# Liberal feeling vs. Judeo-Christian values



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Interesting article.... Keep in mind that this isn't an idictment of the liberal mindset, just one opinion from a conservative columnist.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/denn ... 0222.shtml


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Very interesting and insightful article. :thumb:

huntin1


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

all *religions* are cults! If everyone in this world would just live by the ten commandments this world would be MUCH better off.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant.


So I am to understand that war IS the answer... I see, and we are the ignorant ones. I like how he lists a few righteous wars, as if this means all wars are begun to bring about what is best for everyone. I suppose this is like saying that murder is the answer because it stopped ted bundy from killing again, what a crock.



> The unprecedented support of liberals for radically redefining the basic institution of society, marriage and the family is another a product of feelings -- sympathy for homosexuals. Thinking through the effects of such a radical redefinition on society and its children is not a liberal concern.


I see so fighting for equal rights is wrong. This is odd, considering how he spoke about how war ended slavery in the US, now fighting for those equal rights is wrong.



> the conservative wants to do what is right and deems world opinion fickle at best and immoral at worst.


For their pocketbook maybe. I can't think of a situation within the last four years that a decision has been made that helped the greater good instead of someones wallet, usually big buisnesses.



> Sexual harassment laws have created a feelings-industrial complex. The entire concept of "hostile work environment" is feelings based. If one woman resents a swimsuit calendar on a co-worker's desk, laws have now been passed whose sole purpose is to protect her from having uncomfortable feelings.


Which is far more horrid than the days when a woman could get slapped on the *** and fired for complaining about it. Yes we really are regressing here aren't we?



> Almost everything is affected by liberal feelings. For example, liberal opposition to calling a Christmas party by its rightful name is based on liberals' concern that non-Christians will feel bad. And for those liberals, nothing else matters -- not the legitimate desire of the vast majority of Americans to celebrate their holiday, let alone the narcissism of those non-Christians "offended" by a Christmas party.


Who gives a damn who has the majority? If the Muslims took over the majority in ten years would you like your Christmas break being called Ramadan break? Unless you want to state every holiday which occurs over that period off work, you may as well just call it something non denominational.



> Very often, liberals are far more concerned with purity of motive than with moral results. That's why so many liberals still oppose the liberation of Iraq -- so what if Iraqis risk their lives to vote? It's George W. Bush's motives that liberals care about, not spreading liberty in the Arab world.


Of course they aren't voting to get us out, the ones who have brought freedom and along with it rampant violence for several years, no they are just itching for a prime minister, yeah thats it.



> Elevating motives above results is a significant part of liberalism.


And elevating the results over the method is a significant part of fascism, ever heard the statement "The end justifies the means"?



> Reliance on feelings in determining one's political and social positions is the major reason young people tend to have liberal/left positions -- they feel passionately but do not have the maturity to question those passions. It is also one reason women, especially single women, are more liberal than men -- it is women's nature to rely on emotions when making decisions. (For those unused to anything but adulation directed at the female of the human species, let me make it clear that men, too, cannot rely on their nature, which leans toward settling differences through raw physical power. Both sexes have a lot of self-correcting to do.)


The old "You are a kid or a woman if you are a liberal" line, classic but effective. Fortunately the facts bear this one out nicely.

Yes I know you didn't write this, but again you posted it, and I will argue it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jamartinmg2

Yes, that sums up what I have been thinking for years. I always tell people speech means much. Listen to people and see if the say " I feel we should do this or that", or do they say " I think we should do this or that"? This simple phrase will tell you if their head is empty. Conservatives think, and that angers feel good liberals. Great article, I could not have said it better myself. Including the young not having had enough experience, and are pro abortion and gay marriage. They feel ok as long as they don't hear the fetus scream. Young conservatives have perhaps already faced some adversity in life, hence tend to be a little more realistic.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Thanks Plainsman. The article hit home for me too. Also, I knew it would get a good rise out of MT! MT, I may not agree with you too much of the time but you are very passionate with your viewpoints, I will say. You may have a career in politics ahead of you some day. We just have to turn you away from the darkside! :wink:


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

ej4prmc said:


> all *religions* are cults! If everyone in this world would just live by the ten commandments this world would be MUCH better off.


Except thats impossible, and if you break even 1 of them even 1 time your condemed to Hell, and can only be forgiven by a blood sacrifice.

You DONT WANT to live under that system ej4.

There is a *reason* that the New Covenant was established. :thumb:


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> ej4prmc said:
> 
> 
> > all *religions* are cults! If everyone in this world would just live by the ten commandments this world would be MUCH better off.
> ...


Thats only in *YOUR* mind. I worship NO ONE and expect no one to worship me :stirpot: LOL


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

yes you do.

Eveoryone worships something. Its human nature. You just worship something different.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

ej4prmc,
I have noticed in another post that you have a bad view of religion, but look favorable upon the 10 commandments. The ten commandments are the cornerstone of religion and were given to Moses on Mount Sini by God. It dosn't get more religious than that. So you might be more religious than you think.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

The ten commandments are the main things a civilized society need. I do have morals to live by.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Yes I know you didn't write this, but again you posted it, and I will argue it.


And that MT is your biggist problem with everything you post. You want to argue ................ not debate. No one wins and nothing is ever settled in a arguement.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I know you didn't write this, but again you posted it, and I will argue it.
> ...


How would you propose that we make the switch from argument to debate?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Gohon said:
> 
> 
> > Militant_Tiger said:
> ...


Switch? Most if not all of the posts I see start out as a debate. It is only after you enter that you seem to quickly turn them into a arguement. If you don't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you. Unless of course you use this and my last post as a example of starting a arguement. Shame on me ................


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Switch? Most if not all of the posts I see start out as a debate. It is only after you enter that you seem to quickly turn them into a arguement. If you don't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you.


