PDA

View Full Version : Wow: Keith Olbermann Go's Off...


jAZ
09-06-2005, 11:48 AM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olbermann-Blasts-on%20-Katrina.wmv

Bootlegged
09-06-2005, 12:50 PM
or goes off..

jAZ
09-06-2005, 12:52 PM
or goes off..
ROFL

WilliamTheIrish
09-06-2005, 01:01 PM
That was a pretty solid commentary.

Wish I could rebut it...... but

RedDread
09-06-2005, 01:03 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:

BigMeatballDave
09-06-2005, 01:12 PM
That was a pretty solid commentary.

Wish I could rebut it...... butYup...

Patriot 21
09-06-2005, 01:15 PM
What a prick, but then we already knew that.

ON second thought, he may be on to something in principle, he however did not utter the words Nagin or Blanco in his tired oratory one time, thus he is just showing himself to be the partisan political hack that we already knew that he was.

:shake:

Chief Henry
09-06-2005, 01:33 PM
What a prick, but then we already knew that.

ON second thought, he may be on to something in principle, he however did not utter the words Nagin or Blanco in his tired oratory one time, thus he is just showing himself to be the partisan political hack that we already knew that he was.

:shake:


Did we expect anything than partisian hackish shit? Not me.
Olbermans so unimportant in the world of the news media
that he has to keep flapping louder and louder to keep any resemblance of ratings.

Stinger
09-06-2005, 01:44 PM
Did we expect anything than partisian hackish shit? Not me.
Olbermans so unimportant in the world of the news media
that he has to keep flapping louder and louder to keep any resemblance of ratings.

Wow MSNBC is still on the air? Who knew?

Chief Henry
09-06-2005, 01:47 PM
Wow MSNBC is still on the air? Who knew?


Its amazing that Rita Cosby has had better numbers than on MSNBC

than Olberman and Mathews. Thats almost unbeleavable.

penchief
09-06-2005, 02:44 PM
The most poignant part was when he asked, "and where is Dick Cheney? Wasn't he the one that said, 'vote for us because the other guy might let you die'?"

Olberman nailed it.

It wasn't long after Cheney's vile insinuation about Kerry that he, Karen Hughes, Karl Rove, and Andy Card paraded around in duck hunting outfits and grinning stupidly in a childish effort to mock John Kerry on the day before the election. If the previous four years had not already forced people to wonder, that alone should have inspired reasonable people to consider the leadership, maturity level, and professionalism of the whole bunch.

Patriot 21
09-06-2005, 03:15 PM
The most poignant part was when he asked, "and where is Dick Cheney? Wasn't he the one that said, 'vote for us because the other guy might let you die'?"

Boy no sh!t, that part was incredibly relevant considering everything that's happened and everything that's been done over the last week.

:shake:

SBK
09-06-2005, 04:14 PM
Wow MSNBC is still on the air? Who knew?

I was gonna say that they had to post it online to make sure someone saw it. Im sure nobody saw it live, while he was on tv. ROFL

You win, beat me to it.

penchief
09-06-2005, 04:35 PM
Boy no sh!t, that part was incredibly relevant considering everything that's happened and everything that's been done over the last week.

:shake:

Well, hell yeah! Cheney stooped low enough to suggest that the other guy wouldn't protect American citizens. When in reality it turns out that the ones that had the gall to make that kind of statement were the ones that were incompetent enough to cost lives. Considering that this was a Homeland Security scenario, those who claimed to have the high ground in that arena failed miserably and they showed themselves to be nothing more than the opportunistic hypocrites that they are.

JMO.

SBK
09-06-2005, 04:39 PM
Well, hell yeah! Cheney stooped low enough to suggest that the other guy wouldn't protect American citizens. When in reality it turns out that the ones that had the gall to make that kind of statement were the ones that were incompetent enough to cost lives. Considering that this was a Homeland Security scenario, those who claimed to have the high ground in that arena failed miserably and they showed themselves to be nothing more than the opportunistic hypocrites that they are.

JMO.

I don't think he was referring to Katrinas jihad against America. He was referring to Kerry and deferring the national defense to the UN. But whatever floats your boat. You're not running around claiming that Katrina was a federal issue cause she crossed state lines like a criminal or anything either. ROFLROFL

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 04:45 PM
I don't think he was referring to Katrinas jihad against America. He was referring to Kerry and deferring the national defense to the UN. But whatever floats your boat. You're not running around claiming that Katrina was a federal issue cause she crossed state lines like a criminal or anything either. ROFLROFL

Nice spin. It's a federal issue because it involves many states. A tornado that devestates a few towns in one state could reasonably be argued as NOT a federal issue/problem even though FEMA has been known to assist.

So if they are willing to assist a tornado struck STATE, as in singular, then how do they get a pass for Katrina??? :hmmm:

RedDread
09-06-2005, 04:50 PM
Yeah, Olbermann's ratings are terrible, therefore his opinion doesn't mean anything!

ROFL

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 04:57 PM
Yeah, Olbermann's ratings are terrible, therefore his opinion doesn't mean anything!

ROFL

Can we claim the same about W considering his approval ratings are terrible? ;)

penchief
09-06-2005, 05:05 PM
I don't think he was referring to Katrinas jihad against America. He was referring to Kerry and deferring the national defense to the UN. But whatever floats your boat. You're not running around claiming that Katrina was a federal issue cause she crossed state lines like a criminal or anything either. ROFLROFL

Homeland Security was in charge of this operation. Homeland Security failed miserably. If it had been any other crisis would you be confident in the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to respond swiftly and appropriately? If you say anything but, "no," you are fibbing.

Their failure should not surprise you, though. This administration has always been more concerned about winning elections and fulfilling their own ideological agenda than performing their pragmatic duties as required by the necessities of effective governing. They just pay lip service to any issue and most of you buy their bullshit hook, line, and sinker. And when it comes accountability time the administration and all it's minions backpeddle and spin.

SBK
09-06-2005, 05:08 PM
Homeland Security was in charge of this operation. Homeland Security failed miserably. If it had been any other crisis would you be confident in the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to respond swiftly and appropriately? If you say anything but, "no," you are fibbing.

There failure should not surprise you, though. This administration has always been more concerned about winning elections and fulfilling their own ideological agenda than performing their pragmatic duties as required by the necessities of effective governing. They just pay lip service to any issue and most of you buy their bullshit hook, line, and sinker. And when it comes accountability time the administration and all it's minions backpeddle and spin. They're good at that, too.

I do agree that there has been a failure here. I don't buy that it's 100% at Bush's door though.

I won't, but I could tell you that the party that's been losing elections has that m/o.

penchief
09-06-2005, 05:25 PM
I do agree that there has been a failure here. I don't buy that it's 100% at Bush's door though.

I won't, but I could tell you that the party that's been losing elections has that m/o.

Is that why this administration concerns itself more with constitutional bans on gay marriage and less with flood control?

Is that why this administration talks big when it comes to homeland security but can't back it up?

Is that why they do things like dressing up in duck hunting outfits instead of debating the issues honestly?

Is that why they make it a habit to destroy the war records of honorable veterans in order to smear them instead of running on their own record?

I could go on forever but the pattern is clear. The question is when people are going to recognize it and grow tired of it.

SBK
09-06-2005, 07:44 PM
1Is that why this administration concerns itself more with constitutional bans on gay marriage and less with flood control?

2Is that why this administration talks big when it comes to homeland security but can't back it up?

3Is that why they do things like dressing up in duck hunting outfits instead of debating the issues honestly?

4Is that why they make it a habit to destroy the war records of honorable veterans in order to smear them instead of running on their own record?

5I could go on forever but the pattern is clear. The question is when people are going to recognize it and grow tired of it.

You've never struck me as a moonbat, but I have been wrong before.

1. Seriously retarded. This argument is retarded. Flood control? That's not Washington's job, NO punted that one for what, 80 years now?

2. Homeland Security? How many terrorist attacks on the homeland have we had since 9/11?

3. Retarded comment #2. I'd expect that one from Denise.

4. Again, you can't be serious? Has there been a lot of soldiers complaining of this? Paging Dan Rather here. I'll go with retarded comment #3.

5. I have yet to see 1 valid point. So please go on forever, Denise does.

penchief
09-06-2005, 08:15 PM
You've never struck me as a moonbat, but I have been wrong before.

1. Seriously retarded. This argument is retarded. Flood control? That's not Washington's job, NO punted that one for what, 80 years now?

2. Homeland Security? How many terrorist attacks on the homeland have we had since 9/11?

3. Retarded comment #2. I'd expect that one from Denise.

4. Again, you can't be serious? Has there been a lot of soldiers complaining of this? Paging Dan Rather here. I'll go with retarded comment #3.

5. I have yet to see 1 valid point. So please go on forever, Denise does.

The point is that the scoreboard (elections) really don't tell the story. Winning may be everything to you and the neocons but how one wins means a lot to me.

It seems very disingenuous for our leaders to ignore the real issues while they make campaign issues out of gay marriage, abortion, the ten commandments, prayer in school, and unfair personal attacks upon the distinguished records of their foes only to discard those phony issues once the election is over. Not only do they effectively avoid the real issues they don't ever address the real issues unless the real issues force the issue, as seen in New Orleans.

A practical government would have addressed the issues facing New Orleans. And from all accounts, the previous administration was doing a superior job to this assministration in doing that. Those are real issues affecting real Americans. If anything, the events of the last week have proven that. But when you have an around the clock PR presidency like we currently have, politics and ideological priorities drive everything. When that happens practical governing suffers.

To make matters worse, once they win elections based on phony issues they pay lip service to the things that matter most. The call things by names that belie their true intent and they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk. Homeland Security has proven to be one of those areas. While you can claim no attacks on this country since 9/11 I don't believe, and there aren't many who would disagree with me on this, that if al-Qaeda wanted to start suicide bombings in this country tomorrow there would be much we could do about it.

Look around you. Your numbers are dwindling. And for good reason.

headsnap
09-06-2005, 08:36 PM
Look around you. Your numbers are dwindling. And for good reason.

you are correct, I look around the DC forum and all I see is a Moonbat circle jerk.


to quote Phobia here, "If we spent one half the time lifting our fingers as we do pointing them, that basin would be dry right now."

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 08:43 PM
you are correct, I look around the DC forum and all I see is a Moonbat circle jerk.


to quote Phobia here, "If we spent one half the time lifting our fingers as we do pointing them, that basin would be dry right now."

It is ALWAYS a circle jerk. It just depends on which circle is doing the jerking...

check back if DUHbya miraculously rehabs his image or somehow things start to fix themselves in Iraq.

headsnap
09-06-2005, 08:47 PM
It is ALWAYS a circle jerk. It just depends on which circle is doing the jerking...

check back if DUHbya miraculously rehabs his image or somehow things start to fix themselves in Iraq.

making political hay out of the worst natural disaster before the bodies even cool down is fuggin' pathetic!!!!

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 08:51 PM
making political hay out of the worst natural disaster before the bodies even cool down is fuggin' pathetic!!!!

Actually what is fuggin pathetic is insisting that those asking questions about where the responsibility lies and wanting to hold those in charge accountable for their inactions is somehow playing politics. :rolleyes:

FTR, Trent Lott initially praised the government's efforst especially when he had DUHbya talking about his dream of sitting on Lott's rebuilt porch. But the last few days, he's realized that the response HAS NOT been 'all that' and is now complaining about it.

Is HE playing 'politics?'

headsnap
09-06-2005, 08:56 PM
Actually what is fuggin pathetic is insisting that those asking questions about where the responsibility lies and wanting to hold those in charge accountable for their inactions is somehow playing politics. :rolleyes:

FTR, Trent Lott initially praised the government's efforst especially when he had DUHbya talking about his dream of sitting on Lott's rebuilt porch. But the last few days, he's realized that the response HAS NOT been 'all that' and is now complaining about it.

Is HE playing 'politics?'
this moonbat feeding frenzy on the DC forum is what I am talking about...


you see a weakness in the president and you(DC forum moonbats) are going for the juggular. Victims of Katrina be damned!




oopsie, poopsie...

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 08:58 PM
this moonbat feeding frenzy on the DC forum is what I am talking about...


you see a weakness in the president and you(DC forum moonbats) are going for the juggular. Victims of Katrina be damned!




oopsie, poopsie...

They were damned from the get go...

had they lived in FL they might have gotten a better and more rapid response from the Feds. :hmmm:

headsnap
09-06-2005, 08:58 PM
They were damned from the get go...

had they lived in FL they might have gotten a better and more rapid response from the Feds. :hmmm:

more finger pointing!


**** YOU!!!!!

headsnap
09-06-2005, 09:03 PM
They were damned from the get go...

had they lived in FL they might have gotten a better and more rapid response from the Feds. :hmmm:
the race card and the class card in one sentence... :shake:

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 09:03 PM
more finger pointing!


**** YOU!!!!!

LOLOL. Great response.

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 09:04 PM
the race card and the class card in one sentence... :shake:

No, if they had W's bro as Gov. then they might have gotten the help they need...

nice try.

headsnap
09-06-2005, 09:05 PM
LOLOL. Great response.
it was appropriate...

headsnap
09-06-2005, 09:07 PM
No, if they had W's bro as Gov. then they might have gotten the help they need...

nice try.
I'm buying stock in Reynolds Aluminum tormorrow...


A local Louisville company that is doing gangbusters right now...

Pitt Gorilla
09-06-2005, 09:21 PM
the race card and the class card in one sentence... :shake:
I must have missed the race and class cards.

memyselfI
09-06-2005, 09:24 PM
I must have missed the race and class cards.

I guess my posts are not bothersome enough to them...

they seem to feel the need to add stuff that just ain't there. :hmmm:

headsnap
09-06-2005, 09:30 PM
I must have missed the race and class cards.

I just donned my tinfoil hat, now I get the Jeb connection.

do you think George talks to Jeb?



WOW, who'd a thunk it!

chief99
09-06-2005, 09:33 PM
Who the hell is Keith Oberman ? Why should I care what he says ?

Road Hog
09-06-2005, 09:51 PM
Is Keith Olbermann a movie, a crook, or a liar?

jAZ
09-06-2005, 09:56 PM
You've never struck me as a moonbat, but I have been wrong before.

1. Seriously retarded. This argument is retarded. Flood control? That's not Washington's job, NO punted that one for what, 80 years now?

2. Homeland Security? How many terrorist attacks on the homeland have we had since 9/11?
Learn about your government before you speak about it, otherwise you'll look the part of the fool.

DHS = Department of Homeland Security

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0413.xml

Strategic Goals
Awareness -- Identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information to our homeland security partners and the American public.

Prevention -- Detect, deter and mitigate threats to our homeland.

Protection -- Safeguard our people and their freedoms, critical infrastructure, property and the economy of our Nation from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

Response -- Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

Recovery -- Lead national, state, local and private sector efforts to restore services and rebuild communities after acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.

Service -- Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, travel and immigration.

Organizational Excellence -- Value our most important resource, our people. Create a culture that promotes a common identity, innovation, mutual respect, accountability and teamwork to achieve efficiencies, effectiveness, and operational synergies.

rowdyone
09-06-2005, 10:23 PM
The next interesting thing Olberman says on something other than sports will be the first.

SBK
09-06-2005, 11:13 PM
Learn about your government before you speak about it, otherwise you'll look the part of the fool.



Hey bud, New Orleans had 80 friggin years since it was last flooded to make corrections.

I was pointing out that homeland security has done a good job. We haven't been attacked, (except my a criminal storm that crossed state lines). *I'd worry about every time you hit reply looking like a fool, trust me.*

Feel free to put your tinfoil hat back on and finish reading the commie manifesto. :)

Pitt Gorilla
09-07-2005, 12:40 AM
I just donned my tinfoil hat, now I get the Jeb connection.

do you think George talks to Jeb?



WOW, who'd a thunk it!
That's fine, but I still don't see how it could even remotely be construed as race or class related. Was the post edited or something?

go bowe
09-07-2005, 12:57 AM
That's fine, but I still don't see how it could even remotely be construed as race or class related. Was the post edited or something?well, remotely speaking...

people who live in florida are by and large better off (class) and white (race), as compared to the urban poor of new orleans (largely black)...

but that's really pretty remote, if you ask me...

Logical
09-07-2005, 01:03 AM
this moonbat feeding frenzy on the DC forum is what I am talking about...


you see a weakness in the president and you(DC forum moonbats) are going for the juggular. Victims of Katrina be damned!




oopsie, poopsie...Alright oopsie poopse sweetheart I have already donated 1000, jAZ 500, I know DEnise has donated as has BOCF, I am sure there are others. What exactly have you done, cept bitch about moonbats?

huskerdooz
09-07-2005, 05:44 AM
...It seems very disingenuous for our leaders to ignore the real issues while they make campaign issues out of gay marriage, abortion, the ten commandments, prayer in school, and unfair personal ...

You're absolutely right, why would we ever want to do anything as despicable as protecting someone as helpless as an unborn child. The absolute nerve of the man.

headsnap
09-07-2005, 06:22 AM
well, remotely speaking...

people who live in florida are by and large better off (class) and white (race), as compared to the urban poor of new orleans (largely black)...

but that's really pretty remote, if you ask me...
yes pretty remote, last week both Rangle and Sharpton made that very point about NOLA and Florida.

headsnap
09-07-2005, 07:30 AM
Alright oopsie poopse sweetheart I have already donated 1000, jAZ 500, I know DEnise has donated as has BOCF, I am sure there are others. What exactly have you done, cept bitch about moonbats?


$200 to my employer who is matching funds to the Red Cross. Through contacts, helped a the children of two displaced families get into the local school district. Helped clothe and feed the displaced families(they are not going back to NO btw). I have registered www.liftyourfinger.com which will be a site concerning aid to NOLA(similar to fireGregRobinson.com but with an all positive aspect). The shell of the site will be live tomorrow evening. I haven't firmly decided on the final direction/aspect of the site yet, it is and will be a work-in-progress. anyone with ideas or offers to help with the site will be greatly appreciated.

penchief
09-07-2005, 10:18 AM
You're absolutely right, why would we ever want to do anything as despicable as protecting someone as helpless as an unborn child. The absolute nerve of the man.

Nobody's pro-abortion. Some people like to use the issue to divide and conquer, especially whenever election time comes around. It would help if they cared as much about slowing or preventing unwanted pregnancies as much as they cared about imposing their morality or invading our privacy.

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 10:20 AM
Nobody's pro-abortion. Some people like to use the issue to divide and conquer, especially whenever election time comes around. It would help if they cared as much about slowing or preventing unwanted pregnancies as much as they cared about imposing their morality or invading our privacy.

Um, I think promoting abstinence above everything else would qualify as caring about slowing or preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, you probably consider that imposing their morality, even though it's the only 100% proven method for preventing both pregnancy and STD's...

SBK
09-07-2005, 11:09 AM
Nobody's pro-abortion. Some people like to use the issue to divide and conquer, especially whenever election time comes around. It would help if they cared as much about slowing or preventing unwanted pregnancies as much as they cared about imposing their morality or invading our privacy.

Puhleaze. The left's #1 issue is abortion on demand.

penchief
09-07-2005, 12:54 PM
Puhleaze. The left's #1 issue is abortion on demand.

If that is what you believe then your narrow view of progressives is understandable. Unfortunately for all of us, you would be wrong. If you want to know why liberals are pro-choice just take a look back at the Terry Schiavo debacle.

I'ts not that we want to kill babies. It's just that we want to preserve our personal lives from those who would impose their morality upon others. It's particularly scary when the government wishes to impose morality.

IMO, if it were anything more than religious or ideological morality then those very same entities would not oppose birth control, family planning, education, the morning-after pill, or any other sincere effort to limit unwanted pregnancies. Absitinence is not the only way. Nor should it be.

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 01:05 PM
If that is what you believe then your narrow view of progressives is understandable. Unfortunately for all of us, you would be wrong. If you want to know why liberals are pro-choice just take a look back at the Terry Schiavo debacle.

I'ts not that we want to kill babies. It's just that we want to preserve our personal lives from those who would impose their morality upon others. It's particularly scary when the government wishes to impose morality.

When it's about abortion, or keeping prayer out of schools, it's about "freedom".

But when it's about taking 30% of my check so that my CONVICTED FELON of a neighbor can continue to collect Social Security disability and use it to buy meth, it's about "taking care of our poor and underprivelged."

Double-talk bullshit. You're ALL ABOUT imposing the governments wishes on your personal morality, as long as it's IN LINE with your personal morality.

IMO, if it were anything more than religious or ideological morality then those very same entities would not oppose birth control, family planning, education, the morning-after pill, or any other sincere effort to limit unwanted pregnancies. Absitinence is not the only way. Nor should it be.

There is only one way to completely, with 100% accuracy, prevent unwanted pregnancy. It has nothing to do with morality. It's a scientifically proven FACT - you can't get pregnant if you don't have sex. But let's not apply common sense here, after all, we should be free to behave however we want, it's the government's job to foot the bill...

penchief
09-07-2005, 02:22 PM
When it's about abortion, or keeping prayer out of schools, it's about "freedom".

Correct. It's about freedom from government interference in our "private" lives and it's about freedom from religion as well as religious freedom.

But when it's about taking 30% of my check so that my CONVICTED FELON of a neighbor can continue to collect Social Security disability and use it to buy meth, it's about "taking care of our poor and underprivelged."

There is a difference between what is truly personal and those things that take into account the public good. Taxes are intended to provide for the public good (i.e. schools, infrastructure, levee improvements, etc.) I won't argue your right to say when enough is enough but there is a big difference. When your wife and you sit down and apply your own personal ethics to your own personal situation the last thing you need is for the government telling you what is morally correct. Big, big difference, IMO.

Double-talk bullshit. You're ALL ABOUT imposing the governments wishes on your personal morality, as long as it's IN LINE with your personal morality.

I'm not about imposing anything. In fact, just the opposite is true. I oppose this administration so adamantly simply because it uses all means necessary (honest and dishonest) to impose it's narrow-minded interpretations on the rest of us. I'm more about defending and regulating than I am about imposing.

There is only one way to completely, with 100% accuracy, prevent unwanted pregnancy. It has nothing to do with morality. It's a scientifically proven FACT - you can't get pregnant if you don't have sex. But let's not apply common sense here, after all, we should be free to behave however we want, it's the government's job to foot the bill...

So what you are saying is that abstinence is the ONLY way? Sure, common sense tells us that the only 100% sure way not to get pregnant is abstinence but is that really realistic? Are those who preach abstinence preaching common sense or morality? Do those who preach abstinence for moralistic reasons have the right to impose their morality just because they can?

Was our country founded on liberty or morality? If you say liberty then that includes freedom of choice as long as we do not harm another. If you say that harming a fetus is harming another then what do you say about sperm? Is harming sperm harming another human being? If you don't think that harming sperm is harming another human being than you should not have anything against all forms of birth control. Should you?

By the way, I don't know why but it sounds like you are getting upset. Please don't because there are a lot of people who feel differently than you. It doesn't mean they are wrong and it doesn't mean they are bad. It just means that you think differently than they do.

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 02:33 PM
There is a difference between what is truly personal and those things that take into account the public good. Taxes are intended to provide for the public good (i.e. schools, infrastructure, levee improvements, etc.) I won't argue your right to say when enough is enough but there is a big difference. When your wife and you sit down and apply your own personal ethics to your own personal situation the last thing you need is for the government telling you what is morally correct. Big, big difference, IMO.

Of course, the typical liberal response. Democrats and Republicans, two sides of the same coin. Either way, all they want is control. The whole "public good" argument is abject bullshit.

So what you are saying is that abstinence is the ONLY way? Sure, common sense tells us that the only 100% sure way not to get pregnant is abstinence but is that really realistic? Are those who preach abstinence preaching common sense or morality? Do those who preach abstinence for moralistic reasons have the right to impose their morality just because they can?

Yes, it is the ONLY way. No other method is 100% guaranteed to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Of course, it's not realistic. It's not realistic to expect our spoiled, me-first society to temper freedom with discretion. "Do what you want, whenever you want" I'm sure that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind...

Was our country founded on liberty or morality? If you say liberty then that includes freedom of choice as long as we do not harm another. If you say that harming a fetus is harming another then what do you say about sperm? Is harming sperm harming another human being? If you don't think that harming sperm is harming another human being than you should not have anything against all forms of birth control. Should you?

Our country was found on the idea that liberty was right given by GOD. You cannot separate the two.

By the way, I don't know why but it sounds like you are getting upset. Please don't because there are a lot of people who feel differently than you. It doesn't mean they are wrong and it doesn't mean they are bad. It just means that you think differently than they do.

I'm upset because I can't stand the patronizing and condescension. And I can't stand the hypocrisy and double-talk. Liberals are EVERY BIT the control freaks the conservatives are, they just like to do it in much more insidious ways, like trying to convince us that it's "in the public good".

"The conservatives are evil...they want to invade your homes and make you live according to their morality. Now send us your tax money...your kids need 1 more hour a day of "Tina has Two Mommies"."

go bowe
09-07-2005, 02:48 PM
yes pretty remote, last week both Rangle and Sharpton made that very point about NOLA and Florida.well, there both about as remote as jesse, aren't they? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

go bowe
09-07-2005, 02:59 PM
Um, I think promoting abstinence above everything else would qualify as caring about slowing or preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Of course, you probably consider that imposing their morality, even though it's the only 100% proven method for preventing both pregnancy and STD's...i dunno...

abstinence sounds good and all, but...

if you really care about something, you do things that really work (like providing sex education and condoms in high schools to establish a lifelong habit of avoiding unwanted pregnancies as well as preventing stds)...

people, especially young people (beginning in high school or earlier for most) are going to have sex, regardless of what's being "promoted"...

abstinence for the vast majority of people is not realistic at all...

to have any success, you have to deal with reality, not morality...


btw, castration would be another 100% proven method for preventing pregnancy, and after that, who cares abut stds? :p :p :p

go bowe
09-07-2005, 03:07 PM
When it's about abortion, or keeping prayer out of schools, it's about "freedom".

But when it's about taking 30% of my check so that my CONVICTED FELON of a neighbor can continue to collect Social Security disability and use it to buy meth, it's about "taking care of our poor and underprivelged."

Double-talk bullshit. You're ALL ABOUT imposing the governments wishes on your personal morality, as long as it's IN LINE with your personal morality.



There is only one way to completely, with 100% accuracy, prevent unwanted pregnancy. It has nothing to do with morality. It's a scientifically proven FACT - you can't get pregnant if you don't have sex. But let's not apply common sense here, after all, we should be free to behave however we want, it's the government's job to foot the bill...the choice of whether to have an abortion is a right, not a freedom (although i'd be hard pressed to explain the difference right now)...

and nobody's imposing anything on you, you are not required to get an abortion just because it's legal for someone else to make that choice (for herself)...

the school prayer thing was theoretical legal principles replacing common sense, no question about it...

as far as your neighbor goes, i want to talk to him and find out how the hell he can afford meth on social security disability benefits...

a thousand a month doesn't buy much in the way of meth...

and i've already addressed abstinence in another post (i don't think it's realistic and has no chance of significant success with the majority of the population)...

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 03:14 PM
Of course, abstinence is unrealistic.

It might require some restraint or discretion.

I have a right not to exercise either. It says so in the constitution...

go bowe
09-07-2005, 03:18 PM
Of course, the typical liberal response. Democrats and Republicans, two sides of the same coin. Either way, all they want is control. The whole "public good" argument is abject bullshit.



Yes, it is the ONLY way. No other method is 100% guaranteed to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Of course, it's not realistic. It's not realistic to expect our spoiled, me-first society to temper freedom with discretion. "Do what you want, whenever you want" I'm sure that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind...



Our country was found on the idea that liberty was right given by GOD. You cannot separate the two.



I'm upset because I can't stand the patronizing and condescension. And I can't stand the hypocrisy and double-talk. Liberals are EVERY BIT the control freaks the conservatives are, they just like to do it in much more insidious ways, like trying to convince us that it's "in the public good".

"The conservatives are evil...they want to invade your homes and make you live according to their morality. Now send us your tax money...your kids need 1 more hour a day of "Tina has Two Mommies"."wow, more insidious ways?

take a breath, it'll be ok...

where's the control in saying people can do what they want as long as they don't violate the criminal code?

sounds more like the pursuit of happiness to me...

i don't know if the framers had it in mind, but the current state of the law is pretty much, as you say, "Do what you want, whenever you want" (as long as you don't violate any criminal laws)...

yep, pretty much...



tina has two mommies?

do they do threesomes?

Uatu
09-07-2005, 03:19 PM
I find that when people are complaining about enforcement of morality, it only bothers them when they don't agree with that morality. In other areas where theirs is being enforced it's totally fine.

go bowe
09-07-2005, 03:23 PM
Of course, abstinence is unrealistic.

It might require some restraint or discretion.

I have a right not to exercise either. It says so in the constitution...it would require restraint and discretion amongst hormone charged young people experimenting with sex, which is, as you say, unrealistic...

why do you have a right not to exercise and i don't?

and why are you imposing your morality on me (about the subject of to exercise or not to exercise)? :Poke: :Poke: :Poke:

go bowe
09-07-2005, 03:32 PM
I find that when people are complaining about enforcement of morality, it only bothers them when they don't agree with that morality. In other areas where theirs is being enforced it's totally fine.sorry about doing a seagull post here, but i've got to go and do something else for awhile (good heavens, i have a life away from chiefs planet!)...

anyway, i'm curious as to what "other areas" are (i assume you mean liberals and moderates generally) being enforced...

has anyone made you get an abortion or, God forbid, made you use a condom?

has anyone made you not exercise, as hitman was saying?

generally speaking, i don't see anything being forced on you...

so what exactly is being "enforced" here?



i'll be back... /arnold accent

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 03:34 PM
where's the control in saying people can do what they want as long as they don't violate the criminal code?

Because I work and my neighbor doesn't.

I have to scrimp every month to pay bills. My neighbor doesn't.

SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY for people to do "whatever they want, when they want".

Everybody has the right to pursue happiness except the middle class -- they're too busy footing the bill.

htismaqe
09-07-2005, 03:35 PM
it would require restraint and discretion amongst hormone charged young people experimenting with sex, which is, as you say, unrealistic...

why do you have a right not to exercise and i don't?

and why are you imposing your morality on me (about the subject of to exercise or not to exercise)? :Poke: :Poke: :Poke:

ROFL

Let me rephrase:

Of course, abstinence is unrealistic.

It might require some restraint or discretion.

I have a right not to exercise either restraint or discretion. It says so in the constitution...

huskerdooz
09-08-2005, 03:05 AM
the choice of whether to have an abortion is a right, not a freedom (although i'd be hard pressed to explain the difference right now)...

I find it incredulous that people continue to insist that it is their right to be able to end a life just because they don't want to be bothered by it. Where is the concern for the unborn child? The Democratic Party likes to label themselves as the party for the children yet they insist on protecting what they term as their "right" to end the life of the very thing they say they are the protector of. Can't you see the hypocrisy in that?

I read somewhere that the Supreme Court has ruled that the definition of death is the "absence of brain function". Yet they refuse to define the definition of life. If the definition of death is the absence of brain function, then coversely at the very least, wouldn't the definition of life be the presence of brain function?

craneref
09-08-2005, 02:46 PM
sorry about doing a seagull post here, but i've got to go and do something else for awhile (good heavens, i have a life away from chiefs planet!)...

anyway, i'm curious as to what "other areas" are (i assume you mean liberals and moderates generally) being enforced...

has anyone made you get an abortion or, God forbid, made you use a condom?

has anyone made you not exercise, as hitman was saying?

generally speaking, i don't see anything being forced on you...

so what exactly is being "enforced" here?



i'll be back... /arnold accent

I will start it easy, Seatbelts, why do we have to wear them and how about Prostitution why is it illegal, but Abortion is not, if one is the womans body to do with as she pleases then why not the other, oh yeah, one does not affect an unborn life.

whoman69
09-08-2005, 11:03 PM
Hey bud, New Orleans had 80 friggin years since it was last flooded to make corrections.

I was pointing out that homeland security has done a good job. We haven't been attacked, (except my a criminal storm that crossed state lines). *I'd worry about every time you hit reply looking like a fool, trust me.*

Feel free to put your tinfoil hat back on and finish reading the commie manifesto. :)
Before 9/11 we hadn't been attacked on our soil since '93. Eight years passed between attacks. The fact that we haven't been attacked confirms that attacks are rare, not that Homeland Security is doing either a good job or a bad job.

SBK
09-08-2005, 11:09 PM
Before 9/11 we hadn't been attacked on our soil since '93. Eight years passed between attacks. The fact that we haven't been attacked confirms that attacks are rare, not that Homeland Security is doing either a good job or a bad job.

I disagree, but Im not going to argue.