billvon 3,030 #26 March 7, 2006 >It's stunning that you can't see the fact that the leftie protests >and protestors get wildly childish and out of hand while you don't > really see too much of that from the righties... Let's see. Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog? Calling Cindy Sheehan a whore? Methinks you haven't listened to many right wing loonies. They are every bit as bad as the left wing loonies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #27 March 7, 2006 HAHAHAHA! Quote...by an illegally elected government... spoken like a person who functions on emotion and not logic. just how is it that the current administration got elected illegally? iirc, florida law was on the side of the bush camp when gore tried to have fl. election law re-written by the judiciary."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #28 March 7, 2006 I'll take it you understood my point about how a comment about 1 party does not imply the opposite of the other party. Good. We won't have to worry about that again. I'll give you Pat Robertson... but even then, you don't see him laying on stoops and rioting at "peace" marches. That domain is almost exclusively owned by the left. Admit it. It seems more left leaning people agree with their extremists than right wing people. Why is that?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #29 March 7, 2006 QuoteLet's see. Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog? Calling Cindy Sheehan a whore? Methinks you haven't listened to many right wing loonies. They are every bit as bad as the left wing loonies. So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? The left does TONS of name calling, and it doesn't even take a radical leftie to get more vile than the 2 insults you've listed. You can't see that though... like I said, I guess we just can't have this conversation...Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #30 March 7, 2006 QuoteIt seems more left leaning people agree with their extremists than right wing people. Why is that? Really, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #31 March 7, 2006 After 20 years of aiding his fellow Indians in South Africa, Gandhi returned to India and picked up the fight against British oppression. Instead of encouraging native born Indians to take up arms and force the British colonists out of their country, Gandhi created a policy of non-violent protest. "Non-violence, " he said, "is a weapon for the brave." For 20 years, non-violent protests, marches and strikes by the Indians wore down British resistance. Confronted by a slight man wearing only a plain cloth and accompanied by millions of followers armed not with weapons but love and truth, the British government in 1946 finally gave India its long-held dream of independence. The fight for India's freedom had been won without a battle having ever been fought. Sadly, two years after his great victory, Gandhi was shot and killed by an assassin's bullet. But Gandhi's legacy lived on after his death, showing the world that one can be a hero and accomplish great things without guns or swords or hatred. As Gandhi once said, "It is non-violence only when we love those that hate us. I know how difficult it is to follow this grand law of love, but are not all great and good things difficult to do? Love of the hater is the most difficult of all. But by the grace of God even this most difficult thing becomes easy to accomplish if we want to."----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #32 March 7, 2006 QuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #33 March 7, 2006 Quote Jen I know you were trying to make your point and I wanted that to be voiced...but PLEASE don't make it seem like I would state a thing about that about the Mahatma....OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #34 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuote Jen I know you were trying to make your point and I wanted that to be voiced...but PLEASE don't make it seem like I would state a thing about that about the Mahatma....OK? I have difficulty accepting that someone who advocates the cold blooded murder of a non-violent protestor is attempting to claim a piece of moral high ground.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #35 March 7, 2006 QuoteI've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. That is not what I asked. Please answer my question. QuoteAnd it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Who is this mysterious "left" that pays for this? QuoteIs this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. No it isn't, for me anyways, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It is interesting how you take a quote from a paper as gospel when it agrees with your position.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Steel 0 #36 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteLet's see. Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog? Calling Cindy Sheehan a whore? Methinks you haven't listened to many right wing loonies. They are every bit as bad as the left wing loonies. So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? The left does TONS of name calling, and it doesn't even take a radical leftie to get more vile than the 2 insults you've listed. You can't see that though... like I said, I guess we just can't have this conversation... I don't know who he is referring to about calling Sheenan a whore. But about calling Chelsie Clinton a dog that is a lie, Bill Von continues to repeat about Rush Limbaugh. I remember very clearly what the true story is. It was when Rush had his show, he was showing footage from the Clinton's and made a reference to the white house dog, while a picture of Chelsea was on the screen. It was a mistake and he appologized for it. But Bill Von just as all the other liberals are so annoyed by Rush for exposing their lies, that they need to attack him as viciously and innaccurately as possible. ,If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,030 #37 March 7, 2006 >So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself >to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? Nope. But if you want to go on about the more out there extremists, the left-wingers don't seem to have nearly as many violent criminals. Cindy Sheehan gets arrested for trespassing; a right winger gets arrested for trying to mow her camp down with his car. Pro-choice protesters get arrested for trespassing; anti-abortionists kill doctors. Pro-gay-marriage lefties stage marches. Anti-gay extremists kill gays. Given the choice, I'll take the trespassers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #38 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteDoes the name "Rush Limbaugh" ring a bell? How about Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? These people are definitely "rightie wackjobs". Hypocritical assholes, too. People listen to them regularly. There are even people who believe that they tell the truth. These and their ilk have done far more damage to the USA than Cindy Sheehan. Hahahaha, so you picked on tv and radio opinion show hosts? Do you see them rioting in the streets at "peace" protests? Do you see them acting like fools laying on doorsteps just to get the cameras on them and refusing to talk to the people they're protesting? Really, if you equate their behavior to this woman's... we can't have this discussion. It's stunning that you can't see the fact that the leftie protests and protestors get wildly childish and out of hand while you don't really see too much of that from the righties... even most of the loonies. Wow, I must have missed the news!!! Just when did "rioting in the streets at "peace" protests" take place in the USA in this century? Look up the term "civil disobedience". Try a dictionary or wikipedia. It isn't really that hard a concept. If you had been around in 1948 you would have nice things to say about Mahatma Gandhi. I'll bet you would have been right there with Martin Luther King and the other leaders of the civil rights movement if you could have. I don't "equate their behavior to this woman's". Their behavior is much worse for this country, hands down. It is stunning that you can't see the fact that the news clips you watch on Faux news are carefully edited to make the protestors look bad. Did you happen to catch any of the footage of the counter protestors outside the Bush ranch in August? You know, the right wing wackjobs? Probably not. None of the "liberal media" covered them much, if at all. The footage I have seen makes the lefties look rather tame in comparison. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!! is the right wing mantra nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 March 7, 2006 ummmm what I did was leave an open ended statement in order to get a debate going!... so don't lecture me on morals ok? and on another note even if she wears depends that does not make her the Mahatma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #40 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said. The story presented here as "facts" conflicts with other reports I have read and heard. Was Grennell under oath when he said this? I didn't think so. Given the outright lies and mis-statements from official government spokepeople recently, why is Grennell at all credible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #41 March 7, 2006 Quoteso don't lecture me on morals ok? For god's sake do NOT lecture warpedskydiver on morals. He advocates summary execution for trespassers so there's no telling what he'd do to you for lecturing. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #42 March 7, 2006 Quoteummmm what I did was leave an open ended statement in order to get a debate going!... so don't lecture me on morals ok? and on another note even if she wears depends that does not make her the Mahatma Fair enough. Shoot the bitch! AMERICA, HOME OF (non-offensive) FREE SPEECH! * *Offer void where prohibited by law. Severe penalty for trespassing.