So you feel that I am doing wrong, but you can't define exactly what it is that I am doing. Get back to me when you figure that out.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Switch? Most if not all of the posts I see start out as a debate. It is only after you enter that you seem to quickly turn them into a arguement. If you don't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you.
> 
> 
> So you feel that I am doing wrong, but you can't define exactly what it is that I am doing. Get back to me when you figure that out.


Well, actually I said if you are to stupid to not already know then you are to stupid for me to explain it to you. Then I turned right around and told you that my last two posts were forms of starting arguments and I should be ashamed of myself. Seems you left that little part out of your quote so now I know what part of the world of trolls you fit in.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Well, actually I said if you are to stupid to not already know then you are to stupid for me to explain it to you. Then I turned right around and told you that my last two posts were forms of starting arguments and I should be ashamed of myself. Seems you left that little part out of your quote so now I know what part of the world of trolls you fit in.


I am simply looking for an explination of how I ruin a good debate by making it into an argument. If you cannot explain this, you have simply made an attacking statement, and accomplished nothing in which case it would be you who is the troll.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Careful MT, you wouldn't want to put any thought process into it, you may hurt yourself. :roll:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

MT, just in case you missed it, that was an attempt to argue not debate.


----------



## the_duckinator (Jan 9, 2005)

> Switch? Most if not all of the posts I see start out as a debate. It is only after you enter that you seem to quickly turn them into a arguement. If you don't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you. Unless of course you use this and my last post as a example of starting a arguement.


So its only a debate when its just a bunch of conservatives agreeing with eachother? For it to be a debate there needs to be at least points of view.

And just for the record, here's the definition of debate: a contention by words or *arguments*.

For those of you who don't know what contention means here it is: a point advanced or maintained in a debate or *argument*.

Those definitions are straight from the dictionary. Gohon, it seems that you instinctively started insulting M_T without thinking through what you were saying. That seems to be an unfortunate trend in these forums, that M_T is always wrong, no matter what. It's really too bad, because he brings up many good points.



> Reliance on feelings in determining one's political and social positions is the major reason young people tend to have liberal/left positions -- they feel passionately but do not have the maturity to question those passions.


Some issues are based solely on feelings, no matter what your position. Take gay marrige. There are no facts proving one side to be right or wrong, feelings are the only thing that makes a person decide whether they are for or against it. Same thing with abortions. It seems a little immature of him to tell liberals (such as myself, if you hadn't figured that out yet :wink: ) and younger people that they are not mature enough to question their feelings, when it seems that the conservatives have the same problem.



> It is also one reason women, especially single women, are more liberal than men -- it is women's nature to rely on emotions when making decisions. (For those unused to anything but adulation directed at the female of the human species, let me make it clear that men, too, cannot rely on their nature, which leans toward settling differences through raw physical power. Both sexes have a lot of self-correcting to do.)


If we can't rely on nature for anything, then who, or what, do we rely on? The author seems to think that whoever stronger has the correct point of view. If no one can rely on nature, then how does anyone determine their point of view. No matter your position, it started with someone thinking that it was the right thing to do. They must have used nature and their feelings to help come up with those opinions. I think that the author has a lot of "self-correcting" to do himself


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

the_duckinator said:


> Gohon, it seems that you instinctively started insulting M_T without thinking through what you were saying.


And you just like MT, conveniently skipped over my saying, "Unless of course you use this and my last post as a example of starting a argument. Shame on me".

Let me translate that for you ............. Shame on me for starting a argument with you then accusing you of the same. Not only did I say it once but twice. Yet MT, just like you seem to want to continue with arguing.

Sorry but I'm not interested and as to whether MT posts a lot of good information, or you for that matter ............. well that is just a personal opinion and if you don't mind I'll decide that for myself as do others.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Interesting that some things were left out of the definition of debate and argue. Simply check thesaurus of your word processing program. Argue also means to quarrel, fight, and other connotations more negative than debate. I guess the difference would be in that debate carries a connotation of more sophisticated contention. Argue is more primitive and confrontational. There is a distinction. Talk to a college professor and he will perhaps agree with both of us to a point. Then he will also tell you that debate is meant to be constructive, while argue is simply confrontational and in debate disruptive. Then go to a debate as a team, and the minute a judge considers you arguing your team has lost. Debate in best form is built on uncontentious points, while argument often has little or no irrefutable points.

I can't speak for Gohon, but if I understand his points I can relate. I draw a distinction between many word usages. When someone says they feel something has to be done, I put less credence in it than if I hear a person say "I think " we should do this or that. One person is running on emotion, the other on valid thought process. This is also where I see the distinction between liberal and conservative, young and more mature.

Gay marriage, and abortion are not strictly emotional decisions. As a matter of fact the emotional decision could go either way. If you read a bible, or if you read about the decay of some civilizations and think about it you will perhaps come down on the side of no gay marriage, no abortion.

Saying that MT sometimes brings good points to the form is undisputable. Even a blind pig finds an acorn or two.

Oh, as an after though to argument. The difference is often nebulous because of the fact that argument is often a debate technique in debate competition. If one can not win by logical points then the object is to disrupt the opponent. In the event you can not win by superior logic, you make statements that the pushes the opponents buttons in the hopes that their emotion will override logic. You win by not loosing as badly as the opponent. Argument are easily started with highly controversial, sometimes personal, often radical, statements that you don't have to necessarily believe yourself.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Then go to a debate as a team, and the minute a judge considers you arguing your team has lost. Debate in best form is built on uncontentious points, while argument often has little or no irrefutable points.


Considering that you and your crew rarely use fact over the more popular gut feelings it could be said that you are the ones who bring it to argument.



> Gay marriage, and abortion are not strictly emotional decisions. As a matter of fact the emotional decision could go either way. If you read a bible, or if you read about the decay of some civilizations and think about it you will perhaps come down on the side of no gay marriage, no abortion.


