[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Now this…this is a true…Jesus freak…
http://www.break.com/articles/tradingspouses2.html[/quote]
Okay, that woman was psychotic. And a Jesus Freek.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is just bullshit. All the crap he spewed about how we should all fall in line and be good little troopers for the good ole’ US of A, and now its ok to dissent…
A serious question.
When was it not ok to offer dissent?
[/quote]
From 9/11/2001 to just recently, it would seem. Do you deny that some outspoken critics of the war have been denounced or otherwise treated in rather un-American ways? Do you remember the whole Dixie Chicks flap? Or CheneyBush’s rants against war critics, calling them unpatriotic and un-American? Are you saying those things were not meant to have a chilling effect upon dissenters?
Just asking…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I just wanted to see if he would go off on another one of his crazy-ass “redneck is a race” jeremiads.
You just can’t walk away can you?
Quote me saying that a “redneck is a race”. Either that - or admit YOU are the liar.
Now pay attention here - harryass. You don’t have the option of pussing out, or changing the subject, 'kay?
I’ll wait patiently for you to come up with the quote. I’m sure you’ll get on it first thing - that is if you and vroom can quit fondling each other long enough to respond. [/quote]
I remember seeing it somewhere…you find it, redneck.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I just wanted to see if he would go off on another one of his crazy-ass “redneck is a race” jeremiads.
You just can’t walk away can you?
Quote me saying that a “redneck is a race”. Either that - or admit YOU are the liar.
Now pay attention here - harryass. You don’t have the option of pussing out, or changing the subject, 'kay?
I’ll wait patiently for you to come up with the quote. I’m sure you’ll get on it first thing - that is if you and vroom can quit fondling each other long enough to respond. [/quote]
“I agree. It is getting silly. And as soon as it is admittied that race has as much to do with the term redneck as it does to the other racial slurs - I’ll gladly drop this.”
"You really want to stand behind that? In every definition I found, ALL of them had ‘white’ in the first five words of the definition. It has as much to do with skin color as nigger, spic, WOP, or any other racial slur you can coe up with. Just because you say it isn’t about skin color doesn’t make it so. It does make you look like the racist piece of shit you pretend to revile. I guess you keep finding new ways to be a living definition of hypocrite.
You disgust me.
You are so fucking ignorant and elitist - you can’t even see how racist you are."
“My point is - and has always been - that using the term in a derogatory fashion makes it a racial slur.”
“This is where the bigoted racists such as AZ lose their whole argument. You admit it is derogatory. A derogatory statement based on race makes it a racist statement. It has been shown by more than one person on here that red neck is a race based slur. Therefore - redneck - when used in a derogatory way (as you have admitted it has been) is racist.”
So: fuck you, liar.
Eat your words.
[quote]WMD wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is just bullshit. All the crap he spewed about how we should all fall in line and be good little troopers for the good ole’ US of A, and now its ok to dissent…
A serious question.
When was it not ok to offer dissent?
From 9/11/2001 to just recently, it would seem. Do you deny that some outspoken critics of the war have been denounced or otherwise treated in rather un-American ways? Do you remember the whole Dixie Chicks flap? Or CheneyBush’s rants against war critics, calling them unpatriotic and un-American? Are you saying those things were not meant to have a chilling effect upon dissenters?
Just asking…[/quote]
If you disagree with the dissenters what is wrong with speaking out against them? The party in power should be able to defend themselves as freely as the oppostion is able to attack them.
“Are some animals more equal then others?”
Whether it has a chilling effect on them isn’t really relevant. The public will decide to take them seriously or not, typically during election day.
Doesn’t the anger come from not getting your way as opposed to not being heard?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
I remember seeing it somewhere…you find it, redneck.
[/quote]
Nice one. Really. Did you have to stay up all night thinking about how you would duck out from having to prove you are not a fucking liar?
Well, harry ass…er…maybe I should say harry puss - it won’t fly. On top of being a racist piece of shit - you are now fucking liar.
But you knew that already. So did most everyone that reads the hate filled shit that you call posting.
Carry on, harry puss.
