh:
Congratulations&#33;

You&#39;re prize is herpes.
Check your mail.[/b][/quote]
"male" parts, that is.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@27 July 2004 - 19:45
You are correct Busyman, but he did serve in Vietnam.
Unlike B......


Nah, lets not go thru it again :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+27 July 2004 - 17:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 27 July 2004 - 17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@27 July 2004 - 19:45
You are correct Busyman, but he did serve in Vietnam.
Unlike B......


Nah, lets not go thru it again :lol: [/b][/quote]
I’m disappointed in you Rat :o

The Talk Club does bring out the softer side in all of us :D

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 July 2004 - 21:35
How do I get the sexual benefit? :huh:
If you&#39;ve got to this point in your life and still havn&#39;t worked it out, I really can&#39;t help you.

Well, I could...but it would be expensive. :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Uh-uh.

The ad said "Liberals Fuck You..."

I&#39;d like to make my choice now. B)

[longboneslinger]

Uh-uh.

The ad said "Liberals Fuck You..."

I&#39;d like to make my choice now.

Just remember, j2k4, when the liberals fuck you, they wont use lube. It&#39;s bad for the environment.

Personally, I&#39;m neither Democrat nor Republican. I"m indempendent. As for the parties, the Republicans at least admit their big business lovers while the Dems pretend not to be. The Liberals just run around making total asses of themselves. Whoopie Goldberg comes to mind.

As for Kerry, he
1-Got a purple heart from his own grenade.
2-He lies so much he confuses himself.
3-He flops around on issues like a gymnist on meth.

As for Bush
1-He got us into the shitstorm in Iraq.
2-He pissed off the French...hmmm...that&#39;s actually a point in his favor.
3-He aint the sharpest tool in the shed but at least he tries.

Damn, looks like Bush is ahead again. Oh well. I vote for Mike Savage.

BoNe

[j2k4]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@27 July 2004 - 21:48
I"m indempendent.
What&#39;s that like?

:D

[longboneslinger]

:lol: It&#39;s a lot of fun&#33; :censored: typos&#33;&#33; Independent&#33;

Edit:
Paragraph of racist ranting removed. "Towel Head" is as racist as "nigger", and not all Muslims are trying to kill you or you&#39;d be dead already. Stop the racism please.

As for hopping in bed with a liberal, I&#39;ll be celibate first. At least with a conservative I can hope she aint been with everything that moves up to and including floor mounted vibraters powered by a kick-start Harley&#33;

Oh yeah, conservatives aren&#39;t &#39;dryed up&#39;. My wife is conservative and she bangs my brains out on a regular basis. Conservatives are just choosy about their partners. We tend to be faithful and not bang anything we can catch. We, in other words, have morals, principals, and taste.

Later taters,
BoNe

[j2k4]

You go, BoNe ;)

I am also blessed with a Conservative wife. :D

What I got a kick out of was Cosby flat going off with Jesse sitting there next to him, then Jesse presumes to tell the talking heads "what Bill really meant..."

I&#39;m pretty sure Cos can speak for himself, Jesse, and if you keep it up, maybe you&#39;ll find Bill&#39;s boot in your ass.

Hope springs eternal. :D

[Busyman]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@28 July 2004 - 20:52
:lol: It&#39;s a lot of fun&#33;&nbsp; :censored: typos&#33;&#33; Independent&#33;

Edit: Paragraph removed for Racist Ranting...see original Post

As for hopping in bed with a liberal, I&#39;ll be celibate first. At least with a conservative I can hope she aint been with everything that moves up to and including floor mounted vibraters powered by a kick-start Harley&#33;

Oh yeah, conservatives aren&#39;t &#39;dryed up&#39;. My wife is conservative and she bangs my brains out on a regular basis. Conservatives are just choosy about their partners. We tend to be faithful and not bang anything we can catch. We, in other words, have morals, principals, and taste.

Later taters,
BoNe
I think a STFU is in order.

Thanks now get your coat.

(whatever that shit means) :ph34r:


Edit:

Removed Racist Rant in the quote

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 July 2004 - 19:56
Vid you must be in heaven tonight with a Clinton on every station on the TV :lol: I have my TV unplugged ATM :D
just got back from Padre Island so I haven&#39;t been watching any Tv ( not that i do very much anyway )

I think Clinton did a good job, I am not in love with him.


Out of curiosity, if we didn&#39;t have the 2 term rule do you think that Bush would have won against Clinton?.
Try to think about how the country would vote and not just how you would.

Hank it seems awfully narrow minded of you to refuse to watch the "other side". How will you be able to make a thoughtful choice in November if you haven&#39;t been able to consider all the issues. Should i get time I will watch the republican do.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 July 2004 - 11:51
Hank it seems awfully narrow minded of you to refuse to watch the "other side". How will you be able to make a thoughtful choice in November if you haven&#39;t been able to consider all the issues. Should i get time I will watch the republican do.
Sean Hanity put it best when he called this the re-invention convention. It’s kind of like a giant version of extreme makeover show. Everyone does a 180 degree turn and try to act like they’re middle of the road and not so liberal on most issues. It’s not the real deal that we’re getting anyway.

And Vid lets be serious I think we all know where both candidates stand on most of the issues anyway.

I have seen some of the convention. It’s hard not to watch because its on all the news stations.

I did learn one thing about John Kerry from watching some of the convention: he served in Vietnam. Interesting.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 10:05
180 degree turn and try to act like they’re middle of the road and not so liberal on most issues. It’s not the real deal that we’re getting anyway.


I have lived and worked in the world and not just the USA...trust me hank we have no real "middle of the road" just those that are less right from the middle. To have a "middle of the road" we would need to have a left of middle.



Out of curiosity, if we didn&#39;t have the 2 term rule do you think that Bush would have won against Clinton?.
Try to think about how the country would vote and not just how you would.

Any thoughts yet?

[BigBank_Hank]

Honestly as much as it pains me to say it I think that Clinton would have won.

Clinton was the ultimate politician. He can lie, cheat and steal from the blind and people still love him. Just look at the ovation that he received when he spoke at the convention. People were going nuts. Clinton just has it.

BTW I forgot to ask earlier how was the trip?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 July 2004 - 12:22

Out of curiosity, if we didn&#39;t have the 2 term rule do you think that Bush would have won against Clinton?.
Try to think about how the country would vote and not just how you would.

Any thoughts yet?
Just a few.

In 1992, absent a Perot candidacy, Bush would have sent Clinton packing.

In 1996, absent a Perot candidacy, Dole just might have sent Clinton packing.

I think an empty Republican suit with a good line of bullshit would have beaten Clinton in 2000.

I am aware that Nader&#39;s candidacy turned the trick for Bush in 2000; but those who think Clinton was an incredibly strong candidate might consider that in neither of his two victories did Clinton poll as many votes as Bush did in 2000:

Clinton-1992: 44,909,326

Clinton-1996: 47,402,357

Bush-2000: 50,456,002

[Rat Faced]

And Bush didnt get as many as ?

[BigBank_Hank]

Rat AL GORE LOST&#33; Get over it.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 14:35
And Bush didnt get as many as ?
You never did cover the instruction I assigned you about the Electoral College, did you?

Tsk, Tsk.

[Rat Faced]

You brought pure numbers up :P

What are those figures expressed as a percentage of the electorate in those elections?

ie:
Is the number of potential voters a lot greater now than it was in 1992?

Is the turnout greater etc etc etc?


If you want to say Bush was stronger because more people voted for him, you should expect the response that more voted for Gore :P


Its not my fault that your a Republic and not a Democracy ;)

As to the electoral college....when you come back with a Review of Florida that shows the Republicans won taking into account the illegally disenfranchised and illegally disqualified "Over Votes" then i&#39;ll accept that Gore lost there, and those Electoral College votes were legal.... :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 14:57
Its not my fault that your a Republic and not a Democracy ;)

As to the electoral college....when you come back with a Review of Florida that shows the Republicans won taking into account the illegally disenfranchised and illegally disqualified "Over Votes" then i&#39;ll accept that Gore lost there, and those Electoral College votes were legal....&nbsp; :ph34r:
We are a Representative Republic, Rat.

Get it right.

I&#39;ve said it before:

Bush won the pure vote count in Florida (the ones that "weren&#39;t counted"); this count wasn&#39;t completed until about six months after Bush took office, but it was conducted under non-partisan auspices.

I read about the results in USA Today, which can in no way be characterized as a Republican/Conservative source.

And no, I&#39;m not going to google it again.

You, however, may feel free.

You should also note the recount did not include a large batch of absentee (military) ballots that would have overwhelmingly favored Bush.

One other point that is continually ignored when discussing Florida:

The big three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) put Florida in Gore&#39;s column about 1 1/2-2 hours before the polls closed; Many Bush voters reported not voting, therefore, as they assumed Bush had lost the state.

Polling places throughout the Florida panhandle reported drastic drops in voter traffic after the nets made their call.

As a sidenote, Florida was expected to be the key "early indicator" in the election returns, and it has been estimated that the attendent "Oh, skip it" phenomenon reduced the overall number of voters in westward time zones by as many as 2-3 million.

[vidcc]

So what would be a fairer way to elect a president.

by individual state or by the total number of votes nationwide?

[Darth Sushi]

I predict Bush will invade Iran or N. Korea before the elections. http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/whistle.gif

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@29 July 2004 - 15:41
So what would be a fairer way to elect a president.

by individual state or by the total number of votes nationwide?
The way we do it now is just fine; I don&#39;t think a case could be made there is a fairer system than the Electoral College.

2000 wasn&#39;t the first instance of differing popular and electoral results.

Actually, I think to play games with the system these days might be to risk civil war all over again, and it&#39;s a safe bet no one wants that again.

In any case, if the votes were tallied by individual state, the Dems would never win another election.

[Rat Faced]

I remember the USA Today (http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html) report...

Famous for what it didnt say, as much as what it did.

It found Gore would have won in 2 out of the 4 standards, and that the "Official" results in some counties were incorrect by a large enough margin to change the result of the election....

This is without taking the "disenfranchised" voters into account, or any of the other "funny business" that went on there.


The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today&#39;s readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 17:58
I remember the USA Today (http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.html) report...

Famous for what it didnt say, as much as what it did.

It found Gore would have won in 2 out of the 4 standards, and that the "Official" results in some counties were incorrect by a large enough margin to change the result of the election....

This is without taking the "disenfranchised" voters into account, or any of the other "funny business" that went on there.


The paper therefore included only the *official* results from the seven counties, even though its own investigation found that the official results had potentially missed enough Gore votes to change the outcome of the election. None of this was revealed to USA Today&#39;s readers. The April 4 article explained that the "official counts were final and would not have changed if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount."


AIM and MRC do the same type of work FAIR does, Rat.

Neither of them found any evidence of malfeasance in the recount, which, as I remember, was not conducted by USA Today, but by what were described by several papers (the info also appeared in both Detroit papers and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that I read) as independent and bipartisan.

If there were anything to the story you found, it would not have been left by, believe me.

The stories about disenfranchisement were also found to be without foundation, although there exists pictorial and video evidence of busloads of "disenfranchised" voters (black and otherwise) who were given rides from polling place to polling place to bang on about not being "allowed" to vote, when they were found to have indeed voted before boarding the buses to be trucked about to appear on camera hither and yon to protest.

They were sustained by doughnuts and coffee served throughout the day to keep them happy while cameras recorded the miracle of the same people being "turned away" at several different polling places during the day (you are only allowed to vote once, you see?); the conflict, obvious on the videotape, was somehow lost on the Dems and likewise the media, which failed to report the story.

I don&#39;t wonder why some prefer to believe the Democrats innocent of such things, when the media refuse to report it.

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@29 July 2004 - 11:05

Sean Hanity put it best when he called this the re-invention convention. It’s kind of like a giant version of extreme makeover show. Everyone does a 180 degree turn and try to act like they’re middle of the road and not so liberal on most issues. It’s not the real deal that we’re getting anyway.


And I suppose the irony of this totally escapes you, doesn&#39;t it, Hank?

Bush is busy morphing into the "Peace President" and with two months left to his reign has suddenly decided to turn his attention to domestic matters.
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).

What does Sean Hanity have to say about that?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 00:39
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).


Now that&#39;s just silly. :lol:

Empty election-year rhetoric; like attending a gunfight with a rubber knife. ;)

[clocker]

I notice that you can&#39;t dispute any of the statements, so I guess in this case a rubber knive is all it took.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+30 July 2004 - 13:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 30 July 2004 - 13:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 00:39
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).


Now that&#39;s just silly. :lol:

Empty election-year rhetoric; like attending a gunfight with a rubber knife. ;) [/b][/quote]
well i have to say i disagree with sprocket here and agree with J2










99% is just a made up figure....