Perhaps because the Bible is also an emotional peice of literature... There are no facts in the Bible, it is all based on faith, you are comparing two very similar things and calling them different.



> Saying that MT sometimes brings good points to the form is undisputable. Even a blind pig finds an acorn or two.


You know Plainsman simply because you don't agree with my points doesn't mean that they aren't valid. Your opinion and that of your comrades has no effect on the worth of my statements.



> If one can not win by logical points then the object is to disrupt the opponent.


Is that so?



> Argument are easily started with highly controversial, sometimes personal, often radical, statements that you don't have to necessarily believe yourself.


Do you have any idea just how hypocritical that is? I mean really take a non-partisan look back at some of these threads. Who are the ones with the radical statements?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Considering that you and your crew rarely use fact over the more popular gut feelings


If you don't want to except some of our premises does not mean they are not fact. Your opinion and mind differ, people will have to decide who is right. Have you checked fact check.org yet? They have an article about how liberals say that privatizing social security will be such a windfall for wall street. Then they go on to debunk it. Fact or opinion, read it and see.



> There are no facts in the Bible


There isn't? Historical evidence proves some of the things in the bible are true. How many? That we do not know.



> you are comparing two very similar things and calling them different.


I used two examples, but I had no intention of making a comparison between the two. How did you stretch it to that? Compare = balance, match up, etc. Your statement is contradictory.



> Who are the ones with the radical statements?


Therein lies the beginning of another argument. You think we are radical and in our minds we know your are very extreme. So does that solve anything? I think not.

I spoke of what the difference is between debate and argument. You responded with a my daddy is stronger than your daddy defense. If you wish to debate lets hear your opinions on debate and argument and how each is used. Have you anything constructive to say? How do you suppose we went from Liberal feelings vs. Judeo Christian values to this?

Detracting statements:



> all religions are cults





> I see so fighting for equal rights is wrong.


Of course not, but this is simply an attempt to say we are against equality. Degrade the opponent.



> For their pocketbook maybe


An attempt to say we only do things for money. Degrading the opponent.



> Who gives a damn who has the majority?


America



> elevating the results over the method is a significant part of fascism


So what is the insinuation here?



> The old "You are a kid or a woman if you are a liberal" line, classic but effective. Fortunately the facts bear this one out nicely.


I was surprised you think the facts do bear it out.



> I worship NO ONE





> Is that so?


Lacks critical assessment

And on and on and on we go.

So what about the original post?


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> > Detracting statements:
> >
> >
> >
> > ...


Of course not, but this is simply an attempt to say we are against equality. Degrade the opponent.



> How does saying all religions are cults say that you are against equality? Do you take drugs that make's you see things that are not there?
> 
> Here is the defination of a cult:
> 1. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ej4prmc wrote:

How does saying all religions are cults say that you are against equality? Do you take drugs that make's you see things that are not there?

I don't know how you put the two together. They were two different quotes from two different people. I addressed the second, said nothing about the first. It was ridiculous enough to stand on its own.

You skipped part of the definition of cult: extravagant admiration for a person or principle, especially when regarded as a fad. Llike the goon balls at Waco, Texas.

By the way, I attended Cath. schools, alter boy and from a family with STRONG rel. beliefs.

Sorry, the statement "I worship NO ONE " sounds like you were attacking religious people, like they were stupid or something. The two statements are contradictory to me.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"Perhaps because the Bible is also an emotional piece of literature... There are no facts in the Bible, it is all based on faith, you are comparing two very similar things and calling them different."

What about Tyre and Sidon? up until the middle of this century secular scholars said they never existed, until Archeologists discovered them right where the Bible said they were...

What about the description of the Water cycle in Psalms? I suppose the water cycle is just a myth right? It certainly can't be fact if it's in the Bible...

What about the works of Paul and Luke? They don't use emotional reasons to be a Christian; every single argument in every one of their books is a logical, intellectually based reason to accept Christ....But it's in the Bible so it must all be Emotional mush.

For someone who had read the Bible "several times", you do a good job of continually proving that you know nothing about it. What's more is that you show it every time the Bible is mentioned...

From now on I would suggest that you resist the urge to spout off about the Bible, because you just keep making yourself look foolish.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If you don't want to except some of our premises does not mean they are not fact. Your opinion and mind differ, people will have to decide who is right.


You are mixing up your definitions. A fact is something which can be proven, much if not most of what comprises your sides argument is based on opinions and gut feelings, not fact.



> There isn't? Historical evidence proves some of the things in the bible are true. How many? That we do not know.


Yet another hypocritical statement. It's proven things, I just can't count them. Could you list off even one?



> I used two examples, but I had no intention of making a comparison between the two. How did you stretch it to that? Compare = balance, match up, etc. Your statement is contradictory.


My point was that you were contrasting things that could only be compared in that sense.



> If you wish to debate lets hear your opinions on debate and argument and how each is used.


I would like to debate very much, I believe that I do debate on here, at least I try to. If someone wishes to criticize me, and tells me that I argue rather than debate, the burden is on him to tell me the difference. I was not told what that difference is.



> Have you anything constructive to say?


To you? Of couse not, to be constructive I would have to with you.



> How do you suppose we went from Liberal feelings vs. Judeo Christian values to this?





> And that MT is your biggist problem with everything you post. You want to argue ................ not debate. No one wins and nothing is ever settled in a arguement.


Of course, it couldn't have been your sides fault.



> For their pocketbook maybe





> An attempt to say we only do things for money. Degrading the opponent.


Yes, I do say that they are willing to do things which are not in Americas best interest for money. As to degrading the opponent, isin't that precisely what you try to do to me? It seems that for the past month or two you have only been trying to ruin my credibility and degrade me.



> Quote:
> Who gives a damn who has the majority?
> 
> America


We are speaking of the majority within America, what a redundant statement.



> Quote:
> elevating the results over the method is a significant part of fascism
> 
> So what is the insinuation here?


Quite simple, you are always willing to state what extreme liberalism is, but never what extreme conservativeism is, and it is fascism. The great horrible dictators in history have always followed the idea that the end justifies the means, from Hitler to Stalin.



> Quote:
> The old "You are a kid or a woman if you are a liberal" line, classic but effective. Fortunately the facts bear this one out nicely.
> 
> I was surprised you think the facts do bear it out.


Out of those who voted liberal, the majority was not women, nor children, it was men.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> *you are comparing *two very similar things and calling them different.





> My point was that *you were contrasting *things that could only be compared in that sense.


This is what you have said about one single comment of mine. It would be helpful if you could make up your mind.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> > *you are comparing *two very similar things and calling them different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I realized that you were not comparing but contrasting, you were trying to make two similar things sound different. I got mixed up, but this somehow proves that I am in college again right? Thanks for not hanging on trivialities.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I wasn't trying to trivialize. I was pointing out that you will make opposing statements if the first doesn't work. You just lost track that you said I compared two different things, then said I contrasted similar things. This is what I call BS, one has to be wrong, but I see your explanation combined the two. Which makes your right , right? I point out your discrepancies to invalidate your argument. You think that is attacking your credibility. Do you not attempt to invalidate conservative arguments. The double standard is hypocritical.

I suppose the only time you have been wrong is when you thought you made a mistake, but had not.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Quite simple, you are always willing to state what extreme liberalism is, but never what extreme conservativeism is, and it is fascism.


This isn't the first time I've seen you claim that conservatism is fascism.
Since you were just recently declaring that conservatives only go on gut feelings while liberals always go on facts, please present the facts ( that would be a cite) to back up the above quote. If it will help you the definition of Fascism = a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government. Now I know you can't actually present any facts to such claims but instead will throw gut feelings but the spin should be interesting anyway. Maybe when you are through I'll give you my gut feeling on why the Democrats are so close to communism the difference is minute. BTW, as far as I know, and I could be wrong but there is no such word as conservativeism but then maybe that really is the fascism you are confused about.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> This is what I call BS, one has to be wrong, but I see your explanation combined the two. Which makes your right , right? I point out your discrepancies to invalidate your argument. You think that is attacking your credibility. Do you not attempt to invalidate conservative arguments. The double standard is hypocritical.


No, I made two statements with what I believed to be the same meaning at the time, but later realized that the prior was wrong. I do not feel that trying to invalidate an argument is trying to destroy credibility, it is how debate is done. I think that trying to prove someone a to be a phoney is trying to destroy crebibility. I have not yet tried to prove you sixteen, but it may well be a good choice.



> This isn't the first time I've seen you claim that conservatism is fascism.
> Since you were just recently declaring that conservatives only go on gut feelings while liberals always go on facts, please present the facts ( that would be a cite) to back up the above quote. If it will help you the definition of Fascism = a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government. Now I know you can't actually present any facts to such claims but instead will throw gut feelings but the spin should be interesting anyway. Maybe when you are through I'll give you my gut feeling on why the Democrats are so close to communism the difference is minute. BTW, as far as I know, and I could be wrong but there is no such word as conservativeism but then maybe that really is the fascism you are confused about.





> conservativism
> 
> n : a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes [syn: conservatism]


Really? Dictionary.com says you are wrong.

I don't feel that all conservativism is fascism, you are twisting my words. Just as Plainsy said that extreme liberalism is communism, I stated that extreme conservativism is fascism.

As to the facts, I've decided to use one of your own (and far more true than the liberal slime) sites against you.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

As to the definition of fascism, I again turn to dictionary.com



> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


Notice that there has been a growing amount of power given to the executive branch of government. New social restraints have been placed denying homosexual marriage. It has been said that both I and the liberal newsgroups are helping the terrorists, ala belligerent nationalism. As to racism, the arabs are now widely hated in the US and as stated in the amcon site above even the conservative media advocates the hate. As to censorship, fewer and fewer things can be shown on tv. Even the classic saving private ryan was forced off the air. The FCC continues to grow in power as it takes over nearly all of our media, and tightens its grasp on exactly what we are allowed to see. I hope that is enough fact for you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you are so afraid of the far right then don't give them so much power. Explanation needed? The liberals have moved so far left they have ensured conservative victories in the last election. Hillary is moving center, but people remember who she really is. Want to ensure more conservative victories keep pushing gun control, and gay marriage. Keep exaggerating conservative values in the negative sense. It is the far left that is destroying the democratic party, not the republicans or conservatives. But ---- you will not listen, so follow the dinosaurs.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> conservativism
> n : a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes [syn: conservatism]





> Really? Dictionary.com says you are wrong.


Get real ......... I said I might be wrong, not that there absolutly was no such word. But, I suspose that is some kind of trophy in your mind...



> I don't feel that all conservativism is fascism, you are twisting my words.


I'm not twisting anything........... but I have noticed of lately how you constantly complain everyone is twisting your words. Hmmmmmm..



> As to the facts, I've decided to use one of your own (and far more true than the liberal slime) sites against you.


Against me......... how small of you. But thinks for once again proving you can't comprehend the difference between debate and argument.



> As to the definition of fascism, I again turn to dictionary.com
> 
> A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


Thanks, by your own presenting of this definition you proved your own comment is without merit and pure hog wash. Even the most extreme far right could not be considered fascism by the definition above.



> Notice that there has been a growing amount of power given to the executive branch of government. New social restraints have been placed denying homosexual marriage. It has been said that both I and the liberal newsgroups are helping the terrorists, ala belligerent nationalism. As to racism, the arabs are now widely hated in the US and as stated in the amcon site above even the conservative media advocates the hate. As to censorship, fewer and fewer things can be shown on tv. Even the classic saving private ryan was forced off the air. The FCC continues to grow in power as it takes over nearly all of our media, and tightens its grasp on exactly what we are allowed to see. I hope that is enough fact for you.