[quote]WMD wrote:
From 9/11/2001 to just recently, it would seem. Do you deny that some outspoken critics of the war have been denounced or otherwise treated in rather un-American ways? Do you remember the whole Dixie Chicks flap?[/quote]
Sure I remember - but that isn’t crushing dissent.
Free speech is a two way street - one person gets to march in the street and say the President of the United States in an international terrorist or a Nazi. And his or her critics get to respond with the same amount of gusto.
I can’t name one person who actually, rationally believed that because of their anti-Bush or anti-war stance, they would get in trouble with the government.
I don’t remember these - do you have the quotes or links that quote them?
That is exactly what I am saying.
You speak of dissent being ‘chilled’ - where has this actually happened? Don’t give me speculation - give me empirical evidence.
Not here on this forum - plenty of folks speaking out against Bush. Not on other sites - visit DemocraticUnderground and see if anyone is ‘spooked’ into tempering their criticism. Walk into any bookstore in any mall and there are bestsellers by Maureen Dowd, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman bashing the President. Cleverish t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. A store near my neighborhood has had a “Bush is an international terrorist” placard in the window since the war in Iraq began - and it has never been moved.
No, I think Cheney wanted to respond with force. Politics is a tough business - the thin-skinned need not apply.
My prediction? Cheney’s unvarnished commetary will actually do the reverse - even more anti-Bush speech will result, not less.
I am reminded of a story a few years ago. I am paraphrasing: Pearl Jam was playing a show in Texas (I think) when in the middle of a song, Eddie Vedder pulled out a mask of Bush and used the microphone stand to impale the mask, etc.
The crowd started booing, and Vedder responded with something like “hey man, it’s freedom of speech, this is an exercise under the First Amendment.”
So is booing, Eddie.
My explanation? People love the romantic idea of taking on the man - they actually want to believe that the specter of eliminating dissent exists because they feel really cool when they do speak out. It gives them a passion that they wouldn’t ordinarily have debating the bits and pieces of policy. There is a lot of wannabe revolutionaryism of late, and I think that explains a lot of talk of ‘crushing dissent’.
Sadly, in reality, it just isn’t that sexy.
That doesn’t mean that people can’t disagree or even protest things they don’t like - but stay tethered to reality while doing so. Call Bush a Nazi if you want, but don’t pretend as though the Gestapo are gonna swoop into your home for doing so.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
I just wanted to see if he would go off on another one of his crazy-ass “redneck is a race” jeremiads.
You just can’t walk away can you?
Quote me saying that a “redneck is a race”. Either that - or admit YOU are the liar.
Now pay attention here - harryass. You don’t have the option of pussing out, or changing the subject, 'kay?
I’ll wait patiently for you to come up with the quote. I’m sure you’ll get on it first thing - that is if you and vroom can quit fondling each other long enough to respond.
“I agree. It is getting silly. And as soon as it is admittied that race has as much to do with the term redneck as it does to the other racial slurs - I’ll gladly drop this.”
"You really want to stand behind that? In every definition I found, ALL of them had ‘white’ in the first five words of the definition. It has as much to do with skin color as nigger, spic, WOP, or any other racial slur you can coe up with. Just because you say it isn’t about skin color doesn’t make it so. It does make you look like the racist piece of shit you pretend to revile. I guess you keep finding new ways to be a living definition of hypocrite.
You disgust me.
You are so fucking ignorant and elitist - you can’t even see how racist you are."
“My point is - and has always been - that using the term in a derogatory fashion makes it a racial slur.”
“This is where the bigoted racists such as AZ lose their whole argument. You admit it is derogatory. A derogatory statement based on race makes it a racist statement. It has been shown by more than one person on here that red neck is a race based slur. Therefore - redneck - when used in a derogatory way (as you have admitted it has been) is racist.”
So: fuck you, liar.
Eat your words.
[/quote]
You have proved nothing. You had me quoted as saying that a “redneck was a race”. I nver said that in any of the posts.
The best you can come up with is a lazy attempt to do prove a simple point.
Everyone of the quotes that you used say the same thing - but not what you accused me of saying.
You are really and truly retarded if you think that “a race based slur”, or “racially motivated” is me saying that a “redneck is a race”.
