President Bush hits a home run.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I know Frist blasted Kerry about his comments but your going to have to show me where he qyestioned his patriotism..........So what your saying is if a person has not been in the military they cannot have a difference of opinion?

I am sorry but that is the wrong way to look at it.........

Well I'm going to go that extra mile and question Kerry's patriotism, I think his legacy should be in the realm of Benedict Arnold. There I've said it and holy **** the sky isn't falling and I can't find the 666 on my forehead so I think we're safe. :lol:

 

[Navy Pride]

What was the point of this if not to try to get someone upset or belittle them??????

No not at all, its just Champs hates Conservatives so much it would be interesting to see what he would do......

 

[Caine]

No not at all, its just Champs hates Conservatives so much it would be interesting to see what he would do......

And.... what does that have to do with a political debate?

Nevermind.. don't respond, im not going to continue this discussion, its pointless.

 

[Thorgasm]

Thomas Jefferson by authoring and signing the declaration of independence sent troops into the revolutionary war and did not himself serve in said war, so by inference you'd claim that Jefferson was not able to support the revolution.

Furthermore; FDR and Woodrow Wilson did not serve in the military either, so are you claiming that their decisions to enter the U.S. into WW1 and WW2 were illegitimate?

Operation Yellow Elephant is about those who are pro-war, are able to enlist, but choose not to. Commander in chiefs are not able to fight. Diplomats are taking up their part. Jefferson, FDR (a member of the 149th wheelchair division), Wilson fall under this. Stay focused on the topic. Legitimacy is not what Operation Yellow Elephant is about. It's about chicken hawks.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Operation Yellow Elephant is about those who are pro-war, are able to enlist, but choose not to. Commander in chiefs are not able to fight. Diplomats are taking up their part. Jefferson, FDR (a member of the 149th wheelchair division), Wilson fall under this. Stay focused on the topic. Legitimacy is not what Operation Yellow Elephant is about. It's about chicken hawks.

I am staying on topic Jefferson was able to enlist just like Washington and Jackson, however, he did not, are you attacking his patriotism?

Are you saying that I have to drop what I'm doing this very minute and go sign up in order to support the war effort?

There's a war at home too, and it's against hippy lib protesters trying to destroy our country from within.

 

[Thorgasm]

I am staying on topic Jefferson was able to enlist just like Washington and Jackson, however, he did not, are you attacking his patriotism?

Are you saying that I have to drop what I'm doing this very minute and go sign up in order to support the war effort?

There's a war at home too, and it's against hippy lib protesters trying to destroy our country from within.

I never questioned patriotism. I don't belong to the group that does that. What year would you have liked him to sign up? He was a diplomat. Read a history book.

No, you don't have to drop what you are doing. I am sure a poor person will for you. I stand by my statement that actions speak louder than words. You obvioiusly don't believe in it enough to go sign up.

You wouldn't know what a real war is. Debating people by using multiple adjectives to describe them is hardly a war. I have yet to see what protestors have destroyed yet.

 

[Caine]

There's a war at home too, and it's against hippy lib protesters trying to destroy our country from within.

Thats not a war.
Its a biased paranoia of the conservative-religious movement

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I never questioned patriotism. I don't belong to the group that does that. What year would you have liked him to sign up? He was a diplomat. Read a history book.

Perhaps you need to read a history book Jefferson could have enlisted during the time he served as governor in Virginia:

During the Revolution, Jefferson served two years as governor of Virginia, during which time he barely escaped capture by British forces by fleeing from Monticello, his home. After the war, Jefferson served as America's minister to France, where he witnessed firsthand the dramatic events leading up to the French Revolution.

No, you don't have to drop what you are doing. I am sure a poor person will for you. I stand by my statement that actions speak louder than words. You obvioiusly don't believe in it enough to go sign up.

So now you're challenging my patriotism because I haven't enlisted, does someones opinion matter more because they have served their country, is it somehow more valid? Benedict Arnold was a decorated General in the revolutionary war but who was a better American him or Thomas Jefferson?

You wouldn't know what a real war is. Debating people by using multiple adjectives to describe them is hardly a war. I have yet to see what protestors have destroyed yet.

Well they're trying to destroy the morale of the troops for one, and for two, war protestors were quite effective at defeating the U.S. during Vietnam because it sure as hell wasn't the V.C..

 

[Navy Pride]

Well they're trying to destroy the moral of the troops for one, and for two, war protestors were quite effective at defeating the U.S. during Vietnam because it sure as hell wasn't the V.C..

