Bill Clinton's revisionist melt down... [Archive]

09-25-2006, 02:20 PM

Melt down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI

Purple faced rage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4

Clinton, Fox Anchor Battle in Interview
Sep 25, 6:35 AM (ET)
By KAREN MATTHEWS

NEW YORK (AP) - In a combative interview on "Fox News Sunday," former President Clinton defended his handling of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, saying he tried to have bin Laden killed and was attacked for his efforts by the same people who now criticize him for not doing enough.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?'"

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.

Wallace said Sunday he was surprised by Clinton's "conspiratorial view" of "a very non-confrontational question, 'Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?'"

"All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job," Wallace said in a telephone interview.

Clinton said he "worked hard" to try to kill bin Laden.

"We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody's gotten since," he said.

He told Wallace, "And you got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever, but I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it, but I did try and I did everything I thought I responsibly could."

The interview was taped Friday during Clinton's three-day Global Initiative conference.

On NBC's "Meet the Press," also taped Friday and aired Sunday, Clinton told interviewer Tim Russert that the biggest problem confronting the world today is "the illusion that our differences matter more than our common humanity."

"That's what's driving the terrorism," he said. "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have - and some women - who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."

Transcend

09-25-2006, 02:54 PM

It's about time someone called out fox news on being of no use expect to give Republicans lip service. What was amazing, is he did it while on their own network. Awesome.

The fact that Wallace thought he could dance with one of the most eloquent statesmen of the 20th century is hilarious. Wallace has the intellect of my left shoe.

MMike

09-25-2006, 02:55 PM

YOu're right shoe is a moron

Transcend

09-25-2006, 02:57 PM

YOu're right shoe is a moron

Ya, I tell it off daily. At least it can spell "Your" however. :bonk: :banana:

H8R

09-25-2006, 02:57 PM

Everything I say to my shoe gets like, no response.

Stupid fvcking shoe.

Echo

09-25-2006, 02:59 PM

MMike

09-25-2006, 03:01 PM

Ya, I tell it off daily. At least it can spell "Your" however. :bonk: :banana:

I was being sophisticated....I was making the OPPOSITE mistake that everyone else makes...

Transcend

09-25-2006, 03:02 PM

Of course Bill should have known better than to go on that show, just like he should have known better than to let that fat chick wax his dolphin.

Ya but c'mon, it was totally worth it. Maybe he went in knowing he'd get to call them out? Apparently it is really boosting poll numbers for Hillary?? too bad she is straight up nuts.

Oh well, screw the 22nd ammendment, get Slick Willy back in the whitehouse!

MMike

09-25-2006, 03:12 PM

He was on the Daily Show the other day. Jon's "Seat of Heat" question was:

Assuming Hilary runs for president, if there is one thing that could assure her defeat, what would it be?

MMike

09-25-2006, 03:13 PM

And actually, BIll O'Reily was on....was it Barbra walters? O'Reily referred to Clinton a "brilliant" and that he had a successful presidency.

reflux

09-25-2006, 03:42 PM

Ya but c'mon, it was totally worth it. Maybe he went in knowing he'd get to call them out? Apparently it is really boosting poll numbers for Hillary?? too bad she is straight up nuts.

Oh well, screw the 22nd ammendment, get Slick Willy back in the whitehouse!
I'm reminded of Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

Transcend

09-25-2006, 03:43 PM

I'm reminded of Jon Stewart on Crossfire.

Best 20 mins of CNN ever.

$tinkle

09-25-2006, 04:40 PM

what a difference a week makes:Look what President [Hugo] Chavez just said about President Bush. You know, we--and we try to teach our children to get over it. I mean, you've got kids. You know, one of the most important things you can teach a child is that not everything that happens to you will be nice. But you are in control of how you respond to everything that happens to you. You do not have to respond with violence or anger or hatred or bitterness or demeaning conduct, and you cannot be diminished by what someone else says about you.Wm Jefferson Clinton interviewed on larry king live, september 20th, 2006 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/20/lkl.01.html)

at least it can be truthfully said he's not acting childish

** crickets **

$tinkle

09-25-2006, 04:53 PM

He was on the Daily Show the other day. Jon's "Seat of Heat" question was:

Assuming Hilary runs for president, if there is one thing that could assure her defeat, what would it be?i saw that, too.
i like what he's doing now with other influential people (clinton foundation, i think). seems very altruistic.

liberal chics dig that, & you know he knows it.

:hogpoke:

Inclag

09-25-2006, 06:10 PM

I find it quite funny that Fox and Wallace got straight up pwn3d by Clinton, but they are still trying to spin it like they were all being fair and balanced :D

Of course Bill should have known better than to go on that show, just like he should have known better than to let that fat chick wax his dolphin.

So true.

Clinton is going around trying to conjure up support for his Global Initiative, which is why he is appearing on all this major media outlets, and what does FOX News do? Well, instead of trying to get information out to help with what may end up being one of the most important private party initiatives to help with serious global issues, they use it as an opportunity to push their "fair and balanced" agenda.

Transcend

09-25-2006, 06:18 PM

So true.

Clinton is going around trying to conjure up support for his Global Initiative, which is why he is appearing on all this major media outlets, and what does FOX News do? Well, instead of trying to get information out to help with what may end up being one of the most important private party initiatives to help with serious global issues, they use it as an opportunity to push their "fair and balanced" agenda.

Fair and balanced. As long as you are only interested in our twisted, conservative, war mongering side of the story.

H8R

09-25-2006, 06:55 PM

:hogpoke:

OMFG

I vote that RM gets a :hogpoke: smilie NOW.

BurlyShirley

09-25-2006, 06:56 PM

Did Clinton sleep with the host?

Transcend

09-25-2006, 07:09 PM

Did Clinton sleep with the host?

Naw, wallace wouldn't swallow and din't want any stains on his dress.

Inclag

09-25-2006, 10:15 PM

Naw, wallace wouldn't swallow and din't want any stains on his dress.

Well being christian right, anything besides missionary is a sin.

Transcend

09-25-2006, 10:21 PM

Well being christian right, anything besides missionary is a sin.

C'mon now, as all good Christian school girls know, BJs don't count as sex.

Changleen

09-26-2006, 04:50 AM

Thanks N8, I enjoyed watching that dick from Fvx get pwn3d.

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 05:46 AM

C'mon now, as all good Christian school girls know, BJs don't count as sex.
Nor does anal.

09-26-2006, 08:22 AM

Condi setting Bubba straight...
:bonk:

RICE BOILS OVER AT BUBBA
By IAN BISHOP Post Correspondent

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.

Rice hammered Clinton, who leveled his charges in a contentious weekend interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel, for his claims that the Bush administration "did not try" to kill Osama bin Laden in the eight months they controlled the White House before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," Rice said during a wide-ranging meeting with Post editors and reporters.

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added.

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Her strong rebuttal was the Bush administration's first response to Clinton's headline-grabbing interview on Fox on Sunday in which he launched into an over-the-top defense of his handling of terrorism - wagging his finger in the air, leaning forward in his chair and getting red-faced, and even attacking Wallace for improper questioning.

The "Fox News Sunday" show had its best ratings since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, according to Nielsen Media Research. Two versions of the interview were the two most-watched clips on YouTube yesterday, totaling more than 800,000 views.

After Clinton got angry during the questioning, Wallace said Clinton aide Jay Carson tried to get his producer to stop the interview. Carson said he was concerned that time was running out and that little of the philanthropy efforts of the former president had been addressed.

At The Post, Rice also touched on hot spots around the globe:

On Iran: "There isn't a particularly good, direct way to neutralize the Iranian threat."
On Iraq: "You're never going to have a just Sunni-Shia reconciliation if you don't have a political system in which the interests of all can be represented - and that's what Iraq represents."
On Pakistan: "The future of Pakistan, as [President Pervez] Musharraf and his people fully understand, is to de-radicalize elements of the population."
On the Middle East conflict: "It would help to have a moderate force in the Palestinian territories and to have the beginnings of rapprochement with Israel and the rest of its neighbors."
On the Far East: "I would like to see an improvement in Japanese-China relations."

In her pointed rebuttal of Clinton's inflammatory claims about the war on terror, Rice maintained the Bush White House did the best it could to defend against an attack - and expanded on the tools and intelligence it inherited.

"I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report on the efforts of the Bush administration in the eight months - things like working to get an armed Predator [drone] that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important," Rice added.