Nice try, harrypuss. But you are the fucking liar.
Please don’t misunderstand this as a desire to rehash part of a thread in which most everyone of vroom’s posse has proven their racist bigotry.
This is the last post I will make wrt redneck. If you feel the urge to fight over the fact that you are a liar - you will be doing it by yourself.
I know doing things by yourself is probably the way you do most things, so you shouldn’t have a problem going solo here if the urge hits. And heck - you won’t even need a tissue to clean yourself. Gotta like that - huh?
[quote]Well, harry ass…er…maybe I should say harry puss - it won’t fly. On top of being a racist piece of shit - you are now fucking liar.
But you knew that already. So did most everyone that reads the hate filled shit that you call posting.
Carry on, harry puss.[/quote]
Ahahahahaha. You are calling Harry’s posting “hate filled”?
Ahahahahaha! You really should figure out that most of the insults you apply to others more aptly apply to yourself…
You consistently pull people off topic, into hate filled little arguments, and really add very little to most conversations except to whine about what other people are posting.
Seriously. Anyway, yes, go ahead and say I’m describing myself if you want. I know that at least I contribute a fair amount of actual on-topic source material (as well).
Harry, don’t let the troll distract you, he’s just happy to keep you busy arguing instead of discussing your viewpoint.
Ahem, yes, I’ll see if I can actually take my own advice! 
I still want to know who my posse is so I can collect union dues or something from them all.
Also, I’m pretty amused at being termed racist, like I’m out to get whitey. Ahahahaha. That’s hilarious!
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
Free speech is a two way street - one person gets to march in the street and say the President of the United States in an international terrorist or a Nazi. And his or her critics get to respond with the same amount of gusto.
… [/quote]
You beat me to it. It is no surprise that the people that don’t understand this simple concept are the people I generally disagree with on political matters.
If you call someone a liar he can call your conduct reprehensible. This is not infringing on your rights to free speech.
On what rainjack wrote:
If “redneck” is a racial slur, then you would be referring to “rednck” as…what, a sexual preference?
[quote]hedo wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Hspder
Lot’s of sites have a no flame policy. It’s not censorship it’s civility. A guideline for posting is about style not censorship.
Example 1: I disagree with your point!
Example 2: I disagree with your point and your an idiot for having it.
Same message with the exception that the second is being made to pick a fight. Many seem to only pick fights and have very little to say besides insults.
I would agree that many don’t visit the political forums. Bad behavior isn’t limited to the political forum however.
I’ve referred many folks to this site. Many have become good customers at my urging. Others have lost interest because of the reasons I’ve stated. It’s about the numbers. Turn away customers and business drops. I’d also disagree that quality has to drop when something grows. I read an interesting article here regarding Biotest and Walmart. I am sure they intend to keep the quality up when they sell Fahrenhiet to them. Same thing with the site.
Hey… if everything else here is hardcore…the politics should be too. It better than other forums that are hypersensitive anytime people get pissed.
Irish
I would actually hold you up as an example of someone who fights tooth and nail over issues but who rarely if ever attacks the opposition on a personal level.
Of course I take the opposite view most of the time but my guess is people read more of what you say because of that. Your a dangerous liberal 
[/quote]
Haha. Appreciate it.
Well its still a damn weightlifting website to me. We may brawl over politics, but I (perhaps naively) believe its all in good fun. But as I’ve said, I have buddies who are Conservatives and are very close to me, so I’m used to arguing politics and not getting personal. Just keep your eye on NJ politics in about ten years…you’ll know when its me ;).
Although there are a couple of people who I sincerely would feed to a pig farm if I saw’em in real life…
Irish
Good to hear. Hopefully you’ll be a Republican by then!
[quote]hedo wrote:
Irish
Good to hear. Hopefully you’ll be a Republican by then![/quote]
Lol! Keep hoping!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Im not exactly a huge fan of this administration but you, and the article originally cited, are completely mischaracterizing what Cheney said. He did not say “critics against the war are reprehensible.”
Speaking of a few specific, high level politicians who are making claims that the administration basically lied about pre-war intelligence, Cheney said, “[they are making] one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.” That is completely different than what you are all trying to make it out to be…and I think you know it.