I can&#39;t argue against the rest of what sprocket posted though

[j2k4]

Then it is as usual.

Generalized accusations with no specificity are accepted without reservation by the majority here, and it falls upon the dissenter to disprove them?

"George Bush is a bad guy."

"John Kerry is a good guy".

Prove or disprove either statement.

Anybody?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 July 2004 - 19:16
Then it is as usual.

Generalized accusations with no specificity are accepted without reservation by the majority here, and it falls upon the dissenter to disprove them?


Oh get off your horse...what are you complaining about?

You&#39;re the guy who just posted the Lowry article and prefaced it by saying -

This is an accurate summation of how the Anti-Bushies think:
and you want to bitch about me making "generalized accusations"?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@30 July 2004 - 00:39

Bush is busy morphing into the "Peace President" and with two months left to his reign has suddenly decided to turn his attention to domestic matters.
I guess we can ignore the fact that he has spent 99% of his term dismantling every environmental law he could find, handing giant government handouts to his pharmaceutical corporate sponsors and actively abusing the civil rights of every American ( not to mention many foriegn nationals).


Okay, Clocker-

Suppose you expand on Sprocket&#39;s post yourself?

Provide the evidence, background and other court-worthy material you demand whenever a conservative uses similar tactics?

As you would say:

Prove it.

And, since I&#39;m not feeling awfully generous, don&#39;t forget the 99% part, huh?

If you come up with a response, be prepared for that to be spun and mis-characterized and dropped right back in your lap.

It&#39;s a nice smooth road to travel, requiring no real effort or thought at all; I&#39;ll travel that road with you, but I may be going in a different direction.

I seem to be firmly fixed to this bloody horse, you see?

[clocker]

Environmental record:
http://www.environment2004.org/br_home.php
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environm...ntalRecord.html (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Bush&#39;sEnvironmentalRecord.html)
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...6,71809,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,71809,00.html)

Pharmaceutical connections:
http://www.newstarget.com/001345.html
http://flara.org/bushandpharm20sep00.htm
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
http://dossiers.genfoods.net/bcorp.html

Civil liberties:
http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaySt...tory_id=1622138 (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1622138)



Figured I&#39;d save some bandwidth.

[j2k4]

From the FOXNEWS link:

Democrats awarded Jeffords with the chairmanship of the environment committee after he left the Republican Party in June 2001 to become an independent, a move that gave Democrats control of the Senate. He will lose that position in January when Republicans again become the majority party following gains in the midterm election.

Jim Jeffords was an embarrassment to the Republican party, much as Lowell Weicker was, and Arlen Specter is.

None of them are exactly principled individuals.

Jeffords sold himself to the Dems, it&#39;s as simple as that.

From the http://flara.org/bushandpharm20sep00.htm link:

BUSH CLOSE TO DRUG INDUSTRY

Bush Has Taken &#036;385, 315 From Pharmaceutical Companies. The Wall Street Journal reported, "According to election records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, pharmaceutical manufacturers gave almost as much, &#036;385,315, in hopes that Mr. Bush will help them fend off government efforts to control drug prices." [Wall Street Journal, 7/31/00]

Implying the WSJ agrees that this money was somehow spent nefariously, in an effort to stave off price controls?

Hell, nobody liked it when Nixon did it; why should the drug companies want it?

From the same site:

Pharmaceutical Companies Ran Scare Ads. The pharmaceutical industry-backed Citizens for Better Medicare ran print, radio, and television ads warning that Congressional regulation of drug prices will result in "Canadian-style government price controls and government-run health care." The ads imply that unhappiness with their health care system has driven Canadians into the United States for medicine. [Associated Press, 4/18/00]

This is legitimate as long as Canadians are coming south for any medical procedure; to call them "Scare Ads" is a typical liberal tactic, that is to say, if the Libs say it&#39;s a good thing, and the drug companies object, any expression thereof is a "Scare Ad".

Seems a bit one-sided, doesn&#39;t it?

From http://dossiers.genfoods.net/bcorp.html:

Tom Dorr, undersecretary of agriculture
This is a somewhat complex case. In August of 2002, Bush appointed Tom Dorr as undersecretary of agriculture. He did so when congress was out of town because Dorr had already failed to get through the agriculture commmittee (with 9 of 10 Republicans too embarrassed to vote). Why? Because as a businessman, Dorr admitted he pushed the laws to the limit to boost farm subsidies. Slate picks up the story:


"Then, in February of this year, somebody leaked to the Des Moines Register an audiotape of a phone conversation between Dorr and another person, evidently his brother. The fact that Dorr hasn&#39;t questioned the tape&#39;s authenticity or its origin suggests that it may have been made by government investigators. On it, Dorr said he had arranged two family trusts &#39;to quite frankly avoid minimum payment limitations.&#39; Under the law, no person or corporation could receive more than &#036;50,000 a year in federal farm subsidies. Dorr was trying to evade that cap. Was his method of doing so proper? &#39;I have no idea if it&#39;s legal. Nobody&#39;s ever called me on it,&#39; he said on the tape. &#39;I suspect if they&#39;d audit, and if somebody decided to come in and take a look at this thing, they could probably, if they really wanted to, raise hell with us.&#39; Bush&#39;s hypocrisy about high ethical standards is only half the story. The other half is his administration&#39;s hypocrisy about farm subsidies. In a letter three years ago, Dorr posed as a critic of corporate welfare for farmers, accusing Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and other lawmakers of "maintaining a constituency dependent on government revenue." Dorr told senators that through "taxation and subsidy games, you collectively are responsible for turning Iowa into a state of peasants totally dependent on your largesse." But at his hearing last March, Dorr defended his handout hogging by telling senators that he and other farmers tried to avoid caps on payments just as taxpayers try to limit their tax liability. He seemed oblivious to the distinction between paying less money to the government in taxes and getting more money from it in subsidies. Slate, Aug 30, 02

Farm subsidies suck.

End of story.

SUV Promotion


Detroit -- The Bush administration&#39;s economic plan would increase by 50 percent or more the deductions small-business owners can take right away on the biggest sport utility vehicles and pickups.

The plan would mean small businesses could deduct immediately the entire price of SUVs, such as the Hummer H2, the Lincoln Navigator and the Toyota Land Cruiser, even if the vehicles were loaded with every available option. Or a business owner, taking full advantage, could buy a BMW X5 sport utility vehicle for a few hundred dollars more than a Pontiac Bonneville sedan after the immediate tax deductions were factored in.

Tax experts and environmentalists say the plan would provide enormous incentives for businesses to choose the biggest gas-guzzling trucks because it takes several years to depreciate the cost of passenger cars and smaller sport utility vehicles. SF Chronicle, Jan 21, 03

I agree, but talk to me about it when John Kerry admits it is he who owns the SUVs, not "the family".

Enron Connections

"President Bush had business ties with Enron and its predecessor companies, and first met Kenneth Lay, its chairman, sometime in the late 1980s, according to public records and interviews. Previously, the president had not mentioned his business dealings with Enron and had said that he got to know Lay after he was elected governor of Texas in 1994. On Tuesday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett told the Tribune that Bush&#39;s relationship with Lay probably started when Bush was in Washington in 1987 and 1988, working on his father&#39;s presidential campaign. It could have started earlier, he said. "He does not recall specifics" of the first time he met Lay, Bartlett said. &#39;He met him through his father and through his father&#39;s political activity.&#39;" --Chicago Tribune, March 6, &#39;02.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but I think it says he "met" and "knew" Kenneth Lay, and if the term "business dealings" were any less amorphous, maybe they would have recounted the exact nature of these "business dealings"; if there was any fire to go with the "smoke", It only makes sense they would say, don&#39;t you think?

I don&#39;t even care to look, but I&#39;m betting Lay knew lots of liberals, too; do you want to paint them with your broad brush?

I could keep on, here, but this is all nonsense and you know it.

You or I could come up with the same stuff about anybody under the sun, and it doesn&#39;t mean a fucking thing.

This is a supreme waste of time; I&#39;ve said it before, and I&#39;ll say it again:

Take away the google search, and 90% of the people here are totally lost.

[longboneslinger]

First-Sorry about the &#39;rascist rant&#39;. Whoever edited me (Rat ?) was correct for doing so. I was wrong, since I&#39;ve met and worked with Muslims I should have known better. I appologize.

Second- j2k4, u can give up. Liberals in general are not interested in such trivialities as Truth or Facts. They just muddy the water. Lets go with what &#39;feels good&#39;. It&#39;s called &#39;Moral Relitivism&#39; and &#39;Socialism&#39;. Both, IMO, can be grouped under the heading of Shared Idiocy.

Third- Will we ever hear the end of "They stole the election from Gore....." Where&#39;s the proof of the &#39;dienfranchised&#39; voters?
There was a Dem in Florida caught the day of the election with a voting machine in his trunk. Interesting, huh? He won his election by 1% of the vote against a Rep. More interesting. It barely made Florida news. I had to hear about it on talk radio and go to the Florida papers website to read it. Even more interesting. If he&#39;d been a Rep, it&#39;d been plastered on the front pages and all over the Big 3.

Face it, folks, the reporters in the US are 90%+ registered Dems. That they favor the Dems is as plain as day if you switch between CBS, NBC,CNN, etc and check out some like Fox.

As a further note for the record: I am independent. NOT Dem or Rep. I think both are corrupt and sold the US out long ago. In the Reps favor, at lest they don&#39;t hide that they are big business. The Dems do. Badly, but they pretend to be for the little folk. The Dems are just better salespeople. Period.

Example: Billybob Clinton -a lier, an adulterer, and a traitor. He could sell sand in the desert and ice to Eskimo&#39;s. What good did he do in specific? Err...no idea. None.

Ok, flame retardant suit, gloves, helmet, and riot gear with body shield in place.
Rebuttals ready and loaded.
Middle finger extended.
Commence attack.

Later taters,
BoNe

[Alex H]

Originally posted by longboneslinger+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (longboneslinger)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Liberals in general are not interested in such trivialities as Truth or Facts. They just muddy the water. Lets go with what &#39;feels good&#39;.[/b] Like bombing the shit out of Iraq, oh, wait that was...

<!--QuoteBegin-longboneslinger
I am independent. NOT Dem or Rep. I think both are corrupt and sold the US out long ago. In the Reps favor, at lest they don&#39;t hide that they are big business.[/quote]

Thats like a paedophile saying "I am comfortable with my sexuality". Who cares? You can still fuck off and die. Being open about your bad side doesn&#39;t make you less bad, it just means you can add a little bit of honesty to your virtues. "Hey, we dump toxic chemicals next to a school - but at leat we&#39;re honest about it&#33;"


Example: Billybob Clinton -a lier, an adulterer, and a traitor.
1. I think you meant LIAR - If we accept that all politicians are liars, you&#39;re going to have to be more specific. If it&#39;s about Monica, see 2.
2. How the f*ck is that any of your business? Why do you care? How would you feel if Clinton came around to your place and demanded you tell him about your sexual preferences and a list of people you&#39;d slept with so he could check up on them too?
3. Ah, the last word for those who can&#39;t think of abetter insult. Again could you be a bit more specifc? Do you have some evidence that Clinton sold nuclear weapons to Al Quada that has not come to light yet, or was that lump of mud just to good to leave unslung?


What good did he do in specific? Perhaps you were too busy fantasizing about his cigars to pay attention to his policies.

[clocker]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@1 August 2004 - 13:04


Face it, folks, the reporters in the US are 90%+ registered Dems. That they favor the Dems is as plain as day if you switch between CBS, NBC,CNN, etc and check out some like Fox.


What an interesting piece of bushwa.

Face it folks....you&#39;re just making stuff up.

[spinningfreemanny]

There was this site called "amiregisteredtovoteornot.com" that displayed party affiliation among NYC voters. It ended up that whatever name you typed in it would show what party it was registered to. I guess that now the site was taken down, but the thread associated with it is pretty informing; if true.

Thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b867a277d0a.htm)


Edit: another interesting read with some numbers in it&#39;s site

Media Bias (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp)

[clocker]

Manny,

If the media is so overwhelmingly biased then how come the American populace at large isn&#39;t overwhelmingly Liberal?

Conservatives love to whine about the "liberal media" while they seem to be in majority somehow.
Where are the poor, beset conservatives getting their information...underground newsletters?

[spinningfreemanny]

Well because most Americans are not dissuaded by the news.

ok, why is that Manuel? here goes...

1. Most people are aware of media bias (google a gallup poll)

2. Family ties, not media, are main dictators of political preference.

If you don&#39;t like the media; change the channel; Why do you thin FOX is doing so well?

It&#39;s not something that your subjected to like ultra-liberal college professors.

oop; here it comes...Universities have no political bias&#33;

[clocker]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 23:49
Well because most Americans are not dissuaded by the news.

ok, why is that Manuel? here goes...


