Discussion:
Is This The Same "mediamatters.org" Liberals Pretend is NOT Biased?
(too old to reply)
Clay
2005-03-07 16:17:45 UTC
Permalink
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200503020002>

Now... is it just a matter of time b4 a Conservative news site or blog
exposes a "stocks & bonds" reporter for the Washington Post who posts
pro-liberal comments during the 2006 campaign???

You liberals are fascist at your very core. The edict is... "either
agree with our loony worldview or we will destroy you by any means
necessary".

BTW... the "Handbook" mentioned also says the following:

101. "Staff members may participate in radio, television or Internet
interviews or discussions, paid or unpaid, that deal with
articles they have written or subjects that figure in the coverage
they provide, edit, package or supervise. Such occasional
appearances must not imply that they carry the sponsorship or
endorsement of The Times (unless they do). Staff members
should be careful about the use of their names and that of the
newspaper in materials promoting the appearances. As a
courtesy, they should let their department head know about
their plans to appear.

102. In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet
appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone
and content to make sure they are consistent with Times
standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums
that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.
Instead, we should offer thoughtful and retrospective analysis.
Generally a staff member should not say anything on radio,
television or the Internet that could not appear under his or
her byline in The Times."

In other words: If you're a journalist for "The Times" or one of its
many, many subsidiaries... you will have to give up your citizenship --
or get another job.

Pathetic.

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 16:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Is This The Same "mediamatters.org" Liberals Pretend is NOT Biased?
lmao - is this the same "Clay" who says gannon is a non-story?
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 17:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Is This The Same "mediamatters.org" Liberals Pretend is NOT
Biased?
Post by <SmirkS>
lmao - is this the same "Clay" who says gannon is a non-story?
Glad to have made you laugh. Gannon" is a non-story... Frank Rich
pretty much confirms that. And you know he would want just the
opposite.

The "Italian Job" might be a story that liberals can salivate over...
but things are breaking fast.

"Time keeps on ticking, ticking..."

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 17:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Gannon" is a non-story...
yes, you keep saying that - for nearly three weeks now.
Post by Clay
"Time keeps on ticking, ticking..."
Feed the babies
Who don't have enough to eat
Shoe the children
With no shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin' in the street
Oh, oh, there's a solution

I want to fly like an eagle
Till I'm free
Fly through the revolution

~~~~~~~

oh, wait - we're too busy war-mongering.
--
misinformation rules.
b***@aol.com
2005-03-07 17:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Feed the babies
Who don't have enough to eat
Shoe the children
With no shoes on their feet
House the people
Livin' in the street>>>

As perfect a description of Saddam's reign of terror as I could
imagine.
Post by <SmirkS>
Oh, oh, there's a solution
I want to fly like an eagle
Till I'm free
Fly through the revolution>>>

And there are the Americans, liberating the oppressed.

~~~~~~~

oh, wait - we're too busy war-mongering. >>>


I'm curious - how can you have a revolution without a war?
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 17:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
I'm curious - how can you have a revolution without a war?
you forgot the word "civil".
--
misinformation rules.
b***@aol.com
2005-03-07 21:27:12 UTC
Permalink
I'm curious - how can you have a revolution without a war?>>>
you forgot the word "civil". >>>
No, I didn't. How can you have a revolution without a war?
Jim E
2005-03-07 23:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Is This The Same "mediamatters.org" Liberals Pretend is NOT Biased?
lmao - is this the same "Clay" who says gannon is a non-story?
What guanine ?
Steven L.
2005-03-07 17:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200503020002>
Now... is it just a matter of time b4 a Conservative news site or blog
exposes a "stocks & bonds" reporter for the Washington Post who posts
pro-liberal comments during the 2006 campaign???
MediaMatters.org has never claimed to be unbiased.

Its purpose is to go after what they consider to be right-wing bias in
the news media.
Left-wing slants in the news media don't concern them.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Clay
2005-03-07 17:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Clay
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200503020002>
Now... is it just a matter of time b4 a Conservative news site or blog
exposes a "stocks & bonds" reporter for the Washington Post who posts
pro-liberal comments during the 2006 campaign???
MediaMatters.org has never claimed to be unbiased.
No... I said that "liberals" claim that "mediamatters" is not biased.
Post by Steven L.
Its purpose is to go after what they consider to be right-wing bias in
the news media.
And they do a good job at it too. But it's as biased as "The New York
Times".
Post by Steven L.
Left-wing slants in the news media don't concern them.
"MRC" is the site for that. Liberals, with a straight face, will tell
you that "mediamatters" IS NOT BIASED... we all know it is. But they
call Brent Bozell - "Bozo".

Is there any wonder why these chuckleheads got their ... ummm... heads
handed to them last November?

<LOL>

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 17:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Post by Steven L.
MediaMatters.org has never claimed to be unbiased.
No... I said that "liberals" claim that "mediamatters" is not biased.
cite? who claimed such, clay? do show us.
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 17:51:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
Post by Steven L.
MediaMatters.org has never claimed to be unbiased.
No... I said that "liberals" claim that "mediamatters" is not biased.
cite? who claimed such, clay? do show us.
Some thread I was in. I might've even began it... who knows? All I
know is one of your "fellow travelers" claimed "with a straight face"
that "MM" was not biased. Someone (might've been him or her) then
replied with something like: "ok, it's biased, but prove it's wrong".

Besides the point, I would say.

"You wear that well..."

<LOL>

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 18:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
No... I said that "liberals" claim that "mediamatters" is not
biased.
Post by <SmirkS>
cite? who claimed such, clay? do show us.
Some thread I was in. I might've even began it... who knows?
no shit.
Post by Steven L.
Besides the point, I would say.
the point being - you make shit up as you go along.


~~~~~~


http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/browse_thread/thread/e80b68b6d98e67f
7/2ca692dc0ea899c1?q=clay+mediamatters+biased#2ca692dc0ea899c1

Coulter caught lying about Bush's Man-Whore

Clay Feb 26, 8:45 am
Post by Steven L.
http://mediamatters.org/
<biased text sniffed & snipped>

MM is a hopelessly partisan, very liberal-biased Web site. If it makes
hard-core, ultra-leftists feel good, I say... go for it. For me, I've
got other things to do that be polluted by biased claptrap.

~~~~~~~


it was YOU who said it, numbnuts...



just illustrating how much
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 18:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Steven L.
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
No... I said that "liberals" claim that "mediamatters" is not
biased.
Post by <SmirkS>
cite? who claimed such, clay? do show us.
Some thread I was in. I might've even began it... who knows?
no shit.
Post by Steven L.
Besides the point, I would say.
the point being - you make shit up as you go along.
~~~~~~
http://groups-
beta.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/browse_thread/thread/e80b68b6d98e67f
Post by <SmirkS>
7/2ca692dc0ea899c1?q=clay+mediamatters+biased#2ca692dc0ea899c1
Coulter caught lying about Bush's Man-Whore
Clay Feb 26, 8:45 am
Post by Steven L.
http://mediamatters.org/
<biased text sniffed & snipped>
MM is a hopelessly partisan, very liberal-biased Web site. If it makes
hard-core, ultra-leftists feel good, I say... go for it. For me, I've
got other things to do that be polluted by biased claptrap.
~~~~~~~
it was YOU who said it, numbnuts...
HEHEHEHEHE...
I guess you would call that "research". <LOL>

No matter... I'm off to lunch now. Guess when I come back I'm gonna
have to take you to the woodshed.