Actually, I am referring to this, yet again:
“People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq,” Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President Dick Cheney that the critics were “reprehensible.”[/quote]
So you are referreing to what a news reporter said, not to Cheney’s actual words? Because, as I pointed out, contrary to what many reports are implying, Cheney did not say “war critics are reprehensible,” he said the comments calling the Bush administration a bunch of liers are reprehensible. You are a smart guy ProfX, so I know you can see the difference.
[quote]
Also, please don’t pretend as if there hasn’t been the attitude that those who speak against the war are speaking against the troops and are therefore against the country. We can take a trip through the posts on this forum and take quotes from people. It may take awhile to go through that much bickering to find it, but it’s there.[/quote]
Considering I’m not defending those who equate ant-war with ant-America, I dont think that is necessary. I am simply arguing that no one in the Bush Admin has said “war critics are reprehensible.”
[quote]
So how come you all arent getting pissed off when conservative lecturers are shouted down at college campuses (dont even try to claim that it doesnt happen either). This is what cracks me up and ties in with the point I was trying to make earlier. Ever heard the expression that people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones?
Point out who is being shouted down and for what reason and we can discuss that too. Also, who is “you all”?[/quote]
I was only making a point, Profx (although I admit, in the context of this thread, a pretty irrelevant point)…and “you all” refers to everyone on this site who has been claiming the Bush Admin is trying to crush dissent, when it isnt (in this instance).
If Cheney had actually said what you are implying, you would be correct. However, as I have pointed out by actually quoting the vice-president, Cheney didnt say what you are trying to claim he said. If I am wrong, please provide the exact quote in which Cheney claims war critics are reprehensible. Otherwise, admit that you are wrong.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
If Cheney had actually said what you are implying, you would be correct. However, as I have pointed out by actually quoting the vice-president, Cheney didnt say what you are trying to claim he said. If I am wrong, please provide the exact quote in which Cheney claims war critics are reprehensible. Otherwise, admit that you are wrong.[/quote]
You wrote:
What were the claims made exactly? If you are going to complain that Cheney’s words shouldn’t be viewed outside of specifically talking about politicians (as if that makes a difference since those same politicians supposedly represent the people), then why not stick to exactly what was stated by the politicians he was referring to? Further, are you honestly saying that this wouldn’t also relate to anyone in the general public who holds the same view? That couldn’t be what you are saying, could it?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
If Cheney had actually said what you are implying, you would be correct. However, as I have pointed out by actually quoting the vice-president, Cheney didnt say what you are trying to claim he said. If I am wrong, please provide the exact quote in which Cheney claims war critics are reprehensible. Otherwise, admit that you are wrong.
You wrote:
Speaking of a few specific, high level politicians who are making claims that the administration basically lied about pre-war intelligence, Cheney said, “[they are making] one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.”
What were the claims made exactly?[/quote]
That the administration lied about prewar intelligence.
Profx, Im hardly complaining. Its called reading a person’s words in context. When someone say, “so and so is full of shit,” it is “so and so” to whom he is referring. If we start playing by the rules you are espousing, it then becomes impossible for any politician to defend him/herself from political attacks. If Cheney cant respond to what he views as lies by calling those lies “dishonest and reprehensible” just because some in the general public happen to agree with those making the lies, what does that mean for those with whom you agree when they are lied about?
Well, being that those he is talking about are in a position of authority, I would argue that their comments carry just a little more weight than the average citizen. Its not simply what was said, it also has a lot to do with where, and under what circumstances, it was said. And it just so happens, that if you read Cheney’s words in context, that is exactly the argument he makes.
I dont know why this is so hard. My whole argument centers around the fact that many News outlets (and people on this board) are mischaracterizing Cheneys words in order to score political points. Thats all Im arguing…I am am not saying, one way or the other, which side is telling the truth. Im simply pointing out that many are completely mischaracterizing Cheney’s words and that his words, in no way, “crush dissent.” In my opinion, this whole brouhaha is simply artificial outrage on the part of those with an a priori hate of Cheney. However justified that hate is (or isnt), is of little consequence.