She also said Clinton's claims that Richard Clarke - the White House anti-terror guru hyped by Clinton as the country's "best guy" - had been demoted by Bush were bogus.

"Richard Clarke was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened. And he left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security, some several months later," she said.

Rice noted that the world changed after 9/11.

"I would make the divide Sept. 11, 2001, when the attack on this country mobilized us to fight the war on terror in a very different way," Rice said.

Rice cited the final 9/11 commission report to substantiate her claims, while Clinton relied on Clarke's book as the basis for many of his rehashing the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion. We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said," she added.

Transitioning to the global war on terror, an animated Rice questioned, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"

Asked about recently leaked internal U.S. intelligence estimates that claimed the Iraq war was fueling terrorist recruiting, Rice said: "Now that we're fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too."

"I find it just extraordinary that the argument is, all right, so they're using the fact they're being challenged in the Middle East and challenged in Iraq to recruit, therefore you've made the war on terrorism worse.

"It's as if we were in a good place on Sept. 11. Clearly, we weren't," she added.

"These are people who want to fight against us, and they're going to find a reason. And yes, they will recruit, but it doesn't mean you stop pursuing strategies that are ultimately going to stop them," Rice said.

She insisted U.S. forces must finish the job in Iraq and the wider Middle East to wipe out the "root cause" of violent extremism - not just the terror thugs who carry out the attacks.

"It's a longer-term strategy, and it may even have some short-term down side, but if you don't look at the longer term, you're just leaving the problem to somebody else," she said.

She also said Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a "major educational reform" effort under way to root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing.

In Latin America, home to outrageous Venezuelan bomb thrower Hugo Chavez, Rice said the U.S. approach is to "spend as little time possible in talking about Chavez and more time talking about our positive agenda in Latin America," including several trade agreements.

syadasti

09-26-2006, 08:34 AM

Condi setting Bubba straight...
:bonk:

The only person who was set straight was Rice. Did you forget her blabbering testimony in front of the 9-11 Commission where she was unable to answer what was asked :clue:

09-26-2006, 08:51 AM

The only person who was set straight was Rice. Did you forget her blabbering testimony in front of the 9-11 Commission where she was unable to answer what was asked :clue:

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiight....

I think you have the testimony of Condi and Mz Clinton confused....

Westy

09-26-2006, 08:53 AM

September 25, 2006 -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday accused Bill Clinton of making "flatly false" claims that the Bush administration didn't lift a finger to stop terrorism before the 9/11 attacks.
[snip]
"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice added. [snip]
"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

So Condi basically is saying they did just as good of a job as Clinton did, and Clinton did a Chitty job? Finally some honesty in government, although I would have preferred she just admitted "Dem or Repugnican, we are stupid politians and couldn't lead a chicken across a road."

syadasti

09-26-2006, 08:54 AM

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiight....

I think you have the testimony of Condi and Mz Clinton confused....

Rice Testimony at 40:55 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth)

09-26-2006, 09:00 AM

Remember the Clintons?

Cuz they sure don't remember anything:

I don't remember
I don't know
I'm not sure
I have no idea
I don't believe so
I don't recall
I don't think so
I don't have any specific recollection
I have no recollection
Not to my knowledge
I just don't remember
I don't believe
I have no specific recollection
I might have
I don't have any recollection of that
I don't have a specific memory
I don't have any memory of that
I just can't say
I have no direct knowledge of that
I don't have any idea
Not that I recall
I don't believe I did
I can't remember
I can't say
I do not remember doing so
Not that I remember
I'm not aware
I honestly don't know
I don't believe that I did
I'm fairly sure
I have no other recollection
I'm not positive
I certainly don't think so
I don't really remember
I would have no way of remembering that
That's what I believe happened
To my knowledge, no
To the best of my knowledge
To the best of my memory
I honestly don't recall
I honestly don't remember
That's all I know
I don't have an independent recollection of that
I don't actually have an independent memory of that
As far as I know
I don't believe I ever did that
That's all I know about that
I'm just not sure
Nothing that I remember
I simply don't know
I would have no idea
I don't know anything about that
I don't have any direct knowledge of that
I just don't know
I really don't know
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all

psychobiker

09-26-2006, 09:11 AM

:banana: we want clinton back and not the one with the scowl

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 09:23 AM

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiight....

I think you have the testimony of Condi and Mz Clinton confused....
Did Hillary testify to the 9-11 commission?

09-26-2006, 09:32 AM

Did Hillary testify to the 9-11 commission?

I don't recall.

09-26-2006, 09:37 AM

From one who knows him best...

The real Clinton emerges
Dick Morris

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, “There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down.” Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to “certify” him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a “nice little conservative hit job on me.” But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.

The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.

One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?

narlus

09-26-2006, 09:45 AM

Remember the Clintons?

Cuz they sure don't remember anything:

reagan was the master of the spotty memory.

09-26-2006, 09:48 AM

reagan was the master of the spotty memory.

Not that I remember

narlus

09-26-2006, 09:48 AM

if osama's still such a big deal re: the war on terrorism (which will be about as sucessful, as say, the war on the color orange), then what's the Bush admin done in the last 2 years?

it's all classified, right?

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 09:50 AM

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 09:51 AM

reagan was the master of the spotty memory.you talkin' to me?

Transcend

09-26-2006, 09:56 AM

MMike

09-26-2006, 09:58 AM

Naw it's not classified, everyone knows he invaded the wrong country.

HE should have taken that left turn at Albequerque

narlus

09-26-2006, 09:58 AM

this is getting kind of fun watching these self-important sychophants bloviate.

you rang?
http://www.topplebush.com/humor/rushinlimbo2.jpg

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 10:04 AM

The real Clinton emerges
Dick Morris
...
Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.
[emphasis mine]
Way to change the subject. Clinton is talking about Conservatives asking him to get out of Somalia and this guy is talking about the military. And, from the transcript, the interviewer certainly was trying to link pulling out of Somalia with 9/11.
Clinton claims “the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there.” But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.
Well, not every president orders the intelligence services to give faulty intelligence to back up policy a la Bush with Iraq.
Why didn’t the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden’s involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against “over-reaction.” In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a “failed bombing” and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.
This is opinion. Have there been any serious studies to link the 1993 bombing and the response to it with 9/11?
The former president says, “I worked hard to try to kill him.” If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.
While these might have been mistakes, it might also seem prudent to inform a nuclear nation that we are going to be shooting cruise missile in their area so that they don't pull the trigger against India.
President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a “nice little conservative hit job on me.” But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.
Again there's so equivocation going on here. Clinton is saying that the criticisms of him are being used as attacks by his right-wing opponents and this guy answers by saying that they are right wingers because Clinton failed, even though his harshest critics were right wing before 9/11.
The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.
Certainly we can lay blame on lots of people, not just Bush. Reagan and Bush I can also shoulder some of the blame here.

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 10:06 AM

not as fun as watching some here lap up this hot porridge like the holy words of the kkkoran, but it'll do.
Hot porridge, such as?

Silver

09-26-2006, 10:08 AM

Certainly we can lay blame on lots of people, not just Bush. Reagan and Bush I can also shoulder some of the blame here.

Carter too. He started the whole monkeying around in Afghanistan thing.

You can't blame Reagan though. He just forgot to do anything about it. (Sorry narlus!)

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 10:10 AM

Carter too. He started the whole monkeying around in Afghanistan thing.

You can't blame Reagan though. He just forgot to do anything about it. (Sorry narlus!)
Actually, he was buddy buddy with Saddam and supplied weapons. The Republicans assert that Saddam was in league with the terrorists. So, by their own assertions, shouldn't they have to condemn Reagan for helping Saddam, thus helping the terrorists?

BurlyShirley

09-26-2006, 10:10 AM

oh yeah, n8...i got keith frikkkin olbermensche:
youboob (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70wOzCkWN5g)

this is getting kind of fun watching these self-important sychophants bloviate.

not as fun as watching some here lap up this hot porridge like the holy words of the kkkoran, but it'll do.

Damn.
You know, Im not sure exactly how important Bin Laden was shown to be to the Bush admin as the Clinton admin swapped out, but I do know there is factual evidence that Bush was briefed on the situation to some extent. I think Olberman takes it a little far with bashing the GOP for the Lewinski stuff, I mean, after all, it is just politics and the democrats would've done exactly the same thing. This will always be a case of he said/he said. But the facts are that Clinton went after Bin Laden and Bush was in office when 911 happened. There's no refuting that at all. Although Im not sure what the point is of "assigning blame" at this juncture. I guess Im just more 'solutions-oriented'. Blaming one another is just dirty politics and a vote grab now, and that's not what we need. We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it. All the rest is bull ****.