Close.

IMO, most Americans aren&#39;t aware of facts.

That would, of course, explain the popularity of Fox News.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by clocker+3 August 2004 - 06:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 3 August 2004 - 06:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 23:49
Well because most Americans are not dissuaded by the news.

ok, why is that Manuel? here goes...


Close.

IMO, most Americans aren&#39;t aware of facts.

That would, of course, explain the popularity of Fox News. [/b][/quote]
lol, smooth clocker.

actually its you whose close; I&#39;m right on. ;)


If it is in fact that the liberal media does dissuade many people, Imagine what the Conservative-Liberal ratio would be in the U.S. without the bias&#33;

[clocker]

You think that Americans are inherently conservative?

[MagicNakor]

Well, the United States of America *was* founded by puritans. ;)

:ninja:

[clocker]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@3 August 2004 - 07:40
Well, the United States of America *was* founded by puritans. ;)

:ninja:
Who proceeded to discover alcohol and revolution.

[MagicNakor]

If you lived in the middle of the forest, you&#39;d understand the need for alcohol too. Although I don&#39;t really see the need to ban it (although, granted, that was a bit after founding).

Which I&#39;ve apparently had too much of tonight. ;)

:ninja:

[spinningfreemanny]

Well, I can&#39;t speak for America; but wouldn&#39;t conservative thinking be given a one up without a liberal media?

the idea is moot though; as I previously stated, I don&#39;t think that the liberal media serverely affects the voting; maybe about 3%of the population that believes what they see on TV.

[Biggles]

Why is it that being a Liberal and working in the media go hand in hand and not, for example, being a coal miner?

Although come to think of it the UK coal miners were almost to a man communist. :)

[clocker]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 10:11
maybe about 3%of the population that believes what they see on TV.
Explain American Idol then, please.

Or the overwhelming support for the Iraqi incursion that Bush conjured from thin air.

[spinningfreemanny]

Sorry for inexact languege: 3% of the population that believes everything They see on TV relating to news media.

[clocker]

And, presumably, that hapless 3% consists of benighted liberal Democrats.

Just out of idle curiousity...what do you suppose the results of an exit poll at a WWF event would be?

[j2k4]

Clocker-

The following was taken from the Media Research Center&#39;s website; the MRC is a Conservative institution, granted, but see for yourself whence comes the source material for this article.

Please read it, then comment.



The Liberal Media
Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than
the American Public — And the Public Knows It

By Rich Noyes
Director of Research
June 30, 2004
Section 1 of 4

Over the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an all-American mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents, but an elite group whose views veer sharply to the left.

Most journalists deny that their profession is stacked with liberals. “I’ve worked around reporters all my life,” CBS anchor Dan Rather declared in an appearance on The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder back on February 8, 1995. “Most reporters, when you get to know them, would fall in the general category of kind of common sense moderates.”

ABC’s Peter Jennings echoed Rather. “We are largely in the center without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage — at least certainly not on purpose,” Jennings told CNN’s Larry King on May 15, 2001.

“The idea that we would set out, consciously or unconsciously, to put some kind of ideological framework over what we’re doing is nonsense,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw similarly declared on C-SPAN just a few days later, on May 24, 2001.

But study after study shows that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are wrong: the newsrooms of major media outlets are not filled with non-ideological “common sense moderates,” nor do they reflect a diverse range of ideological viewpoints. Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found journalists are much more liberal than rest of America. Their voting habits are disproportionately Democratic, their views on issues such as abortion and gay rights are well to the left of most Americans and they are less likely to attend church or synagogue. When it comes to the free market, journalists have become increasingly pro-regulation over the past 20 years, with majorities endorsing activist government efforts to guarantee everyone a job and to reduce the income gap between rich and poor Americans.

This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalists’ attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years.

Journalists on Election Day: Pulling the Democratic Lever

Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every single election.

In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation’s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats:

Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent.

Lichter’s team focused on journalists at the very top national news organizations. Other surveys of journalists have discovered that the whole profession shares the same liberal bent, although the media elite’s liberalism is the most extreme:

• Journalists Picked Carter over Reagan: In 1982, scholars at California State University at Los Angeles asked reporters from the fifty largest newspapers for whom they voted in 1980. The breakdown: 51 percent cast a ballot for President Jimmy Carter and another 24 percent chose independent candidate (and liberal Republican Congressman) John Anderson. Only 25 percent picked conservative Ronald Reagan, who won 51 percent of the public’s vote that year.

• Journalists Picked Mondale over Reagan: In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled news and editorial staffers at newspapers around the country, weighting the sample so that newspapers with large circulations were more heavily represented. Once again, pollsters discovered a heavy Democratic skew. When asked how they voted in the 1984 election, more than twice as many chose liberal Walter Mondale (58 percent) over the conservative incumbent Ronald Reagan (26 percent), even as the country picked Reagan in a 59 to 41 percent landslide.

• The White House Press Corps Voted for Democrats: In early 1995, Ken Walsh of U.S. News & World Report asked his fellow White House reporters to fill out a survey for a book he was writing; 28 returned his questionnaire. He concluded that “the White House press corps is overwhelmingly Democratic, confirming a stereotype often promoted by Republicans.” Interestingly, he also learned how much reporters dislike being on the receiving end of personal inquiries: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures,” Walsh related in his 1996 book, Feeding the Beast: The White House Versus the Press.

So what did the few forthright scribes reveal? As with larger, more scientific surveys, Walsh discovered “evidence of an overwhelming preference for Democrats in presidential elections. In 1992, nine respondents voted for Clinton, two for George Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot....In 1988, twelve voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, only one for Bush....In 1984, ten voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, [and] no one admitted voting for Ronald Reagan....In 1980, eight voted for Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, two voted for Ronald Reagan, four voted for independent candidate John Anderson....In 1976, eleven voted for Carter and two for Republican incumbent Gerald Ford.” That adds up to 50 votes for Democrats and just seven for Republicans, a seven-to-one ratio in favor of the Democrats.

• Huge Majorities for Dukakis and Clinton: In 2001, Stanley Rothman and Amy E. Black updated the Media Elite’s survey of journalists, and learned that reporters continued to select Democrats. “Three-quarters of elite journalists (76.1 percent)...voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and even larger percentages (91.3 percent)...cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992,” they reported in the Spring 2001 edition of The Public Interest. Voters were far less exuberant about those liberal candidates, as just 46 percent chose Dukakis and only 43 percent picked Clinton, who nevertheless won a three-way race.

• Nine Out of Ten Reporters Voted for Clinton: Rothman and Black’s survey closely matched a Freedom Forum poll of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, which found 89 percent had voted for Clinton in the 1992 election, compared with seven percent for President Bush and two percent for Ross Perot. “In no state or region, among no race or class, did support for Clinton predominate more lopsidedly than among this sample of 139 journalists who either cover Congress or head a Washington bureau,” summarized Minneapolis Star-Tribune media writer Eric Black in an August 18, 1996 article.

The Freedom Forum was not aiming to embarrass journalists by quantifying their liberalism. The report, on relations between Capitol Hill staffers and Washington, D.C. reporters, was released in April 1996, and the data on journalists’ voting pattern was buried in an appendix. The study’s director, former Chicago Tribune reporter Elaine Povich, gamely asserted that reporters’ heavy preference for Bill Clinton did not mean that journalists’ were incapable of being objective. “One of the things about being a professional is that you attempt to leave your personal feelings aside as you do your work,” Povich told the Washington Times on April 18, 1996.

Taken as a whole, these polls firmly establish the press’s pattern of preferring Democrats at the voting booth. During the eight presidential elections for which data on the media’s preferences are available, each Democrat won landslide support from journalists, sometimes by four-to-one or five-to-one margins. The percentage of reporters selecting the GOP candidate never exceeded 26 percent, even as the public chose Republicans in five of the eight elections, with margins of support ranging from a low of 38 percent (Bush in 1992) to a high of 61 percent (Nixon in 1972).

At a minimum, these statistics portray a media elite whose political thinking is to the left of most Americans. Hosting CNN’s Reliable Sources on April 21, 1996, Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz reacted to the Freedom Forum’s poll: “Clearly anybody looking at those numbers, if they’re even close to accurate, would conclude that there is a diversity problem in the news business, and it’s not just the kind of diversity we usually talk about, which is not getting enough minorities in the news business, but political diversity, as well. Anybody who doesn’t see that is just in denial.”

[clocker]

j2,

As you know, I have had an intimate relationship with a portion of the "media" you describe.
Some observations:

Despite their personal political views, the primary function of ANY journalist today ( especially television) is to deliver viewers into the clutches of advertisers.
Journalism is BIG Business- and big business seems to be inherently conservative (and demonstrably Republican, judging by the campaign fundraising success of Bush/Cheney).
If Brokaw/Jennings, et al. were as rampantly biased as you and others seem to believe, then how do explain the fact that they haven&#39;t been replaced by talking heads more attuned to their master&#39;s wishes?
If this bias was overt as you assert, it would be quashed immediately...it would be bad for business and above all, news is business.

Despite the privately held beliefs espoused over late night drinks in Georgetown, any secret Liberal agenda falls quickly by the wayside if it impedes getting some quality facetime on the tube.
Look at the lead up to and early days of the Iraqi invasion....even the most (reputedly) liberal journalists were tripping over themselves ( and in the process abandoning any pretense of jounalistic integrity/distance) to get "embedded" with "our boys" on the front.
A masterpiece of political manipulation of the press, the coverage of the war was a perfectly executed set piece for the Bush administration...this is the "liberal media" at work?
Who&#39;s agenda was being promoted here?

Lastly...
Constantly baying about the "liberal media" implies that you believe that the media is somehow responsible for warping the sensibilities of the average American.
"Why those poor rubes are being spoonfed a secret agenda by the press and I&#39;m gonna save them from their ignorance by showing how misled they really are&#33;"

That sounds suspiciously like the very same elitist attitude that you accuse the media and liberals of having.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@3 August 2004 - 19:43
Journalism is BIG Business- and big business seems to be inherently conservative (and demonstrably Republican, judging by the campaign fundraising success of Bush/Cheney).

We could start right here (and I shall, for it is late, and my bed is calling); Big Business is Capitalistic, and has no conscience, nor any allegience other than to stockholders and the bottom line.

The fact of Conservative "friendliness" to big business is as much perception as reality; this presumption is more true as it applies to industry, but a slightly tighter focus reveals that the media doesn&#39;t differentiate in any practical/functional way between the parties.

So, for tonight, let&#39;s stop there:

Big Media is not to be confused with Big Industry.

BTW-I checked prices; I can&#39;t even afford a down-payment on the "Elitist Starter-Kit". ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@3 August 2004 - 20:30

We could start right here (and I shall, for it is late, and my bed is calling); Big Business is Capitalistic, and has no conscience, nor any allegience other than to stockholders and the bottom line.


OK.

Whoopi Goldberg loses her job as spokesperson for Slimfast hours after making contraversial comments at fundraiser.
Fine.
Slimfast fears that her continued association with their product might affect the bottom line.
Fine.
Slimfast has no problem advertising on the Nightly News while the talking head secretly pushes his liberal agenda on those very same consumers they were concerned about alienating before.
Hmmm.
You REALLY need to inform these poor companies about what&#39;s going on, j2.

You might even get a percentage of the new found profits.
Then you could afford the Elitist Starter Kit.

Although you sem to be doing fine with your home built model.

[longboneslinger]

Wish I had time to really get into this, but I gotta go back to work....and I juat got off a 12 hout shift....damnit...

I had to say this though. To j2k4, have you noticed that no one has mentioned that more and more Americans are turning to Fox to get their news. Not becouse they are biased. They are. Slightly to toward moderates but hugely towards the truth. The truth upsets the Liberals. It can hurt someones feelings.

The idiot Republicans are at least trying to fight the terrorists. The Dems didn&#39;t mention it at DemCon. To busy trying to push moral relativism . They have discovered the secret to winning. Keep us focused on racism and keep us divided. There is racism, no doubt. But it&#39;s no where near as bad as they claim. We need to focus on the real rascists-Terrorists. If we are to survive, they can&#39;t. Cold but true. You don&#39;t try to reason with a rabid animal. You kill it. You make damn sure that those who aid and harbor maddogs know the price.

Bottom line: As long as we&#39;re fighting among ourselves, we won&#39;t unite. United we stand, divided we fall.

Later,
BoNe

[j2k4]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@5 August 2004 - 19:39

I had to say this though. To j2k4, have you noticed that no one has mentioned that more and more Americans are turning to Fox to get their news. Not becouse they are biased. They are. Slightly to toward moderates but hugely towards the truth. The truth upsets the Liberals. It can hurt someones feelings.