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #43 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteso don't lecture me on morals ok? For god's sake do NOT lecture warpedskydiver on morals. He advocates summary execution for trespassers so there's no telling what he'd do to you for lecturing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #44 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said. Cindy Sheehan and her followers are a threat to ShrubCo. The "liberal media" will give her all of the coverage they can come up with that makes her look bad. Pat Roberson depends of the ignorance and money of people who are "all messed up on the lord" and spews hate filled rants that support ShrubCo. What happens is the supporters of ShrubCo get a few moments of coverage when they say really stupid things. In a day or two, the coverage goes away. Ongoing negative coverage of ShrubCo opponents happens constantly. Why? If the "Liberal Media" can marginalize and trivialize the opposition, the sheeple will will think that the opposition is unimportant. That is the explanation of why you see more on one than the other. Cheech and Chong ~1975 - "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord". A classic line for those of us who lived through the era of "Jesus Freaks". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #45 March 7, 2006 QuoteThat is not what I asked. Please answer my question. Quite right. My apologies. Instead of sticking with the discussion, you want to turn the conversation to an apples to oranges comparison about "followers". Here's your answer, just to humor you... while Pat Robertson (not someone I usually agree with BTW) has his OWN followers that may outnumber the Cyndi-worshippers... Cyndi seems to have more attention from the US as a whole through her self-promoting protests and attention schemes. Like I said, Pat Robertson, most of the time, is preaching to his choir... Cyndi is not. QuoteWho is this mysterious "left" that pays for this? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paid+protestors QuoteNo it isn't, for me anyways, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It is interesting how you take a quote from a paper as gospel when it agrees with your position.... Actually, IT IS what we were discussing since it was my first entry into this forum and you responded to me. Perhaps YOU are off subject... but pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. It's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #46 March 7, 2006 > Protesting a premeditated war of agression by an illegally elected government via trespassing is not a capital offense. If anything, Shrub, Rummy, and that whole crew deserve the death penalty for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. When the people of the USA take back their government, they may be held accountable for their actions. We can only hope... A wacky statement, from obviously someone who is alittle wachy. Think about moving from the left coast to a more stable environment. Your tired and old left wing talking points seriously need to be updated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #47 March 7, 2006 Quotehttp://www.google.com/...mp;q=paid+protestors once agian that didn't answer the question. Who is this mysterious "left" you talked about in your post that is supposedly paying for these protestors? QuoteIt's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position. I didn't use a quote in defence of a position. Quotebut pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. Judging from the above, one you are well versed in.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #48 March 7, 2006 Since it took you 2 posts to respond... I'll consolidate. QuoteWas Grennell under oath when he said this? I didn't think so. You're correct, it should be required that all reports in media be backed by judicial oath. You get it started and I'm right behind ya. I suppose the "truth" that you and the others here have was delivered to you under oath. My mistake. QuoteCindy Sheehan and her followers are a threat to ShrubCo. The "liberal media" will give her all of the coverage they can come up with that makes her look bad. Pat Roberson depends of the ignorance and money of people who are "all messed up on the lord" and spews hate filled rants that support ShrubCo. Here's a clue... it isn't the media that make Cyndi look bad... it's her actions! Many people would disagree with you and your "right leaning" press hypothesis. QuoteWhat happens is the supporters of ShrubCo get a few moments of coverage when they say really stupid things. In a day or two, the coverage goes away. Ongoing negative coverage of ShrubCo opponents happens constantly. Why? If the "Liberal Media" can marginalize and trivialize the opposition, the sheeple will will think that the opposition is unimportant. You sure? The administration doesn't take a bashing in the press? Sounds like you only read "conservative" press to me. Try looking around a bit and you'll see how wrong you are here. For future reference... when you constantly use derogatory names for the administration... it kinda makes it obvious that responding to you will be futile anyway.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #49 March 7, 2006 Quoteonce agian that didn't answer the question. Who is this mysterious "left" you talked about in your post that is supposedly paying for these protestors? I dunno... that's why they're mysterious. Go read some of the links. There's at least as much "proof" in there as it takes you to believe that Bush is purposely killing innocent babies in Iraq. QuoteI didn't use a quote in defence of a position. So... what are you doing to defend your position besides trying to change the subject... AGAIN. QuoteJudging from the above, one you are well versed in.... Point it out. Or just don't say it.