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 10:20 AM

Damn.
You know, Im not sure exactly how important Bin Laden was shown to be to the Bush admin as the Clinton admin swapped out, but I do know there is factual evidence that Bush was briefed on the situation to some extent. I think Olberman takes it a little far with bashing the GOP for the Lewinski stuff, I mean, after all, it is just politics and the democrats would've done exactly the same thing. This will always be a case of he said/he said. But the facts are that Clinton went after Bin Laden and Bush was in office when 911 happened. There's no refuting that at all. Although Im not sure what the point is of "assigning blame" at this juncture. I guess Im just more 'solutions-oriented'. Blaming one another is just dirty politics and a vote grab now, and that's not what we need. We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it. All the rest is bull ****.
Right on.

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 10:30 AM

you rang?candygram:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4553/2158/320/greedy_bastard_AL.jpg

"i made like, infinity of those at scout camp"

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 10:51 AM

quickly OT: wtf is up w/ buggy hotlinked pix? is it a rm thing? clearly, my desired img is in fact in the post (check the src for this page). i'm running mozilla 1.5.0.7

llkoolkeg

09-26-2006, 10:59 AM

It's funny how both Clintonites and Bushies each looove their guy and develop a blind spot for his shortcomings, yet remain vigilant to "the other guy's" transgressions. Clinton was most definitely NOT an eloquent statesman- he was a slick, shady, redneck used car salesman that was able to sweet-talk his constituents into "feeling pretty" enough to schlob his crooked knob down to the base. Dubya is naught but a spoiled, fortunate son trying vainly to clean up the Big Bush's mess in hopes of earning daddy's approval, yet still falling short despite winning a second term afforded him by unabashed waving of the bloody flag. If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions, they might actually be trusted again with the presidency. All Dubya had to show to beat a bonehead like Kerry was that the timing was not favorable in time of conflict for a midstream change of coxswain.

Transcend

09-26-2006, 11:02 AM

SeaPig

09-26-2006, 11:15 AM

This is why I Mountain Bike. When I'm hucking my bike off of something there is no spin unless I am crashing then there is a lot of spin. Even though I support more of Clinton's policies then Bush's, I do believe Clinton F*** Up because he was too vain. Bush on the other hand is F***ing Up because he is too arrogant.

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 11:28 AM

hippie *

* cool site (b/m), however

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 12:43 PM

Clinton was most definitely NOT an eloquent statesman- he was a slick, shady, redneck used car salesman that was able to sweet-talk his constituents into "feeling pretty" enough to schlob his crooked knob down to the base.
Ah, but that does make him a good politician.
If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions, they might actually be trusted again with the presidency.
What are you talking about? Kerry did everything he could to out-god Bush. Both of them walked around with "God loves me better" signs on their backs for the whole last 2 months of the campaign.

09-26-2006, 01:17 PM

What are you talking about? Kerry did everything he could to out-god Bush.

But god hated him anyway

llkoolkeg

09-26-2006, 02:10 PM

What are you talking about? Kerry did everything he could to out-god Bush. Both of them walked around with "God loves me better" signs on their backs for the whole last 2 months of the campaign.

My comment was a generalization("If the Dems...") and not specific to Kerry's candidacy.

The Kerry part was relative to Republicans' not-so-subtle suggestion that changing executives in time of war may not be such a good idea.

?Comprende?

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 02:27 PM

My comment was a generalization("If the Dems...") and not specific to Kerry's candidacy.

The Kerry part was relative to Republicans' not-so-subtle suggestion that changing executives in time of war may not be such a good idea.

?Comprende?
Well, the dems did have a candidate that met your description and Bush won by waving the flag, as you say. But, I hardly think that using the right's talking points to villify the candidates of the party that represents a third of the country is called for. Besides, politicians do enough to villify themselves. They don't need your help.

llkoolkeg

09-26-2006, 04:17 PM

But, I hardly think that using the right's talking points to villify the candidates of the party that represents a third of the country is called for.

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em regardless of party affiliation. I see the Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same coin...like two rabid dogs fighting over the same piece of meat. Both parties seek to beguile and rob the middle class in order to redistribute their collective wealth to the organizational bases that supported them, be it rich, corporate pukes or poor, shiftless slobs. Both parties seek to meddle in the private affairs of our citizens "for the common good", be it what intoxicants we consume and who we diddle with our sexual bits or what tools of self-defense we possess and how we should spend our discretionary income. Politics is the fine art of fistfvcking men then conning then into believing it was in their best interest...and the most successful politicians are the ones who are even able to convince you that you liked it. What difference does it really make whether it was the right fist vs. the left fist that violated you when you're still wearing a colostomy bag?

Old Man G Funk

09-26-2006, 07:30 PM

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em regardless of party affiliation. I see the Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same coin...like two rabid dogs fighting over the same piece of meat. Both parties seek to beguile and rob the middle class in order to redistribute their collective wealth to the organizational bases that supported them, be it rich, corporate pukes or poor, shiftless slobs. Both parties seek to meddle in the private affairs of our citizens "for the common good", be it what intoxicants we consume and who we diddle with our sexual bits or what tools of self-defense we possess and how we should spend our discretionary income. Politics is the fine art of fistfvcking men then conning then into believing it was in their best interest...and the most successful politicians are the ones who are even able to convince you that you liked it. What difference does it really make whether it was the right fist vs. the left fist that violated you when you're still wearing a colostomy bag?

I find it rather ironic then that you use the right's talking points then to describe the left.

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 08:07 PM

I find it rather ironic then that you use the right's talking points then to describe the left.we don't talk about sex, thank you very much!

RenegadeRick

09-26-2006, 08:46 PM

We need a TRUE PLAN which INVOLVES OTHER COUNTRIES to finish the f*** up in Iraq and Assramistan, and then get the **** out. That's it.

Here is a plan that might work:

http://www.russmo.com/05_07_10ExitStrategy.gif (http://www.russmo.com/05_07_10.html)

Transcend

09-26-2006, 08:50 PM

Here is a plan that might work:

http://www.russmo.com/05_07_10ExitStrategy.gif (http://www.russmo.com/05_07_10.html)

Ya that works great, and leaves absolute bedlam and a political vaccuum in it's wake. :banghead:

$tinkle

09-26-2006, 09:10 PM

Here is a plan that might work:

http://www.russmo.com/05_07_10ExitStrategy.gif (http://www.russmo.com/05_07_10.html)

been there, done that:

http://www.bush2004.com/images/caskets_at_dover.jpg

MMike

09-26-2006, 09:17 PM

finally watched the full videos...all 15 mins, Clinton totally pw3d Wallace.......

stevew

09-26-2006, 10:21 PM

..... pw3d .......
you still are tainted by your time in america.....

MMike

09-27-2006, 04:59 AM

you still are tainted by your time in america.....

That, and a pathetic attempt to still appear young and hip

RenegadeRick

09-27-2006, 05:21 AM

Ya that works great, and leaves absolute bedlam and a political vaccuum in it's wake. :banghead:

But why is that the US's problem?

Shouldn't the land of the free simply just let people be free to create bedlam or vaccuum or whatever the funk they want? Just one more way we can help spread freedom around the globe... by leaving people the funk alone and keeping our noses out of other people's business.
:happydance:
And while we are at it, you think there is any kind of stability anywhere besides the green zone?

MMike

09-27-2006, 05:27 AM

I've always wondered why people the likes of N8 give a crap a bout "liberating the oppressed" and spreading democracy. It's all going on outside the lower 48, so who cares? Why do they WANT their gov't wasting billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on kick-ass shooting ranges and Walmarts?

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 06:22 AM

been there, done that:

http://www.bush2004.com/images/caskets_at_dover.jpg
Talk about a non sequitur.

BurlyShirley

09-27-2006, 07:56 AM

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 08:34 AM

I find it rather ironic then that you use the right's talking points then to describe the left.

I don't read from a 3x5 card and say only what I believe to be true regardless of the source. Please tell me what, in your opinion, are the "talking points" of the left? I'll be more than happy to share my opinion as to their veracity and relevance.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 09:01 AM

I don't read from a 3x5 card and say only what I believe to be true regardless of the source. Please tell me what, in your opinion, are the "talking points" of the left? I'll be more than happy to share my opinion as to their veracity and relevance.
What does it matter what the talking points of the left are? The irony remains that a self-professed iconoclast would parrot out lines like, "If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions..."

