the Fairness Doctrine
-
that was for you also torbs...I wanted you to know that you were worth responding to, but Glen Beck wasn't worth the effort to spell his name correctly....twice.
-
torbs;260904 wrote:
And Chuck, just say you are a far left loon and get it over with. There's no need for you to explain your side every time when you know everybody on here except DelSlow will disagree with you.??
What the fuck is your problem? Id like to have a political talk with you when you're NOT behind a keyboard and after you haven't watched the almighty Glenn Beck for a week. So then you'd actually have to form a thought of your own.
But then again, I think we did this once before with me you and Finneman and you about cried because we made fun of you for using Youtube and Wiki as creditable sources. But w/e you're always right.
-
DelSlow;260974 wrote:
??What the fuck is your problem? Id like to have a political talk with you when you're NOT behind a keyboard and after you haven't watched the almighty Glenn Beck for a week. So then you'd actually have to form a thought of your own.
well... its true.. -
torbs;260904 wrote:
And Chuck, just say you are a far left loon and get it over with.torbs;260925 wrote:
And I'm not the only one that has ever accused you of siding with the left so don't even go there...One of these things is not quite like the other.
"Siding with the left" and "far left loon" aren't even close to the same thing.
-
GarageAlchemist;260878 wrote:
Chuck you are a good debater, too bad you are not smart enough to choose the right side in any debate. And by right i mean correct, and republican.What makes you think I can't debate the other side as well. What makes you think that I am not the best political troll this site has ever had? A good debater can convincingly argue either side of any point. As soon as someone steps up that can hold a good argument FOR the left, I will gladly demonstrate my ability to debate like a republican (IOW google "what would glenn beck do in this case"....wait, I said republican, not torbs)
-
Trafik Jamz;260999 wrote:
What makes you think I can't debate the other side as well. What makes you think that I am not the best political troll this site has ever had? A good debater can convincingly argue either side of any point. As soon as someone steps up that can hold a good argument FOR the left, I will gladly demonstrate my ability to debate like a republican (IOW google "what would glenn beck do in this case"....wait, I said republican, not torbs)Right on, Ed Schultz can sure debate one side and even pretend he believes it, and then a little while later debates for the the other side. It's definitely possible.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;260999 wrote:
What makes you think I can't debate the other side as well. What makes you think that I am not the best political troll this site has ever had? A good debater can convincingly argue either side of any point. As soon as someone steps up that can hold a good argument FOR the left, I will gladly demonstrate my ability to debate like a republican (IOW google "what would glenn beck do in this case"....wait, I said republican, not torbs)for me your argument gets discredited because its not genuine.
-
parker;261009 wrote:
chuck is as <u>right</u> as the people he argues with.... Most of you just dont get that though...ding ding ding!!!
-
Trafik Jamz;260859 wrote:
Oh, and if you want to talk about upholding the constitution, I'd say the republicans have done a good job of dismantling it as well (Patriot Act)./off topic we go...
I think it's funny that people think that one of the bills in the bill of rights is greater than another. 2nd Amendment people FREAK over anything that even slightly challenges this right (justifiably so), yet are perfectly ok with the fact that the gov't is basically recording every phone conversation that takes place in this country (patriot act); are illegally detaining citizens without a trial in places like Guantanamo Bay; routinely break international treaties on the treatment of military detainees (waterboarding); and a whole host of other ideas that have come to light under the Bush years that are either unconstitutional or illegal according to US or international law.
Here are just a few great examples of that:
1st Amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Opinion/Speak_out__but_at_you.shtml
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html4th Amendment:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060929-7867.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm5th Amendment:
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/03/terror/main1462748.shtml6th Amendment:
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13951prs20040629.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html9th Amendment:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/(now I'm not for gay marriage necessarily, but if they want to be miserable like the rest of us, I say let them....)
10th Amendment:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/211033/23No one has any rebuttal for this? Seriously? Does this mean I win?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login