the Fairness Doctrine
-
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?
-
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.
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.
Youtube as far as I'm concerned is a credible source when it has clips from C-SPAN and first hand clips from other sources. I'm not talking about documentaries. And of course I'm always right if you're always wrong...that's just the way it works.
Oh and name this time/place you want to debate for a bit...I'm down.
-
PSiedTSi;260991 wrote:
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.
I think he's a far left loon whereas many people on here belives he sides with the left...
Better?
Double post woot woot!
-
Yes, you won the internet. Good Job.
The 2nd amendment is the most important because it puts the teeth in the rest of them. As long as the government is afraid of getting its ass kicked out of power if they piss off enough citizens, the government will keep its act together. Once it isn't afraid of people, who cares what the laws are?
It's not that people don't care about the other stuff -- they do to varying degrees. To be fair, all the shit you mentioned doesn't impact most people, and so they only see what is practical, not what is ideological or theoretical. I don't like any of that stuff and I'm happy to break rank with republicans on theoretical individual rights questions... but if FS.Com is any indication most people don't give a shit what i think or about individual rights in some theoretical maximum-liberty sense.
Taking away guns is in your face, and it affects a LOT of people in this part of the country, and there's no good argument for it. It's disarming the people and curtailing their ability to enjoy their hobbies, protect themselves, and protect themselves from a government gone off the rails.
The domestic surveillance and suspension of habeus corpus stuff is scary, but it doesn't affect most "normal" people. The average american figures gay marraige is weird, and that brown people ought to be monitored closely. It's not something they're going to get out in the street and get upset about.
-
The gun thing is just like the marijuana debate. If people want to get them, they are still going to be able to get them. IMO, it makes it worse to ban something that is so readily available by other means. The people that do get their guns/marijuana legal, are definitely not the ones that are going to be causing the problems, so what's the point really? Just a waste of time and money.
-
Did I not say that they were justified in being upset about gun rights/revocation laws? I own guns too because I like to shoot them.
But, by using your own logic thrash, the people should be up in arms (literally) about the erosion of their other rights as right now, you can pretty much own any gun you want (though some require permits and whatnot). Why aren't the gun owners threatening to overthrow the party/parties that are infringing on their other rights? It's come to light by many people that the gov't is monitoring/recording nearly every phone call in this country. That is a concern to me. I've done nothing wrong, yet I'm being subject to a search w/o a warrant potentially.
Until a gun-grabbing bill is presented or another AWB is presented, we are ALL getting bent out of shape for something that may/may not even happen.
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