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #50 March 7, 2006 Quote Don't know much about either election, do you? Whining? No, just stating facts. Here is a hint. Do a google search. Try "2000 florida election" and "2004 Ohio election". There is plenty of info out there. Let us know what you find. Start a new thread on your findings. It will be a lot of fun. the FACTS are that Bush won those states. You can quibble about what might have been, had the Florida ballot not intermixed Buchanon and Gore, or not had that purging of voter rolls prior, but it is known how many legal votes each candidate received. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jenfly00 0 #34 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuote Jen I know you were trying to make your point and I wanted that to be voiced...but PLEASE don't make it seem like I would state a thing about that about the Mahatma....OK? I have difficulty accepting that someone who advocates the cold blooded murder of a non-violent protestor is attempting to claim a piece of moral high ground.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #35 March 7, 2006 QuoteI've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. That is not what I asked. Please answer my question. QuoteAnd it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Who is this mysterious "left" that pays for this? QuoteIs this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. No it isn't, for me anyways, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It is interesting how you take a quote from a paper as gospel when it agrees with your position.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Steel 0 #36 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteLet's see. Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog? Calling Cindy Sheehan a whore? Methinks you haven't listened to many right wing loonies. They are every bit as bad as the left wing loonies. So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? The left does TONS of name calling, and it doesn't even take a radical leftie to get more vile than the 2 insults you've listed. You can't see that though... like I said, I guess we just can't have this conversation... I don't know who he is referring to about calling Sheenan a whore. But about calling Chelsie Clinton a dog that is a lie, Bill Von continues to repeat about Rush Limbaugh. I remember very clearly what the true story is. It was when Rush had his show, he was showing footage from the Clinton's and made a reference to the white house dog, while a picture of Chelsea was on the screen. It was a mistake and he appologized for it. But Bill Von just as all the other liberals are so annoyed by Rush for exposing their lies, that they need to attack him as viciously and innaccurately as possible. ,If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,030 #37 March 7, 2006 >So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself >to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? Nope. But if you want to go on about the more out there extremists, the left-wingers don't seem to have nearly as many violent criminals. Cindy Sheehan gets arrested for trespassing; a right winger gets arrested for trying to mow her camp down with his car. Pro-choice protesters get arrested for trespassing; anti-abortionists kill doctors. Pro-gay-marriage lefties stage marches. Anti-gay extremists kill gays. Given the choice, I'll take the trespassers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #38 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteDoes the name "Rush Limbaugh" ring a bell? How about Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? These people are definitely "rightie wackjobs". Hypocritical assholes, too. People listen to them regularly. There are even people who believe that they tell the truth. These and their ilk have done far more damage to the USA than Cindy Sheehan. Hahahaha, so you picked on tv and radio opinion show hosts? Do you see them rioting in the streets at "peace" protests? Do you see them acting like fools laying on doorsteps just to get the cameras on them and refusing to talk to the people they're protesting? Really, if you equate their behavior to this woman's... we can't have this discussion. It's stunning that you can't see the fact that the leftie protests and protestors get wildly childish and out of hand while you don't really see too much of that from the righties... even most of the loonies. Wow, I must have missed the news!!! Just when did "rioting in the streets at "peace" protests" take place in the USA in this century? Look up the term "civil disobedience". Try a dictionary or wikipedia. It isn't really that hard a concept. If you had been around in 1948 you would have nice things to say about Mahatma Gandhi. I'll bet you would have been right there with Martin Luther King and the other leaders of the civil rights movement if you could have. I don't "equate their behavior to this woman's". Their behavior is much worse for this country, hands down. It is stunning that you can't see the fact that the news clips you watch on Faux news are carefully edited to make the protestors look bad. Did you happen to catch any of the footage of the counter protestors outside the Bush ranch in August? You know, the right wing wackjobs? Probably not. None of the "liberal media" covered them much, if at all. The footage I have seen makes the lefties look rather tame in comparison. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!! is the right wing mantra nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #39 March 7, 2006 ummmm what I did was leave an open ended statement in order to get a debate going!... so don't lecture me on morals ok? and on another note even if she wears depends that does not make her the Mahatma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #40 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said. The story presented here as "facts" conflicts with other reports I have read and heard. Was Grennell under oath when he said this? I didn't think so. Given the outright lies and mis-statements from official government spokepeople recently, why is Grennell at all credible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #41 March 7, 2006 Quoteso don't lecture me on morals ok? For god's sake do NOT lecture warpedskydiver on morals. He advocates summary execution for trespassers so there's no telling what he'd do to you for lecturing. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #42 March 7, 2006 Quoteummmm what I did was leave an open ended statement in order to get a debate going!... so don't lecture me on morals ok? and on another note even if she wears depends that does not make her the Mahatma Fair enough. Shoot the bitch! AMERICA, HOME OF (non-offensive) FREE SPEECH! * *Offer void where prohibited by law. Severe penalty for trespassing.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #43 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteso don't lecture me on morals ok? For god's sake do NOT lecture warpedskydiver on morals. He advocates summary execution for trespassers so there's no telling what he'd do to you for lecturing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #44 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said. Cindy Sheehan and her followers are a threat to ShrubCo. The "liberal media" will give her all of the coverage they can come up with that makes her look bad. Pat Roberson depends of the ignorance and money of people who are "all messed up on the lord" and spews hate filled rants that support ShrubCo. What happens is the supporters of ShrubCo get a few moments of coverage when they say really stupid things. In a day or two, the coverage goes away. Ongoing negative coverage of ShrubCo opponents happens constantly. Why? If the "Liberal Media" can marginalize and trivialize the opposition, the sheeple will will think that the opposition is unimportant. That is the explanation of why you see more on one than the other. Cheech and Chong ~1975 - "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord". A classic line for those of us who lived through the era of "Jesus Freaks". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #45 March 7, 2006 QuoteThat is not what I asked. Please answer my question. Quite right. My apologies. Instead of sticking with the discussion, you want to turn the conversation to an apples to oranges comparison about "followers". Here's your answer, just to humor you... while Pat Robertson (not someone I usually agree with BTW) has his OWN followers that may outnumber the Cyndi-worshippers... Cyndi seems to have more attention from the US as a whole through her self-promoting protests and attention schemes. Like I said, Pat Robertson, most of the time, is preaching to his choir... Cyndi is not. QuoteWho is this mysterious "left" that pays for this? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paid+protestors QuoteNo it isn't, for me anyways, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It is interesting how you take a quote from a paper as gospel when it agrees with your position.... Actually, IT IS what we were discussing since it was my first entry into this forum and you responded to me. Perhaps YOU are off subject... but pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. It's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #46 March 7, 2006 > Protesting a premeditated war of agression by an illegally elected government via trespassing is not a capital offense. If anything, Shrub, Rummy, and that whole crew deserve the death penalty for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. When the people of the USA take back their government, they may be held accountable for their actions. We can only hope... A wacky statement, from obviously someone who is alittle wachy. Think about moving from the left coast to a more stable environment. Your tired and old left wing talking points seriously need to be updated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #47 March 7, 2006 Quotehttp://www.google.com/...mp;q=paid+protestors once agian that didn't answer the question. Who is this mysterious "left" you talked about in your post that is supposedly paying for these protestors? QuoteIt's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position. I didn't use a quote in defence of a position. Quotebut pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. Judging from the above, one you are well versed in.