It's not productive when either side reduces the other to sound bytes and it's certainly not productive when those sound bytes are uncritically repeated.

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 09:17 AM

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 10:10 AM

you're right, they don't promote it, but they do enable it. think about it: if you wanted that above named trifecta, and knew nothing about a candidate beyond which letter they affix to their name, which candidate would you turn to?
Oh please. Fighting against god is political suicide for any candidate. No one is promoting "drive-thru abortions". And, no one is asking to repeal the second amendment. Give it a rest.

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 10:13 AM

What does it matter what the talking points of the left are? The irony remains that a self-professed iconoclast would parrot out lines like, "If the Dems ever had enough sense to promote a candidate interested in anything, anything besides sandblasting the name of "God" off our national edifaces, repealing the 2nd amendment and promoting drive-thru abortions..."

It's not productive when either side reduces the other to sound bytes and it's certainly not productive when those sound bytes are uncritically repeated.

I didn't repeat or parrot a word! I typed that sentence based on beliefs I hold as true! Google away if you fancy me a plagiarist! Are you telling me that you weren't aware of Democratic candidate, appointee and ACLU lawsuits aimed at sanitizing the country in accordance with agnostic/atheist precepts? Are you telling me that you were not aware that by a large margin, Dems outstrip Repubs in their efforts to repeal the 2nd amendment through lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers, usurious taxes on ammunition, bans on certain calibers and accessory configurations, etc?? Are you telling me that you were unaware that Dems favor by a wide margin any efforts to curtail, limit, or outlaw abortions of varying degrees of wickedness??? You need to read more, son, if you think me uncritical or uninformed.

The Republicans house is just as dirty, but just in different rooms. They cater to rich, paranoid, xenophobic geezers and do all they can to facilitate the continued pillaging of the earth, its resources and its people, especially if they're brown. No amount of cruelty and brutality is beyond them when you threaten either their current wealth, their continued ability to fleece it from the rest of us or the expansion of their influence into new markets(LDCs). Many are religious in word alone, using it as a mechanism of control to keep the worker bees docile, productive and unconcerned with their station in this world because, after all, it's the afterlife that really matters. They look spitefully down on the masses and think that they should be admired and serviced by them...that because of how much monetary wealth has been accumulated in their name, they should enjoy a live of privilege free of the stresses and concerns regarding health care, living wage and retirement.

I despise them both equally and can think of only a single reason why people would choose to identify with either one- that primary elections are restricted to registered party members. I understand the arguments both for and against our two-party political system, but feel that restricting primary elections to registered party members is undemocratic. I have been a registered voter my entire adult life and have never missed an opportunity to vote, but I cannot fathom why individual voters- regardless of official affiliation- cannot vote in the primaries of any party they choose. I would love to vote in ALL the primaries, selecting for each the candidate I feel most qualified. Instead, I get to select between two electable bums or a host of unelectable "silent protest" candidates.

Now look what you've done- it's only 11:00am and I'm already in a pissy, ornery mood. :rant:

valve bouncer

09-27-2006, 10:29 AM

Bravo LL, by the far the best post you've ever made in this forum. Maybe we should piss you off more often;)

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 10:36 AM

I didn't repeat or parrot a word! I typed that sentence based on beliefs I hold as true! Google away if you fancy me a plagiarist!
You might not be parroting words specifically, but parroting party lines for sure.
Are you telling me that you weren't aware of Democratic candidate, appointee and ACLU lawsuits aimed at sanitizing the country in accordance with agnostic/atheist precepts?
Oh please. Now the ACLU and the Democrats are the same? The Dems don't go far enough. I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently against the Ninth Circuit's ruling about having "Under god" stricken from the pledge. Oh yeah, those godless Dems must have been lying when they voted for it and when they sang "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps. Oh, and let's not mention the ACLU lawsuits in favor of student groups that wanted to pray in school and were illegally told not to, even though they were doing it on their own time.
Are you telling me that you were not aware that by a large margin, Dems outstrip Repubs in their efforts to repeal the 2nd amendment through lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers, usurious taxes on ammunition, bans on certain calibers and accessory configurations, etc??
One of the platforms of the Dem. party is to push for more gun control. That's a far cry different from saying that every Dem is in favor of it, or that they want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Are you telling me that you were unaware that Dems favor by a wide margin any efforts to curtail, limit, or outlaw abortions of varying degrees of wickedness???
See above, only substitute pro-choice into the argument.
You need to read more, son, if you think me uncritical or uninformed.
I definitely think that the way you have presented yourself makes you come off as uncritical and uninformed. From other posts you have made in other threads I don't believe that is the case.
The Republicans house is just as dirty, but just in different rooms. They cater to rich, paranoid, xenophobic geezers and do all they can to facilitate the continued pillaging of the earth, its resources and its people, especially if they're brown. No amount of cruelty and brutality is beyond them when you threaten either their current wealth, their continued ability to fleece it from the rest of us or the expansion of their influence into new markets(LDCs). Many are religious in word alone, using it as a mechanism of control to keep the worker bees docile, productive and unconcerned with their station in this world because, after all, it's the afterlife that really matters. They look spitefully down on the masses and think that they should be admired and serviced by them...that because of how much monetary wealth has been accumulated in their name, they should enjoy a live of privilege free of the stresses and concerns regarding health care, living wage and retirement.
Both houses are so dirty that not only would I never eat off the floor, I don't even want to step inside. That still doesn't excuse painting with such a broad brush. Just as I don't think it is right to say all Dems this or all Dems that, it's also not right to say all Reps this all Reps that. If you want to critique the current state of the policies fought for and enacted by certain parties, that is one thing, but that's not what you are doing.
I despise them both equally and can think of only a single reason why people would choose to identify with either one- that primary elections are restricted to registered party members. I understand the arguments both for and against our two-party political system, but feel that restricting primary elections to registered party members is undemocratic. I have been a registered voter my entire adult life and have never missed an opportunity to vote, but I cannot fathom why individual voters- regardless of official affiliation- cannot vote in the primaries of any party they choose. I would love to vote in ALL the primaries, selecting for each the candidate I feel most qualified. Instead, I get to select between two electable bums or a host of unelectable "silent protest" candidates.
I also deplore the state of our country's politics. I deplore the fact that I realistically have only 2 choices in any given election.
Now look what you've done- it's only 11:00am and I'm already in a pissy, ornery mood. :rant:
Rant away, but let's not devolve into sound byte spouting know-nothings simply because we are disenchanted with the current political climate.

Transcend

09-27-2006, 10:38 AM

But why is that the US's problem?

Shouldn't the land of the free simply just let people be free to create bedlam or vaccuum or whatever the funk they want? Just one more way we can help spread freedom around the globe... by leaving people the funk alone and keeping our noses out of other people's business.
:happydance:
And while we are at it, you think there is any kind of stability anywhere besides the green zone?

It's your problem because you started the entire mess. :bonk:

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 10:39 AM

Oh please. Fighting against god is political suicide for any candidate. No one is promoting "drive-thru abortions". And, no one is asking to repeal the second amendment. Give it a rest.you misread my post, where i plainly (or so i thought) laid out the dems aren't actively opposing abortion, god, & guns, but are certainly more than willing to "defend the rights" of those who wish to, all at the behest of those who don't wish to.

i hope my position is now crystal clear: in our 2 party system, if you want abortion-on-demand, if you want to tell all the jebus-freaks to STFD & STFU, and if you want to defang all the frednecks, don't look to the GOP to take you under their wing

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 10:44 AM

you misread my post, where i plainly (or so i thought) laid out the dems aren't actively opposing abortion, god, & guns, but are certainly more than willing to "defend the rights" of those who wish to, all at the behest of those who don't wish to.

i hope my position is now crystal clear: in our 2 party system, if you want abortion-on-demand, if you want to tell all the jebus-freaks to STFD & STFU, and if you want to defang all the frednecks, don't look to the GOP to take you under their wing
So, what? You are saying the Dems are better defenders of the First Amendment? Good job.

