02 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyFMS...Cheeny concerns me, not one bit. However, I do think I'll hunt with someone else.
This thread is just one more of zillions that show your passive-aggressive, lefty bent. I said nothing of lies here. But whatever. Carry on in your normal style FMF. I've lost interest already.
I am glad he's sticking up, I'd do the same. The whole CIA issue seems to have slipped right from the community focus now. Does that have anything to do with Pelosis? You think.
He is a man of his word, you see it in his face. On the other hand what does our current president have to show? Where is the promised face to face visit in Iran, or with them? How well has his transparency program "seemed" to have work? Is it un-constitutional to pass a bill where congress goes against the grain of the public, and forces them to pay for their very own plan.
Is political honor, taking a congressman behind doors, and swinging a deal for his state? We can leave that with just 1 example. If we don't pass this stimulus package, we may see double didget inflation? ( willing to cut him some slack there )
Yes, you are way left. Swing your aim a bit back and forth and maybe we'll believe you.
And please don't question a military soldiers honour, when you have no idea, what he saw from his boots. You don't know. And for one second, put this thought in your head. Perhaps even he didn't know? How many times, have you thrown up from Fear?
02 Jan 10
Originally posted by Palynkawhat does that have to do with:
What counterpoint? I defend the freedom of the press. So if Dick wants to be a pundit and someone is willing to recruit him, so be it.
You, however, wish to deny this right to those who disagree with you. Sad.
I hope this spells it our for you in a way you'll finally understand.
Originally posted by Palynka
It's funny to see spambot attacking the "liberal bias" in the media and defending Dick Cheney as a TV pundit.
03 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Hugh GlassI questioned his military honour - and that of the 6 despicable cash-in-the-memory-for-dittohead-points families - based on what you said about them.
And please don't question a military soldiers honour, when you have no idea, what he saw from his boots.
03 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou're killing me Zeeblebot,, the round goes to you.I also have to nominate you for the 2010 RHP Wiseman Awards.
this is a chess site. most of us are fairly intelligent. but for you, i keep having to spell things out, and even then, you just repeat ad infinitum.
try this on for size:
in my opinion ....
bush's statement coming two days after cheney's is a criticism of cheney's statement. it is not a random coincidence.
"The path of the wise, is to seek the wiser"
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSince when did respect for the WWII Allied dead become a right wing monopoly?
Off the top of my head few specifics jump out. I'll do a forum search and see if I can support that assertion, but not right now.
EDIT - so far I've got your tremendous anti-Israel bias and your use of the Guardian as evidence. But then your respect for WWII Allied dead is typically a right wing sorta thing.
Some wars are justified and some are not. The men of all nations who fought and died fighting against possibly the greatest evil the world has ever known deserve the respect of everyone, not just the right wing. I find this statement of yours a wee bit disgraceful if it implies that those who lean to the left have no respect for those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by The SnapperI wouldn't take too much notice of his 'analysis'. He's showing his intellectual credentials with his assertions that being pro-choice and believing in social democracy are indicators of being "far left". Kind of funny, really. Too silly-surly-shallow to qualify for "disgraceful".
I find this statement of yours [AThousandYoung] a wee bit disgraceful if it implies that those who lean to the left have no respect for those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI use The Economist quite a lot. Also Frontpage Magazine (very hard right). The Weekly Standard. The Australian. Haaretz Daily. International Herald Tribune. wsws.com (Trotskyite). freerepublic.com. Nationalreviewonline.com. Never a right-wing source?
You also use Al-Jazeera as a source, but never a right wing source.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI see myself as in the middle, more or less, on Israel - although anti-Zionist, but I have plenty of non-"far left" company on that issue. I never use The Guardian - or any other newspaper - as "evidence". What a curiously dim thing to say! "Evidence"? Using a link to a news story or an op-ed to set up a debate topic is pretty much a standard practice on these threads. What makes you think I use them as "evidence"? LOL. What do you understand by the word "evidence"? Is it different in the U.S.?
I've got your tremendous anti-Israel bias and your use of the Guardian as evidence. But then your respect for WWII Allied dead is typically a right wing sorta thing.
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFyou're right about the pro-choice stance, however, social democracy is without a doubt a left-wing ideal, ultimately its objective is the distribution of wealth through government programs, do you deny this?
I wouldn't take too much notice of his 'analysis'. He's showing his intellectual credentials with his assertions that being pro-choice and believing in social democracy are indicators of being "far left". Kind of funny, really. Too silly-surly-shallow to qualify for "disgraceful".
03 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFwhen did you use freerepublic as a source?
I use The Economist quite a lot. Also Frontpage Magazine (very hard right). The Weekly Standard. The Australian. Haaretz Daily. International Herald Tribune. wsws.com (Trotskyite). freerepublic.com. Nationalreviewonline.com. Never a right-wing source?