Amen my friend, amen!!!!!:applaud

 

[Caine]

Well they're trying to destroy the moral of the troops for one, and for two, war protestors were quite effective at defeating the U.S. during Vietnam because it sure as hell wasn't the V.C..

I'll say this once again.....

Any soldier/airman/sailor/marine who actually lets the protesting and dissent in our government ruin thier moral are pansies who don't deserve to be fighting in the first place.

 

[Thorgasm]

Well they're trying to destroy the moral of the troops for one, and for two, war protestors were quite effective at defeating the U.S. during Vietnam because it sure as hell wasn't the V.C..

Being a governor is serving his state, which is part of the country. Do you know what patriotism is? I haven't said a word about patriotism. Being in the military does not mean you are patriotic automatically anyway as you pointed out with Benedict Arnold.

It's morale, not moral. It was the political leadership that would order a hill to be given back after our forces taking it. The protestors didn't do this. I still don't know how a third party can win a civil war anyway. Who do you blame for Korea? Perhaps being plucked out of our society to fight people that weren't a threat was the thing that decimated the morale of the troops. Agreeing with an unjust war is not patriotism.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'll say this once again.....

Any soldier/airman/sailor/marine who actually lets the protesting and dissent in our government ruin thier moral are pansies who don't deserve to be fighting in the first place.

Our troops are way to smart for that but anyone with any feeling that were risking their lives to defend there country would like to know that the people back are 100% behind them in what they are trying to accomplish...

You call them pansies I call them patriots and heroes........

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'll say this once again.....

Any soldier/airman/sailor/marine who actually lets the protesting and dissent in our government ruin thier moral are pansies who don't deserve to be fighting in the first place.

Look I have no problem with the right to dissent but I and people like me have the right to drown out that dissent with a call of support.

The fact of the matter is that the only war protestors I've ever met have been ravidly anti-American, they have been hypocrits in that they claim that if we embark upon an interventionalist war then we are imperialist but if we don't intervene we support dictators, these are the same people who are, as we speak, attempting to rewrite the lead up to the Iraq war, these are the same people who accuse our troops of terrorizing the Iraqi populace, these are the same people who liken the U.S. and our President to Nazi Germany's Hitler and Cambodias Pol Pot, these are the same people who will use any means of intimdation and character assasination against those in the media opposed to their views, these support this countries enemies and belittle its friends!

And if I offended anyone in here then good. :mrgreen:

 

[Navy Pride]

Look I have no problem with the right to dissent but I and people like me have the right to drown out that dissent with a call of support.

The fact of the matter is that the only war protestors I've ever met have been ravidly anti-American, they have been hypocrits in that they claim that if we embark upon an interventionalist war then we are imperialist but if we don't intervene we support dictators, these are the same people who are, as we speak, attempting to rewrite the lead up to the Iraq war, these are the same people who accuse our troops of terrorizing the Iraqi populace, these are the same people who liken the U.S. and our President to Nazi Germany's Hitler and Cambodias Pol Pot, these are the same people who will use any means of intimdation and character assasination against those in the media opposed to their views, these support this countries enemies and belittle its friends!

And if I offended anyone in here then good. :mrgreen:

You know I watched the protests in San Francisco prior to the war on CSPAN...Some of the signs were We support the military if the kill their officers or Bush is a nazi and some were so vile I can't even print them here.......

I listened to speakers and very few of them even talked about the war in Iraq.......They all had there own agendas............Even people I know that had questions about the war were disgusted by what they saw...........

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You know I watched the protests in San Francisco prior to the war on CSPAN...Some of the signs were We support the military if the kill their officers or Bush is a nazi and some were so vile I can't even print them here.......

I listened to speakers and very few of them even talked about the war in Iraq.......They all had there own agendas............Even people I know that had questions about the war were disgusted by what they saw...........

Exactly it's not they're anti-war they're anti-America, if all they were saying was that they don't like the war in Iraq and they don't support it that's fine that's their opinion and they're welcomed to it, but they don't stop there, oh no, they go way beyond that and I've heard critisms that are parroting O.B.L. and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit there and listen to that **** without responding in kind. It's one thing to critisize the war it's quite another to support your countries enemy and the last time I checked that used to be called treason, somehow the libs have managed to redefine it as patriotism thought. Notice how I don't get to pissed off at Simon or Shuamort, they have valid opinions and their speech isn't filled with hateful rhetoric, I can't say the same for the majority of the anti-war crowd here though.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And what, you're just gonna take your ball and go home? Dude, if you can't argue for something, that might be a sign that you might not know everything.