The only fact you have presented is your lack of understanding of the very word you reference and to the extent at what length you will spew pure hog wash in your attempt to justify your warped thinking. Nice try though.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Get real ......... I said I might be wrong, not that there absolutly was no such word. But, I suspose that is some kind of trophy in your mind...


I've noticed that you give yourself an out every time you make a statement, kind of a woman like tactic don't you think?



> I'm not twisting anything...........


You would have been if you cared to quote the whole statement.



> Against me......... how small of you. But thinks for once again proving you can't comprehend the difference between debate and argument.


Care to explain what you meant, or is this just another talking point?



> Thanks, by your own presenting of this definition you proved your own comment is without merit and pure hog wash. Even the most extreme far right could not be considered fascism by the definition above.


Even though I explained how it is similar directly below...



> The only fact you have presented is your lack of understanding of the very word you reference and to the extent at what length you will spew pure hog wash in your attempt to justify your warped thinking. Nice try though.


So as opposed to debating my points you choose to *argue* by making a statement that doesn't refute anything, just sounds good. It seems that your style is quoting out of context and talking points.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT, it isn't that long ago that you were angry about the sign in Hollywood. You said:



> Spending money to rub a groups nose in something, quite conservativesque.





> same thing as rubbing someones nose in a victory?





> This billboard accomplishes nothing.


Now look at your new signature. You wouldn't be a little hypocritical would you? Another double standard.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Now look at your new signature. You wouldn't be a little hypocritical would you? Another double standard.


Quite on the contrary, I have had no victory and I am not trying to rub anyones nose in anything. I am simply pointing out yet another peice of evidence pointing towards the fact that the supposed liberal ownership of the media is just a saying, and in fact it is controlled by conservatives. I am trying to drive a point home, that sign was trying to crush spirit and nothing more.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

And the pope is Jewish.

Remember that little pole we took? Is the media liberal or conservative. Only in the last couple of years have we conservatives gained a voice in the media. Not on the nightly news but on talk shows and Fox. Have you noticed how fast Fox has grown. They have grown so fast because the nation is starved for another opinion.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> And the pope is Jewish.
> 
> Remember that little pole we took? Is the media liberal or conservative. Only in the last couple of years have we conservatives gained a voice in the media. Not on the nightly news but on talk shows and Fox. Have you noticed how fast Fox has grown. They have grown so fast because the nation is starved for another opinion.


Yes, I do remember that poll. No chance that it was affected by the conservative media with their infamous talking point "The liberal media". Come on Plainsman you have some sort of brain try to use it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You are one of the very few people that think the media is conservative. Even my very liberal friends will admit the media is liberal. The only reason I can think of that may make you think this way is that any politician that has a skeleton in the closet the media will be on like vultures on a rotting animal. One thing we perhaps agree on is our disdain for the media. I lost total respect for them when they turned the lights on our servicemen coming shore at Mogadishu (spelling?). They are under the impression that their stories are worth more than American lives.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You are one of the very few people that think the media is conservative. Even my very liberal friends will admit the media is liberal. The only reason I can think of that may make you think this way is that any politician that has a skeleton in the closet the media will be on like vultures on a rotting animal. One thing we perhaps agree on is our disdain for the media. I lost total respect for them when they turned the lights on our servicemen coming shore at Mogadishu (spelling?). They are under the impression that their stories are worth more than American lives.


Your friends obviously aren't very liberal. Anyone with any sense and especially any liberal with any sense will see quite easily that "liberal media" is just a saying, and holds no truth.


----------



## pointer99 (Jan 16, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Your friends obviously aren't very liberal. Anyone with any sense and especially any liberal with any sense will see quite easily that "liberal media" is just a saying, and holds no truth.


  uh huh 

pointer


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Your friends obviously aren't very liberal. Anyone with any sense and especially any liberal with any sense will see quite easily that "liberal media" is just a saying, and holds no truth.


Based on what Evidence? Iv heard you proclaim that the media is Conservative biased more times than I can count, but you have never once stated any evidence to support this claim.

We are here to debate.

The two purposes of Debate are to convince (change peoples minds), or to inspire (change peoples actions).

I can only assume that your rhetoric is meant to change our minds, or convince us of your point of view? If this is true than the proper methods of executing your objective are:

1) Use personal appeals

(These are only effective if your JUDGEMENT, KNOWLEDGE, and CHARACTER command RESPECT. You have HUGE problems with all three of these, so I would suggest another method.)

2) Use Emotional appeals

(These are only effective if they relate to the audience [read conservative] interests and basic desires. it must NOT be over done, though it almost always is. Also, it MUST have a logical basis, though it almost never does.) You've never shown a shred of emotion in your entire history on these boards, so I doubt people would buy it if your tried this method.

3) Use logical appeals.

(EVIDENCE must be presented: evidence is the compilation of facts and expert opinions. Logical appeals must also be ETHICAL...not your strongest point. Combine this with your tendency to list sources that aren't credible in the eyes of your audience, and this method probably wont work well for you either.)

NEXT UP, you can't use propaganda when trying to convince. Propaganda methods include:

* NAME CALLING -- YOU DO THIS IN ALMOST EVEORY POST!

* Glittering Generalities -- Basically, a glittering generality is when you throw in "virtue words" like "social justice" and "human rights" in order to get people to approve of it without thinking it through. AGAIN, YOU DO THIS ALMOST EVEORY TIME.

And thus we have the reason WHY you have been so ineffective at changing anyones minds. You are so quick to say that it's just because we are closed-minded, but in actuality, it's because you are a TERRIBLE communicator; not to mention you have the distinction of being the Democratic parties WORST propagandist.

I am getting rather tired of this. It is time for you to get real.

Post some CREDIBLE, RELIABLE sources or GO HOME.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Based on what Evidence? Iv heard you proclaim that the media is Conservative biased more times than I can count, but you have never once stated any evidence to support this claim.