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 10:57 AM

Oh please. Now the ACLU and the Democrats are the same? The Dems don't go far enough. I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently against the Ninth Circuit's ruling about having "Under god" stricken from the pledge. you mean the pledge protection act (http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/s1046.htm)? the senate hasn't voted on it (as you claim), but has until oct 6th. perhaps you meant the house of reps? they have already voted on it, and the dems were anything but unanimous to preserve 'under god' (in all fairness, they were almost unanimous in "sandblasting" it).

here's a summary of the legislation:"Legislation [Pledge Protection Act aka H. R. 2389] to bar federal courts from ruling on constitutional issues arising from the Pledge of Allegiance, including the 'one nation, under God' reference, passed the House after lawmakers argued that the pledge is linked to the nation's spiritual history.here's the summary of the roll call:The bill passed the House of Representatives on July 19, 2006 with:

# 260 Ayes
# 167 Nays
# 5 Not Voting

ayes, nays, & not voting, by party:
Democrat------39------158-----4
Republican-----221------8------1
Independent-----0------1-------0here's a nice pic for posterity:

http://www.undergodprocon.org/images/h2389.jpg

you were saying....

09-27-2006, 11:03 AM

BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!

pwn3d!!!

http://www.undergodprocon.org/images/h2389.jpg

Secret Squirrel

09-27-2006, 11:03 AM

You were saying?

Seems that only a small portion of Illinois is on the ball.

Transcend

09-27-2006, 11:09 AM

People who want to change the constitution because they don't like the wording are annoying F**ks. You would think that they have better issues to waste their time on with the monumental amount of problems the US either has or is causing.

Echo

09-27-2006, 11:30 AM

Bravo LL, by the far the best post you've ever made in this forum. Maybe we should piss you off more often;)
We can only hope that LL doesn't get frustrated by OMFG's constant taking quotes out of context, and continues to hand him his ass.

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 11:34 AM

So, what? You are saying the Dems are better defenders of the First Amendment? Good job.i'm sorry, could you please play the role of a potential democrat office holder & explain to me how allowing a powerful minority to abuse their access to the courts in order to incrementally prohibit my first amendment right to freely exercise my choice of religion is defending the first amendment?

do you seriously believe this?

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 11:38 AM

You might not be parroting words specifically, but parroting party lines for sure.
The parties establish their own lines through published platforms, words and deeds.

Oh please. Now the ACLU and the Democrats are the same? The Dems don't go far enough. I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently against the Ninth Circuit's ruling about having "Under god" stricken from the pledge. Oh yeah, those godless Dems must have been lying when they voted for it and when they sang "God Bless America" on the Capitol steps. Oh, and let's not mention the ACLU lawsuits in favor of student groups that wanted to pray in school and were illegally told not to, even though they were doing it on their own time.
They are not the same, but are much more closely linked than are the Repubs with the ACLU. The ACLU in some cases is a perfect example of a good thing gone bad by overstepping its mandate. I did not say ALL Dems are godless, as many are not, particularly those from the "bible belt". The "God Bless America" chorus and vote, however, was but a small publicity show for the assembled cameras and should be weighted accordingly.

One of the platforms of the Dem. party is to push for more gun control. That's a far cry different from saying that every Dem is in favor of it, or that they want to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Where did I say EVERY Dem was in favor of it? Many Dems are NRA lifetime members and deplore their party's established platform regarding gun control. When you look at who is most fervently in favor of repealing gun rights, what letter is next to their name? Charles Schumer? Diane Feinstein? Teddy Kennedy? Henry Waxman? Would you like me to continue?

See above, only substitute pro-choice into the argument.
Same retort as above. Patrick Leahy? Edward Kennedy? Joe Biden? Richard Durbin? Shall I go on?

I definitely think that the way you have presented yourself makes you come off as uncritical and uninformed. From other posts you have made in other threads I don't believe that is the case.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a question of you-
Are you a registered member or do you identify in particular with any political party, and if so, WHICH?

Both houses are so dirty that not only would I never eat off the floor, I don't even want to step inside. That still doesn't excuse painting with such a broad brush. Just as I don't think it is right to say all Dems this or all Dems that, it's also not right to say all Reps this all Reps that. If you want to critique the current state of the policies fought for and enacted by certain parties, that is one thing, but that's not what you are doing.
I paint with a broad brush because I notice trends. I look at the forest and the picture, not the trees and the pixels. I do not, however, use the words ALL or EVERY loosely and challenge you to find an example of where I do. The error is in your interpretation and extrapolation of my intent from tone.

I also deplore the state of our country's politics. I deplore the fact that I realistically have only 2 choices in any given election.
:cheers:

Rant away, but let's not devolve into sound byte spouting know-nothings simply because we are disenchanted with the current political climate.
I speak only for myself and kindly suggest you do the same.

Silver

09-27-2006, 11:40 AM

I didn't repeat or parrot a word! I typed that sentence based on beliefs I hold as true! Google away if you fancy me a plagiarist! Are you telling me that you weren't aware of Democratic candidate, appointee and ACLU lawsuits aimed at sanitizing the country in accordance with agnostic/atheist precepts?

Aww. You must feel so put down.

It's hard to be a Christian in this country. I think you even had it worse than Jesus did in his time, to be honest with you. After all, he did get tortured and crucified, but you might have to put up with not being able to walk into court and see the 10 commandments on the wall. The horror!

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 12:16 PM

Aww. You must feel so put down.

It's hard to be a Christian in this country. I think you even had it worse than Jesus did in his time, to be honest with you. After all, he did get tortured and crucified, but you might have to put up with not being able to walk into court and see the 10 commandments on the wall. The horror!

I appreciate your kind concern for my feelings, Silver, and believe your compassion far exceeds its measure by reputation.

This is probably the easiest country in which to be a Christian. I am quite able to walk into court to pay my speeding tickets w/o seeing the 10 Commandments on the wall and were they not there, I'd likely not miss them. That being said, I do not agree with removing them once they are already there. Hell, I don't even care if future courthouses do not include references to God or the Commandments anywhere, but I will not stand for erasing them from where they have peaceably existed for years. Doing so is inflammatory, revisionist and petty...pitifully small and petty.

Secret Squirrel

09-27-2006, 12:29 PM

I appreciate your kind concern for my feelings, Silver, and believe your compassion far exceeds its measure by reputation.

This is probably the easiest country in which to be a Christian. I am quite able to walk into court to pay my speeding tickets w/o seeing the 10 Commandments on the wall and were they not there, I'd likely not miss them. That being said, I do not agree with removing them once they are already there. Hell, I don't even care if future courthouses do not include references to God or the Commandments anywhere, but I will not stand for erasing them from where they have peaceably existed for years. Doing so is inflammatory, revisionist and petty...pitifully small and petty.

Does this surprise you??

Welcome to America!! :banana:

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 12:41 PM

you mean the pledge protection act (http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/s1046.htm)?
No, I was talking about this. (http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/s71.htm)

Before you puff up your chest, you might want to make sure you know what both of us are talking about.

And that goes double for you N8.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 12:44 PM

We can only hope that LL doesn't get frustrated by OMFG's constant taking quotes out of context, and continues to hand him his ass.
Whatever man. He's the one that started in with the Dems are god-hatin', gun-hatin', abortion drive-thru worshippers.

All I'm saying is that when he resorts to mindless sound bytes put out by the right (and the same is true in the other direction) that it negatively affects the political discourse of this country. Either that, or it just shows how negative the discourse is.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 12:46 PM

i'm sorry, could you please play the role of a potential democrat office holder & explain to me how allowing a powerful minority to abuse their access to the courts in order to incrementally prohibit my first amendment right to freely exercise my choice of religion is defending the first amendment?

do you seriously believe this?
You are the one that said that they defend the rights of those who oppose those things. So, they don't have the first amendment right to oppose those policies, is that what YOU seriously believe?

Also, yes, making the government god/religion-neutral protects all of our rights. No one is saying you can't worship the way you want. What I'm saying is that you don't have the right to make me worship the way you want, and neither does the government.

BurlyShirley

09-27-2006, 12:51 PM

Whatever man.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e42/BurlyShirley/owned-baby-papa.jpg

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 12:52 PM

The parties establish their own lines through published platforms, words and deeds.
Fine. Show me where all or even any of the Dems. have advocated drive-thru abortions, sandblasting god out of everything, etc.
They are not the same, but are much more closely linked than are the Repubs with the ACLU. The ACLU in some cases is a perfect example of a good thing gone bad by overstepping its mandate. I did not say ALL Dems are godless, as many are not, particularly those from the "bible belt". The "God Bless America" chorus and vote, however, was but a small publicity show for the assembled cameras and should be weighted accordingly.
The ACLU does not have a mandate.