SSSSHHHHHHHHHH.....C&#39;mon, Bone; loose lips sink....well, you know the rest.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 05:49
If you don&#39;t like the media; change the channel; Why do you think FOX is doing so well?
stated and emphatically ignored.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+5 August 2004 - 19:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny &#064; 5 August 2004 - 19:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 05:49
If you don&#39;t like the media; change the channel; Why do you think FOX is doing so well?
stated and emphatically ignored.[/b][/quote]
Sorry-must have missed yours...

Hey, guys-manny&#39;s got a FOX thread; it&#39;s right on&#33;
:)

[longboneslinger]

Hey Manny, LOVE yer sig&#33; Nice work.

Want some proof of the liberal bias? Here. The LIberal rags are reporting that John Kerrys &#39;Best defense could be that all of those who served with him in Vietnam support his campaign." I heard a radio interview with a state Dem Party leader who said that he talked to all of the ones who served with Kerry. All the networks are reporting him as a hero. Not one of the big 3 is showing this ad. Wanna see some shit on the Democratic Nominee of President of the United States?

Here ya go: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (http://www.swiftvets.com/)

Later,
BoNe

[j2k4]

Pretty effective, BoNe. ;)

Good work.

[longboneslinger]

Wasn&#39;t ganna do it, but screw it.....even I have my limits on pure childish stupidity. So as to what alex h the evil origami said==>


QUOTE (longboneslinger)
Liberals in general are not interested in such trivialities as Truth or Facts. They just muddy the water. Lets go with what &#39;feels good&#39;.

Like bombing the shit out of Iraq, oh, wait that was...
Someone finally putting paid to Saddams account. It should have been done 12 years ago. Billy bombed cossavo and you cheared, W does it and the hypocrits boo.

QUOTE (longboneslinger)
I am independent. NOT Dem or Rep. I think both are corrupt and sold the US out long ago. In the Reps favor, at lest they don&#39;t hide that they are big business.

Thats like a paedophile saying "I am comfortable with my sexuality". Who cares? You can still fuck off and die. Being open about your bad side doesn&#39;t make you less bad, it just means you can add a little bit of honesty to your virtues. "Hey, we dump toxic chemicals next to a school - but at leat we&#39;re honest about it&#33;"


"You can just fuck off and die." Now theres an intelligent and adult comeback. I stated that so it would be known that I&#39;m not a party hack like you who yammers the party line like a good little talking head.

QUOTE&nbsp;
Example: Billybob Clinton -a lier, an adulterer, and a traitor.


1. I think you meant LIAR - If we accept that all politicians are liars, you&#39;re going to have to be more specific. If it&#39;s about Monica, see 2.
2. How the f*ck is that any of your business? Why do you care? How would you feel if Clinton came around to your place and demanded you tell him about your sexual preferences and a list of people you&#39;d slept with so he could check up on them too?
3. Ah, the last word for those who can&#39;t think of abetter insult. Again could you be a bit more specifc? Do you have some evidence that Clinton sold nuclear weapons to Al Quada that has not come to light yet, or was that lump of mud just to good to leave unslung?

1:Pardon my typo. I&#39;ll bet you make someone a really good secretary. Just remember to dust yer knees off before you leave the bosses office. Now go get me a cup of coffee and shut up.
2:That he went to such great lengths to hide it shows how badly he wanted to cover it up. He was compromised. Someone as important as him, whether as Pres of a CEO, is subject to being compromised. We call it extortion and blackmail. Also, it&#39;s a known fact that men like to brag to lovers. The Pres knows way to much to let this happen. This had to be investigated. If he&#39;d just admitted it, nothing could or would have been said by the public. He made it big by by abusing the power of his office and lieing to a Grand Jury. Besides, the Pres should be held to a higher standard. I don&#39;t want the leader of my nation to be a 2 bit skirt chaser. If he has no more self control and self respect than that, he&#39;s unfit to be a leader. Period.
3:Actually, Bill got most of his money from the Chinese. Why else should they get Most Favored Nation trading status with a multi-billion dollar trade deficit and a list of human rights abuses longer than Saddams? How else did an unknown form Arkansas get the millions of dollars neccessary to catapult him to the office of President? The process usually takes years of ass kissing and towing the party line (Like you do so well) to attain nomination.

Sorry for the long post.all.

Alex, you have the perfect avatar. A wadded up piece of paper. Empty of thought, morals and pricipals. Just an ugly little figure head. Now be a good little secretary and proof read this and gleefully point out my typos. Just remember to dust off yer knees before you leave my office. Good little boy.

Later,
BoNe

[clocker]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@7 August 2004 - 08:18
Wasn&#39;t ganna do it, but screw it.....even I have my limits on pure childish stupidity.
Funniest thing...me too.


Example: Billybob Clinton -a lier, an adulterer, and a traitor....3:Actually, Bill got most of his money from the Chinese. Why else should they get Most Favored Nation trading status with a multi-billion dollar trade deficit and a list of human rights abuses longer than Saddams? How else did an unknown form Arkansas get the millions of dollars neccessary to catapult him to the office of President?

Surely you jest.

[longboneslinger]

No clocker, no jesting. Fine, tell me oh wise one: Where did Billy get his millions? Hmmm....Big Business? Naaahhhh.......he&#39;d never take money from peeps who want to get their stuff made in China cus it&#39;s cheaper. That would take away jobs from Americans. He&#39;d never do that. That whole NAFTA (North American FREE Trade Aliance) thing is part of a vast right wing plot.
You remember NAFTA don&#39;t you. You know, when Billy sent millions of American jobs to Mexico. Maybe the Mexicans helped fund his campaign? Nahhh....everyone knows that the job losses are all Bush&#39;s fault.
Hell, that whole thing at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laborotories) was part of that before mentioned Right Wing Conspiricy, too, right? You remember. That&#39;s when our state of the art, top of the line nuclear warhead designs were sold to China. That&#39;s after Billy was warned about the security there. Repeatedly.
Oh yeah, and 911 was Bush&#39;s fault too. Even though Billy had warnings too. It&#39;s a vaaaast conspiricy alrighty.

Later,
BoNe

[clocker]

Bone,
This discourse ( such as it is) would be far more productive if you picked ONE crackpot theory to ride to death rather than changing horses like a Pony Express rider.

Oh yeah, and 911 was Bush&#39;s fault too. Even though Billy had warnings too. It&#39;s a vaaaast conspiricy alrighty.

NO ONE is ( or has) claimed that Bush was reponsible for 9/11.
It&#39;s his subsequent actions that I object to.

Where did Billy get his millions? Hmmm....Big Business? Naaahhhh.......he&#39;d never take money from peeps who want to get their stuff made in China cus it&#39;s cheaper. That would take away jobs from Americans. He&#39;d never do that. That whole NAFTA (North American FREE Trade Aliance) thing is part of a vast right wing plot.
It&#39;s good to know that Bush has put an end to this.
In a parallel universe, apparently.
If he could effect this change in our continuum I&#39;d be happier of course.

Hell, that whole thing at JPL (Jet Propulsion Laborotories) was part of that before mentioned Right Wing Conspiricy, too, right? You remember. That&#39;s when our state of the art, top of the line nuclear warhead designs were sold to China. That&#39;s after Billy was warned about the security there. Repeatedly.
Do you mean Los Alamos perhaps?

[SpamhandEl]

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush&#39;s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can&#39;t find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can&#39;t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans&#39; benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won&#39;t have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco&#39;s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary&#39;s cattle trades, but George Bush&#39;s driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you&#39;re a conservative radio host. Then it&#39;s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states&#39; rights, but Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the &#39;80s is irrelevant.

Feel free to pass this on. If you don&#39;t copy and send this on to at least 10 other people, we&#39;re likely to be stuck with Bush for 4 more years.

Friends don&#39;t let friends vote Republican.

[j2k4]

Oh, my-chain profundity&#33;

You&#39;ve changed my mind. ;)

[longboneslinger]

Actually spam, you scared me with this line:

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today

After all, your rant was correct inasfar as it went. You just blamed it all on the Reps. Sadly, this is untrue. The Dems did the same shit.

1:Homosexuality is wrong. God said it, not me. Go argue with him about it. Maybe he&#39;ll change the Word for you. I doubt it, but it&#39;s up to Him. Just listen as you talk to Him. You might get an answer.
2:Saddam was never a good guy. Reagen was wrong. Ooops, Reps have to be held accountable for their actions. My bad.
3:Trade with Cuba, China, and all communist nations is wrong. But Billy Bob Clinton gave Red China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. That&#39;s ok, though, he&#39;s a Dem.
4:We should dump the United Nations idiots. But if they wanna help in Iraq, fine. The more the merrier. It&#39;s a totally FUBAR now, so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.
5:Women, etc., I believe refers to abortion. Sorry, I am a former fetus who chooses life. Abortion is the legal &#39;right&#39; to murder children. Life is a gift from God. His to give, His to take. Refer to 1 for arguments. It aint in the Bible, but then again, it wasn&#39;t a problem then.
6: Fuckit. I&#39;m out of patience. I did 5, maybe j2k4 or hank will take the rest.

Just remember this before you get on the soupbox: I agree with you. It&#39;s just not only the Reps. The Dems are just as dirty. Wake up. Our government has sold us out. The people vote for whoever is the best looking and will give the most hand-outs. Stop looking to only one party. Thats a cows &#39;follow the herd&#39; mentality. Your rant shows that you are neither stupid nor a cow. Stop acting like one. Personally, I see little dif between Bush and Kerry. I just think Kerry is the worse choice. Check out this link and think about Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (http://www.swiftvets.com)

"A democracy will only stand untill it&#39;s populace discovers that it can vote itself largesse (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=largesse) from the Treasury. It will then collapse under fiscal iresponsibility." In other words, once the gov finds out it can buy you, it&#39;ll break the bank to do so.

Later all,
BoNe

[Busyman]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@11 August 2004 - 21:50
Actually spam, you scared me with this line:

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today

After all, your rant was correct inasfar as it went. You just blamed it all on the Reps. Sadly, this is untrue. The Dems did the same shit.

1:Homosexuality is wrong. God said it, not me. Go argue with him about it. Maybe he&#39;ll change the Word for you. I doubt it, but it&#39;s up to Him. Just listen as you talk to Him. You might get an answer.
2:Saddam was never a good guy. Reagen was wrong. Ooops, Reps have to be held accountable for their actions. My bad.
3:Trade with Cuba, China, and all communist nations is wrong. But Billy Bob Clinton gave Red China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. That&#39;s ok, though, he&#39;s a Dem.
4:We should dump the United Nations idiots. But if they wanna help in Iraq, fine. The more the merrier. It&#39;s a totally FUBAR now, so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.
5:Women, etc., I believe refers to abortion. Sorry, I am a former fetus who chooses life. Abortion is the legal &#39;right&#39; to murder children. Life is a gift from God. His to give, His to take. Refer to 1 for arguments. It aint in the Bible, but then again, it wasn&#39;t a problem then.
6: Fuckit. I&#39;m out of patience. I did 5, maybe j2k4 or hank will take the rest.

Just remember this before you get on the soupbox: I agree with you. It&#39;s just not only the Reps. The Dems are just as dirty. Wake up. Our government has sold us out. The people vote for whoever is the best looking and will give the most hand-outs. Stop looking to only one party. Thats a cows &#39;follow the herd&#39; mentality. Your rant shows that you are neither stupid nor a cow. Stop acting like one. Personally, I see little dif between Bush and Kerry. I just think Kerry is the worse choice. Check out this link and think about Kerry. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (http://www.swiftvets.com)

"A democracy will only stand untill it&#39;s populace discovers that it can vote itself largesse (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=largesse) from the Treasury. It will then collapse under fiscal iresponsibility." In other words, once the gov finds out it can buy you, it&#39;ll break the bank to do so.

Later all,
BoNe
Are you for the death penalty?

[Alex H]

Bone - First the "fuck off and die" comment was not aimed at you. I was showing my disgust at the idea of an out-of-the-closet paedophile. We&#39;ll leave the comments about my avatar alone as well, because you probably thought I was flaming you and you fired back.

Second, I&#39;ll forget about the proof reading because you have so many typos in your posts that I would need a few hours to correct them all. I hope this is due to poor typing skills because I would hate to think that such a passionate individual wasn&#39;t able to spell correctly. You are obviously intelligent and argue well - you&#39;re just wrong.

Regarding Bill Clinton&#39;s sex life - Ok if you think it is a question of national security, such as Clinton talking to his mistress, are there not big government organizations like the FBI or CIA that could investigate these things discreetly? If Bill did tell her state secrets, there is nothing you can do about it, so why do you want to know anyway? There is also a small chance that he was just looking for some poontang and was not looking for a confidant at all. Affairs are a means of escape, and you don&#39;t want to bring your work with you.