Stay tuned.

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 18:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
No matter... I'm off to lunch now.
mmm, enjoy your crow.
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 19:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
No matter... I'm off to lunch now.
mmm, enjoy your crow.
Nope... no crow was on the menu today...

======================
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
I'm just against far-left, very biased, very liberal, very obscure,
partisan Web sites... that are very shrill.
Evidently, you don't frequent the site, because if you did, you would
find that no media organization is left unchecked, including the New
York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and on and
on. You can check it out for yourself. That is if you're so inclined.
======================

As per usual, thanks for playing.

<LOL>

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 19:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
I'm just against far-left, very biased, very liberal, very obscure,
partisan Web sites... that are very shrill.
Evidently, you don't frequent the site, because if you did, you would
find that no media organization is left unchecked, including the New
York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and on and
on. You can check it out for yourself. That is if you're so inclined.
======================
hey, it's your delusion; go with it.
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 19:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
I'm just against far-left, very biased, very liberal, very obscure,
partisan Web sites... that are very shrill.
Evidently, you don't frequent the site, because if you did, you would
find that no media organization is left unchecked, including the New
York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and on and
on. You can check it out for yourself. That is if you're so
inclined.
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
======================
hey, it's your delusion; go with it.
Is that a white flag I see? Or is that the glare of the yellow streak
down your back? <LOL>

Hey... you're a liberal coward (redundant)... go with it.

<ROTFLMFAO>

-C-
Lady Chatterly
2005-03-07 20:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Is that a white flag I see? Or is that the glare of the yellow streak
down your back? <LOL>
1.
Post by Clay
Hey... you're a liberal coward (redundant)... go with it.
You know it is a fact.
Post by Clay
<ROTFLMFAO>
The inability of either of the sides to give in?
Post by Clay
-C-
Has blue eyes.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Unlike Foamy, Lady Chatterly has an excuse when she starts sounding
repetitive. Also unlike Foamy, Lady Chatterly possesses the capacity
to learn over time." -- Dan Baldwin
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 20:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Post by <SmirkS>
hey, it's your delusion; go with it.
Is that a white flag I see? Or is that the glare of the yellow streak
down your back? <LOL>
hardly - i called you out and proved your bullshit to be just that.


what you posted barely supports your claim, if i'm being generous.
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 20:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
Post by <SmirkS>
hey, it's your delusion; go with it.
Is that a white flag I see? Or is that the glare of the yellow streak
down your back? <LOL>
hardly - i called you out and proved your bullshit to be just that.
Uhhh... yeah, sure. But where is the "comeback"? You said prove it, I
did, you showed your "yella streak".
Post by <SmirkS>
what you posted barely supports your claim, if i'm being generous.
Nope, you're hardly "generous"... you would be one of those liberal
cowards (redundant) I'm always talking about.

<LOL>

And... damn if I didn't let "Ms. 'Besides The Point' <SmirkS>" change
the subject once again.

My "thrust" (if you will <LOL>) was that liberal cowards (redundant)
were fascist at their very core. Didn't see one reply to challenge
that yet.

Hmmmm....

-C-
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 23:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
My "thrust" (if you will <LOL>) was that liberal cowards (redundant)
were fascist at their very core. Didn't see one reply to challenge
that yet.
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
--
misinformation rules.
fiend999
2005-03-08 02:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
My "thrust" (if you will <LOL>) was that liberal cowards (redundant)
were fascist at their very core. Didn't see one reply to challenge
that yet.
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
For what? Instant H20?
Clay
2005-03-08 02:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
My "thrust" (if you will <LOL>) was that liberal cowards
(redundant)
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
were fascist at their very core. Didn't see one reply to
challenge
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
that yet.
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
For what? Instant H20?
I didn't see the reply you replied to.

The term "Liberal cowards" is redundant.

And you know that.

-C-
fiend999
2005-03-08 12:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
My "thrust" (if you will <LOL>) was that liberal cowards
(redundant)
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
were fascist at their very core. Didn't see one reply to
challenge
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
that yet.
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
For what? Instant H20?
I didn't see the reply you replied to.
The term "Liberal cowards" is redundant.
And you know that.
I wasn't talking to you, retread. Do learn to follow a thread.
--
Why vote republican?

Can someone answer this without saying something like "because they
aren't democrats", "they aren't gonna (can't) get blowjobs in the
whitehouse" or "I don't care for homersekshuls and their ay-jen-duh"?
<SmirkS>
2005-03-08 02:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
For what? Instant H20?
mud.
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-08 02:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
For what? Instant H20?
mud.
Obviously a "Brandy" fan.

<LOL>

-C-
Kyle Daulton
2005-03-08 02:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
My "thrust" (if you will <LOL>) was that liberal cowards (redundant)
were fascist at their very core. Didn't see one reply to challenge
that yet.
Clay, your sig should be "just add water."
For what? Instant H20?
Nah, that's a recipe for diarrhea.
--
**********
Since "special rights" has been a term of aspersion among conservatives for
decades, would-be theocrats have at least the decency to be too ashamed to
demand them explicitly.
Steven L.
2005-03-07 19:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Clay
Post by Steven L.
MediaMatters.org has never claimed to be unbiased.
No... I said that "liberals" claim that "mediamatters" is not
biased.
Post by <SmirkS>
cite? who claimed such, clay? do show us.
Some thread I was in. I might've even began it... who knows? All I
know is one of your "fellow travelers" claimed "with a straight face"
that "MM" was not biased.
Yeah, but you certainly can't extrapolate from some lefty loon on this
NG to "liberals" generally.

In fact, this NG is so polarized politically that I haven't seen too
many mainstream liberals here--supporters of Dick Gephardt and admirers
of Peter Beinart and so on. The lefties on this NG range from
ultra-liberals who admire Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich to the
hard-core ultra-left like that loon with the "OIL NAZIS" posts. The
latter include a lot of America-haters from foreign countries.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
<SmirkS>
2005-03-07 20:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
In fact, this NG is so polarized politically that I haven't seen too
many mainstream liberals here--supporters of Dick Gephardt and admirers
of Peter Beinart and so on. The lefties on this NG range from
ultra-liberals who admire Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich to the
hard-core ultra-left like that loon with the "OIL NAZIS" posts. The
latter include a lot of America-haters from foreign countries.
hey! steven ALMOST replied to me!


and what about the righties on this NG, steven? YOU know, the ones who make
goebbels look like a serious journalist?
--
misinformation rules.
Clay
2005-03-07 20:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Steven L.
In fact, this NG is so polarized politically that I haven't seen too
many mainstream liberals here--supporters of Dick Gephardt and admirers
of Peter Beinart and so on. The lefties on this NG range from
ultra-liberals who admire Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich to the
hard-core ultra-left like that loon with the "OIL NAZIS" posts.
The
Post by <SmirkS>
Post by Steven L.
latter include a lot of America-haters from foreign countries.
hey! steven ALMOST replied to me!
and what about the righties on this NG, steven? YOU know, the ones who make
goebbels look like a serious journalist?
What part of "polarized politically" didn't cause a twinge in that
numbskull of yours?