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #48 March 7, 2006 Since it took you 2 posts to respond... I'll consolidate. QuoteWas Grennell under oath when he said this? I didn't think so. You're correct, it should be required that all reports in media be backed by judicial oath. You get it started and I'm right behind ya. I suppose the "truth" that you and the others here have was delivered to you under oath. My mistake. QuoteCindy Sheehan and her followers are a threat to ShrubCo. The "liberal media" will give her all of the coverage they can come up with that makes her look bad. Pat Roberson depends of the ignorance and money of people who are "all messed up on the lord" and spews hate filled rants that support ShrubCo. Here's a clue... it isn't the media that make Cyndi look bad... it's her actions! Many people would disagree with you and your "right leaning" press hypothesis. QuoteWhat happens is the supporters of ShrubCo get a few moments of coverage when they say really stupid things. In a day or two, the coverage goes away. Ongoing negative coverage of ShrubCo opponents happens constantly. Why? If the "Liberal Media" can marginalize and trivialize the opposition, the sheeple will will think that the opposition is unimportant. You sure? The administration doesn't take a bashing in the press? Sounds like you only read "conservative" press to me. Try looking around a bit and you'll see how wrong you are here. For future reference... when you constantly use derogatory names for the administration... it kinda makes it obvious that responding to you will be futile anyway.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #49 March 7, 2006 Quoteonce agian that didn't answer the question. Who is this mysterious "left" you talked about in your post that is supposedly paying for these protestors? I dunno... that's why they're mysterious. Go read some of the links. There's at least as much "proof" in there as it takes you to believe that Bush is purposely killing innocent babies in Iraq. QuoteI didn't use a quote in defence of a position. So... what are you doing to defend your position besides trying to change the subject... AGAIN. QuoteJudging from the above, one you are well versed in.... Point it out. Or just don't say it.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #50 March 7, 2006 Quote Don't know much about either election, do you? Whining? No, just stating facts. Here is a hint. Do a google search. Try "2000 florida election" and "2004 Ohio election". There is plenty of info out there. Let us know what you find. Start a new thread on your findings. It will be a lot of fun. the FACTS are that Bush won those states. You can quibble about what might have been, had the Florida ballot not intermixed Buchanon and Gore, or not had that purging of voter rolls prior, but it is known how many legal votes each candidate received. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SkyDekker 1,465 #35 March 7, 2006 QuoteI've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. That is not what I asked. Please answer my question. QuoteAnd it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Who is this mysterious "left" that pays for this? QuoteIs this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. No it isn't, for me anyways, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It is interesting how you take a quote from a paper as gospel when it agrees with your position.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #36 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteLet's see. Calling Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog? Calling Cindy Sheehan a whore? Methinks you haven't listened to many right wing loonies. They are every bit as bad as the left wing loonies. So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? The left does TONS of name calling, and it doesn't even take a radical leftie to get more vile than the 2 insults you've listed. You can't see that though... like I said, I guess we just can't have this conversation... I don't know who he is referring to about calling Sheenan a whore. But about calling Chelsie Clinton a dog that is a lie, Bill Von continues to repeat about Rush Limbaugh. I remember very clearly what the true story is. It was when Rush had his show, he was showing footage from the Clinton's and made a reference to the white house dog, while a picture of Chelsea was on the screen. It was a mistake and he appologized for it. But Bill Von just as all the other liberals are so annoyed by Rush for exposing their lies, that they need to attack him as viciously and innaccurately as possible. ,If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,030 #37 March 7, 2006 >So name-calling in your book is equal to rioting, chaining yourself >to fences, laying on doorsteps, and other unproductive tactics? Nope. But if you want to go on about the more out there extremists, the left-wingers don't seem to have nearly as many violent criminals. Cindy Sheehan gets arrested for trespassing; a right winger gets arrested for trying to mow her camp down with his car. Pro-choice protesters get arrested for trespassing; anti-abortionists kill doctors. Pro-gay-marriage lefties stage marches. Anti-gay extremists kill gays. Given the choice, I'll take the trespassers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #38 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteDoes the name "Rush Limbaugh" ring a bell? How about Bill O'Reilly? Sean Hannity? These people are definitely "rightie wackjobs". Hypocritical