Re: the United Nations. After World War II everybody sat down and decided that it was easier, cheaper and ultimatly less painful if countries talked out their problems in open discussion. The whole thing was designed to avoid messes like Iraq, and perhaps if the US was a bit more receptive to other points of veiw, you guys wouldn&#39;t look like idiots to the rest of the world right now.

Re: your rebuttal to SpamhandEl:


1:Homosexuality is wrong. God said it, not me. Go argue with him about it. I did. He says you&#39;re supposed to love your fellow man, but he realizes that some people have intimacy issues.


2:Saddam was never a good guy. Agreed, but how long did it take to work that one out? Perhps a bit of talk along the lines of "we don&#39;t think murdering thousands of people is a great thing to do" would have been in order.


3:Trade with Cuba, China, and all communist nations is wrong. A basic knowledge of the nature of commerce would give you a different opinion. Trade is good for everybody. Just becasue other countries have a different system of government than you do doesn&#39;t make them unworthy to trading with. China for instance is a pretty f*cking big country and it may be conceivable that "Billy" was trying to open up a big market so that your fellow countrymen and women have more jobs available. China has worked out that closed trading doesn&#39;t work, perhaps people in the US should consider that notion too.


4:We should dump the United Nations idiots. Hasn&#39;t the US done that already? Why should the rest of the world pick up the tab for your mess in Iraq after the way the US has treated them?


Abortion is the legal &#39;right&#39; to murder children. Life is a gift from God. Whooha&#33; Religious argument ahead&#33; Actually lets forget about the idea that not everyone has the same beliefs you do and look at he fact that there are too many people on this planet. If someone can&#39;t afford to or doesn&#39;t want a child in the first place, I am not going to be one to force it apon them. You will do more damage bringng an unwanted child into this world than aborting a "human being" that has never even breathed this world&#39;s air. If you want to quit your job and run an orphanage for the unwanted and unloved kids of this world, go ahead and good luck to you, but don&#39;t expect people to commit themselves to caring for a child they never really wanted.

I look forward to more responses to SpamhandEl&#39;s post.

Kerry may look as bad as Bush, but we all know how bad Bush is, cause the world has been stuck with him for four years. Perhaps Kerry will be a pleasant surprise and be slightly less crap thanyou think. I agree that governments nowadays don&#39;t represent the people, which is why we&#39;ve all escaped to the internet&#33;

[longboneslinger]

Bone - First the "fuck off and die" comment was not aimed at you. I was showing my disgust at the idea of an out-of-the-closet paedophile. We&#39;ll leave the comments about my avatar alone as well, because you probably thought I was flaming you and you fired back.

You are correct. My bad and my appologies. Knee-jerk reaction. I&#39;ll also hope you weren&#39;t referring to me as a pedopile since I am not. <_<

Second, I&#39;ll forget about the proof reading because you have so many typos in your posts that I would need a few hours to correct them all. I hope this is due to poor typing skills because I would hate to think that such a passionate individual wasn&#39;t able to spell correctly. You are obviously intelligent and argue well - you&#39;re just wrong.

Yeah, my typing skills are a little rusty plus I work long hours so I&#39;m tired. It also makes me irratable. Sorry again.
[/QUOTE]Regarding Bill Clinton&#39;s sex life -

I think that the leader of a nation should be held to a higher standard. If he has no more self control than that he isn&#39;t fit to lead.As I said, if he&#39;d just admited it, the Reps couldn&#39;t have touched him. And yes, to stop another rant, it was 90% political.
Re: the United Nations.[QUOTE]
It started that way, yes, but if the UN had enforced their sanctions we wouldn&#39;t be there now. Saddam agreed to a cease fire on the terms that he would allow free access for UN indpectors-never happened. He also agreed to the no-fly zones that he regularly shot at aircraft in. That we (everyone involved) shot back is the only rational response. There were 17 violations over 12 years-12 years- that were termed &#39;Major violations&#39; by the UN. What did they do? Nothing. Technically, I didn&#39;t agree with the war, but they failed to consult me.

As for homosexuality, what does &#39; intimacy issues&#39; have to do with it? A sin is a sin.

I agree with the Saddam comment. Good point.

On abortion, it has nothing at all to do with religion. It has to do with love of human life and taking responsibility for ones actions. Whether a child has taken a breath or not is, to me, totally irrelevant.. That child is a living human being. It is the responsiblilty of the parents (both of them) to give it life. Don&#39;t want a child? Consider adoption. Plenty of responsible adults who want kids. Or consider birth control or just keep you legs closed. Just please spare me the &#39;I don&#39;t want it&#33;" tripe. It&#39;s a human being, not a bagle. You dont toss people into the trash because you&#39;re to childish to take the responsible way out.

On Communism, this type of government is a horror show. Look at China. Human rights violations by the thousands. As for trade, screw&#39;em. They sell to us but buy damn little. That&#39;s where the term &#39;multi-billion dollar trade deficit&#39; comes from. I&#39;m all for equal trade, just not with slave mongers and mass murderers. I actually have self respect.

Last but not least (I got out of sync with abortion, ooops), the UN. Screw&#39;em. They stood around for 12 long years and did nothing. Why? Maybe because fellow members like France were making to much money. Maybe they liked wathing Saddam and those 2 monsters he called sons run rampant. Who knows? Who cares? The UN has turned into a farce. Time to start over. The US government has turned into a farce. We need to start over. As for Iraq, we&#39;re trying to rebuild and restore it to what it should be. The terrorists are the ones still blowing it up. I really believe that the people of Iraq want and deserve a new nation. If the nut balls would leave, they could have it. It&#39;s up to them. Knowing human nature, it&#39;ll probably revert to a regime as bad if not worse than Saddam but hope springs eternal.

John Kerry (no, the j in john Kerry is not a typo, my keyboard won&#39;t capitlaize the letter j :blink: ) shot himself in the foot when he said "If I were President, I woud fight a more sensitive war" :blink: WTF?? What kind of idiotic BS is that?? He bends the truth like a pretzel and flip flops on the issues and now this? Sorry. The mans an idiot. Sensitive war. Shit. They blow up buildings and he want to be &#39;sensitive&#39;. Fine, kill&#39;em quick. I that &#39;sensitive&#39; enough?


Sorry again about the flames. I&#39;m man enough to admit when I&#39;m wrong. Hell, I&#39;m only human. Who wants perfection? The last (and only) perfect man was crucified by the Romans. I wouldn&#39;t have taken it nearly as well.

At any rate, I&#39;m outa here. Thanks for the debate.
Later,
BoNe

[longboneslinger]

Sorry, one more. Sorry to busyman.

Are you for the death penalty?

Hmm...that&#39;s a hard one. God says "Thou shalt not kill." I think, if I remember correctly, that it actually translates as "Thou shalt not murder.&#39; I could be wrong here.
So, should we kill a killer? Would that not be murder? Can&#39;t be self defense. He/she is locked in a cage. But he/she could get out on parole or serve their term and do it again. Could. Now if he/she is a proven terrorist, is it a diff story? Nah,one or a million. Murder is murder. Dead is dead. So no, can&#39;t support it. I&#39;ll leave it up to God. He&#39;ll sort&#39;em out.

Hell, I was having so much fun with clocker, spam and alex and here you come and blindside me. Thx, I enjoyed the change of topic.

Later,
BoNe

PS-If it comes down to me and you, ducking would be in order cuz where you go lead will follow. :ph34r: :01: Self defense is a totaly different issue. Nothing personall and not a threat to you, busyman, just generalizing.

[SpamhandEl]

1:Homosexuality is wrong. God said it, not me. Go argue with him about it. Maybe he&#39;ll change the Word for you. I doubt it, but it&#39;s up to Him. Just listen as you talk to Him. You might get an answer.

Go back to your safe little "church", some of us live in a real world and answer to a real God. Not to church dogma written in the middle ages.

And "Yes" I said the middle ages, nothing in older scriptures makes any reference homosexuality, and older Christian text (believe it or not) teaches us to hold compassion and love for our fellow humans, and not to judge them. That is Gods job alone.

Before you bring it up (Sodom) I&#39;ll explain further. The act of sodomy, (Before puritanical church leaders redefined it) Addresses any act of sex that is done outside of the love of God.
Not anything your homophobic father finds icky.

And who is to determine what is outside of the love of God? Not you my friend.

I did notice that you use the argument of God and God&#39;s

That is between two consenting adults and God. They (Believe it or not) Have there own souls and there own relationship with god. That (And I&#39;m sorry to have to tell you this) has nothing to do with you.



[/QUOTE] 2:Saddam was never a good guy. Reagen was wrong.


No Argument here we do agree.


3:Trade with Cuba, China, and all communist nations is wrong. But Billy Bob Clinton gave Red China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. That&#39;s ok, though, he&#39;s a Dem.


China was given MFNT in an attempt to stabilize the region and attempt to Un-alienate a country with Nuclear weapons and the brute manpower to kick our Asses without them.

Also I disagree with trade embargos against communist nations, The Soviet Union would never have fallen with out Glasnost.

And I know Regan had a hand in that, I do believe he was a great and wise man, with everything but the economy.

4:We should dump the United Nations idiots. But if they wanna help in Iraq, fine. The more the merrier. It&#39;s a totally FUBAR now, so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.



????????????
Do you have any clue what the U.N. is for? Being a republican, And following dubba-u&#39;s lead I understand the confusion.

I&#39;ll explain.

The U.N was established to PREVENT countries from throwing their weight around. Remember how bad that got in the last century.

i.e. imposing our will on others and ignoring U.N. Protocol is the very reason that most of the world thinks this country is full of arrogant self important culture-centric red necks.

Some of us dislike this stereotype.

And so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.

1. people fighting and invading force are not called terrorist, even if we are the invading force.

2.The only life that matters is people who look and believe like you?? is that what I&#39;m to understanding here? Just trying to understand who I&#39;m talking to.

5:Women, etc., I believe refers to abortion. Sorry, I am a former fetus who chooses life. Abortion is the legal &#39;right&#39; to murder children. Life is a gift from God. His to give, His to take. Refer to 1 for arguments. It aint in the Bible, but then again, it wasn&#39;t a problem then.[QUOTE]


I&#39;ve been waiting this whole response for this one.

Learn to read and understand the Christian bible yourself. The ONLY thing in your bible that comes close to offering a Christian answer is
(GEN 2 7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Before he breathed, he was not a living soul.

And until you are a duck you have no right to make laws for ducks.

As well, until you have an uterus you have no right to make laws about uteruses.

Old white rich men making MORAL decisions for the rest of the country is offensive.
There at one time was intended to be a separation of church and state.

And in Closing......

Morality is the domain of the church. Not the government in a "Free" society; that we so like to assure ourselves we are.

After all isn&#39;t that what gives us the right to bully all other nations?? Were the good guys fighting for freedom.

And "Freedom" does not mean freedom to believe like you, or even me. But Freedom to find our own beliefs with out the government interfering.

And by that token I bare you no ill will for your beliefs or your right to speak them.

But it does not give you (or ME) the right to inflict our morals on others.

and laws that prohibit the pursuit of life liberty and happiness (any ones Life liberty and happiness) are not only un-constitutional but start to feel a lot like Nazi Germany.)

Until ALL (Even the Homosexuals) are free none are free.

Oh, and I almost forgot.

I know all about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” You do know that this is a republican backed group?

My father was in Da-nagn (probably spelled that wrong), technically he served in Vietnam with Kerry. But only technically.

The People who were with Kerry on his boat are voting for him

And how Am I following the herd when I&#39;m disapproving of our government?

He stole that last election; I don&#39;t think he&#39;ll get to steel another.

And could you tell me, where in the constitution it makes a provision for the court to decide an election. That&#39;s probably that part that pissed me off even more so than the discarded black votes in Florida.

G.W.B is out of touch with most Americans, who aren’t all rich white and southern Christians.

I&#39;d rather have a president who has had hardships to deal with than one who&#39;s never

Weather or not Kerry deserved all of his medals, hardly the point, He went to a war, and He had people die under his command that he knew personally. And He came back (After doing His duty as a citizen of this country) and exercised His rights (as a citizen of this country) To protest what He thought was wrong.

That demonstrates to me a great deal of integrity and understanding of what this country is about.

At least he didn&#39;t call his daddy so he could go party instead. (Not that I&#39;m pointing fingers)

Can&#39;t wait for the rest of my points to be addressed by the pabulum-puking conservatives

It is only threw debate that we learn the mettle of our beliefs.

[SpamhandEl]

Bone - First the "fuck off and die" comment was not aimed at you. I was showing my disgust at the idea of an out-of-the-closet paedophile.

As apposed to "In the closet Pedophilia?" Would that be any better?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SpamhandEl@15 August 2004 - 04:28

1:Homosexuality is wrong. God said it, not me. Go argue with him about it. Maybe he&#39;ll change the Word for you. I doubt it, but it&#39;s up to Him. Just listen as you talk to Him. You might get an answer.