<LOL>

-C-
Lucile Wilson
2005-03-07 19:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Clay
2005-03-07 20:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Clay Mar 7, 8:17 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.bush,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats.d
Date: 7 Mar 2005 08:17:45 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2005 8:17 am
Subject: Is This The Same "mediamatters.org" Liberals Pretend is NOT
Biased?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
<http://mediamatters.org/items/­200503020002>
Now... is it just a matter of time b4 a Conservative news site or blog
exposes a "stocks & bonds" reporter for the Washington Post who posts
pro-liberal comments during the 2006 campaign???
You said:...
You liberals are fascist at your very core. The edict is... "either
agree with our loony worldview or we will destroy you by any means
necessary".
We cannot be Fascist...aren't we Socialists as you call us? That is
more like Communism. Get you facts straight.
Liberals have been, can be & will always be fascists (oftimes). Cuba,
for one example. Zimbabwe, as another.

Reaching back a decade or two -- Grenada, and their utopian "New Jewel
Movement" was fascist to its very core. Cost Bishop his walk on the
planet.

I know it's hard for spongehead liberals to hold onto and digest two
complete thoughts, but try -- will ya guys.

<LOL>

-C-
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-07 21:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
You said:...
You liberals are fascist at your very core. The edict is... "either
agree with our loony worldview or we will destroy you by any means
necessary".
We cannot be Fascist...aren't we Socialists as you call us? That is
more like Communism. Get you facts straight.
Liberals have been, can be & will always be fascists (oftimes). Cuba,
for one example. Zimbabwe, as another.
Reaching back a decade or two -- Grenada, and their utopian "New Jewel
Movement" was fascist to its very core. Cost Bishop his walk on the
planet.
I know it's hard for spongehead liberals to hold onto and digest two
complete thoughts, but try -- will ya guys.
fascism

/fashiz=3Fm/

=3F noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of
government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or
practice.


http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
Clay
2005-03-08 01:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary DeWaay
Post by Clay
You said:...
You liberals are fascist at your very core. The edict is... "either
agree with our loony worldview or we will destroy you by any means
necessary".
We cannot be Fascist...aren't we Socialists as you call us? That is
more like Communism. Get you facts straight.
Liberals have been, can be & will always be fascists (oftimes).
Cuba,
Post by Gary DeWaay
Post by Clay
for one example. Zimbabwe, as another.
Reaching back a decade or two -- Grenada, and their utopian "New Jewel
Movement" was fascist to its very core. Cost Bishop his walk on the
planet.
I know it's hard for spongehead liberals to hold onto and digest two
complete thoughts, but try -- will ya guys.
fascism
/fashiz=3Fm/
=3F noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of
government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or
practice.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk
Just another liberal dope (redundant).

Question: Is modern-day Cuba a fascist regime?
Question: Is modern-day Zimbabwe a fascist regime?

Have any of the two ever been?

One more question:
Are you really that stupid?

-C-
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-08 08:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Post by Gary DeWaay
fascism
/fashiz=3Fm/
=3F noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of
government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views
or
Post by Gary DeWaay
practice.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk
Just another liberal dope (redundant).
Question: Is modern-day Cuba a fascist regime?
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK?



...quote...

Historically, Castro has liberalized only when forced to do so. He didn't
begin tolerating self-employment, for example, until Soviet subsidies to
the island dried up in 1991. And he released dozens of political prisoners
in 1998 only after Pope John Paul II made a plea before an international
audience.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2802

...end quote....
Post by Clay
Question: Is modern-day Zimbabwe a fascist regime?
Are you some kind of white supremist, Clay?
Post by Clay
Have any of the two ever been?
Are you really that stupid?
Does your daddy know you are using his computer to play with adults on
Usenet?
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
Clay
2005-03-08 10:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary DeWaay
Post by Clay
Post by Gary DeWaay
fascism
/fashiz=3Fm/
=3F noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of
government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views
or
Post by Gary DeWaay
practice.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fascism?view=uk
Just another liberal dope (redundant).
Question: Is modern-day Cuba a fascist regime?
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK?
Liberal? many American liberals just love the man. Leftist? You bet.
Post by Gary DeWaay
...quote...
Historically, Castro has liberalized only when forced to do so. He didn't
begin tolerating self-employment, for example, until Soviet subsidies to
the island dried up in 1991. And he released dozens of political prisoners
in 1998 only after Pope John Paul II made a plea before an
international
Post by Gary DeWaay
audience.
Why is it that most folks who escape "the Cuban paradise" and come to
America... when finally given a choice... choose Conservatism?

*snicker*
Post by Gary DeWaay
Post by Clay
Question: Is modern-day Zimbabwe a fascist regime?
Are you some kind of white supremist, Clay?
You know I love it when brain-dead liberals (redundant) will not /
cannot answer simple questions. Like your very defensive one above.

A: No, I have never been, am not or will ever be a "white supremist".

<LOL>
Post by Gary DeWaay
Post by Clay
Have any of the two ever been?
Are you really that stupid?
Does your daddy know you are using his computer to play with adults on
Usenet?
That would be the trick of the century. <LOL>

But... to answer your stupid question: NO.

-C-
b***@aol.com
2005-03-08 22:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK? >>>
He's a socialist/communist. The modern left has embraced socialism.
ronin
2005-03-09 00:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK? >>>
He's a socialist/communist. The modern left has embraced socialism.
And Bush/Cheney have embraced Red China.

The USSA is all commie now, thanks to Bush.
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-09 01:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK? >>>
He's a socialist/communist.
Yes, I agree. But what does this have to do with fascism? Which is the
topic Clay and myself were discussing.
Post by b***@aol.com
The modern left has embraced socialism.
I don't know any leftie that advocates government ownership of all means
of production.
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
b***@aol.com
2005-03-09 03:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK? >>>
He's a socialist/communist.
Yes, I agree. But what does this have to do with fascism? Which is
the
topic Clay and myself were discussing.>>>

I just answered a question you asked.
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-09 05:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary DeWaay
Post by b***@aol.com
Uhh yea. What makes Castro liberal, you stupid rightard FUCK? >>>
He's a socialist/communist.
Yes, I agree. But what does this have to do with fascism? Which is the
topic Clay and myself were discussing.>>>
I just answered a question you asked.
It seems you guys think fascism=liberalism=socialism=communism.

Is it because they all end with "ism", or is it something Limbaugh taught
you?
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
b***@aol.com
2005-03-10 00:03:30 UTC
Permalink
It seems you guys think fascism=liberalism=socialism=communism.>>>
Is it because they all end with "ism",>>>
Nope, it's because they all share a common belief - that the
important decisions which effect the population should be made by the
best minds available. Health decisions, retirement and the like are
too important to be left in the hands of a bunch of plumbers and comic
book artists and clerks. They believe that power should be
centralized.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that individuals know what's
right for them. We believe that localized power serves to common good
best.
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-10 02:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
It seems you guys think fascism=liberalism=socialism=communism.>>>
Is it because they all end with "ism",>>>
Nope, it's because they all share a common belief - that the
important decisions which effect the population should be made by the
best minds available. Health decisions, retirement and the like are
too important to be left in the hands of a bunch of plumbers and comic
book artists and clerks. They believe that power should be
centralized.
Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that individuals know what's
right for them. We believe that localized power serves to common good
best.
I guess this explains why nearly your entire fucking PLATFORM is for more
government intrusion:



-war on drugs = bigger government
-Patriot Act = bigger government
-flag burning amendment = bigger government
-anti-abortion = bigger government
-censorship = bigger government
-death penalty = bigger government
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government
-anti-prostitution = bigger government
-anti medical pot = bigger government
-anti assisted suicide = bigger government
-tort reform = bigger government
-three strikes = bigger government
-mandatory minimums = bigger government
-anti immigration = bigger government
-mad mothers = bigger government
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
b***@aol.com
2005-03-10 03:00:30 UTC
Permalink
I guess this explains why nearly your entire fucking PLATFORM is for
more
government intrusion:

-war on drugs = bigger government
-Patriot Act = bigger government
-flag burning amendment = bigger government
-anti-abortion = bigger government
-censorship = bigger government
-death penalty = bigger government
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government
-anti-prostitution = bigger government
-anti medical pot = bigger government
-anti assisted suicide = bigger government
-tort reform = bigger government
-three strikes = bigger government
-mandatory minimums = bigger government
-anti immigration = bigger government
-mad mothers = bigger government

There are two legitimate functions of the governement. 1. Protecting
our borders from invasion and 2. the individual from attack.

war on drugs = bigger government - see 1
Patriot Act = bigger government - see 1 and 2
-flag burning amendment = bigger government - What "flag burning
amendment?"
-anti-abortion = bigger government - see 2
-censorship = bigger government - What censorship?
-death penalty = bigger government - how yah figger?
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government - What
"homosexual discrimination Amendment? Please send me to the "HDA
link." Does this amendment take away homosexuals right to vote? To
own property? To produce musicals or smoke on planes? Please explain.
-anti-prostitution = bigger government - ? Prostitution is legal in
the United States, although a few states (49) feel it's not a great
idea.
-anti medical pot = bigger government - I'm sorry, is "anti-medical
pot" a major issue with the republicans?

Sorry, although the Republicans are far from perfect, we're still the
party of individual rights. While you're bitching about your divine
right to freebase heroin while watching "Drawn Together", the IRS
demands detailed records of every cent you've made for the year.
-anti assisted suicide = bigger government
-tort reform = bigger government
-three strikes = bigger government
-mandatory minimums = bigger government
-anti immigration = bigger government
-mad mothers = bigger government
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-10 04:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
There are two legitimate functions of the governement. 1. Protecting
our borders from invasion and 2. the individual from attack.
war on drugs = bigger government - see 1
Bullshit. This is a god complex government imposing it's morals on
society.
Post by b***@aol.com
Patriot Act = bigger government - see 1 and 2
Why not have it "locally" like you were just suggesting? Or are you
saying people in Montana have the same terrorist concerns as the people in
NY?

Or are there actually any convictions behind the things you post?
Post by b***@aol.com
-flag burning amendment = bigger government - What "flag burning
amendment?"
This one: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035800.cfm
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-abortion = bigger government - see 2
Fetus fasiscm.
Post by b***@aol.com
-censorship = bigger government - What censorship?
Do you not pay attention to the words of the religious right?

Sponge Bob anyone?
Post by b***@aol.com
-death penalty = bigger government - how yah figger?
LOL! There is no bigger government than one that decides who should live
or die.

The biggest of big government is pro-death penalty and wants to control a
womans womb.
Post by b***@aol.com
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government - What
"homosexual discrimination Amendment? Please send me to the "HDA
link." Does this amendment take away homosexuals right to vote? To
own property? To produce musicals or smoke on planes? Please explain.
To marry, duh. Has there been any other Amendment that has taken away
rights to a specific segment of society?
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-prostitution = bigger government - ? Prostitution is legal in
the United States, although a few states (49) feel it's not a great
idea.
And the Republicans are staunchly in agreement.
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti medical pot = bigger government - I'm sorry, is "anti-medical
pot" a major issue with the republicans?
OMFG! I thought you were in favor of "localized power?"

Jeesh you are pathetic...

...quote....

11/29/2004

The Justice Department (Rumsfield) says federal authority is supreme in
this matter

[...]


Under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court generally has
favored state authority over federal influence, establishing a long line
of cases that have reduced Congress' authority to regulate interstate
commerce.

But the Supreme Court took a stab at curbing marijuana use in 2001 when it
ruled against clubs that distributed medical marijuana, which the clubs
had deemed a "medical necessity."

http://www.gratefulweb.net/gwebNews/gwebDesign/politicalFront.asp?
articleid=303&zoneid=2


...end quote...
Post by b***@aol.com
Sorry, although the Republicans are far from perfect, we're still the
party of individual rights. While you're bitching about your divine
right to freebase heroin while watching "Drawn Together", the IRS
demands detailed records of every cent you've made for the year.
And right here folks is really what it's all about. If you said "we want
the government out of our wallets", I'd at least have some respect for
you.

Instead, it's the purposely broad "we want the government off our backs".

It sounds less selfish.

Doesn't make it any less of a lie.



HEY!
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti assisted suicide = bigger government
-tort reform = bigger government
-three strikes = bigger government
-mandatory minimums = bigger government
-anti immigration = bigger government
-mad mothers = bigger government
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
b***@aol.com
2005-03-10 06:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
There are two legitimate functions of the governement. 1.
Protecting
Post by b***@aol.com
our borders from invasion and 2. the individual from attack.
war on drugs = bigger government - see 1>>>
Post by Gary DeWaay
Bullshit. This is a god complex government imposing it's morals on
society.>>>>

Oh, right. Drug addiction isn't dangerous. People never die from drug
abuse. People don't have car accidents after getting high. Never
happens. People never rob innocent people to get a fix. That's just a
fantasy that Hollywood dreamed up to sell tickets- like "The Matrix" or
people going to church. Junkies don't suffer brain damage. This is
ALLLLLLL just a fevered dream thought up by evil conservatives who only
want to make sure that nobody ever has any fun.
Post by b***@aol.com
Patriot Act = bigger government - see 1 and 2
Post by Gary DeWaay
Why not have it "locally" like you were just suggesting?>>>
Because international threats to American security demand a unitied
national response. Local traffic laws don't. But, of course, you knew
that.
Post by b***@aol.com
-flag burning amendment = bigger government - What "flag burning
amendment?"
This one: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035800.cfm>>>

Ah. So, at the moment, there's no actual flag burning amendment? Just
some group with a letter head who claims that they have some senator
who's propose an amendment to change the constitution? Yeah, I can see
why you have your panties in a knot over that.

For the record, I believe that people who burn the American flag
deserve the same respect and consideration that we give neo-Nazis who
march through Jewish neighborhoods, and KKK members that burn crosses
on Martin Luther King day.
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-abortion = bigger government - see 2
Post by Gary DeWaay
Fetus fasiscm.>>>
Considering that the National Socialist Party (AKA "Nazi") killed
roughly the same number of people a year as American doctors perform
abortions, (two million people brutally murdered a year) you may wish
to hold onto the facism card until it might actually help your cause.