Find me one Dem. from Congress that is not religious.
Where did I say EVERY Dem was in favor of it? Many Dems are NRA lifetime members and deplore their party's established platform regarding gun control. When you look at who is most fervently in favor of repealing gun rights, what letter is next to their name? Charles Schumer? Diane Feinstein? Teddy Kennedy? Henry Waxman? Would you like me to continue?
I've already said that gun control is a platform of the party. I've also already said that it does NOT equate to wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. Got it?
Same retort as above. Patrick Leahy? Edward Kennedy? Joe Biden? Richard Durbin? Shall I go on?
Then I too shall retort same as above.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have a question of you-
Are you a registered member or do you identify in particular with any political party, and if so, WHICH?
I am not a member of any party. I thought I made that pretty clear when I talked about how dirty both parties are. I am very liberal however. Take that as you will.
I paint with a broad brush because I notice trends. I look at the forest and the picture, not the trees and the pixels. I do not, however, use the words ALL or EVERY loosely and challenge you to find an example of where I do. The error is in your interpretation and extrapolation of my intent from tone.
Fine, if I misinterpreted from your tone so be it. You certainly meant to condemn with a broad brush, however. I stand by that interpretation.
I speak only for myself and kindly suggest you do the same.
What? You aren't disenchanted? It certainly sounds as if you are.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 12:58 PM

This is probably the easiest country in which to be a Christian. I am quite able to walk into court to pay my speeding tickets w/o seeing the 10 Commandments on the wall and were they not there, I'd likely not miss them. That being said, I do not agree with removing them once they are already there. Hell, I don't even care if future courthouses do not include references to God or the Commandments anywhere, but I will not stand for erasing them from where they have peaceably existed for years. Doing so is inflammatory, revisionist and petty...pitifully small and petty.
So, as long as the Commandments get put up, then they don't come down because taking them down is inflamatory, revisionist, and petty? Sorry, but the prohibition on government endorsing religion is enshrined in the First Amendment. I hardly think that "inflamatory, revisionist, and petty" accurately describes the First Amendment or my rights as a citizen of this country.

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 01:15 PM

No, I was talking about this. (http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/s71.htm)

Before you puff up your chest, you might want to make sure you know what both of us are talking about.when you type:I seem to recall a unanimous vote in the senate recently...i take you at your pledge. 3.5 years may be recent when compared to the paleozoic era, but when there have been "recent" roll calls on this topic, i tend to look for just that.

so now that we cleared that up, do you still hold so fast to your position that "the Dems don't go far enough"? certainly seems they're making inroads. [to be fair, i'll add that pledging to a flag seems silly at best, and indoctrination at worst]

i'll close w/ a fitting quote from someone who certainly wasn't a christian apologist: “He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” —Thomas Paine

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 01:23 PM

so now that we cleared that up, do you still hold so fast to your position that "the Dems don't go far enough"? certainly seems they're making inroads. [to be fair, i'll add that pledging to a flag seems silly at best, and indoctrination at worst]

i'll close w/ a fitting quote from someone who certainly wasn't a christian apologist: “He who would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” —Thomas Paine
The thing is that that vote doesn't deal with just the "Under god" portion, nor is it clear that they are voting against "Under god." Actually, it's clear that that's not what they are voting against. They are voting against the idea that the Legislature has the ability to tell the Supreme Court that the Courts are not allowed to hear cases on certain issues.

And, no, it's still not far enough. Why do we have to pledge allegiance to a country "Under god"? That was NOT part of the original pledge and it is divisive.

Why do you think that Paine's quote is fitting? If it is, it's only because I'm the one who is truly trying to guard both of us from oppression. Or, do you think that you will have been oppressed if this country removes "Under god" from the pledge?

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 01:27 PM

Fine. Show me where all or even any of the Dems. have advocated drive-thru abortions, sandblasting god out of everything, etc.

The ACLU does not have a mandate.

Find me one Dem. from Congress that is not religious.

I've already said that gun control is a platform of the party. I've also already said that it does NOT equate to wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. Got it?

Then I too shall retort same as above.

I am not a member of any party. I thought I made that pretty clear when I talked about how dirty both parties are. I am very liberal however. Take that as you will.

Fine, if I misinterpreted from your tone so be it. You certainly meant to condemn with a broad brush, however. I stand by that interpretation.

What? You aren't disenchanted? It certainly sounds as if you are.

I can see that we are not likely to reach many mutually acceptable conclusions here, have explained my viewpoint as concisely as possible and have clarified interpretive/semantic differences sufficiently for one workday...more than sufficiently were my boss to be polled. If you consider yourself very liberal, we'll have plenty to argue about in the upcoming months just as if you were professed to be very conservative. A prejudice of mine is that I don't like it when I believe someone has given up a portion of their objectivity in order to belong and voting the party or liberal/conservative line is prima facie evidence of thoughtlessness. I favor the Rep position on some issues and the Dem position on others; the conservative position sometimes and the liberal one in other cases. As I said before, the closest a pidgeonholer will ever get to pinning me down is to call me a libertarian, but just to futher muddy the waters, can you guess how many times I've voted libertarian in a presidential election?

You got it...precisely zero. :biggrin:

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 01:34 PM

The ACLU does not have a mandate.by their members they most certainly do.
but if you mean by edict of the fed'l gov't, then no.
Find me one Dem. from Congress that is not religious.how 'bout 4?
rush holt (d-NJ) di fi (d-CA) pete stark (d-CA) jim mcdermott (d-WA)
(we keep a list of infidels, you should know)

You aren't disenchanted? It certainly sounds as if you are.“Everything that deceives may be said to enchant.” —Plato

Transcend

09-27-2006, 01:37 PM

I favor the Rep position on some issues and the Dem position on others; the conservative position sometimes and the liberal one in other cases.

And this is precisely why a 2 party system sucks.

For what it's worth, i feel the same way - only our liberal party in canada is pretty much right in the middle of your 2 parties. well, that and our 2 extremes are pretty damn close anyways. Like political cousins or something.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 01:39 PM

A prejudice of mine is that I don't like it when I believe someone has given up a portion of their objectivity in order to belong and voting the party or liberal/conservative line is prima facie evidence of thoughtlessness.
Wait. So because I'm liberal, then I've given up a portion of my objectivity?

I don't tow any party line, and liberal is not a party. Hence I don't "belong" to anything.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 01:46 PM

by their members they most certainly do.
but if you mean by edict of the fed'l gov't, then no.
Even if you talk about their membership. People are still donating money, so they must not have exceeded their mandate too badly.
how 'bout 4?
rush holt (d-NJ) di fi (d-CA) pete stark (d-CA) jim mcdermott (d-WA)
(we keep a list of infidels, you should know)
And, you got this list from?

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 01:58 PM

And, you got this list from?leaflets dropped over fundyville. (i'm using one now as a bookmarker in 'Godless' by high priestess ann coulter)

as for jim mcdermott: McDermott leads pledge in House, omits 'under God' (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001915366_mcdermott29m.html)

need the cock crow thrice???

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 01:59 PM

So, as long as the Commandments get put up, then they don't come down because taking them down is inflamatory, revisionist, and petty? Sorry, but the prohibition on government endorsing religion is enshrined in the First Amendment. I hardly think that "inflamatory, revisionist, and petty" accurately describes the First Amendment or my rights as a citizen of this country.

Please see Exhibit 1==> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

God knows why I'm bothering to help revive this dead horse, but engraving the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public courthouse does NOT establish an official state religion any more than sandblasting it off prohibits the free exercise thereof. Perhaps I'm overly permissive, but I could care less if the Islamic version of the same thing or the Code of Hammurabi or whatever similar code had been engraved there initially instead. With all the bigger and more crucial issues facing our country, getting your panties all twisted up over laying eyes upon the Ten Commandments really speaks to the misplaced sense of direction and priorities of some.

For more on this issue, please use the "advanced search" option, as this one has been rehashed fully several times over the years.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 02:00 PM

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 02:03 PM

Please see Exhibit 1==> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

God knows why I'm bothering to help revive this dead horse, but engraving the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public courthouse does NOT establish an official state religion any more than sandblasting it off prohibits the free exercise thereof. Perhaps I'm overly permissive, but I could care less if the Islamic version of the same thing or the Code of Hammurabi or whatever similar code had been engraved there initially instead. With all the bigger and more crucial issues facing our country, getting your panties all twisted up over laying eyes upon the Ten Commandments really speaks to the misplaced sense of direction and priorities of some.