Go back to your safe little "church", some of us live in a real world and answer to a real God. Not to church dogma written in the middle ages.

And "Yes" I said the middle ages, nothing in older scriptures makes any reference homosexuality, and older Christian text (believe it or not) teaches us to hold compassion and love for our fellow humans, and not to judge them. That is Gods job alone.

Before you bring it up (Sodom) I&#39;ll explain further. The act of sodomy, (Before puritanical church leaders redefined it) Addresses any act of sex that is done outside of the love of God.
Not anything your homophobic father finds icky.

And who is to determine what is outside of the love of God? Not you my friend.

I did notice that you use the argument of God and God&#39;s

That is between two consenting adults and God. They (Believe it or not) Have there own souls and there own relationship with god. That (And I&#39;m sorry to have to tell you this) has nothing to do with you.



2:Saddam was never a good guy. Reagen was wrong.


No Argument here we do agree.


3:Trade with Cuba, China, and all communist nations is wrong. But Billy Bob Clinton gave Red China Most Favored Nation Trading Status. That&#39;s ok, though, he&#39;s a Dem.


China was given MFNT in an attempt to stabilize the region and attempt to Un-alienate a country with Nuclear weapons and the brute manpower to kick our Asses without them.

Also I disagree with trade embargos against communist nations, The Soviet Union would never have fallen with out Glasnost.

And I know Regan had a hand in that, I do believe he was a great and wise man, with everything but the economy.

4:We should dump the United Nations idiots. But if they wanna help in Iraq, fine. The more the merrier. It&#39;s a totally FUBAR now, so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.



????????????
Do you have any clue what the U.N. is for? Being a republican, And following dubba-u&#39;s lead I understand the confusion.

I&#39;ll explain.

The U.N was established to PREVENT countries from throwing their weight around. Remember how bad that got in the last century.

i.e. imposing our will on others and ignoring U.N. Protocol is the very reason that most of the world thinks this country is full of arrogant self important culture-centric red necks.

Some of us dislike this stereotype.

And so let the clowns in the blue hats come in, hell the terrorists need some new targets anyway.

1. people fighting and invading force are not called terrorist, even if we are the invading force.

2.The only life that matters is people who look and believe like you?? is that what I&#39;m to understanding here? Just trying to understand who I&#39;m talking to.

5:Women, etc., I believe refers to abortion. Sorry, I am a former fetus who chooses life. Abortion is the legal &#39;right&#39; to murder children. Life is a gift from God. His to give, His to take. Refer to 1 for arguments. It aint in the Bible, but then again, it wasn&#39;t a problem then.



I&#39;ve been waiting this whole response for this one.

Learn to read and understand the Christian bible yourself. The ONLY thing in your bible that comes close to offering a Christian answer is
(GEN 2&nbsp; 7)&nbsp; And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Before he breathed, he was not a living soul.

And until you are a duck you have no right to make laws for ducks.

As well, until you have an uterus you have no right to make laws about uteruses.

Old white rich men making MORAL decisions for the rest of the country is offensive.
There at one time was intended to be a separation of church and state.

And in Closing......

Morality is the domain of the church. Not the government in a "Free" society; that we so like to assure ourselves we are.

After all isn&#39;t that what gives us the right to bully all other nations?? Were the good guys fighting for freedom.

And "Freedom" does not mean freedom to believe like you, or even me. But Freedom to find our own beliefs with out the government interfering.

And by that token I bare you no ill will for your beliefs or your right to speak them.

But it does not give you (or ME) the right to inflict our morals on others.

and laws that prohibit the pursuit of life liberty and happiness (any ones Life liberty and happiness) are not only un-constitutional but start to feel a lot like Nazi Germany.)

Until ALL (Even the Homosexuals) are free none are free.

Oh, and I almost forgot.

I know all about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” You do know that this is a republican backed group?

My father was in Da-nagn (probably spelled that wrong), technically he served in Vietnam with Kerry. But only technically.

The People who were with Kerry on his boat are voting for him

And how Am I following the herd when I&#39;m disapproving of our government?

He stole that last election; I don&#39;t think he&#39;ll get to steel another.

And could you tell me, where in the constitution it makes a provision for the court to decide an election. That&#39;s probably that part that pissed me off even more so than the discarded black votes in Florida.

G.W.B is out of touch with most Americans, who aren’t all rich white and southern Christians.

I&#39;d rather have a president who has had hardships to deal with than one who&#39;s never

Weather or not Kerry deserved all of his medals, hardly the point, He went to a war, and He had people die under his command that he knew personally. And He came back (After doing His duty as a citizen of this country) and exercised His rights (as a citizen of this country) To protest what He thought was wrong.
&nbsp;
That demonstrates to me a great deal of integrity and understanding of what this country is about.

At least he didn&#39;t call his daddy so he could go party instead. (Not that I&#39;m pointing fingers)

Can&#39;t wait for the rest of my points to be addressed by the pabulum-puking conservatives

It is only threw debate that we learn the mettle of our beliefs.
That&#39;s a long-ass post, my friend.

As a fellow Michigander, I would recommend you retract your claws ever-so-slightly (not casting any aspersions, here) and post a bit more succintly; honestly-you&#39;ll wear yourself out if you continue in that vein.

Learn how to carry on without getting carried away, eh? ;)

[SpamhandEl]

You are correct, I did go on a bit much, I was answering specific criticisms to another post I had. And then, you are right, I rambled.

I will try to keep more to the point in the future, however I still stand by my every word,
And I&#39;ll try not to burn myself out.
And I&#39;ll endevor to retract the claws a bit, passions run deep in my strain of human.
I must add, I was shocked to find (on a site about file sharing) so much conservatism..

Does not compute..

[vidcc]

Originally posted by SpamhandEl@15 August 2004 - 09:28
I must add, I was shocked to find (on a site about file sharing) so much conservatism..


gosh the times i&#39;ve seen complaints about the "liberal" bias. :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SpamhandEl@15 August 2004 - 10:28
I must add, I was shocked to find (on a site about file sharing) so much conservatism..

Does not compute..
Well, a few (a very few) of us are conservative, but it seems to be a late-developing condition; as vid has hinted, those of us who are here have done our own rambling on the question of overwhelming liberal numbers.

Rest assured, the conservative element here (while vocal) is far, far in the minority; that is to say you have lots of company to help with the typing.

In any case, I&#39;d spotted you for one of politically "mixed" blood, given the entire content of your post.

Time will tell. ;)

Welcome to the board, BTW. :)

[spinningfreemanny]

Hmmm, the idea that the judeo christian God accepts homosexuality is amazing to me.

It is in plain text in the pentateuch, in the laws God gave Moses for Israel, I don&#39;t know how much farther back you need to go.

[fred devliegher]

It is in plain text in the pentateuch, in the laws God gave Moses for Israel, I don&#39;t know how much farther back you need to go.

Feel free to follow every rule in the Bible to the letter. Mind you, you&#39;d have to kill yourself for wearing clothes made from two different animals, so I don&#39;t know how long you&#39;d last...

I&#39;d say it&#39;s more important to follow the spirit of the book and make this rock a better place, then to get bogged down in hatred and petty, outdated rules... but that&#39;s just me.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by fred devliegher@15 August 2004 - 12:58
I&#39;d say it&#39;s more important to follow the spirit of the book and make this rock a better place, then to get bogged down in hatred and petty, outdated rules... but that&#39;s just me.
Fred-

Believe me when I say I&#39;m not choosing you off here, but how exactly does one go about discerning the "spirit" of that particular book, and likewise how do you determine which of it&#39;s "rules" connote "hatred", or are "petty" and/or "outdated"?

[fred devliegher]

but how exactly does one go about discerning the "spirit" of that particular book,

If by "book", we mean "old and new testament", then I would focus on what was said by Jesus - a message of tolerance, forgiveness, and embracing those who break religious law rather then push them away.


and likewise how do you determine which of it&#39;s "rules" connote "hatred", or are "petty" and/or "outdated"?

"Hatred" would be those regulations that punish people for acting out of love for one another (eg homosexulaity). I like to think everyone should be able to interpret the message as they wish (for you cannot believe what you are forced to believe).

"Petty" and "outdated" as in, "no longer valid in modern society" - eg espousing one&#39;s brother-in-law to ensure offspring.

[spinningfreemanny]

Your true in ideology and no one here that I know of harbors "hatred" for homosexuals

well; we still have gays like they did then; I don&#39;t see how its invalid.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by fred devliegher@15 August 2004 - 15:10


and likewise how do you determine which of it&#39;s "rules" connote "hatred", or are "petty" and/or "outdated"?

"Hatred" would be those regulations that punish people for acting out of love for one another (eg homosexulaity). I like to think everyone should be able to interpret the message as they wish (for you cannot believe what you are forced to believe).

"Petty" and "outdated" as in, "no longer valid in modern society" - eg espousing one&#39;s brother-in-law to ensure offspring.
Have you any other examples of biblically espoused hatred?

Do you feel "hatred" imbues the Bible to a greater extent?

Likewise, I would be interested to hear more about "outdated" rules or messages.

[longboneslinger]

Sigh, pardon me for not goining back and overusing the quote tags again. I"m just to tired. As for the rest, before everyone starts typing you might try reading. I never once said that I hate anyone. I dont. I don&#39;t judge the person, I judge their actions. We make judgements every day. Do I drink Coke or Pepsi, take a left for a short cut or go straight, should I call in sick since I feel bad or go to work, is that person telling me what I think egotistical or just judgemental...or just mental? God said not to judge the person.

I haven&#39;t cast stones, just disagreed with some choices some have made. I disagree with abortion. So sue me. I disagree with homosexuality. Sue me again then talk to God about how his Word is just rules for the mid-ages. Again, maybe He will change the world to suit you and yours. It&#39;s His call. I never said that if you disagree with me you&#39;ll go to Hell or some other hot city, just that I disagree with you. Personally, I think that His Word is set in stone. If He said it&#39;s wrong, it&#39;s wrong. Going to a different church to hear it a different way won&#39;t change that no matter what you or I believe. As my dear departed dad told me many, many times: "You can believe you can fly, but you&#39;ll probably change yer mind somewhere between the last step and the ground. Lifes kinda like that, son. God hopes you&#39;ll see the Truth before you leap cuz it&#39;s a bit to late when you hit the ground. God&#39;s patient, but you only got so many years before you run outa time. Better make the right choice somewhere between leap and splat."

Now for the rest of your post, it&#39;s to long and I&#39;m to tired to go point to point. Kerry served 4 months. Whoooy. He finagled 3 purple hearts for bandade scratches and hauled ass. Real courageous. The only dif between him an Bush is that Kerry couldn&#39;t ger out like W. so he lied to get hearts so he could chicken shit out. My dad served in WW2 with 2 purple hearts. He was offered a chance to go home but he stayed. 3 years till the end of the war. Why? He loved his country. All the people who served with Kerry are not with him. Damn near 200 are against him. One was the machingunner on his swift boat. No, swiftvets are not Rep backed, believe it or not.

For the rocord, I have repeated that I am NOT Republican. I am an Independant Conservative and a patriot. Yes, conservative. I want to see my country return to the strong moral foundation that made Her great. Not rampant individualism. We might not succeed together but we can damn sure fail together. Not &#39;Moral Relativism&#39; and socialism. After several decades of those 2 choices, I think it&#39;s obvious that they are a total failure. America is rotting from within. You see my friends, there are several steps in a democracy, or democratic republic, if you prefer. This is a quote so I&#39;m sorry if I don&#39;t get it perfect.
Bondage to great courage.
Great courage to freedom.
Freedom to abundance.
Abundance to complacency.
Complacency to apathy.
Apathy to dependence.
Dependence to bondage.

In closing,we are in the stage of apathy now. Do what you want, who cares. The Bible disagrees, find a new church. We are headed fast towards full scale dependence. Most vote for whoever promises the most handouts. By the by, did you know that Dems are just as rich as Reps? Both pretend to be for &#39;the little man&#39; and both have no idea who he is.

Later,
BoNe

PS-Spam, I not a pedophile, in the closet or otherwise. Since my spat with alexh, I&#39;ll avoid a kneejerk reaction and assume that that was some half assed attempt at humor. Though God knows that &#39;assume&#39; is the mother of all fuckups.
I am not amused. If you are, you have my sympathy.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@16 August 2004 - 20:30
For the rocord, I have repeated that I am NOT Republican. I am an Independant Conservative and a patriot. Yes, conservative. I want to see my country return to the strong moral foundation that made Her great.
I am against homosexuality as well.