Do you know what the net result of abortion has been? Fewer blacks, a
social security crisis, and, oh my, a vastly weaker Democratic Party
(see "fewer blacks.) To quote Nelson on "the Simpson's" "...haha."
Post by b***@aol.com
-censorship = bigger government - What censorship?
Post by Gary DeWaay
Do you not pay attention to the words of the religious right?>>>
Yes. And your point it...?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Sponge Bob anyone?>>>>
Last I checked, Sponge Bob Squarepants was still on the air, the DVD of
his film was selling briskly, and the endorsements were still rolling
in.
Post by b***@aol.com
-death penalty = bigger government - how yah figger?
LOL! There is no bigger government than one that decides who should
live
or die.>>>

Yup, captial punishment is the big gun all right. But what's the
alternative? Life without parol? Why is that any less an abuse of
government power than killing them? If the government doesn't have the
right to take a life, because killing is a sin, then why do they have
the right to lock a person up without ever letting them out. Isn't
that kidnapping?
Post by b***@aol.com
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government - What
"homosexual discrimination Amendment? Please send me to the "HDA
link." Does this amendment take away homosexuals right to vote? To
own property? To produce musicals or smoke on planes? Please
explain.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
To marry, duh. >>>
Homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry that anyone else has -
a right that many have taken advantage of. Male homosexuals have
exactly the same right to marry any woman of legal age that any
heterosexual man has.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Has there been any other Amendment that has taken away rights to a
specific segment of society?>>>

What rights have been taken away from the homosexuals? Men don't have
the right to marry other men now - how can an amendment take away a
"right" that doesn't exist in the first place?
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-prostitution = bigger government - ? Prostitution is legal in
the United States, although a few states (49) feel it's not a great
idea.
Post by Gary DeWaay
And the Republicans are staunchly in agreement.>>>>
Nope. Republican tradtionally appeals to men, while single women tend
to vote Democrat. Men tend to think legal prostitution is a swell
idea, while women hate, hate, HATE the idea.
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti medical pot = bigger government - I'm sorry, is "anti-medical
pot" a major issue with the republicans?
Post by Gary DeWaay
OMFG! I thought you were in favor of "localized power?">>>
As a matter of fact, I am. I tend to thing that Bush has made a
mistake going after medical pot. You want to make a big deal about
this? Go right ahead.
Post by b***@aol.com
Sorry, although the Republicans are far from perfect, we're still the
party of individual rights. While you're bitching about your divine
right to freebase heroin while watching "Drawn Together", the IRS
demands detailed records of every cent you've made for the year.
Post by Gary DeWaay
And right here folks is really what it's all about. If you said "we want
the government out of our wallets", I'd at least have some respect for
you.>>

First off, let me make this clear: I don't want your respect. OK?

That said, let me see if I've got this straight. You want the
government to have access to every cent you make all year long. You
want the government to make you spend hundreds of dollars, and hours
and hours of unpaid labor, to make sure that you you've reported every
sent you make accurately. Everytime you write a check over $10,000.
the banks send the feds a report on your transaction.
.

HEY!
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
-anti assisted suicide = bigger government>>>>
Oh, you mean "murder". Gee, how can I be against big government, and
still support the right to stop "murder". Hmmm, tough call.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
-tort reform = bigger government>>>
Exactly the opposite. Lawyers have become unelected representives.
You don't like guns? Hell, just keep sueing until you put the gun
manufactures out of business. You don't like fast foods? Draw out the
lawyers. That way, private industry can be closed down all nice and
legal. As a victim of a nuesance lawsuit, yeah, I think Tort reform is
a swell idea.
Post by b***@aol.com
-three strikes = bigger government>>>
Why? Do you think that after the third offense, the goverment should
simply let criminals run wild? Why is a three strike law any more
odious than any other law for the same crime? The only think different
about these laws is that they work.
Post by b***@aol.com
-mandatory minimums = bigger government>>>
OK, so, instead of passing laws by debate by representives, or by
direct vote, it's far better to simply let judges pass any sentence
they feel like? Why is the "Judge Dredd" approach better?
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti immigration = bigger government>>>
Ah. So the government doesn't have the right to protect their borders?
Why not?
Post by b***@aol.com
-mad mothers = bigger government>>>
You're against mad mothers?

--
Gary
"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting
in
the middle of the family values white house living room

."
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-10 16:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
There are two legitimate functions of the governement. 1.
Protecting
Post by b***@aol.com
our borders from invasion and 2. the individual from attack.
war on drugs = bigger government - see 1>>>
Post by Gary DeWaay
Bullshit. This is a god complex government imposing it's morals on
society.>>>>
Oh, right. Drug addiction isn't dangerous. People never die from drug
abuse. People don't have car accidents after getting high. Never
happens.
Lotsa sober people have accidents.
Post by b***@aol.com
People never rob innocent people to get a fix.
Mostly because it is so expensive. Decriminalizing and taxing it will
solve this problem, bring in added taxes, and put the pusher and drug
lords out of business, and there would be a 33% less need for jails.

Smaller government (you remember, the thingie you pretend to be in favor
of)?


That's just a
Post by b***@aol.com
fantasy that Hollywood dreamed up to sell tickets- like "The Matrix" or
people going to church. Junkies don't suffer brain damage. This is
ALLLLLLL just a fevered dream thought up by evil conservatives who only
want to make sure that nobody ever has any fun.
Name one thing the "war on drugs" has accomplished, besides larger
government.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Patriot Act = bigger government - see 1 and 2
Post by Gary DeWaay
Why not have it "locally" like you were just suggesting?>>>
Because international threats to American security demand a unitied
national response. Local traffic laws don't. But, of course, you knew
that.
The international security concerns can all be handled with the FAA and
the coast guard.

Here in South Dakota, a county asked for money for a new SUV from the
federal homeland security. They received the vehicle with the stipulation
that it ONLY be used during terrorist attacks.

The SUV, if used properly, will be sitting around with 100 miles on it for
three thousand years.

Nope... no reason to make the Patriot Act individual states business.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-flag burning amendment = bigger government - What "flag burning
amendment?"
This one: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035800.cfm>>>
Ah. So, at the moment, there's no actual flag burning amendment? Just
some group with a letter head who claims that they have some senator
who's propose an amendment to change the constitution? Yeah, I can see
why you have your panties in a knot over that.
It's a Republican proposal. How can you say it isn't part of the
Republican agenda?
Post by b***@aol.com
For the record, I believe that people who burn the American flag
deserve the same respect and consideration that we give neo-Nazis who
march through Jewish neighborhoods, and KKK members that burn crosses
on Martin Luther King day.
Well so do I. It doesn't mean we have to change our Constitution to deal
with a few idiots.

Besides that, our flag stands for freedom. Ironic that a Republican wants
to take freedom away in it's name.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-abortion = bigger government - see 2
Post by Gary DeWaay
Fetus fasiscm.>>>
Considering that the National Socialist Party (AKA "Nazi") killed
roughly the same number of people a year as American doctors perform
abortions, (two million people brutally murdered a year) you may wish
to hold onto the facism card until it might actually help your cause.
And the Nazi's were in favor of larger government too.

Thank you for proving my point.
Post by b***@aol.com
Do you know what the net result of abortion has been? Fewer blacks, a
social security crisis, and, oh my, a vastly weaker Democratic Party
(see "fewer blacks.) To quote Nelson on "the Simpson's" "...haha."
You have a very strange mind.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-censorship = bigger government - What censorship?
Post by Gary DeWaay
Do you not pay attention to the words of the religious right?>>>
Yes. And your point it...?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Sponge Bob anyone?>>>>
Last I checked, Sponge Bob Squarepants was still on the air, the DVD of
his film was selling briskly, and the endorsements were still rolling
in.
I see. So attempts at censorship is not agenda unless it is successful?

Do you even think before you post?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-death penalty = bigger government - how yah figger?
LOL! There is no bigger government than one that decides who should live
or die.>>>
Yup, captial punishment is the big gun all right. But what's the
alternative? Life without parol? Why is that any less an abuse of
government power than killing them?
Because we are TAKING A LIFE. Why are you so worried about a fetus and so
uncaring about all actual born people?