For more on this issue, please use the "advanced search" option, as this one has been rehashed fully several times over the years.
Oh, the old "There's bigger issues so don't mind the fact that I'm trampling all over your first amendment rights" cannard. I could counter with, "What's more important than the First Amendment?" But, where would that get us?

But, I find it humorous that you would cite the very amendment that was enacted to protect me from having to go to courthouses where the 10 Commandments is prominently displayed. By the government posting religious texts, it shows a clear preferrence for one over another, or even religion over non-religion. One does not have freedom of religion unless one has freedom from religion.

Silver

09-27-2006, 02:14 PM

Perhaps I'm overly permissive, but I could care less if the Islamic version of the same thing or the Code of Hammurabi or whatever similar code had been engraved there initially instead.

So, just to make it clear, you'd feel comfortable heading into court where the judge was a Muslim who just happened to have the Koran engraved on the wall? You'd feel like you'd get a fair hearing, right? No concerns at all?

It's easy to say you wouldn't care, because you know damn well if someone tried to get "One Nation, under Allah" into the pledge of allegiance or huge Koran monuments in courthouses there would be a deafening outcry...as there should be.

Silver

09-27-2006, 02:22 PM

leaflets dropped over fundyville. (i'm using one now as a bookmarker in 'Godless' by high priestess ann coulter)

as for jim mcdermott: McDermott leads pledge in House, omits 'under God' (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001915366_mcdermott29m.html)

need the cock crow thrice???

"I was a 6-year-old boy when I gave my heart to Jesus Christ," said McDermott, a member of St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle. "I went to Wheaton College with Billy Graham. But religion shouldn't be worn on your sleeve. I don't wear my religion on my sleeve. I don't think my relationship with God has any place in this."

Sounds like a committed atheist to me.

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 02:25 PM

Wait. So because I'm liberal, then I've given up a portion of my objectivity?

I don't tow any party line, and liberal is not a party. Hence I don't "belong" to anything.

All at once now class- who said this==> "I am very liberal however."

If you label yourself "very liberal", you have identified yourself as one favoring to a large degree the positions consistent with liberalism over those of conservatism. How does that not sound to you like you have given up a portion of your objectivity? I never said you were a member of a particular party(how the hell would I know that?) and I agree that "liberal" is NOT a significant political party here in the U.S. at this time. Again, you have identified yourself as very liberal, therefore your membership is with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals who also label themselves as such.

Transcend

09-27-2006, 02:34 PM

All at once now class- who said this==> "I am very liberal however."

If you label yourself "very liberal", you have identified yourself as one favoring to a large degree the positions consistent with liberalism over those of conservatism. How does that not sound to you like you have given up a portion of your objectivity? I never said you were a member of a particular party(how the hell would I know that?) and I agree that "liberal" is NOT a significant political party here in the U.S. at this time. Again, you have identified yourself as very liberal, therefore your membership is with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals who also label themselves as such.

How so? I completely disagree. Because one has liberal (small L) tendencies, does not mean they are a part of any group whatsoever.

I believe in gay marriage, drive through abortions and the seperation of church and state. I also think guns can be fun, small government and responsible spending is important and that controlling immigration is crucial to the well being of the social programs available in the US today.

So the question then is; am I "with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals" ? Or asm I perhaps, just a dreamer who finds it absurd that Americans feel the need to label themselves members of one party or the other, while at the same time giving up part of their belief structure? (BTW, where have I heard that last part before?)

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 02:37 PM

So, just to make it clear, you'd feel comfortable heading into court where the judge was a Muslim who just happened to have the Koran engraved on the wall? You'd feel like you'd get a fair hearing, right? No concerns at all?he doesn't have a vagina, so it would be more than fair.
It's easy to say you wouldn't care, because you know damn well if someone tried to get "One Nation, under Allah" into the pledge of allegiance or huge Koran monuments in courthouses there would be a deafening outcry...as there should be.speaking of deafening outcries, 2 years ago in hamtramck, michigan, the city council voted unanimously (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3026297/detail.html) to sound muslim calls to prayer from a mosque 5 times per day, while church bells have been silenced (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fairfaxfocus/2006/04/in_reston_dont_ask_the_bell_do.html) in reston, virginia.

Transcend

09-27-2006, 02:38 PM

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 02:38 PM

All at once now class- who said this==> "I am very liberal however."

If you label yourself "very liberal", you have identified yourself as one favoring to a large degree the positions consistent with liberalism over those of conservatism. How does that not sound to you like you have given up a portion of your objectivity? I never said you were a member of a particular party(how the hell would I know that?) and I agree that "liberal" is NOT a significant political party here in the U.S. at this time. Again, you have identified yourself as very liberal, therefore your membership is with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals who also label themselves as such.
Oh, I get it now. Guilt by supposed association. You throw around ad hominems that liberals must be nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals. Nice work. While you are at it, why don't you call me a heathen (that would at least be accurate.)

I could run through the list of things that I believe in, but for brevity it is often easier to say that I am liberal. Ah, but since I have accepted that I am more liberal than mainstream by quite a bit, I have given up my objectivity. Whatever. I make my decisions on what I believe and I have chosen regardless of labels.

Of course, this coming from the guy who throws out sound bytes.

Secret Squirrel

09-27-2006, 02:39 PM

Transcend

09-27-2006, 02:42 PM

Nah...you're just and eBully.... :cupidarrow: :banana: :busted:

In the flesh. Ps: i call it like it is in real life as well. Just ask my past poli sci professors. Incuding the one who went mental in class when i told him I wasn't about to tow HIS party line. :brows:

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 02:46 PM

In the flesh. Ps: i call it like it is in real life as well. Just ask my past poli sci professors. Incuding the one who went mental in class when i told him I wasn't about to tow HIS party line. :brows:i can more easily picture richard simmons bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

Transcend

09-27-2006, 02:48 PM

i can more easily picture richard simmons bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

Now that would be a site and a half. They can share outfits.

Secret Squirrel

09-27-2006, 02:48 PM

i can more easily picture bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

Fixed....

I do, at least once a day.

Silver

09-27-2006, 02:50 PM

speaking of deafening outcries, 2 years ago in hamtramck, michigan, the city council voted unanimously (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/3026297/detail.html) to sound muslim calls to prayer from a mosque 5 times per day, while church bells have been silenced (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fairfaxfocus/2006/04/in_reston_dont_ask_the_bell_do.html) in reston, virginia.

The bells were a first for St. John Neumann -- the old chapel didn't have any. When they started ringing in three-minute bursts -- three times weekdays, once Saturdays and before each of five Sunday Masses, beginning at 7:30 a.m. -- neighbors complained. County inspectors found that the bells broke the county noise limit of 55 decibels by a wide margin, registering about 75, roughly equivalent to the noise of a vacuum cleaner.

That's pretty goddamn annoying. That call to prayer thing is crazy as well. I notice the Christians seem to think that's an intrustion onto their faith. Oh, the irony...

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 02:50 PM

Fixed....

I do, at least once a day.posters don't count, unless you 'sign' it

ohio

09-27-2006, 02:55 PM

09-27-2006, 03:12 PM

i can more easily picture richard simmons bangin' april lawyer than what you describe.

:greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy:

$tinkle

09-27-2006, 03:22 PM

:greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy: :greedy:you might want to clarify your statement, sir.

as it stands, it's a little ambiguous.

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 03:27 PM

So, just to make it clear, you'd feel comfortable heading into court where the judge was a Muslim who just happened to have the Koran engraved on the wall? You'd feel like you'd get a fair hearing, right? No concerns at all?

It's easy to say you wouldn't care, because you know damn well if someone tried to get "One Nation, under Allah" into the pledge of allegiance or huge Koran monuments in courthouses there would be a deafening outcry...as there should be.

It's hard to speculate as to how I'd feel, but it's fair to say I'd be uncomfortable and apprehensive no matter what was engraved on the wall or what(if any) religion was espoused by the judge, even had I the omniscience to detect it. I would likely be fearful of getting a fair trial and be concerned about many things. Now would I want to be on trial for a capital crime in a nation where Sharia was enforced? HELL NO!

As I said before, I could care less what was carved on the wall unless, perhaps, it was a Bottecelli in bas relief. I would not recite OUR pledge of allegiance were it changed to "one nation under Allah", but if I sought to emigrate to a nation that did as a condition of citizenship, I'd either have to suck it up and speak the words hollowly or seek citizenship elsewhere.