1. Do you think the sodomy law was unjust?

2. If abortion is unjust do you also think "pulling out" is as well?

3. What are your thoughts on the "morning after pill?

4. If every woman that is pregnant is to have their child, do you think they should be forced to take care of him/her?

5. If a child is going to be born deformed are you still against abortion?

6. Should a child be aborted to save the mother if the child will be born healthy?

7. Do agree with homosexual civil unions?

8. What are we supossed to do with/to homosexuals?

9. Are homosexuals born that way or do they "learn" the lifestyle?

10. Should prospective parents be allowed to adopt outside the US when there are plenty of unadopted naturalized babies?

11. Do you think slavery helped make this country great?

[spinningfreemanny]

lol, Where did that last question come from? :blink:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@16 August 2004 - 18:30

I haven&#39;t cast stones, just disagreed with some choices some have made. I disagree with abortion. So sue me. I disagree with homosexuality. Sue me again then talk to God about how his Word is just rules for the mid-ages. Again, maybe He will change the world to suit you and yours. It&#39;s His call. I never said that if you disagree with me you&#39;ll go to Hell or some other hot city, just that I disagree with you. Personally, I think that His Word is set in stone. If He said it&#39;s wrong, it&#39;s wrong. Going to a different church to hear it a different way won&#39;t change that no matter what you or I believe. As my dear departed dad told me many, many times: "You can believe you can fly, but you&#39;ll probably change yer mind somewhere between the last step and the ground. Lifes kinda like that, son. God hopes you&#39;ll see the Truth before you leap cuz it&#39;s a bit to late when you hit the ground. God&#39;s patient, but you only got so many years before you run outa time. Better make the right choice somewhere between leap and splat."

what would you suggest athiest like myself do ?

I argue for the well being of man far more than many of the people on this board that have religion.

I believe that we should have the right to live our lives as we see fit as long as that choice doesn&#39;t infinge on the freedom of others.
In my wish to impose freedom and equality on the individual am i somehow against god because i don&#39;t discriminate as to the people that should have freedom and equality?


p.s. if i thought i could fly i would try to take off from the ground...so no splat for me :D

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@16 August 2004 - 21:56
lol, Where did that last question come from? :blink:
Busyman? :blink:

[Alex H]

As to homosexuality, if we accept that everyone is fundametally flawed (because Eve was an idiot and we are therefor mortal), then it follows that homosexuality is a flaw. Shit eh? Not much we can do about it. We are born with Original Sin, but we can&#39;t hate everybody for sharing that sin, so how can we hate people for having other sins?

I&#39;m a sinner, you&#39;re a sinner, we are all sinners, but that can&#39;t be changed so why bother even talking about it, or commenting on the morality of other people?

If two people love each other and are happy, good luck to them. There are so many people in the world who never have the chance to be with someone they love that gender shouldn&#39;t even rate as a concern when you finally find that special someone.

[SpamhandEl]

I&#39;m a sinner, you&#39;re a sinner, we are all sinners, but that can&#39;t be changed so why bother even talking about it, or commenting on the morality of other people?

If two people love each other and are happy, good luck to them. There are so many people in the world who never have the chance to be with someone they love that gender shouldn&#39;t even rate as a concern when you finally find that special someone.

Some one get&#39;s it. That&#39;s reasuring to me.
I started to think the world was becoming over run with hate mongers.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by SpamhandEl@17 August 2004 - 00:58

I&#39;m a sinner, you&#39;re a sinner, we are all sinners, but that can&#39;t be changed so why bother even talking about it, or commenting on the morality of other people?

If two people love each other and are happy, good luck to them. There are so many people in the world who never have the chance to be with someone they love that gender shouldn&#39;t even rate as a concern when you finally find that special someone.

Some one get&#39;s it. That&#39;s reasuring to me.
I started to think the world was becoming over run with hate mongers.
I get it, though some here can&#39;t stand the fact.

I&#39;m conservative.

I&#39;m not a hate-monger.

Labels are bad enough without sloppy generalizations. ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 August 2004 - 13:23
I&#39;m conservative.

I&#39;m not a hate-monger.

Labels are bad enough without sloppy generalizations. ;)
i prefer to think of you as.......




http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/eag.jpg :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+17 August 2004 - 14:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 17 August 2004 - 14:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 August 2004 - 13:23
I&#39;m conservative.

I&#39;m not a hate-monger.

Labels are bad enough without sloppy generalizations. ;)
i prefer to think of you as.......




http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/eag.jpg :lol: :lol:[/b][/quote]
Only in certain circumstances, like here in The Talk Club.

Difficult to be serious when the aim is to be...serious. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vidcc+17 August 2004 - 15:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 17 August 2004 - 15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 August 2004 - 13:23
I&#39;m conservative.

I&#39;m not a hate-monger.

Labels are bad enough without sloppy generalizations. ;)
i prefer to think of you as.......




http://www.nigelhumour.co.uk/eag.jpg :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@16 August 2004 - 20:16
11. Do you think slavery helped make this country great?
This is quite possibly the most cynically baiting statement/question I have ever seen in this forum.

I have several equally cynical answers, though they will never see light in this forum.

Shame on you, B.

Seriously.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+17 August 2004 - 21:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 17 August 2004 - 21:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@16 August 2004 - 20:16
11. Do you think slavery helped make this country great?
This is quite possibly the most cynically baiting statement/question I have ever seen in this forum.

I have several equally cynical answers, though they will never see light in this forum.

Shame on you, B.

Seriously. [/b][/quote]
This is an honest question and looking for an honest answer.

I didn&#39;t say the N word or anything. It&#39;s a question. <_<

You&#39;d be surprised what answers you get when you just simply.......ask. :huh:

As a matter of fact let&#39;s amend the question.

11. Do you think slavery helped make this country great? Why or why not?

[vidcc]

I wasn&#39;t going to answer any of the questions as i believe they were aimed at bone but the slavery one i will. but i have to pose a question in the answer.

It all depends on what one considers "great". Although for the life of me i can&#39;t imagine how slavery could enter into the discription.


My answer is NO

I was always under the impression and i strongly believe that the great thing about the USA is freedom, democracy and equality...even if it sometimes doesn&#39;t turn out that way in reality.
by my definition of the USA&#39;s greatness then slavery was one of the most shamefull things to have been practiced in the history of the USA.

i think the USA even though far from perfect has managed to become "great" despite slavery

[j2k4]

I think my answer would largely echo vid&#39;s, but I still have problems with the asking of it.

If you meant to elicit an answer exclusively from &#39;Bone, I&#39;ll gladly forego any elaboration.

[longboneslinger]

If you meant to elicit an answer exclusively from &#39;Bone, I&#39;ll gladly forego any elaboration.
Gee thanks, j2k4&#33; :lol:
By the way, where does the &#39;hatemonger&#39; come from? I&#39;ve never even acted hateful. Why is it that Liberals yell so loudly for free-speech but when we exercise our right to free-speech we&#39;re labeled "pablum puking", "homophobes" and "hate mongers". You scream for peace yet attack everyone who disagrees with you. Hypocrites bore me. A liberal will scream he/she has the moral high ground even when sinking in quick sand. Let&#39;em sink. Who need&#39;em anyway. I don&#39;t hate anyone, just tired of those with no moral fiber.

I wasn&#39;t gonna, but since I&#39;ve been abandoned :P , here goes:

1. Do you think the sodomy law was unjust?
Yes. I really don&#39;t care what you do. I really don&#39;t.

2. If abortion is unjust do you also think "pulling out" is as well?
No. I don&#39;t worry about what might have been. It&#39;s like the silly argument that man was only &#39;alive&#39; after God breathed life into him. That was dirt. There is a huge differenct between &#39;pulling out&#39;, a pile of dirt and a human fetus. You may see this point, some won&#39;t.

. What are your thoughts on the "morning after pill?
Abortion is abortion. Hard to say if you don&#39;t know your pregnant. Try this. You drop a bomb down a hole where people may be (homeless, whatever) and walk away. Did you kill somebody? Leaving out police investigations and such, you&#39;d never know. Is it ok because you&#39;d never know? Actually think about before lighting your flamethrowers.

4. If every woman that is pregnant is to have their child, do you think they should be forced to take care of him/her?
No. They should, but some are just to irresponsible. Adoption is always a viable alternative.
[/QUOTE]5. If a child is going to be born deformed are you still against abortion?


Yes. A human life is still sacred. Of course, some whould argue, if the poor thing is going to be in horrible pain, there&#39;s a whole knew dillema. Who are we to judge? Not I.
. Should a child be aborted to save the mother if the child will be born healthy?

In this instance, I&#39;d leave it up to the family, mainly the mother. That&#39;s a terrible choice. Abortion is horrible enough.
7. Do agree with homosexual civil unions?

Here come the flames. No. That&#39;s just a stepping stome to gay marriage. Sorry. No hate, I just see as one more attack on heterosexual marriage. God says it&#39;s wrong, so recognizing it is wrong.
8. What are we supossed to do with/to homosexuals?

?? Nothing. Let&#39;em live as they wish. Just don&#39;t ask for special privileges. It&#39;s wrong. Why should I condone that? Who&#39;s next? Pedophiles? Not putting them in the same catagory, just generalizing for the sake of argument.
9. Are homosexuals born that way or do they "learn" the lifestyle?

I really don&#39;t know. I believe that it&#39;s a learned behavior. I could be wrong. It&#39;s really irrelevant to me since it&#39;s a sin. a sin is a choice. Born or learned is completely irrelevant since man is given a choice whether to indulge or not.
10. Should prospective parents be allowed to adopt outside the US when there are plenty of unadopted naturalized babies?

I don&#39;t have a problem with it. I whould hope that adoptive parents would stay within the their own countries, but it&#39;s their choice. I certainly wouldn&#39;t make an issue of it.
11. Do you think slavery helped make this country great? [QUOTE]
While I agree with j2k4 ( :D shocker :D ) that this is a leading question I&#39;ll answer. NO. We are great in spite of slavery. Slavery is undiluted savagery. That it&#39;s still practiced today is even worse.

Enjoy. I&#39;ve &#39;homophobed&#39; and &#39;pablum puked&#39; enough for one day.
Later,
BoNe

PS-To spamhandel. I&#39;d appreciate it if you&#39;d leave my father out of this. I&#39;ve yet to impugn your father, nor will I. My father passed away in 1995 from Parkinsons Disease. It&#39;s a horrible thing to watch. Lets keep this a civilized debate among adults, please.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@18 August 2004 - 18:22
Nothing. Let&#39;em live as they wish. Just don&#39;t ask for special privileges.

Not going to argue with most of your answers as they are your opinions and as one that you would probably call a "liberal" i agree with free speech even if i don&#39;t agree with what i am hearing.

However i have to pick up on the above quote.

They don&#39;t want "special privilidges". they just want equality


Why should I condone that? Who&#39;s next? Pedophiles? Not putting them in the same catagory, just generalizing for the sake of argument

I realise you are not saying that homosexuals are Pedophiles but that is such an unfair way to make an arguement and yet one that seems to crop up from the opposing side of gay unions with a great deal of frequency. Homosexuals are consenting adults and have exactly the same rights as you enjoy...only you wish to deny those rights because of a belief in something that not everyone believes in...GOD

[Busyman]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@18 August 2004 - 20:22

If you meant to elicit an answer exclusively from &#39;Bone, I&#39;ll gladly forego any elaboration.
Gee thanks, j2k4&#33; :lol:
By the way, where does the &#39;hatemonger&#39; come from? I&#39;ve never even acted hateful. Why is it that Liberals yell so loudly for free-speech but when we exercise our right to free-speech we&#39;re labeled "pablum puking", "homophobes" and "hate mongers". You scream for peace yet attack everyone who disagrees with you. Hypocrites bore me. A liberal will scream he/she has the moral high ground even when sinking in quick sand. Let&#39;em sink. Who need&#39;em anyway. I don&#39;t hate anyone, just tired of those with no moral fiber.

I wasn&#39;t gonna, but since I&#39;ve been abandoned :P , here goes:

1. Do you think the sodomy law was unjust?
Yes. I really don&#39;t care what you do. I really don&#39;t.

2. If abortion is unjust do you also think "pulling out" is as well?
No. I don&#39;t worry about what might have been. It&#39;s like the silly argument that man was only &#39;alive&#39; after God breathed life into him. That was dirt. There is a huge differenct between &#39;pulling out&#39;, a pile of dirt and a human fetus. You may see this point, some won&#39;t.

. What are your thoughts on the "morning after pill?
Abortion is abortion. Hard to say if you don&#39;t know your pregnant. Try this. You drop a bomb down a hole where people may be (homeless, whatever) and walk away. Did you kill somebody? Leaving out police investigations and such, you&#39;d never know. Is it ok because you&#39;d never know? Actually think about before lighting your flamethrowers.