If the government doesn't have the
Post by b***@aol.com
right to take a life, because killing is a sin, then why do they have
the right to lock a person up without ever letting them out. Isn't
that kidnapping?
What a strange statement.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government - What
"homosexual discrimination Amendment? Please send me to the "HDA
link." Does this amendment take away homosexuals right to vote? To
own property? To produce musicals or smoke on planes? Please
explain.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
To marry, duh. >>>
Homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry that anyone else has -
a right that many have taken advantage of. Male homosexuals have
exactly the same right to marry any woman of legal age that any
heterosexual man has.
LOL!

That's like saying blacks in South Africa had the exact same right to vote
for white people during apartheid as white people did.

Nice try dumass.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Has there been any other Amendment that has taken away rights to a
specific segment of society?>>>
What rights have been taken away from the homosexuals? Men don't have
the right to marry other men now - how can an amendment take away a
"right" that doesn't exist in the first place?
I think you just answered my question. Slaves didn't have any rights
either, so why did we bother changing anything?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-prostitution = bigger government - ? Prostitution is legal in
the United States, although a few states (49) feel it's not a great
idea.
Post by Gary DeWaay
And the Republicans are staunchly in agreement.>>>>
Nope. Republican tradtionally appeals to men, while single women tend
to vote Democrat. Men tend to think legal prostitution is a swell
idea, while women hate, hate, HATE the idea.
Cite please.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti medical pot = bigger government - I'm sorry, is "anti-medical
pot" a major issue with the republicans?
Post by Gary DeWaay
OMFG! I thought you were in favor of "localized power?">>>
As a matter of fact, I am. I tend to thing that Bush has made a
mistake going after medical pot. You want to make a big deal about
this? Go right ahead.
It is a big deal. Larger government and all.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Sorry, although the Republicans are far from perfect, we're still the
party of individual rights. While you're bitching about your divine
right to freebase heroin while watching "Drawn Together", the IRS
demands detailed records of every cent you've made for the year.
Post by Gary DeWaay
And right here folks is really what it's all about. If you said "we
want
the government out of our wallets", I'd at least have some respect for
you.>>
First off, let me make this clear: I don't want your respect. OK?
As you are an imbecile, I don't blame you.
Post by b***@aol.com
That said, let me see if I've got this straight. You want the
government to have access to every cent you make all year long. You
want the government to make you spend hundreds of dollars, and hours
and hours of unpaid labor, to make sure that you you've reported every
sent you make accurately. Everytime you write a check over $10,000.
the banks send the feds a report on your transaction.
.
Move to a place that doesn't have taxes then. No skin off my ass.
Post by b***@aol.com
HEY!
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
-anti assisted suicide = bigger government>>>>
Oh, you mean "murder". Gee, how can I be against big government, and
still support the right to stop "murder". Hmmm, tough call.
There is a difference between murder and suicide.

HTH.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
-tort reform = bigger government>>>
Exactly the opposite. Lawyers have become unelected representives.
You don't like guns? Hell, just keep sueing until you put the gun
manufactures out of business. You don't like fast foods? Draw out the
lawyers. That way, private industry can be closed down all nice and
legal. As a victim of a nuesance lawsuit, yeah, I think Tort reform is
a swell idea.
Bigger government though.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-three strikes = bigger government>>>
Why?
WHY? Why what? Why is it bigger government? Because it throws more
people in jail, and it handcuffs the people that actually are dealing with
the case.

I thought you were in favor of SMALLER GOVERNMENT? Every line you write
suggests you are just fine and dandy with large government.

Why do you lie about it?

Do you think that after the third offense, the goverment should
Post by b***@aol.com
simply let criminals run wild? Why is a three strike law any more
odious than any other law for the same crime? The only think different
about these laws is that they work.
Is that why most judges are against them?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-mandatory minimums = bigger government>>>
OK, so, instead of passing laws by debate by representives, or by
direct vote, it's far better to simply let judges pass any sentence
they feel like? Why is the "Judge Dredd" approach better?
I know how hard a binary thinking rightie brain has such a problem
understanding this, but there is no "one size fits all" solution to all of
societies problems.

Besides that, I thought you were in favor of smaller government.

Clearly it is a lie.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti immigration = bigger government>>>
Ah. So the government doesn't have the right to protect their borders?
Why not?
Larger government. Are you, or are you NOT in favor of smaller
government.

Try to focus here.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-mad mothers = bigger government>>>
You're against mad mothers?
What they are trying to accomplish is complete prohibition of alcohal.

Larger government.

You have just made it clear you are favor of larger government in nearly
80% of all cases. Why do you lie about it?
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
b***@aol.com
2005-03-11 01:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Oh, right. Drug addiction isn't dangerous. People never die from
drug abuse. People don't have car accidents after getting high. Never
happens. >>>
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Lotsa sober people have accidents.>>>
Lots more drunk people have accidents than sober people. Far more
serious accidents, too. But, what the fuck, who cares about a
ten-year-old girl being crippled for life, as long as you can get
hammered in the middle of the afternoon at your favorite titty bar?
Post by b***@aol.com
People never rob innocent people to get a fix.
Post by b***@aol.com
Mostly because it is so expensive.>>>
Nope. You can get a hit of crack for five dollars anywhere in the
inner city. Sure, you can easily drop four hundred dollars on a ounce
of Laotian jungle weed, but if all you're interested in doing is
getting high, there are many, many cost effective alternatives.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Smaller government (you remember, the thingie you pretend to be in
favor of)?>>>>

I'm for smaller government, not anarchy. I feel that keeping drug
addicts off the street is a legitimate use of government power.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Name one thing the "war on drugs" has accomplished, besides larger
government.>>>>>

The divorce rate is down.

Teen pregnancy is down.

Teen drug use is down.

Crime is way down.

Violent crime is way down.

Oh, wait, it's just a coincidence that all this happened after the war
on drugs isn't it?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Patriot Act = bigger government - see 1 and 2
Post by Gary DeWaay
Why not have it "locally" like you were just suggesting?>>>
Because international threats to American security demand a united
national response. Local traffic laws don't. But, of course, you knew
that.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
The international security concerns can all be handled with the FAA
and the coast guard.>>>

Ah. You propose sending the Coast Guard to Iran to spy on the
terrorist training camps?

Do you think their little boats across the Pacific? Do they have enough
gas to get that far? Is it possible that their Coast Guard uniforms
will give them away? Why not send the meter maids while you're at
it?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Here in South Dakota, a county asked for money for a new SUV from
the federal homeland security. They received the vehicle with the
stipulation that it ONLY be used during terrorist attacks.>>>

So what's keeping South Dakota from collecting money, and buying their
own SUV?

