|
|
Post by Farouche on Oct 2, 2008 11:22:29 GMT -5
Naptaq, you are far right wing. That is all there is to it. You can whine in unison with Bill O'Reilly till the cows come home that his show and your views are "fair and balanced" and centrist while the ENTIRE rest of the American news media is far left wing, but you will continue to make a fool of yourself in front of anyone to the left of you. As to your list of liberal media: you're really showing the depths of your self-imposed ignorance. How can you list the ACLU, which is an activist group and NOT a news medium, without listing the vast number of conservative activist groups like "Right to Life?" How can you list liberal websites and blogs like Daily Kos without even a nod to major conservative media outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal? I am well and truly disgusted with you at this point. But that I can in good faith quote you as saying "It is my personal opinion that Bill O'Reilly is awesome" damages your credibility to the point that only other far-right wingers could take you seriously now. Naptaq -------------------------
But it's fair to say, based on his quotes and the dates of those quotes, that he was an atheist. "Fair to say," huh? O'Reilly's really done a number on you, hasn't he? Unfair is fair! War is peace! Freedom is slavery!  |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Oct 2, 2008 11:26:09 GMT -5
Sweet Pea -----------------------------------
as far as the presidential race goes, i'd like to see obama say he's gonna sponsor legislation that would make it illegal for the government to bailout private corporations in the future. i think everyone in the private sector needs to be put on notice that there isn't gonna be any more bailouts to fall back to because the american taxpayer is DONE! CRISPY! TOTALLY FRIED! That would be good... I wonder if there's anything that can be done after the fact to make sure we can recoup some of this "investment" from the companies themselves?  |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 2, 2008 12:09:16 GMT -5
How can you list the ACLU, which is an activist group and NOT a news medium, without listing the vast number of conservative activist groups like "Right to Life?" You see American Civil Liberties Union has turned into a destructive political organization whereas Right to Life is a pro-life activist group with which you disagree. And seems like you haven't even watched the videos. But, I don't know. Fox News? Well on Fox they have debate and try to be 'fair and balanced' but they're not perfect. Some of their commentators are proud Republicans, like Sean Hannity but he has a show with Colmes, a liberal. One is in the tank for McCain and the other for Obama. Fair enough. your anti-Fox rant reminds me of another far-left site that I've noticed. Newshounds.org Give me something, anything. You make the blanket statment that O'Reilly himself is far-right without any claim or evidence to back it up. Where is the argument? You're a free woman, and nobody's preventing you from watching MSNBC. |
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Oct 2, 2008 12:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 2, 2008 13:20:25 GMT -5
You really can't see a right-wing bias in saying that a liberal activist organization is objectively "destructive" and a conservative activist group is just "an activist group with which [some] disagree?" Grow up.This conversation is over. The ACLU protects criminals and all kinds of sick people. Have you seen the nutty far-right Phelps family? They're extreme.. errortists. I don't know how to call them. And our pals at ACLU defended Phelps rights! Let me rephrase that. The ACLU is trying to protect the family who protests at funerals of US soldiers who were killed in Iraq, with signs like "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL". www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFGsI-5gxM4There's a lot more examples but I won't waste your time. I know the liberal media doesn't like to say anything againsts ACLU because they lack judgment, or are on the same page.. I don't know. ACLU is always whinning and complaining that these sick people's rights are being violated, thereby encouraging it. And that's why the words ACLU and 'destructive to society' go hand in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Oct 2, 2008 19:17:04 GMT -5
Sweet Pea -----------------------------------
as far as the presidential race goes, i'd like to see obama say he's gonna sponsor legislation that would make it illegal for the government to bailout private corporations in the future. i think everyone in the private sector needs to be put on notice that there isn't gonna be any more bailouts to fall back to because the american taxpayer is DONE! CRISPY! TOTALLY FRIED! That would be good... I wonder if there's anything that can be done after the fact to make sure we can recoup some of this "investment" from the companies themselves? one would think, huh? it's really gonna piss me off if in a few years time they're flying high on the big boards in new york again, and we're still struggling to pay the taxes that are sure to result from this monster bailout. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Oct 2, 2008 19:20:57 GMT -5
You really can't see a right-wing bias in saying that a liberal activist organization is objectively "destructive" and a conservative activist group is just "an activist group with which [some] disagree?" Grow up.This conversation is over. The ACLU protects criminals and all kinds of sick people. Have you seen the nutty far-right Phelps family? They're extreme.. errortists. I don't know how to call them. And our pals at ACLU defended Phelps rights! Let me rephrase that. The ACLU is trying to protect the family who protests at funerals of US soldiers who were killed in Iraq, with signs like "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL". www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFGsI-5gxM4There's a lot more examples but I won't waste your time. I know the liberal media doesn't like to say anything againsts ACLU because they lack judgment, or are on the same page.. I don't know. ACLU is always whinning and complaining that these sick people's rights are being violated, thereby encouraging it. And that's why the words ACLU and 'destructive to society' go hand in hand. our justice system is based on a system of advocacy. the ACLU provides advocacy. they are no more evil than a defense lawyer defending an accused serial killer. it's a balance, both sides of any argument need an advocate spokesperson. that's why justice is represented by a set of scales - balance. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Oct 3, 2008 9:25:24 GMT -5
just watched o'reilly frank interview
boy o'reilly is an idiot - and a very dangerous idiot at that
all he does is accuse people of things, and then refuses to have a serious discussion
he just blames whoever for whatever problems, and makes a big show out of it
he does not care about the truth, or having anything positive come out of his interviews
he is the type of guy, whose solution to any problems would be to inflict pain to the guilty (according to him of course)
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 3, 2008 15:14:31 GMT -5
our justice system is based on a system of advocacy. the ACLU provides advocacy. they are no more evil than a defense lawyer defending an accused serial killer. it's a balance, both sides of any argument need an advocate spokesperson. that's why justice is represented by a set of scales - balance. Yeah well I'd like to hear you say nothing against the ACLU when they protect the rights of protesters at one of your childs funerals. The protesters could be walking around shouting with sings like "GOD HATES YOUR CHILD" and the ACLU would protect their rights. They don't care. They don't make any judgments of what is harmful and what isn't. I don't know anyone that would support the Phelps family in that case and I know a lot of liberals. And I believe you Sweet Pea probably don't either. Anything goes under ACLU's free speech banner and they abandon rationality and common sense in order to justify their political position, which is doing no one a favor. That's why I say they're dangerous cus they protect these bad guys doing bad things. Common sense would reject it, but they defent these guys anyway, justified only by their radical free speech ideology. Freedoms come with responsibilities. Sure the ACLU advocates some good cases too, but it all pales in comparison to the damage they've done themselfs with all the bad causes they've defended. For example, in the 1930's they've defended both the rights of blacks and at the same time defended the rights of the Klu Klux Klan to hold rallies.As for lawyers, that's a different ball park. The ACLU picks it's cases and is most likley funded by far-left elements because of the nature of the organization. And the liberal media is, of course, in favor of or at least doesn't like to take a stand against the ACLU for some reason. For example, the ACLU was against having porn-filters on library computers. (Someday they'll probably defend doing you-know-what in a library. "free speech!" lol.) So, the former ACLU president, who was the president of ACLU at the time the anti-porn-filter case was happening, gets arrested for possesion of child pornography, because he had videos of little girls getting raped and the liberal media either didn't report it, or just made a small mention of it. That tells me what high of a moral standard some of these ACLU guys have, and a little something about media corruption. Media, hammer the child molesting pastor as well as this ex-ACLU guy who was acting out of his repressed guilt by attacking the library porn-filters. They both deserve it. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 3, 2008 15:32:42 GMT -5
just watched o'reilly frank interview boy o'reilly is an idiot - and a very dangerous idiot at that all he does is accuse people of things, and then refuses to have a serious discussion he just blames whoever for whatever problems, and makes a big show out of it he does not care about the truth, or having anything positive come out of his interviews he is the type of guy, whose solution to any problems would be to inflict pain to the guilty (according to him of course) Well you could show some proof of these inaccuraties. I don't know what specific video you are talking about here, if you could link it, that would be great. Well Bill O'Reilly's show isn't Oprah Winfrey Show and as such isn't so positive, and it isn't supposed to be positive, because there's a lot of bad guys and causes out there and that's what the Factor deals with, most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Oct 3, 2008 15:52:12 GMT -5
our justice system is based on a system of advocacy. the ACLU provides advocacy. they are no more evil than a defense lawyer defending an accused serial killer. it's a balance, both sides of any argument need an advocate spokesperson. that's why justice is represented by a set of scales - balance. Yeah well I'd like to hear you say nothing against the ACLU when they protect the rights of protesters at one of your childs funerals. The protesters could be walking around shouting with sings like "GOD HATES YOUR CHILD" and the ACLU would protect their rights. They don't care. They don't make any judgments of what is harmful and what isn't. I don't know anyone that would support the Phelps family in that case and I know a lot of liberals. And I believe you Sweet Pea probably don't either. Anything goes under ACLU's free speech banner and they abandon rationality and common sense in order to justify their political position, which is doing no one a favor. That's why I say they're dangerous cus they protect these bad guys doing bad things. Common sense would reject it, but they defent these guys anyway, justified only by their radical free speech ideology. Freedoms come with responsibilities. Sure the ACLU advocates some good cases too, but it all pales in comparison to the damage they've done themselfs with all the bad causes they've defended. For example, in the 1930's they've defended both the rights of blacks and at the same time defended the rights of the Klu Klux Klan to hold rallies.As for lawyers, that's a different ball park. The ACLU picks it's cases and is most likley funded by far-left elements because of the nature of the organization. And the liberal media is, of course, in favor of or at least the very least doesn't like to take a stand against the ACLU for some reason. For example, the ACLU was against having porn-filters on library computers. (Someday they'll probably defend doing you-know-what in a library. "free speech!" lol.) So, the former ACLU president, who was the president of ACLU at the time the anti-porn-filter case was happening, gets arrested for possesion of child pornography, because he had videos of little girls getting raped and the liberal media either didn't report it, or just made a small mention of it. That tells me what high of a moral standard some of these ACLU guys have, and a little something about media corruption. Media, hammer the child molesting pastor as well as this ex-ACLU guy who was acting out of his repressed guilt by attacking the library porn-filters. They both deserve it. you can blather on all you like about how evil the ACLU is, but the fact remains that our justice system is based on advocacy. both sides have the right to be heard and competently represented, or at least that's our ideal. our founding fathers set the standard for that 'radical free speech ideology' you are so critical of. if you don't like it, you're free to try to change it - that is, if you ever become a US citizen rather than just some anonymous guy on the internet who sits across the water in some unknown country passing judgement on it from your computer chair.  |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 3, 2008 16:33:17 GMT -5
the fact remains that our justice system is based on advocacy. both sides have the right to be heard and competently represented, or at least that's our ideal. In Europe, genocide and war-criminals, Milosevic and Karadzic could get lawyers, if they wanted. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution is radical. The 1st Amendment of the US constitution that they like to champion so much doesn't give any rights to protesters who disturb the peace. The ACLU can spin the 1st amendmend all day long but it's there. I very much like the 1st Amandment. It prevents anarchy while at the same time giving you the freedom to be (non)religious. We have some things in common since the U.S. Constitution is a model for the governments of other nations, but, in my humble opinion, the original is still the best. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Oct 3, 2008 16:53:57 GMT -5
the fact remains that our justice system is based on advocacy. both sides have the right to be heard and competently represented, or at least that's our ideal. In Europe, genocide and war-criminals, Milosevic and Karadzic could get lawyers, if they wanted. The ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution is radical. The 1st Amendment of the US constitution that they like to champion so much doesn't give any rights to protesters who disturb the peace. The ACLU can spin the 1st amendmend all day long but it's there. I very much like the 1st Amandment. It prevents anarchy while at the same time giving you the freedom to be (non)religious. We have some things in common since the U.S. Constitution is a model for the governments of other nations, but, in my humble opinion, the original is still the best. ;D i have a feeling if the ACLU was doing anything illegal, someone would have stopped them by now. because everything they do is public, and alot of poorly informed people feel the way you do. they are a non-profit, non-partisan organization. i'm sure if their activities weren't widely supported, they would simply cease to exist due to lack of funding. instead, they are growing, and raise a helluva lotta money to support their work. they get zero dollars in government funding. i'm sure ACLU lawyers work for substantially less than they could in the private sector. they're working for a noble cause and it's citizens like them that check the power of government, which is always in danger of going too far. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 3, 2008 17:25:56 GMT -5
i have a feeling if the ACLU was doing anything illegal, someone would have stopped them by now. Yeah I don't think they are doing anything illegal either. That's the problem, some far-left organizations and George Soros are pumping money into it. That and the members. I can't find too many noble things the ACLU did. And you turn a blind eye on a lot of things it does, just like the liberal media. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 3, 2008 18:35:36 GMT -5
just watched o'reilly frank interview boy o'reilly is an idiot - and a very dangerous idiot at that all he does is accuse people of things, and then refuses to have a serious discussion he just blames whoever for whatever problems, and makes a big show out of it he does not care about the truth, or having anything positive come out of his interviews he is the type of guy, whose solution to any problems would be to inflict pain to the guilty (according to him of course) oh sorry, I didn't see it before. Now I know which Frank, Barney Frank  www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz-d6WPTXa8Frank didn't own up to the fact that he said he thought that the prospects of going forward are very solid. Now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been nationalised as a rescue measure by the US government because they did so badly. I don't think Frank's intetion was to tank it though. Here's a related video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDou01X5d28 no comment needed ;D |
|