4. If every woman that is pregnant is to have their child, do you think they should be forced to take care of him/her?
No. They should, but some are just to irresponsible. Adoption is always a viable alternative.
5. If a child is going to be born deformed are you still against abortion?


Yes. A human life is still sacred. Of course, some whould argue, if the poor thing is going to be in horrible pain, there&#39;s a whole knew dillema. Who are we to judge? Not I.
. Should a child be aborted to save the mother if the child will be born healthy?

In this instance, I&#39;d leave it up to the family, mainly the mother. That&#39;s a terrible choice. Abortion is horrible enough.
7. Do agree with homosexual civil unions?

Here come the flames. No. That&#39;s just a stepping stome to gay marriage. Sorry. No hate, I just see as one more attack on heterosexual marriage. God says it&#39;s wrong, so recognizing it is wrong.
8. What are we supossed to do with/to homosexuals?

?? Nothing. Let&#39;em live as they wish. Just don&#39;t ask for special privileges. It&#39;s wrong. Why should I condone that? Who&#39;s next? Pedophiles? Not putting them in the same catagory, just generalizing for the sake of argument.
9. Are homosexuals born that way or do they "learn" the lifestyle?

I really don&#39;t know. I believe that it&#39;s a learned behavior. I could be wrong. It&#39;s really irrelevant to me since it&#39;s a sin. a sin is a choice. Born or learned is completely irrelevant since man is given a choice whether to indulge or not.
10. Should prospective parents be allowed to adopt outside the US when there are plenty of unadopted naturalized babies?

I don&#39;t have a problem with it. I whould hope that adoptive parents would stay within the their own countries, but it&#39;s their choice. I certainly wouldn&#39;t make an issue of it.
11. Do you think slavery helped make this country great?

While I agree with j2k4 ( :D shocker :D ) that this is a leading question I&#39;ll answer. NO. We are great in spite of slavery. Slavery is undiluted savagery. That it&#39;s still practiced today is even worse.

Enjoy. I&#39;ve &#39;homophobed&#39; and &#39;pablum puked&#39; enough for one day.
Later,
BoNe

PS-To spamhandel. I&#39;d appreciate it if you&#39;d leave my father out of this. I&#39;ve yet to impugn your father, nor will I. My father passed away in 1995 from Parkinsons Disease. It&#39;s a horrible thing to watch. Lets keep this a civilized debate among adults, please.
I applaud you answering those questions and thank you.

The last answer was an amalgamation of j2k4&#39;s non-answer and vid&#39;s answer and not your own.

Anyway thanks for the first 10. :D

I share many of your views.

However I know A pretty decent amount about the Bible and you are trying to have some things both ways.

If one claims Christian doctrine should apply to US law go all the way with it or STHU&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

[spinningfreemanny]

Well answered,

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@18 August 2004 - 21:46


The last answer was an amalgamation of j2k4&#39;s non-answer and vid&#39;s answer and not your own.



WTF?

Just &#39;cuz I copped vid&#39;s answer?

Do you really want to hear me at my cynical and non-constructive worst?

No...no you don&#39;t, and neither do I want to demonstrate.

Good to see you all getting along better, though. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4+19 August 2004 - 15:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 19 August 2004 - 15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@18 August 2004 - 21:46


The last answer was an amalgamation of j2k4&#39;s non-answer and vid&#39;s answer and not your own.



WTF?

Just &#39;cuz I copped vid&#39;s answer?

Do you really want to hear me at my cynical and non-constructive worst?

No...no you don&#39;t, and neither do I want to demonstrate.

Good to see you all getting along better, though. ;) [/b][/quote]
Actually jaykay, the above quote was aimed at bone as was the original questions. ;)

[j2k4]

Still...

I was struck at the disconnect indicated by your question, B.

I would have thought that had the question been lurking in your head, you&#39;d have asked me, and some time ago, too.

I&#39;ve since wondered just what &#39;Bone said that prompted the question, as it didn&#39;t seem to be YOU, y&#39;know?

EDIT:

It just seems like you&#39;d have to scour, say, Gulfport, Mississippi, to find someone who would give you the answer you were looking for.

I&#39;m sorry, I just think this country has gotten beyond that level of hatred.

Hope I&#39;m not wrong.

[Biggles]

I forego comment on the religious stuff - we each approach these things from different cultures and standpoints. One can claim absolute authority from one&#39;s own scriptures, traditions or (non)beliefs, but it doesn&#39;t cut any ice with someone else&#39;s. However, one cannot legislation for such things. One should simply live it - anything else is Government interference where government has no business.

Notwithstanding the reasons for it being asked, Busyman&#39;s question 11. is interesting. There are two ways of looking it at it 1) the economic and 2) the social/moral.

In answer to the first, slavery served the Americas well for the best part of 300 years and provided substantial wealth and set up an elite that still calls the shots in many of the countries of that continent today. So in that respect it did provide some of the foundation stones that paved the way to economic prosperity.

In the second part, I think it would be fair to say that the social and moral sore it caused is still an underlying infection 150 years after its abolition.

It would then, be reasonable to surmise that almost any country in the Americas would be different today if it had developed in a different way.



Perhaps more like Canada which had a more limited experience of such things. :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@19 August 2004 - 16:47
I forego comment on the religious stuff - we each approach these things from different cultures and standpoints. One can claim absolute authority from one&#39;s own scriptures, traditions or (non)beliefs, but it doesn&#39;t cut any ice with someone else&#39;s. However, one cannot legislation for such things. One should simply live it - anything else is Government interference where government has no business.

Notwithstanding the reasons for it being asked, Busyman&#39;s question 11. is interesting. There are two ways of looking it at it 1) the economic and 2) the social/moral.

In answer to the first, slavery served the Americas well for the best part of 300 years and provided substantial wealth and set up an elite that still calls the shots in many of the countries of that continent today. So in that respect it did provide some of the foundation stones that paved the way to economic prosperity.

In the second part, I think it would be fair to say that the social and moral sore it caused is still an underlying infection 150 years after its abolition.

It would then, be reasonable to surmise that almost any country in the Americas would be different today if it had developed in a different way.



Perhaps more like Canada which had a more limited experience of such things.&nbsp; :ph34r:
As usual, Biggles, you have the diplomatic eye trained, while I stew over perception.

Thank you, and well done. ;)

Perhaps I should dawdle a bit before I pronounce, yes?

BTW-

I was reminded today by someone beside whom I qualify as a mental incompetent that I am not terribly conversant in matters religious; I am chastened thus, and not inclined to offer defense.

Of course, I&#39;m in my cups at the moment, too. :P

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@19 August 2004 - 17:47
Notwithstanding the reasons for it being asked, Busyman&#39;s question 11. is interesting. There are two ways of looking it at it 1) the economic and 2) the social/moral.

In answer to the first, slavery served the Americas well for the best part of 300 years and provided substantial wealth and set up an elite that still calls the shots in many of the countries of that continent today. So in that respect it did provide some of the foundation stones that paved the way to economic prosperity.

In the second part, I think it would be fair to say that the social and moral sore it caused is still an underlying infection 150 years after its abolition.

It would then, be reasonable to surmise that almost any country in the Americas would be different today if it had developed in a different way.



Perhaps more like Canada which had a more limited experience of such things. :ph34r:
That man&#39;s a janeyus&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Biggles you have my utmost respect for answering that question. :D

Very concise my man. ;) (and true)

Amazing that you are not from here but are so enlightened.

--End of ball smacking. :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@19 August 2004 - 17:54
--End of ball smacking. :ph34r:
Ah...

&#39;Tis as I thought, then. ;)

:)

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2004 - 21:26
Still...

I was struck at the disconnect indicated by your question, B.

I would have thought that had the question been lurking in your head, you&#39;d have asked me, and some time ago, too.
I would have thought Busy didn&#39;t ask you because he holds you in a high regard.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by j2k4@19 August 2004 - 17:26
I&#39;m sorry, I just think this country has gotten beyond that level of hatred.

Hope I&#39;m not wrong.
It is that belief that gives a genuine credence to your notion that affirmative action is wrong.

Opponents will point out that those beliefs, however, are not applicable to real world settings.

Amazing that both sides have a point....

.....and that the mere asking of that question

.....shouldn&#39;t be a problem. <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@19 August 2004 - 22:17
Amazing that both sides have a point....

.....and that the mere asking of that question

.....shouldn&#39;t be a problem. <_<
"That question"?

Some might say such things should be left alone, and subliminate the thoughts the question provokes or elicits.

Others believe that the more these things are talked about, or debated, the better off we will all be.

It should be apparent to all that racism should be rejected on it&#39;s face; those who continue to practice it are only vindicated by such discussions, because the first thing that occurs is the choosing of sides, no matter how tenuously, and therein lies the comfort of knowing one is not alone in holding such beliefs.

Some can be "cured" by being made to feel alone in their beliefs; that they may seek others who agree with their views but find no one.

Others may acquire the proper ideas through time and breeding, but there is little else (apart from what is called a S.E.E.; that is for another post, though) that will turn the trick.

To relieve someone of a racist point-of-view is much more difficult than what we try to do to each other on this board.

In any case, my thought is that racism cannot ever be legislated away, nor can it be beaten out of someone, and rare indeed is the person who can be shamed out of it.

To debate the subject is (as myfiles3000 said once) intellectual masturbation.

[longboneslinger]

The last answer was an amalgamation of j2k4&#39;s non-answer and vid&#39;s answer and not your own
Actually, it was an agreement with their statements. Amalgamation...agreement.....whatever. Either way, it&#39;s my thoughts too. Sorry, didn&#39;t know I was being judged on originality. I&#39;ll try harder next time.
As for equality, sorry. I will hold God&#39;s law paramount. A country that follows God&#39;s will will be blessed. Go against it at your peril. If you don&#39;t believe in God, that&#39;s your right. I don&#39;t hold it against you and I hope you don&#39;t hold my belief in Him against me. Very simply, I believe that blessing sin is wrong. NO blessing can come from sin. None. The governments giving them papers making it legal doesn&#39;t make it right, just legal. While I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a crime, neither do I think it deserves legitimacy.

About the pedophile argument. The reason I used it was because I had been falsely acused of it in an previous post, so it kinda stuck in my mind. Nothing as an accusation was intended.

I want to say to busyman:
1-Your welcome.
2-Thank you for posing both well thought out and thought provoking questions. It&#39;s a welcome break from being called a "hate mongering homophobic pedophile" just for having a contradictory opinon.
3-Another thank you for being above the above line and not indulging in those responses yourself. What makes this world great is that people from many nations and walks of life, irrespective of religious beliefs or lack thereof, can have a civilized, calm conversation without resorting to childish name calling. I find it most refreshing.

Later,
BoNe

[vidcc]

Originally posted by longboneslinger@20 August 2004 - 18:37
As for equality, sorry. I will hold God&#39;s law paramount. A country that follows God&#39;s will will be blessed. Go against it at your peril. If you don&#39;t believe in God, that&#39;s your right. I don&#39;t hold it against you and I hope you don&#39;t hold my belief in Him against me. Very simply, I believe that blessing sin is wrong. NO blessing can come from sin. None. The governments giving them papers making it legal doesn&#39;t make it right, just legal. While I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a crime, neither do I think it deserves legitimacy.


but what about those that don&#39;t believe in your God? Why should we abide by your interpretation of Gods law if we don&#39;t believe? what if we all of a sudden said that anyone that believes in God should be allowed fewer rights than those that do?
Give non believers tax free status on their properties. Just why do religions have tax exemptions anyway? God doesn&#39;t want money.

I have great respect for other peoples religious beliefs, but i have little respect for any view that denies equality of earthly life.



Please explain to me just how gay unions will damage hetrosexual marriage?...because they won&#39;t threaten my marriage one bit.

[SpamhandEl]

but what about those that don&#39;t believe in your God? Why should we abide by your interpretation of Gods law if we don&#39;t believe? what if we all of a sudden said that anyone that believes in God should be allowed fewer rights than those that do?

Religious zealots and God have very little to do with each other.

[MagicNakor]

With the assumption that he&#39;s referring to the Christian God, there&#39;s still the problem of which "branch" to follow, to the interpretation of the divine. Roman Catholics and Anglicans (just to pick two) have very different interpretations of some issues. And even within their own sects, the churches are splitting.

:ninja:

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+19 August 2004 - 23:31--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 19 August 2004 - 23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@19 August 2004 - 17:54
--End of ball smacking. :ph34r:
Ah...

&#39;Tis as I thought, then. ;)

:) [/b][/quote]
:fear2:

If I could be excused the ball smacking I would be extremely grateful.

J2, Busyman

Thank you for the kind words - although I must admit I wandered into this one without any real understanding of the internal US political dynamics. I am just glad I did not set off any land mines

Spamhandel

It has been said that he actively avoids such contact if at all possible, preferring to take tea with those whose hearts have a kinder disposition.