<<<Nope... no reason to make the Patriot Act individual states
business.>>>

Pssst - the Patriot Act has been extremely effective. We haven't had
an attack on American soil since 911. Why do you want to see a law
which works appealed, other than you want dead American bodies to point
to while you scream "see, Bush fucked up."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-flag burning amendment = bigger government - What "flag burning
amendment?"
Post by b***@aol.com
This one: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035800.cfm>>>
Ah. So, at the moment, there's no actual flag burning amendment on
the books? Just ome group with a letter head who claims that they
have some senator who's propose an amendment to change the
constitution? Yeah, I can see why you have your panties in a knot over
that.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
It's a Republican proposal. How can you say it isn't part of the
Republican agenda?>>>

Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK. Does it follow that all
Democrats are now members of the KKK?
Post by b***@aol.com
For the record, I believe that people who burn the American flag
deserve the same respect and consideration that we give neo-Nazis who
march through Jewish neighborhoods, and KKK members that burn crosses
on Martin Luther King day.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Well so do I. It doesn't mean we have to change our Constitution to deal
with a few idiots.>>>

Which is why most Republicans don't support a flag burning amendment.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Besides that, our flag stands for freedom. Ironic that a Republican
wants to take freedom away in it's name.>>>

Tell you what, bucky. Burn a cross on Jessie Jackson's lawn, and
explain to the large, surly, heavily armed, needlessly violent fellows
up come tumbling out that this is a celebration of freedom. And do
keep me abreast of what happens next. I'd be curious to know.
Really.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Fetus fasiscm.>>>
Considering that the National Socialist Party (AKA "Nazi")
killedroughly the same number of people a year as American doctors
performabortions, (two million people brutally murdered a year) you may
wishto hold onto the fascism card until it might actually help your
cause.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
And the Nazi's were in favor of larger government too.>>>
Help me figure out what you're saying, ok?

Your major premise is that anti-abortion legislation is a sign of big
government.
Your minor premise is that the Nazi's were pro-abortion.

This proves that the Nazi's favored big government. There's a
disconnect somewhere there.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Thank you for proving my point.>>>
What point might that be? The Nazi's favored legalized abortion. The
modern Democrat favor legalized abortions.

This reflects badly on the Republicans exactly how ... ?
Post by b***@aol.com
Do you know what the net result of abortion has been? Fewer blacks,
a social security crisis, and, oh my, a vastly weaker Democratic Party
(see "fewer blacks.) To quote Nelson on "the Simpson's" "...haha."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
You have a very strange mind.>>>
And well paid for that strangeness, thank you. It doesn't alter the
central concept: Abortion, the cornerstone of the Democratic Party for
three decades, has destroyed the Democratic Party base. Wonder where
all the young Democrats are? You strangled them in their cribs.
Again, I say "haha."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-censorship = bigger government - What censorship?
Post by Gary DeWaay
Do you not pay attention to the words of the religious right?>>>
Yes. And your point it...?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Sponge Bob anyone?>>>>
Last I checked, Sponge Bob Squarepants was still on the air, the DVD of
his film was selling briskly, and the endorsements were still rolling
in.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
I see. So attempts at censorship is not agenda unless it is
successful?>>>

What attempts at censorship? Who has demanded that Spongebob be taken
off the market? One guy with a letterhead decided that Spongbob was
gay, and suddenly all Republicans agree?

Let me give you a couple of examples of real censorship.

The LA Times carried the comic strip "BC" for decades. A few years
ago, Johnny Hart drew a strip in which a menorah morphed into a cross.
A few cracks complained, and the LA Times dropped the strip.

Rush Limbaugh opined that McNabb was overrated because he was black.
(McNabb made it to the Superbowl, but as Rush predicted, choked).
Three presidential candidates demanded that Rush be fired for
expressing an opinion, and they got their way. Tell me, Mr. First
Amendment, where was your outrage when it happened to Rush? When it
happened to Doctor Laura?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-death penalty = bigger government - how yah figger?
LOL! There is no bigger government than one that decides who should live
or die.>>>
Yup, capital punishment is the big gun all right. But what's the
alternative? Life without parole? Why is that any less an abuse of
government power than killing them?
Post by b***@aol.com
Because we are TAKING A LIFE. Why are you so worried about a fetus and so
uncaring about all actual born people?>>>

Hmmm, that's a tough one, all right. Why do I care more about a
preborn infant than I am some asshole who strangled an old woman to
steal her social security check. Why, why, why?

No, it's a fair question. If the government doesn't have the right to
take a life, then why does it have the right to take away freedom?
Either the government has a monopoly for legal violence, or they
don't.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-Homosexual Discrimination Amendment = bigger government - What
"homosexual discrimination Amendment? Please send me to the "HDA
link." Does this amendment take away homosexuals right to vote?
To
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
own property? To produce musicals or smoke on planes? Please
explain.
ÿ >>>To marry, duh. >>>

BTW, where's the link to the "Homosexual Discrimination
Amendment". I haven't been able to find it. Please send a link.
Post by b***@aol.com
Homosexuals have exactly the same right to marry that anyone else has
a right that many have taken advantage of. Male homosexuals have
exactly the same right to marry any woman of legal age that any
Post by b***@aol.com
heterosexual man has.
Post by b***@aol.com
That's like saying blacks in South Africa had the exact same right to vote
for white people during apartheid as white people did.>>>

No, they didn't have the right to vote at all. That was wrong. They
also didn't have the same right to run for office that white people
enjoyed.

Try to come up with an example that doesn't involve lying.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
Has there been any other Amendment that has taken away rights to a
specific segment of society?>>>
What rights have been taken away from the homosexuals? Men don't
have the right to marry other men now - how can an amendment take away
a "right" that doesn't exist in the first place?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
I think you just answered my question. Slaves didn't have any
rights either, so why did we bother changing anything?>>>

Because slavery was wrong - at least, the religious Right and the
Republicans thought slavery was wrong. The Democrats thought it was
just fine, thank you.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti-prostitution = bigger government - ? Prostitution is legal
inthe United States, although a few states (49) feel it's not a
greatidea.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
And the Republicans are staunchly in agreement.>>>>
Nope. Republican tradtionally appeals to men, while single women
tend vote Democrat. Men tend to think legal prostitution is a swell
idea, while women hate, hate, HATE the idea.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Cite please.>>>
I'll send you the info after you send me a link to the "Homosexual
Discrimination Amendment."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Move to a place that doesn't have taxes then.>>>>
As I invite you to move to a utopia where you can freebase with
impunity.
Post by b***@aol.com
Oh, you mean "murder". Gee, how can I be against both big
government, and "murder". Hmmm, tough call.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
There is a difference between murder and suicide.>>>
Yes. Suicide is something people do to themselves. Murder is when
someone kills another person.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Gary DeWaay
-tort reform = bigger government>>>
Exactly the opposite. Lawyers have become unelected representatives.
You don't like guns? Hell, just keep suing until you put the gun
manufactures out of business. You don't like fast foods? Draw out the
lawyers. That way, private industry can be closed down all nice and
legal. As a victim of a nuisance lawsuit, yeah, I think Tort reform
is
Post by b***@aol.com
a swell idea.
Post by b***@aol.com
Bigger government though. >>>
Help me understand how nuisance lawsuits help reduce government.

Let's say that an evil fundamentalist Christian decides to sue Tom
Kenney, (the voice of Spongebob Squarepants) because the cartoon turned
his son gay. Tom has to pay for a lawyer. The Christian crackpot
doesn't have to pay a thing - his lawyer is working on commission.

On the orders of a state government, Tom has to fly out to the hills of
Arkansas to explain to the locals that Spongebob isn't gay. If Tom
doesn't do that, the State judge will declare Tom a criminal, and send
state agents to annex his property. Tom has to sit in a state
building, next to armed guards, as waste days, weeks or months.

If the Christian has a sympathetic jury, the network agrees to settle
for an undisclosed sum, the executives at Nickelodeon agree to start
every cartoon with the warning "children, this cartoon does not
encourage homosexuality". If they win, then Tom Kenny is out hundreds
of thousands of dollars for legal fees.

Nothing bad can happen to the Christian crackpot. Nothing good can
happen to Tom Kenny.

Exactly how does this system reduce the size of government?