You must be kidding, it has been all over the news for the past few months. People have been paid off to say nice things about government programs such as Armstrong Williams, people who were stated conservatives but had no background checks were allowed into Bush speeches multiple times such as the infamous gay site hosting Gannon.

This site has a few good points and is worth a look.

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/artic ... iabias.htm

Don't mind the title on this one.

http://www.liberalslant.com/mediaownership.htm



> * Glittering Generalities -- Basically, a glittering generality is when you throw in "virtue words" like "social justice" and "human rights" in order to get people to approve of it without thinking it through. AGAIN, YOU DO THIS ALMOST EVEORY TIME.


Wow, I really can't believe that you don't see how hypocritical that is. Half of the arguments on here are based only on feelings, and have no fact whatsoever.



> Post some CREDIBLE, RELIABLE sources or GO HOME.


I have always posted reliable and credible sources, and most of my points are expressed and proven on the few liberal radio stations daily. Obviously you do not listen to these, might try to get some balance yourself.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > * Glittering Generalities -- Basically, a glittering generality is when you throw in "virtue words" like "social justice" and "human rights" in order to get people to approve of it without thinking it through. AGAIN, YOU DO THIS ALMOST EVEORY TIME.
> 
> 
> Wow, I really can't believe that you don't see how hypocritical that is. Half of the arguments on here are based only on feelings, and have no fact whatsoever.


I don't see how its hypocritical of me. Just because other people don't know how to construct an argument means I'm a hypocrite?

In response to your last post, again, you have posted references that were credible to YOU, not to your intended audience.

You did do a better job this time though. Iv never heard of the second site, so it didn't hold much weight with me, but I do know who Rush is ( I don't make a habit of listening to him though, as he is generally a pompous wind-bag ) .

One argument in the article on the Limbaugh site I found interesting was that they used the 2000 elections as evidence of CONSERVATIVE bias. I found that to be quite a scream, as I vividly remember anchors and pundits jumping up and down SCREAMING that "NO, BUSH COULDNT HAVE WON! THIS ISNT FAIR..." So on and so forth. It was a well written article, and it had some good points, but I thought it was still a bit shady...not to mention that picture of Rush was CREEPY!!!!

you make a few points MT. But not enough to convince me that the Media is TOTALY biased.

I personally think that the media channels aren't completely allied with either side. They simply follow whatever philosophy will get them the best rating at the time. if the political scene is mostly democratic, they will slant liberal. If the scene is Republican, they will slant conservative. They just happen to have been leaning liberal for the last decade, and now are slanting to the right in an effort to stay popular with the public.

They are in this to make money after all.

Good points and something to think about.

Anything else to say?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Trooper
Your post on debate was absolutely excellent. Thank you. Sometimes it is so frustrating trying to talk seriously about something. My ideas are different yet I truly enjoy talking with Big Daddy and Seabass and other liberal people. We sincerely need their input to help form our opinions. I have lost total respect for MT. He is a spoiler, not on here to talk, but to keep us apart. I am open to suggestions on how we can discuss issues, without being in a sense shouted down with gibberish that distracts us. I don't know is this type of behavior socialy acceptable to everyone?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Exactly Plains.

Thats why those who shall not be named are so bad at this: they give no respect, and have none themselvs.

The first rule to being an effective speaker is to have a character that COMMANDS respect. This applies to all types of speech, whether ist persuasion, information, debate, or simply entertainment, your audience wont give a hoot about what your saying if they dont respect you.

Some members of this forum have caused riots, made allegations, de-railed civilized discusions, and Openly called people names (im speaking of multiple members, not anyone specific...) and then wonder why they get no respect, and why peole wont listen to them.

:roll:

What were we dabating about again?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

mr.trooper

I don't remember!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I don't see how its hypocritical of me. Just because other people don't know how to construct an argument means I'm a hypocrite?


Some of those half include yours.



> In response to your last post, again, you have posted references that were credible to YOU, not to your intended audience.


I see, so if it's not from a conservative blog it is not credible.



> you make a few points MT. But not enough to convince me that the Media is TOTALY biased.


Not all of it is biased, just most. Nearly all of the radio stations have a hefty conservative slant. Most all if not all of the 24 hour news television stations are conservative as well. Some are less partisan, and have only a slight conservative slant. They are pointed out as the liberal media, ridiculously.



> They just happen to have been leaning liberal for the last decade, and now are slanting to the right in an effort to stay popular with the public.


Now trooper you aren't too old, have you taken some time to actually watch some of the older reporters before the conservative takeover? I really feel that liberal media is, has been and for the forseeable future will be just a talking point.



> My ideas are different yet I truly enjoy talking with Big Daddy and Seabass and other liberal people.


But of course, because they are less liberal and thus must be more reasonable as they are closer to the right.



> I have lost total respect for MT.


Oh quit the theatrics you never had any.



> He is a spoiler, not on here to talk, but to keep us apart. I am open to suggestions on how we can discuss issues, without being in a sense shouted down with gibberish that distracts us. I don't know is this type of behavior socialy acceptable to everyone?


And yet again trying to destroy credibility in hopes that I will wither and blow away, making your life on these boards that much easier. I really don't mind you saying that though Plainsey, the ones who will influence aren't the ones I was trying to speak to in the first place.



> Some members of this forum have caused riots, made allegations, de-railed civilized discusions, and Openly called people names (im speaking of multiple members, not anyone specific...) and then wonder why they get no respect, and why peole wont listen to them.


Too right, your side never calls names, no no of course not. I find this kind of funny, because it is really just a matter of where you are. You say that I am here to derail discussions and throw things into chaos, only for the reason that my beliefs are the complete opposite of yours on most issues. If you were to spit half of the venom that most of the heavily conservatives speak on here on a liberal board it would too cause complete chaos.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > If you were to spit half of the venom that most of the heavily conservatives speak on here on a liberal board it would too cause complete chaos.