Truthfully, I'm not a particularly observant individual out-n-about under the best of circumstances,much less if I was about to go on trial. Also, as an FYI, I value ALL belief in God, no matter what name you call him- God, Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh, Great Spirit, Jah Rastafari, Allah, or "Hindu Floaty Thing*".

*An aside for those who've seen Grizzly Man

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 03:46 PM

How so? I completely disagree. Because one has liberal (small L) tendencies, does not mean they are a part of any group whatsoever.

I believe in gay marriage, drive through abortions and the seperation of church and state. I also think guns can be fun, small government and responsible spending is important and that controlling immigration is crucial to the well being of the social programs available in the US today.

So the question then is; am I "with the smug cadre of nannyistic pseudo-intellectuals" ? Or asm I perhaps, just a dreamer who finds it absurd that Americans feel the need to label themselves members of one party or the other, while at the same time giving up part of their belief structure? (BTW, where have I heard that last part before?)

Hmmmmm...I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with because I agree with your statement above. Saying that you have liberal tendancies is(at least to me) quite different than saying what OMGF said- "I am very liberal". For example, I have liberal tendancies when you look at topics like gay marriage and the "War on Drugs", yet conservative tendancies when discussing abortion and gun control. I would never label myself as liberal OR conservative, though, because a thoughtful man(again, IMO) considers the merits and demerits of each issue independant of any aggregate, e.g. republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, christian, atheist, heterosexual, homosexual, etc. Does my position as clarified make more sense now?

llkoolkeg

09-27-2006, 03:55 PM

I suspect that in this respect you differ from most proponents of the 10 commandments in the courthouse.

It wouldn't shock me to discover that you are you correct, ohio, but I'm OK with that. I likely "differ from most proponents of the 10 commandments in the courthouse" in that I poke smot, enjoy vigorous, non-procreative sex and could care less about gay marriage, too. :banana:

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 05:10 PM

you might want to clarify your statement, sir.

as it stands, it's a little ambiguous.

Have you met N8?

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 05:13 PM

Hmmmmm...I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with because I agree with your statement above. Saying that you have liberal tendancies is(at least to me) quite different than saying what OMGF said- "I am very liberal". For example, I have liberal tendancies when you look at topics like gay marriage and the "War on Drugs", yet conservative tendancies when discussing abortion and gun control. I would never label myself as liberal OR conservative, though, because a thoughtful man(again, IMO) considers the merits and demerits of each issue independant of any aggregate, e.g. republican, democrat, conservative, liberal, christian, atheist, heterosexual, homosexual, etc. Does my position as clarified make more sense now?
You are equivocating. You are basically saying that because you used more words that you are more thoughtful than I. Note that I did not use the word as a noun as you would ascribe to me.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 05:14 PM

As I said before, I could care less what was carved on the wall unless, perhaps, it was a Bottecelli in bas relief. I would not recite OUR pledge of allegiance were it changed to "one nation under Allah", but if I sought to emigrate to a nation that did as a condition of citizenship, I'd either have to suck it up and speak the words hollowly or seek citizenship elsewhere.
Do you think that it is a condition of citizenship in this country to swear allegiance to god?
Truthfully, I'm not a particularly observant individual out-n-about under the best of circumstances,much less if I was about to go on trial. Also, as an FYI, I value ALL belief in God, no matter what name you call him- God, Jehovah, Jesus, Yahweh, Great Spirit, Jah Rastafari, Allah, or "Hindu Floaty Thing*".
So, all belief in god so long as you believe in god? Please tell me that is not what you meant.

Nobody

09-27-2006, 05:31 PM

Do you think that it is a condition of citizenship in this country to swear allegiance to god?

So, all belief in god so long as you believe in god? Please tell me that is not what you meant.

I believe that, if there is any god at all, there is only One God, by any other name.

I like to call It 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'.

oh, and I also believe that Global Warming is caused by the reduction of the Caribbean Pirate population.

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 05:34 PM

I believe that, if there is any god at all, there is only One God, by any other name.

I like to call It 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'.

oh, and I also believe that Global Warming is caused by the reduction of the Caribbean Pirate population.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Nobody

09-27-2006, 05:37 PM

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

And also to you. Arrrrr!

Old Man G Funk

09-27-2006, 05:52 PM

And also to you. Arrrrr!
Pastafarians Unite!

Old Man G Funk

09-29-2006, 01:05 PM

Here's a good op-ed from today's WaPo on this episode.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801454.html

09-29-2006, 03:07 PM

Here's a good op-ed from today's WaPo on this episode.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801454.html

show me the 'good'...

Old Man G Funk

09-30-2006, 09:48 AM

show me the 'good'...
Just the fact that it plainly shows the hypocrisy.

$tinkle

10-01-2006, 10:32 PM

Just the fact that it plainly shows the hypocrisy.you didn't seem to express the same opinion about the larry king interview only days earlier.

perhaps you missed it? (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2296854&postcount=13)

blue

10-01-2006, 10:48 PM

The conservative movement understands the political value of controlling the interpretation of history. Now its control is finally being contested.

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

*sigh*

kidwoo

10-01-2006, 11:29 PM

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.

*sigh*

What if I control Ram Das?

What can I do with him?

blue

10-01-2006, 11:46 PM

Change your path to God, my son.

Old Man G Funk

10-02-2006, 05:49 AM

you didn't seem to express the same opinion about the larry king interview only days earlier.

perhaps you missed it? (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2296854&postcount=13)
Nice red herring.

Old Man G Funk

10-02-2006, 02:23 PM

Nice red herring.
It seems that you didn't quite get it $tinkle, so let me spell it out for you.

Your first error is in introducing a red herring. I call it that because it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the hypocrisy displayed by the administration in the op-ed. Clinton was hypocritical, but that doesn't matter in the context of what the current administration is doing now.

Your second error is in making a bad assumption. You posted that original post before I was participating in this thread. Then, because I called you out on your red herring (as explained above) without addressing the side-track that was your red herring, you assumed that I was somehow willfully ignorant (as you posted here. (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2304742&postcount=61))

So, you've made 2 errors now over this post. Good job.

$tinkle

10-02-2006, 03:10 PM

Your first error is in introducing a red herring. I call it that because it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the hypocrisy displayed by the administration in the op-ed. Clinton was hypocritical, but that doesn't matter in the context of what the current administration is doing now.oh, is that was this thread is about?
you seem to show a penchant for "thread-jack" only when it's convenient, it seems (e.g. "don't snipe at me at other threads", or some such snivelling)
Your second error is in making a bad assumption. You posted that original post before I was participating in this thread. Then, because I called you out on your red herring (as explained above) without addressing the side-track that was your red herring, you assumed that I was somehow willfully ignorant (as you posted here. (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2304742&postcount=61))

So, you've made 2 errors now over this post. if you make a comment on a thread, it's a reasonable expectation you will have read & understood all preceding comments, especially when your first comment comes at "09-26-2006, 10:46 AM", & this one addresses transcend's comment, which he posted after mine.
therefore, you were indeed a participant up to the point of my posting mr. clinton's hypocritical advice.

from this truth, there is no possible hope of escape.
Good job.who's sniping now?

Old Man G Funk

10-02-2006, 04:27 PM

oh, is that was this thread is about?
you seem to show a penchant for "thread-jack" only when it's convenient, it seems (e.g. "don't snipe at me at other threads", or some such snivelling)
That's what the comment was about that you addressed. That's what makes it a red herring. Do I need to link that one too so you can read what it is?

Also, I would hardly call it snivelling, considering that I'm willing to debate you anywhere. I was simply pointing out that you were not using good etiquette.
if you make a comment on a thread, it's a reasonable expectation you will have read & understood all preceding comments, especially when your first comment comes at "09-26-2006, 10:46 AM", & this one addresses transcend's comment, which he posted after mine.
I did read all the comments, assuming that I didn't would be another bad assumption by you.
therefore, you were indeed a participant up to the point of my posting mr. clinton's hypocritical advice.
In what twisted world? Your comment was way before mine, my comment to Transcend was off the cuff meant as a joke. The fact that I didn't respond directly to you doesn't mean jack, except that I didn't feel the need to answer.
from this truth, there is no possible hope of escape.
Only in your twisted logic is this true. This is some pretty desperate grasping at straws on your part.
who's sniping now?
At least I did it on the proper thread.