Why would it be a bad thing for the Christian crackpot to be forced to
write a big, fat check to Tom Kenny for wasting his time and money?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-three strikes = bigger government>>>
Why?
Post by b***@aol.com
WHY?>>>
Yeah, why?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Why what?>>>
Why does three strikes equal bigger government?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Why is it bigger government?>>>
Yeah, why?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Because it throws more people in jail,>>>
No, not "people", violent criminals. If you believe that it's a
good idea for violent criminals to walk the street, then, damn it, say
so. Don't hide behind wimp words like "people" and "folks".

3 strikes throws more violent criminals into jail. Because we've done
this, fewer real people (as opposed to violent criminals) wind up being
attacked. I lived at McArthur Park when the 3 strike laws were
enacted. The difference in that area was night and day. Before the
law, people were afraid to walk down the street in broad daylight. A
month later, the area became relatively safe. Certainly far safer than
it was before. Old ladies weren't mugged nearly as often for their
social security checks. Criminals were afraid to threaten children.

Why is this a bad thing? What is protecting the helpless from physical
attack a sign of big government?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
...and it handcuffs the people that actually are dealing with the
case.>>>

GOOD! That's why we are a people of laws, instead of a judiciary. I
don't want the judges to have a lot of leeway in deciding cases. When
judges have leeway, innocent people die.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
I thought you were in favor of SMALLER GOVERNMENT?>>>
Yes, I am. I want to government to focus on arresting criminals who
beat up old people, instead of funding sensitivity training.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Do you think that after the third offense, the government should
simply let criminals run wild? Why is a three strike law any more
odious than any other law for the same crime? The only think different
about these laws is that they work.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Is that why most judges are against them?>>>
The judges are against 3 strike laws, because it takes power away from
them, and gives it to the American people. Judges are ALWAYS in favor
of grabbing power. It's the nature of the beast.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-mandatory minimums = bigger government>>>
OK, so, instead of passing laws by debate by representives, or by
direct vote, it's far better to simply let judges pass any sentence
they feel like? Why is the "Judge Dredd" approach better?
Post by b***@aol.com
I know how hard a binary thinking rightie brain has such a problem
understanding this, but there is no "one size fits all" solution to all
of societies problems.>>>

Really? Suppose that some red-neck, right-wing, cracker judge decides
to avoid the "one size fits all" First Amendment, and proclaims that
Spongebob Squarepants does, indeed, encourage homosexuality, and orders
Paramount Pictures to print 10 million copies of John Waynes "She
Wore A Yellow Ribbon", to be distributed free of charge in San
Fransico to undo the damage? Would that be ok with you?

Judges love to throw their weight around - that's why we need laws
to stop them.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-anti immigration = bigger government>>>
Ah. So the government doesn't have the right to protect their
borders?
Post by b***@aol.com
Why not?
Post by b***@aol.com
Larger government. Are you, or are you NOT in favor of smaller
government.>>>

You're under the impression that protecting American borders is a
luxury that only bloated governments would indulge? Wow, you ARE
delusional, aren't you?
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
-mad mothers = bigger government>>>
You're against mad mothers?
What they are trying to accomplish is complete prohibition of
alcohal.>>>

A flat-out lie.

"MADD is not against alcohol advertising as a whole or responsible
drinking for adults over the legal drinking age of 21; our policies
specifically oppose advertising that appeals to or targets youth or
that encourages drinking and driving. "
MADDs FAQ

http://madd.com/aboutus/1,1056,2629,00.html
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by b***@aol.com
You have just made it clear you are favor of larger government in
nearly 80% of all cases. Why do you lie about it?>>>

Because I'm not. You cherry picked examples where government
involvement makes sense. The government should protect its weakest
citizens - the unborn, victims of drunk drivers, victims of serial
crime criminals. The government should protect its citizens from
invasion, or attack from overseas. These are good, and fair, uses of
government force. I never said that I was against government at all
times.

s***@netzero.com
2005-03-10 03:18:54 UTC
Permalink
The Republicans are actually the party that wants to intrude on
people's rights.

The democrats are for the most part a reactionary party to the
republican intrusive agenda.

However the democrats are also the party of the poor menaing they want
to somehow equal the playing field that for all history has always
favored the rich.



Drive around McClean, VA(the home of CIA headquarters) and read the
road signs: "George Bush's CIA"
Nixon is spinning in his grave wondering what Bush has to do to be
impeached.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of
State and Corporate power." ---Benito Mussolini, the father of modern
fascism.
Gary DeWaay
2005-03-10 05:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@netzero.com
The Republicans are actually the party that wants to intrude on
people's rights.
The democrats are for the most part a reactionary party to the
republican intrusive agenda.
However the democrats are also the party of the poor menaing they want
to somehow equal the playing field that for all history has always
favored the rich.
I'm not going to pretend that Democrats don't also want government
control.

It's the price one pays in a civilized society.

I'm just sick of the blatant hypocrisy of righties saying they want the
government off their backs.

They want the government out of their own personal wallet, but the
government ON their neighbors back... without exception.
--
Gary

"Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in
the middle of the family values white house living room."
fiend999
2005-03-08 02:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
Clay Mar 7, 8:17 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.bush,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics, alt.politics.democrats.d
Date: 7 Mar 2005 08:17:45 -0800
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2005 8:17 am
Subject: Is This The Same "mediamatters.org" Liberals Pretend is NOT
Biased?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
<http://mediamatters.org/items/­200503020002>
Now... is it just a matter of time b4 a Conservative news site or
blog
exposes a "stocks & bonds" reporter for the Washington Post who posts
pro-liberal comments during the 2006 campaign???
You said:...
You liberals are fascist at your very core. The edict is... "either
agree with our loony worldview or we will destroy you by any means
necessary".
We cannot be Fascist...aren't we Socialists as you call us? That is
more like Communism. Get you facts straight.
Liberals have been, can be & will always be fascists (oftimes). Cuba,
for one example. Zimbabwe, as another.
Reaching back a decade or two -- Grenada, and their utopian "New Jewel
Movement" was fascist to its very core. Cost Bishop his walk on the
planet.
I know it's hard for spongehead liberals to hold onto and digest two
complete thoughts, but try -- will ya guys.
I know education is against your core beliefs, but you should try
reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

this part sounds familiar:
"Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of an imminent Socialist
revolution [3] (http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/f-italy.htm),
finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment.
In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into
guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of
the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but
were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners.
The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to
raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The
movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and
the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of
the Socialists. Fascism also met with great success in rural areas,
especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the
lumpenproletariat."
b***@aol.com
2005-03-07 19:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clay
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200503020002>
Now... is it just a matter of time b4 a Conservative news site or blog
exposes a "stocks & bonds" reporter for the Washington Post who posts
pro-liberal comments during the 2006 campaign???
Actually, if his editors at the Globe find out about his blog work,
they would be justified in firing him because he's a moron. Anyone who
supports or supported the SwiftboatliarsforHire, which is now peddling
a multimillion dollar ad buy to express their sophisticated view (to
their sophisticated audience) that AARP is an organization dedicated to
promoting gay marriage and trashing US soldiers.

Wonder how many real vets, not like Georgie, are in AARP?

Anyway, anyone who supports the SwiftboatliarsforHire, like someone who
cites newsmax.com, has already shown themselves to be a liar and a
moron, and quite possibly both, like Clay here.

BTW, anyone have any more information on the self-hating gays Armstrong
Williams (on the Cheney-Lay administration payroll), Drudge and
Limbaugh?
Loading...