I have been on liberal forums. And they don't allow any conservative issues. I was booted off of one for a viewpoint that wasn't even conservative, but it wasn't what they wanted to hear. It was a discussion that claimed that we should all be vegetarian. That if we turned all cattle land into crop land we could produce more food and feed the world. I pointed out to him that cattle land is typically not suitable for growing crops. That tilling native prairie to create more cropland instead of grazing was a poor idea. And for that I was booted. It just proved to me that they really do not believe in the first amendment unless it agrees with them. Obviously we do since you are still here. Yes your viewpoint is many times the opposite of ours but you still get to say what you want.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I have been on liberal forums. And they don't allow any conservative issues. I was booted off of one for a viewpoint that wasn't even conservative, but it wasn't what they wanted to hear. It was a discussion that claimed that we should all be vegetarian. That if we turned all cattle land into crop land we could produce more food and feed the world. I pointed out to him that cattle land is typically not suitable for growing crops. That tilling native prairie to create more cropland instead of grazing was a poor idea. And for that I was booted. It just proved to me that they really do not believe in the first amendment unless it agrees with them. Obviously we do since you are still here. Yes your viewpoint is many times the opposite of ours but you still get to say what you want.


Is that so? I have been told that I aid the terrorists by giving them will power, thinking that the America is imploding inward. I guess we really aren't all that different after all.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> please cite one single speech where the President said one of the reasons we were going to war with Iraq was because of WMD's. Just one ............
> 
> Thank you, Conservative media.


Cute tag line ....................... couldn't ask for a better example of your childishness. Sad really that when someone asks for a cite because they don't think it happened, then someone provides a cite that you somehow think that is a victory of some sorts. Your world must be awful small because your victories certainly are. Truly pitiful.............


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Is that so?
> 
> 
> Yes that is so. I figured you would question the truth of my post. Anything stated that is contrary to what you want to believe in your mind is a false statement. If you can't find anything better to say you just question the persons honesty. Is that how you usually interact with people?
> ...


That may be so, but were you banned for your viewpoint?
.
.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > I don't see how its hypocritical of me. Just because other people don't know how to construct an argument means I'm a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> Some of those half include yours.
> ...


 :withstupid:

This is a prime example of what I was talking about.

Not to mention everything I said went right over his head...again.

I'm sooo sorry that I'm not perfect MT. but you need to realize that isolated discrepancies are not hypocritical. It's called human nature. Hypocrisy is when one CONSITANTLY and PURPISFULLY acts in a manner opposite to what he CONTINUES to say. Just because some one messes up a few times doesn't make them a hypocrite.

What makes someone a hypocrite is when they constantly spew Politically correct nonsense, and praise themselves for being tolerant and for "the peoples rights", but turn around and call everyone a hypocrite every time they waver in the slightest degree.

And you missed my point about credibility. You have to pick credible sources FOR YOUR AUDIENCE. Different audiences have different ideas about what's credible, and if you're going to convince them, you've got to use sources they consider credible, NOT sources that YOU consider credible. It's not a matter o who is or isn't ACTUALY credible, it's a matter of who the audience CONSIDERES credible. Thus the only way to get material for a conservative audience ( read, NODAk outdoors) is to use conservative sources. The same is true for a liberal audience.

Try less bickering, and move on to an actual POINT. :wink:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I'm sooo sorry that I'm not perfect MT. but you need to realize that isolated discrepancies are not hypocritical. It's called human nature. Hypocrisy is when one CONSITANTLY and PURPISFULLY acts in a manner opposite to what he CONTINUES to say. Just because some one messes up a few times doesn't make them a hypocrite.


What exactly do I do that is the opposite of my beliefs? I think this is kind of funny considering Christianity is the religon of tolerance and acceptance, and yet the majority of the conservatives hate them durn ******* and towel heads. This of course however, is not hypocrisy.



> And you missed my point about credibility. You have to pick credible sources FOR YOUR AUDIENCE. Different audiences have different ideas about what's credible, and if you're going to convince them, you've got to use sources they consider credible, NOT sources that YOU consider credible. It's not a matter o who is or isn't ACTUALY credible, it's a matter of who the audience CONSIDERES credible. Thus the only way to get material for a conservative audience ( read, NODAk outdoors) is to use conservative sources. The same is true for a liberal audience.


Therein lies the problem with the conservative media. It is very rare that they will point out the flaws of their own party, hence why they are a poor source of information. The amcon article I found is terribly rare in that it shows some of the flaws within their own group. Frankly I will listen to and believe any reporter or blogger who has proven themselves a credible source of information, liberal or conservative.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > I'm sooo sorry that I'm not perfect MT. but you need to realize that isolated discrepancies are not hypocritical. It's called human nature. Hypocrisy is when one CONSITANTLY and PURPISFULLY acts in a manner opposite to what he CONTINUES to say. Just because some one messes up a few times doesn't make them a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> What exactly do I do that is the opposite of my beliefs? I think this is kind of funny considering Christianity is the religon of tolerance and acceptance, and yet the majority of the conservatives hate them durn ******* and towel heads. This of course however, is not hypocrisy.
> ...


Just for the record, Im not trying to argue, its just that you made two major errors in your last post:

#1) Your Idea of Christianity is not Biblical. Im not going to argue with you over this, because I know our not going to listen. Sorry, thats just the way it is. Your right, most Conservatives do live contrary to what Christianity teaches. do you know why? Because the majority of conservatives dont now what Christianity ACTUALY teaches. They attend church twice a year, once at easter and once at Christmas ( and fall asleep bolth times :roll: ), they almost never read there Bible, and when they do, they just run their eyes accross the page, withought stoping to think through what it says ( traits tha Liberal Christians also share ). i freely Admit that 99.9% of Christendom is in a sad, sorry state of affairs. Frankly, im not supprised.