I want my bottle :lol: But seriously I argued my point quite effectively first I showed you the words of liberal politicians who admitted to intimidating conservative oppostion using the fairness doctrine, then I showed you the words of a journalist who stated that the fairness doctrine was in the back of everyones mind when they decided whether or not to take an editorial stand, then I showed you an actual case in which the DNC used the fairness doctrine to intimidate a conservative radio station, then I showed you a statement from a member of the DNC that admitted that even more important than equal time was the ability to use the fairness doctrine to intimidate right wing opposition, then I showed you how the FCC is in itself a violation of the constitution and therfor any decision they make is in and of itself a violation of the first amendment. It seems to me that your only argument is that the fairness doctrine is worded in such a way as to not be in direct contradiction of the first amendment when in reality and in practice the fairness doctrine was indeed used to violate the constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

Accept it Galen you're on the wrong side of this argument.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Fine, then you won't mind if I go through and see if any of these are actually relevent points

Which is stupid, but it's not any less unconstitutional than Tom Delay redistricting Texas so that the republicans can win 5 more seats in the house.

Did you provide any information on why I should take this reporter seriously? The source has no real authority to speak for everyone else.

The law itself does not violate the first ammendment, and thus all of these things about motive are really nothing but candy and air, they sound pretty and make it seem like you know what you're talking about, but in the end there's nothing substantial to it.

Candy and air man. You haven't proven that the law itself violates the first ammendment, so why are you wasting your time talking about motive? Go out and find wording in the bill that says something that proves the law itself is unconstitutional, and I'll admit it if you prove it. You haven't proven it, you're just wasting both of our time.

We were in agreement about the FCC, but only in areas on censorship, the FCC in itself is just a group overseeing commerce between government and private companies. And that being said, even if what you said was true about the FCC just in its own existance violates the first ammendment, that in no way implies by ANY means that everything they do is unconstitutional. Plus, it doesn't prove anything, especially considering a republican is the head of the FCC in the first place.

No, press in reporting the news. Editorial is something completely different. Requiring companies that express private opinions on public property, such as the airwaves, to allow the other side to respond in no way violates the first ammendment, it really doesn't. You haven't even come close to proving otherwise, not even close. Essentially what your arguing is that if it's annoying it violates our first ammendment rights.

I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fairness doctrine indeed was used to violate the first amendment, and point in fact the Radio Control act of 1936 which established the FCC took the power of free speech and placed it into the hands of five commission members who are appointed by the president, I don't care if it's over the airwaves or printed on paper freedom of the press is freedom of the press. The fairness doctrine enabled these five commissioners appointed by the president to dictate what was and what wasn't considered of public interest and also established a precedent for the interference of the government in the affairs of the press and the DNC used this quite effectively to intimidate right wing opposition, and guess what Galen the court of appeals agrees with me because in 2000 they repealed that fascist ass law which was totally in violation of the first amendment.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why didn't you drop that last little bit of info like 12 hours ago? That's an actual argument right there. All of this "the liberals this" and "the liberals that" that you've been going on about all day was just irrelevant bullshit, but that, that's an argument, and a damn good one.
Now you have proven, not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but enough for me, that it violates the first ammendment.
And now I've forgotten what exactly this **** has to do with what we were talking about in the first place.

Cut it with the partisan bullcrap, it's below you, and I am pretty sick of you wasting my time with it.
Think about it, you spent twelve hours sputtering out stupid partisan bullcrap and didn't prove a damn thing, and then you dropped one fact intended to prove what you've been trying to prove (as opposed to trying to prove that liberals are evil and hate America), and it worked.
You know full well you won't get anywhere with me when the point your trying to prove is "liberals do (insert something here)", and you know full well how stupid it is to try.

Look I'm not making any value judgements here but the fact of the matter is is that the Democrats tried to reestablish the fairness doctrine after it was initially repeeled in 1988 with the Bill S.333 it's been labeled by many as the hush Rush law and also the proof is in the pudding, a station like Fox news could never have existed until the court of appeals demanded the complete abolishment of all corrolary rules pertaining to the fairness doctrine. To be fair, however, I will grant that Nixon enacted the fairness doctrine to challenge his left wing opponnents at the Washington post as well.