Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 120
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    You post an article, that's okay. When you post an article, then be prepared for a response, especially if that article is one-sided or has statements in it that are not fact. Most of us ignore the trash and that is what the media feeds us most of the time - plain trash.

    The majority of people in this country are basically conservative. We may call ourselves liberal in some aspects, but the overwhelming majority of us are far from liberals as defined by those who speak for us, such as elected representataives. In my state, Hawaii, the people overwhelmingly voted to ban gay marriage. Our representatives, those we elect to speak for us, choose to ignore our wishes. I find it amazing. What this means is that their agenda is not that of the people.

    In every state that has voted to enact a marriage protection law, the voter response has been overwhelmingly in favor of it. The courts though take a different view. Our representatives in many instances take a different view. The courts and our many of our respresentatives think we are too stupid to know any better.
    Frankly, get the courts out of it. Put it in front of the people and see who the real winner is. That real winner is the middle guy and gal.

    Anyway, the media presents itself as the people in the know and frankly, that is no longer true.

    Most of us have a religious background that we draw from. That background may not be strong, but it is there. Our values, the structure of this country, all have their roots in our basic religious beliefs.
    Dang, I am rambling. Anyway, read something in detail before posting it and when you post it, get ready for a response.

    Get a life on the issue, that is far from being a personal attack. I do not make personal attacks. Never will I ever degrade you as a person, though the issue is fair game.

    Ben
    lol, my god, you forgot the rest of it
    Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

    Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

    Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

    Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

    Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as "leftists" do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term "leftism" because we don't know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)

    The breakdown of traditional values to some extent implies the breakdown of the bonds that hold together traditional small-scale social groups. The disintegration of small-scale social groups is also promoted by the fact that modern conditions often require or tempt individuals to move to new locations, separating themselves from their communities. Beyond that, a technological society HAS TO weaken family ties and local communities if it is to function efficiently. In modern society an individual's loyalty must be first to the system and only secondarily to a small-scale community, because if the internal loyalties of small-scale small-scale communities were stronger than loyalty to the system, such communities would pursue their own advantage at the expense of the system.

    The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

    http://www.thecourier.com/manifest.htm
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Your little quote at the bottom is also a falsehood - take the time to look it up. There are many places to verify this. Below is one of them.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918437/posts
    For those that missed it, the quote was:

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

    Which, bclinger is right, was not uttered by President Bush that day. But he doesn't mention that something very similar to it was:

    "So I don't know where he is. Nor do I... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him ...... And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I *chuckle* I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

    The sound (in MP3) is attached.
    Attached Files Attached Files
  3. #23  
    Wow, it's like we have our own die-hard swift boat group here on the boards. No one wants to see people prosecuted if they've done no wrong. It's like folks are waiting for an argument, if it doesn't come, they poke until it does. Is there ever a time when there isn't spin out of Washington? I personally am not a Rove fan, but I trust that if the prosecutor says there's nothing there, there's nothing there. Now I'm sure all of those who accept Rove's innocence, also accept OJ Simpson's innocence.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    For those that missed it, the quote was:

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

    Which, bclinger is right, was not uttered by President Bush that day. But he doesn't mention that something very similar to it was:

    "So I don't know where he is. Nor do I... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him ...... And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I *chuckle* I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

    The sound (in MP3) is attached.
    Seems like an irresponsible statement given bin Laden's responsibility for 911.
    My guess is that if a liberal political leader made that statement, a lot of rhetoric would fly around about how that hurts the troops in Afghanistan?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    For those that missed it, the quote was:

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

    Which, bclinger is right, was not uttered by President Bush that day. But he doesn't mention that something very similar to it was:

    "So I don't know where he is. Nor do I... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him ...... And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I *chuckle* I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

    The sound (in MP3) is attached.
    I think its important to show context:

    Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

    But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

    And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020313-8.html
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster
    For those that missed it, the quote was:

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

    Which, bclinger is right, was not uttered by President Bush that day. But he doesn't mention that something very similar to it was:

    "So I don't know where he is. Nor do I... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him ...... And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I *chuckle* I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

    The sound (in MP3) is attached.
    Thanks, I briefly looked for that, and could not find it.