assholes, too. People listen to them regularly. There are even people who believe that they tell the truth. These and their ilk have done far more damage to the USA than Cindy Sheehan. Hahahaha, so you picked on tv and radio opinion show hosts? Do you see them rioting in the streets at "peace" protests? Do you see them acting like fools laying on doorsteps just to get the cameras on them and refusing to talk to the people they're protesting? Really, if you equate their behavior to this woman's... we can't have this discussion. It's stunning that you can't see the fact that the leftie protests and protestors get wildly childish and out of hand while you don't really see too much of that from the righties... even most of the loonies. Wow, I must have missed the news!!! Just when did "rioting in the streets at "peace" protests" take place in the USA in this century? Look up the term "civil disobedience". Try a dictionary or wikipedia. It isn't really that hard a concept. If you had been around in 1948 you would have nice things to say about Mahatma Gandhi. I'll bet you would have been right there with Martin Luther King and the other leaders of the civil rights movement if you could have. I don't "equate their behavior to this woman's". Their behavior is much worse for this country, hands down. It is stunning that you can't see the fact that the news clips you watch on Faux news are carefully edited to make the protestors look bad. Did you happen to catch any of the footage of the counter protestors outside the Bush ranch in August? You know, the right wing wackjobs? Probably not. None of the "liberal media" covered them much, if at all. The footage I have seen makes the lefties look rather tame in comparison. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!! is the right wing mantra nowadays. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #39 March 7, 2006 ummmm what I did was leave an open ended statement in order to get a debate going!... so don't lecture me on morals ok? and on another note even if she wears depends that does not make her the Mahatma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #40 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said. The story presented here as "facts" conflicts with other reports I have read and heard. Was Grennell under oath when he said this? I didn't think so. Given the outright lies and mis-statements from official government spokepeople recently, why is Grennell at all credible? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #41 March 7, 2006 Quoteso don't lecture me on morals ok? For god's sake do NOT lecture warpedskydiver on morals. He advocates summary execution for trespassers so there's no telling what he'd do to you for lecturing. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #42 March 7, 2006 Quoteummmm what I did was leave an open ended statement in order to get a debate going!... so don't lecture me on morals ok? and on another note even if she wears depends that does not make her the Mahatma Fair enough. Shoot the bitch! AMERICA, HOME OF (non-offensive) FREE SPEECH! * *Offer void where prohibited by law. Severe penalty for trespassing.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #43 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteso don't lecture me on morals ok? For god's sake do NOT lecture warpedskydiver on morals. He advocates summary execution for trespassers so there's no telling what he'd do to you for lecturing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #44 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteReally, who do you think has more followers, Pat Robertson or Cindy Sheehan? Last time I checked Pat fills arenas, while Cindy gets a couple of people to watch her lay on a doorstep.... I've seen more of Cyndi on the news than I have of Pat Robertson. Why is that? And it isn't JUST about Cyndi... look at the protests in NY during the RNC, Seattle, and just about anywhere the left can pay to get enough of their protestors in one place. Is that more reasonable than having a commentary on a tv show or radio, or selling tickets to an arena where you talk only to your followers? Really? Here, I'll quote this again... for all of you... Is this the kind of rationale you support in your "heroes" from the left? Think about it. QuoteRichard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan's arrest: "We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said. Cindy Sheehan and her followers are a threat to ShrubCo. The "liberal media" will give her all of the coverage they can come up with that makes her look bad. Pat Roberson depends of the ignorance and money of people who are "all messed up on the lord" and spews hate filled rants that support ShrubCo. What happens is the supporters of ShrubCo get a few moments of coverage when they say really stupid things. In a day or two, the coverage goes away. Ongoing negative coverage of ShrubCo opponents happens constantly. Why? If the "Liberal Media" can marginalize and trivialize the opposition, the sheeple will will think that the opposition is unimportant. That is the explanation of why you see more on one than the other. Cheech and Chong ~1975 - "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord". A classic line for those of us who lived through the era of "Jesus Freaks". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #45 March 7, 2006 QuoteThat is not what I asked. Please answer my question. Quite right. My apologies. Instead of sticking with the discussion, you want to turn the conversation to an apples to oranges comparison about "followers". Here's your answer, just to humor you... while Pat Robertson (not someone I usually agree with BTW) has his OWN followers that may outnumber the Cyndi-worshippers... Cyndi seems to have more attention from the US as a whole through her self-promoting protests and attention schemes. Like I said, Pat Robertson, most of the time, is preaching to his choir... Cyndi is not. QuoteWho is this mysterious "left" that pays for this? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paid+protestors QuoteNo it isn't, for me anyways, but that wasn't what we were discussing. It is interesting how you take a quote from a paper as gospel when it agrees with your position.... Actually, IT IS what we were discussing since it was my first entry into this forum and you responded to me. Perhaps YOU are off subject... but pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. It's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #46 March 7, 2006 > Protesting a premeditated war of agression by an illegally elected government via trespassing is not a capital offense. If anything, Shrub, Rummy, and that whole crew deserve the death penalty for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. When the people of the USA take back their government, they may be held accountable for their actions. We can only hope... A wacky statement, from obviously someone who is alittle wachy. Think about moving from the left coast to a more stable environment. Your tired and old left wing talking points seriously need to be updated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 March 7, 2006 Quotehttp://www.google.com/...mp;q=paid+protestors once agian that didn't answer the question. Who is this mysterious "left" you talked about in your post that is supposedly paying for these protestors? QuoteIt's interesting that you take a quote from an emotionally wrecked, anti-everything, extreme leftie as gospel when it agrees with your position. I didn't use a quote in defence of a position. Quotebut pointing at shiny things seems to be a typical debate tactic here. Judging from the above, one you are well versed in.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #48 March 7, 2006 Since it took you 2 posts to respond... I'll consolidate. QuoteWas Grennell under oath when he said this? I didn't think so. You're correct, it should be required that all reports in media be backed by judicial oath. You get it started and I'm right behind ya. I suppose the "truth" that you and the others here have was delivered to you under oath. My mistake. QuoteCindy Sheehan and her followers are a threat to ShrubCo. The "liberal media" will give her all of the coverage they can come up with that makes her look bad. Pat Roberson depends of the ignorance and money of people who are "all messed up on the lord" and spews hate filled rants that support ShrubCo. Here's a clue... it isn't the media that make Cyndi look bad... it's her actions! Many people would disagree with you and your "right leaning" press hypothesis. QuoteWhat happens is the supporters of ShrubCo get a few moments of coverage when they say really stupid things. In a day or two, the coverage goes away. Ongoing negative coverage of ShrubCo opponents happens constantly. Why? If the "Liberal Media" can marginalize and trivialize the opposition, the sheeple will will think that the opposition is unimportant. You sure? The administration doesn't take a bashing in the press? Sounds like you only read "conservative" press to me. Try looking around a bit and you'll see how wrong you are here. For future reference... when you constantly use derogatory names for the administration... it kinda makes it obvious that responding to you will be futile anyway.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #49 March 7, 2006 Quoteonce agian that didn't answer the question. Who is this mysterious "left" you talked about in your post that is supposedly paying for these protestors? I dunno... that's why they're mysterious. Go read some of the links. There's at least as much "proof" in there as it takes you to believe that Bush is purposely killing innocent babies in Iraq. QuoteI didn't use a quote in defence of a position. So... what are you doing to defend your position besides trying to change the subject... AGAIN. QuoteJudging from the above, one you are well versed in.... Point it out. Or just don't say it.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #50 March 7, 2006 Quote Don't know much about either election, do you? Whining? No, just stating facts. Here is a hint. Do a google search. Try "2000 florida election" and "2004 Ohio election". There is plenty of info out there. Let us know what you find. Start a new thread on your findings. It will be a lot of fun. the FACTS are that Bush won those states. You can quibble about what might have been, had the Florida ballot not intermixed Buchanon and Gore, or not had that purging of voter rolls prior, but it is known how many legal votes each candidate received. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