Here is an example of what I’m talking about. The Reuters headline for the story reads, "Cheney says war critics ‘dishonest, reprehensible’. From reading that, many quite wrongly assume Cheney called war critics (in the general sense) dishonest and reprehensible. However, when one actually reads the article, one finds,"In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.
Still, even that isnt quite the whole story. Notice that they claim Cheney’s comments were dirrected at “critics of the iraq war.” Again, thats a pretty general descriptor. Here is what Cheney actually said (emphasis added):
So lets review. First, Cheney’s comments werent directed at “war critics;” his comments were directed at “some U.S. senators.” Second, Cheney did not call the senators “dishonest and reprehensible;” he called the “suggestion,” that he and the rest of the administration are a bunch of liers, dishonest and reprehensible.
Let me ask you a question, if John Kerry had won the presidency and at some point in his tenure, Republicans in the Senate were publicly spreading lies about him (as Im sure would have happened at some point) would you expect him to say nothing? I would expect him to call the lies as he sees them…dishonest and reprehensible. If members of the general public believe those same lies then they are believing exactly that…dishonest and reprehensible lies made all the more legitimate by senators who should know better.
You can argue that Bush and his administration are in fact liers but I dont think its fair to argue that Cheney’s comments somehow cross the line, because I think its pretty clear they dont.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Profx, Im hardly complaining. Its called reading a person’s words in context. When someone say, “so and so is full of shit,” it is “so and so” to whom he is referring. If we start playing by the rules you are espousing, it then becomes impossible for any politician to defend him/herself from political attacks. If Cheney cant respond to what he views as lies by calling those lies “dishonest and reprehensible” just because some in the general public happen to agree with those making the lies, what does that mean for those with whom you agree when they are lied about? [/quote]
First, I can’t believe you just used that logic. Commenting against comments made and calling all acts of stating those comments “reprehensible” are two completely different things. One allows a person to vent their version of the story, the other is designed to stop anyone else from making the same claim.
[quote]
Well, being that those he is talking about are in a position of authority, I would argue that their comments carry just a little more weight than the average citizen. Its not simply what was said, it also has a lot to do with where, and under what circumstances, it was said. And it just so happens, that if you read Cheney’s words in context, that is exactly the argument he makes.[/quote]
If that were the case, why would the president’s PR team get him to make a statement later backing out of the comment so that people could feel “free” to state what they please? The very actions of the administration contradict what you are trying to say.
[quote]
Still, even that isnt quite the whole story. Notice that they claim Cheney’s comments were dirrected at “critics of the iraq war.” Again, thats a pretty general descriptor. Here is what Cheney actually said (emphasis added):
But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that?s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.
So lets review. First, Cheney’s comments werent directed at “war critics;” his comments were directed at “some U.S. senators.” Second, Cheney did not call the senators “dishonest and reprehensible;” he called the “suggestion,” that he and the rest of the administration are a bunch of liers, dishonest and reprehensible. [/quote]
So, you believe that no americans hold this same view?
[quote]
Let me ask you a question, if John Kerry had won the presidency and at some point in his tenure, Republicans in the Senate were publicly spreading lies about him (as Im sure would have happened at some point) would you expect him to say nothing? I would expect him to call the lies as he sees them…dishonest and reprehensible. If members of the general public believe those same lies then they are believing exactly that…dishonest and reprehensible lies made all the more legitimate by senators who should know better. [/quote]
Again, I am amazed that you are going certain directions in this argument. That entire run for presidency between both parties was the most blatant mud slinging I personally have ever seen…but then, I haven’t been old enough to vote in that many elections. There was more than enough opportunity for Kerry to call out those who were speaking against him. If he had stated that the act of them speaking their point of view was in fact “reprensible” then you would have a point. You don’t.
Where did I write that Bush and his administration are liars? I am arguing that this was the most visible display of them attempting to quiet those who speak against their actions. They apparently realized this as well after a day or else the president would not have recalled his statement.
I get a kick out of it when the best way to counter those arguing for the administration (whether by intent or not) is to point out statements (or retractions) made by the administration…