#2) you missed the point again. Its not about pointing out anyones flaws. its about convincing them that your way is BETTER, not that there way is flawed. Your so locked into this Argumentative mode that you cant see that. Its simply the most effective mode of persuasion.

Back to topic now?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> you missed the point again. Its not about pointing out anyones flaws. its about convincing them that your way is BETTER, not that there way is flawed. Your so locked into this Argumentative mode that you cant see that. Its simply the most effective mode of persuasion.


However if your opponent is stubborn in their ways (as most conservatives are) it is best to show them the error of their ways than try to persuade them.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

If thats your approach then fine. Liberals are are just as stubborn. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:


> Now trooper you aren't too old, have you taken some time to actually watch some of the older reporters before the conservative takeover?


There you go again talking like your older than trooper. When you say "now trooper your not that old" ------ and you are? Watch some of the old reporters ---- were these reruns, you sound as if you watched. I think I will have to look back in your posts and see how often you have made comments like this. Interesting. Just when I was putting my suspicions to rest.

Your comment sounded like a put down to a younger person.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> MT wrote:
> 
> 
> > Now trooper you aren't too old, have you taken some time to actually watch some of the older reporters before the conservative takeover?
> ...


Man you are really trying your best to make yourself feel better aren't you? You just can't take being mentally challenged and beaten by someone a third your age. Based on trooper's age I assumed that he hasn't seen enough of the old reporters (who he claims to be heavily liberal) to make a decision on it. On to the next poorly made scheme eh plainsey?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Actualy, i claimed that the reportes in recent dacades ( the 90's ) were Liberal.

Its funny how YOU know so much about them considering you were knee-high to a grass-hopper at the time......

Also, Why would we be complaining about the Media if it were actualy Conservative? Dont yo think thats something we would LIKE?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> Actualy, i claimed that the reportes in recent dacades ( the 90's ) were Liberal.
> 
> Its funny how YOU know so much about them considering you were knee-high to a grass-hopper at the time......
> 
> Also, Why would we be complaining about the Media if it were actualy Conservative? Dont yo think thats something we would LIKE?


I don't remember you saying 90's, if so sorry, if not my point still stands.

As to the media, I think you are easily influenced, who by? THE MEDIA, most of the channels spewed "liberal media" for a month or so and suddenly half the country thinks the media is all liberal. Don't you figure that if the media was liberal they wouldn't be calling themselves such?


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Don't you figure that if the media was liberal they wouldn't be calling themselves such?


Fisrts off, no i didnt explicitly state the period in time. I assumed that you would take it as the period that i was raised in.

Now for your quote:

NO, I would expect a Liberal Media to call itself Liberal, and make a clear stand on its beliefs like any decent Organization. you see, i expect people to tell me the TRUTH.

claiming to be liberal when not is called a lie,...just like the fake National guard letters that the whole media realm seemed to eat up. :roll: Yup, thats exactly wat a conservative would do, discredit the President, uh-huh...yup...sure.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> NO, I would expect a Liberal Media to call itself Liberal, and make a clear stand on its beliefs like any decent Organization. you see, i expect people to tell me the TRUTH.


Well you obviously don't think that liberals tell the truth, therefore the media would have to be conservative for them to tell you this truth would they not?



> claiming to be liberal when not is called a lie,...just like the fake National guard letters that the whole media realm seemed to eat up. Yup, thats exactly wat a conservative would do, discredit the President, uh-huh...yup...sure.


Disrespect? You do realize that those letters were never proven forged in the first place right? As well, the president did do the absolute minimal amount of time at best. How exactly is reporting on what happened disrespect? Its grand that you can name one incident, while of course forgetting all of the conservative based propaganda that was thrown around before the election. I'm not sure why I'm still arguing this, you are going to believe what you choose facts or not.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Well you obviously don't think that liberals tell the truth, therefore the media would have to be conservative for them to tell you this truth would they not?





Militant_Tiger said:


> Disrespect? You do realize that those letters were never proven forged in the first place right? As well, the president did do the absolute minimal amount of time at best. How exactly is reporting on what happened disrespect? Its grand that you can name one incident, while of course forgetting all of the conservative based propaganda that was thrown around before the election. I'm not sure why I'm still arguing this, you are going to believe what you choose facts or not.


LOL, now your just pulling stuff out of your Butt. You do realize that i never said anything of the sort?

I think you need to take a vacation. Your Working to hard.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

:lol:

Dan Rather gave his last newscast. It seams like just yesterday he was making up his first news story! - Jay Leno

:laugh:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> LOL, now your just pulling stuff out of your Butt. You do realize that i never said anything of the sort?


What exactly didn't you say? You have got me confused now.



> Dan Rather gave his last newscast. It seams like just yesterday he was making up his first news story! - Jay Leno


It really is quite sad how little credit they give this man for all the things that he has done for us. Though he will be disrespected now, the history books will show the real man he is.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Exactly MT, the history books will show what kind of a man he was.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It really is quite sad how little credit they give this man for all the things that he has done for us.


I give him a lot of credit. Not for what he has done for us, but for what he has done to us. He has cheated us out of responsible unbiased reporting for years. I don't much care for any persons commentaries. I find them arrogant and self serving. If you think about it why do you need someone to tell you what the president said, after the president has made a speech. The gist of it is he thinks people are to stupid to understand English for themselves. Then again there were people who believed the Bush/National Guard propaganda he spew.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> What exactly didn't you say? You have got me confused now.


#1) not only did you assume that i assume all Liberals are evil liers (I DONT), but you went aead and posted a statement about me to that effect. Bad form.

#2) I stated that it would be a lie for a conservative media to pretend to be lberal, and if they did such i would trust them no more than if they realy were liberal. You came back with a Responce about Respect and how the papers werent proven forged? something that had nothing to do with the statement it was dirrected at.

It seems that you ARE confused. Sad, because that was not my intention.


----------