    The same thing is on the White House Website.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by The President
    I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
    Unlike Saddam who was surely calling the shots from the roach infested hole he was hiding in.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I think its important to show context:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020313-8.html
    Agreed, and the context was that the president was in the process of removing troops from Afghanistan, and sending them to Iraq. When he said:
    Quote Originally Posted by George W Bush
    So I don't know where he is. Nor do I... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him ...... And, you know, again, I don't know where he is. I *chuckle* I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Now I'm sure all of those who accept Rove's innocence, also accept OJ Simpson's innocence.
    The first jury or the second one that found him responsible for the deaths of two people?
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    The first jury or the second one that found him responsible for the deaths of two people?
    We're talking criminal activity. Save the civil comments for when Plame and Wilson start suing. lol

    So I take it you do believe OJ was not guilty of murder! Sorry to be OT.
  11. #31  
    I bumped into OJ a few months ago at a golf course outside Fort Lauderdale. Apparently he plays there every morning. He drives a white Lincoln Navigator now.

    Getting back OT (on topic), I'd love to see a civil lawsuit directly from Plame. After all this noise over the last several years, it'd be nice to actually hear what she has to say about all this.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I bumped into OJ a few months ago at a golf course outside Fort Lauderdale. Apparently he plays there every morning. He drives a white Lincoln Navigator now.

    Getting back OT (on topic), I'd love to see a civil lawsuit directly from Plame. After all this noise over the last several years, it'd be nice to actually hear what she has to say about all this.
    Plame would have to show damages in a civil suit, therefore she would lose, as she has not been damaged. In fact, she benefited from the publicity to the tune of $1M book deal. Bring the suit on, it will be yet another blow to the libs.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    Plame would have to show damages in a civil suit, therefore she would lose, as she has not been damaged. In fact, she benefited from the publicity to the tune of $1M book deal. Bring the suit on, it will be yet another blow to the libs.
    The suit could be brought on by Wilson, since he was the aleged target. Plame was just the tool. I'm just speculating, I've no information, or reason to believe that there would be a civil suit.
  14.    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    The suit could be brought on by Wilson, since he was the aleged target. Plame was just the tool. I'm just speculating, I've no information, or reason to believe that there would be a civil suit.
    Just for kicks gaffa. What do you think the reaction would be if it were Bill Clinton's political advisor who gave up the name of an American CIA operative?
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Just for kicks gaffa. What do you think the reaction would be if it were Bill Clinton's political advisor who gave up the name of an American CIA operative?
    I know, I'm not gaffa.... but she wasn't an 'operative'. She was an analyst. Her whole neighborhood knew where she worked.

    Get over it already
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I know, I'm not gaffa.... but she wasn't an 'operative'. She was an analyst. Her whole neighborhood knew where she worked.

    Get over it already
    First, that's not true.

    Second, she could have been washing potatoes at the CIA and Clinton would have been impeached over it.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    The suit could be brought on by Wilson, since he was the aleged target. Plame was just the tool. I'm just speculating, I've no information, or reason to believe that there would be a civil suit.
    A case can be made that Wilson has also benefited by the fame as much as Plame, being they are still married, I suspect he will share in her new found riches. The only job he's had in the past five years was the one his wife got him, again, no damages.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    First, that's not true.
    Second, it is. She was an analyst (one who analyses data), and not an operative (one who gathers data). Get your facts straight please.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    A case can be made that Wilson has also benefited by the fame as much as Plame, being they are still married, I suspect he will share in her new found riches. The only job he's had in the past five years was the one his wife got him, again, no damages.
    Cases could be made ether way.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    Cases could be made ether way.
    In civil court, one must show damages. I contend there has been no damage and gave examples of how the Plame/Wilson duo benefitted. I've heard nothing to prove they have been damaged.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions