Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
This is rather comical coming from supporters of the party of warrantless wiretaps and the trampling of a variety of other civil liberties.

Call Bull**** on something is very different than actually suppressing speech.
You seem to be forgetting that every president since LBJ has wiretapped in one form or another without warrants. To blame one party for such destruction of liberty is to blindly follow the other.

Welcome to 1984.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·

·
Honors Member<br>P-Bomb
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
This is rather comical coming from supporters of the party of warrantless wiretaps and the trampling of a variety of other civil liberties.

Call Bull**** on something is very different than actually suppressing speech.
I am unsure what you mean in this post. I mean, a link has been given to ABC News. They are not any political party, although many have claimed they did indeed favor one (the Democrats). The article had nothing to do with the Republicans, it was between the Obama campaign and the NRA, with the campaign trying to exercise prior restraint on an ad it did not like. They were not calling "bullshyte" as you suggest, but requesting the ad not be allowed to air. There is a clear difference between your assertion and the facts of the matter.

So while you cast aspersions against an entire political party for the acts of the current POTUS, said party has no place in this story. Is this what passes for logic with you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I am unsure what you mean in this post. I mean, a link has been given to ABC News. They are not any political party, although many have claimed they did indeed favor one (the Democrats). The article had nothing to do with the Republicans, it was between the Obama campaign and the NRA, with the campaign trying to exercise prior restraint on an ad it did not like. They were not calling "bullshyte" as you suggest, but requesting the ad not be allowed to air. There is a clear difference between your assertion and the facts of the matter.

So while you cast aspersions against an entire political party for the acts of the current POTUS, said party has no place in this story. Is this what passes for logic with you?
I'm sorry but is the ad in question not a defeat Obama ad? Thought so. So the ad obviously brings politics into this. You would not have pointed it out otherwise. Obviously party is at play in these ads. To think or to argue otherwise is disingenuous on your part or at least naive. You've never struck me as naive though.
 

·
Honors Member<br>P-Bomb
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
I'm sorry but is the ad in question not a defeat Obama ad? Thought so. So the ad obviously brings politics into this. You would not have pointed it out otherwise. Obviously party is at play in these ads. To think or to argue otherwise is disingenuous on your part or at least naive. You've never struck me as naive though.
I am only going to link the dots for you once, as I have already come to the conclusion this will be futile.

You said:

This is rather comical coming from supporters of the party of warrantless wiretaps and the trampling of a variety of other civil liberties.
What is "coming" from the Repubs? ABC reported a story on the actions of the Obama campaign. Repubs had nothing to do with Obama's actions.

I point this out to you and you give the above reply. Suddenly, I am disingenuous because the NRA runs an anti-Obama ad (not the Repubs btw), and the Obama folks want to have it pulled. Your reply makes no sense within this line of conversation. I have never said the ad was not political in nature. To suggest I did is ludicrous and frankly makes you look stupid.

What I find most interesting though, is your final sentence. I have never struck you as naive? I have no history with you, took off from posting here many months, and have only made a handful of posts, since your join date in Sept 08. I don't know how a recent member would have the data to make such judgements about me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I am only going to link the dots for you once, as I have already come to the conclusion this will be futile.

You said:

What is "coming" from the Repubs? ABC reported a story on the actions of the Obama campaign. Repubs had nothing to do with Obama's actions.

I point this out to you and you give the above reply. Suddenly, I am disingenuous because the NRA runs an anti-Obama ad (not the Repubs btw), and the Obama folks want to have it pulled. Your reply makes no sense within this line of conversation. I have never said the ad was not political in nature. To suggest I did is ludicrous and frankly makes you look stupid.

What I find most interesting though, is your final sentence. I have never struck you as naive? I have no history with you, took off from posting here many months, and have only made a handful of posts, since your join date in Sept 08. I don't know how a recent member would have the data to make such judgements about me.
I'll point this out to you since you obviously didn't understand the key sentence. I was pointing out that the people who have expressed outrage at this so far are the same people who tend to support and/or are sympathetic to the Republicans. The key sentence was "This is rather comical coming from supporters of the party of warrantless wiretaps and the trampling of a variety of other civil liberties". Obviously I wasn't talking about ABC but the people who had responded to the thread. Now which one of us needed the dots connected? :mad:
 

·
Honors Member<br>P-Bomb
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
I'll point this out to you since you obviously didn't understand the key sentence. I was pointing out that the people who have expressed outrage at this so far are the same people who tend to support and/or are sympathetic to the Republicans. The key sentence was "This is rather comical coming from supporters of the party of warrantless wiretaps and the trampling of a variety of other civil liberties". Obviously I wasn't talking about ABC but the people who had responded to the thread. Now which one of us needed the dots connected? :mad:
Ah, I see. So you feel that by merely failing to endorse the wrong actions of the Obama campaign, one endorses warrantless wiretaps, etc? Now I understand. To not find The Obama perfect = you are the enemy. Gotcha.

And I still find it interesting that someone that has been around for maybe 10 posts by me, feels she has the data needed to make a judgment about the level of my naivetee. Something there is not Kosher.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Ah, I see. So you feel that by merely failing to endorse the wrong actions of the Obama campaign, one endorses warrantless wiretaps, etc? Now I understand. To not find The Obama perfect = you are the enemy. Gotcha.

And I still find it interesting that someone that has been around for maybe 10 posts by me, feels she has the data needed to make a judgment about the level of my naivetee. Something there is not Kosher.
Wow that is an impressive stretch of logic. Don't pull anything on the way up.

I've been lurking here for years but just pulled the trigger on joining.
 

·
Honors Member<br>P-Bomb
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
Wow that is an impressive stretch of logic. Don't pull anything on the way up.
If you can refute it, based on your above postings, go for it. You have pretty thoroughly stated the people posting in this thread, that have a problem with the Obama "Truth Squad" are members of the party that support the above policies, or are sympathetic to said party, which supports these policies. I can pull the quotes if needed...but you'd just back away from them.

I've been lurking here for years but just pulled the trigger on joining.
:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
If you can refute it, based on your above postings, go for it. You have pretty thoroughly stated the people posting in this thread, that have a problem with the Obama "Truth Squad" are members of the party that support the above policies, or are sympathetic to said party, which supports these policies. I can pull the quotes if needed...but you'd just back away from them.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we have a different perspective on my comments. ;)

I'll stop trying to convince you about what I said if you stop trying to convince me about what I said. :icon_smile_big:

Difference makes the world go round (that and a bunch of physics that I don't really understand as well as I would like).
 

·
Honors Member<br>P-Bomb
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we have a different perspective on my comments. ;)

I'll stop trying to convince you about what I said if you stop trying to convince me about what I said. :icon_smile_big:

Difference makes the world go round (that and a bunch of physics that I don't really understand as well as I would like).
LOL, fair enough!

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,992 Posts
Elected prosecuters useing their office to suppress speech of people who oppose their party's candidate, that seems to be the real story. Impeach these clowns.

As far as Bush Admin wirless taps, they were approved by congress, not overturned by the current dem contolled congress, authrorized by a 3 judge panel that included at least 1 Carter appointee, and were used to suveil people, some not citizens though some were, who frequently dial 1-800-al-quada.

There is a difference between using the powers of ones office in the interest of the country as opposed to that of your party or self. Something that often seems lost on folks on the left, who are the worst perpetrators of the latter.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top