|
Post by solomon on May 8, 2007 22:56:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 8, 2007 23:01:17 GMT -5
All together now.....
ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN PRACTICE CENSORSHIP.
Yahoo, while large and influential, is not part of the government at any level and so cannot 'censor' (under the legal definition) anything.
They can choose not to cover it...but that is their right as a private company.
And besides...that debate was so badly done, the less said about it the better (not a dig at any candidate in particular as much as one directed towards the woefully pathetic MSNBC).
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on May 9, 2007 1:58:33 GMT -5
Why are there TWO threads about this debate started by the same person? Could the second link not be added here for some reason?
censor:
verb 1. forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper) [syn: ban] 2. subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This magazine is censored by the government"
cen·sor·ship :
noun 1. the act or practice of censoring. 2. the office or power of a censor. 3. the time during which a censor holds office. 4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor
No one CENSORED anything. They chose not to cover it. Big whoop. Obviously, these news outlets not covering it didn't stop you from knowing about it, so it wasn't censored.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 9, 2007 9:41:01 GMT -5
Listened to a few minutes of Lee Davis last week. They were talking about debate. When a caller said he liked Ron Paul, Lee went into the "no chance" spill. Like, "Yeah... but he doesn't have a chance."
I hate when media people do this. It's like they never want us to have better leaders. They do nothing to support raising the standard.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 9, 2007 20:23:23 GMT -5
killer-
Lee's right on this one.
Assume for a moment that Paul does somehow become President.
What then?
Are the Democrats, who are opposed to every position Paul embraces (except his anti-war position- that one they love), going to help him enact his agenda?
Are the Republicans, against whom he votes on a regular basis, going to help him out? Sorry...we have enough RINOS now (Collins, Snowe, Smith and a couple others); we don't need any more.
So nothing gets done. At all.
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.....
You cannot start at the TOP. You've got a start at the BOTTOM.
For a Third Party to take root and fluorish, it has to begin at the local level, getting constables, sheriffs, city councilmen, probate judges, etc. elected in order to expose voters to the 'wonders' of the Third Party and build an expansive support base. You teh target the next levels- mayors, state reps and senators, etc.- and point to the familiarity with and successes of the entry-level candidates as proof of what the Third party is dedicated to. Eventually, you'll field viable national candidates, though it probably, almost certainly, will take decades to get to that point.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 10, 2007 4:47:13 GMT -5
killer- Lee's right on this one. Assume for a moment that Paul does somehow become President. What then? Are the Democrats, who are opposed to every position Paul embraces (except his anti-war position- that one they love), going to help him enact his agenda? Are the Republicans, against whom he votes on a regular basis, going to help him out? Sorry...we have enough RINOS now (Collins, Snowe, Smith and a couple others); we don't need any more. So nothing gets done. At all. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing..... You cannot start at the TOP. You've got a start at the BOTTOM. For a Third Party to take root and fluorish, it has to begin at the local level, getting constables, sheriffs, city councilmen, probate judges, etc. elected in order to expose voters to the 'wonders' of the Third Party and build an expansive support base. You teh target the next levels- mayors, state reps and senators, etc.- and point to the familiarity with and successes of the entry-level candidates as proof of what the Third party is dedicated to. Eventually, you'll field viable national candidates, though it probably, almost certainly, will take decades to get to that point. Maybe he could do some signing statements that enforce the constitution or give some executive commands (like Bush did so often). All of this "no cut and run" and "stay the course" garbage cost republicans their seats in congress just in case all of the morons were not paying attention and it will cost us the White House if they nominate some "stay the course" jack ass. A "stay the course" candidate will cost the republicans the election....just watch and see because all of the neocons (Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, Murphy, Davis, Limbaugh and others ect...) are still beating that same drum: "stay the course", "stay the course", "stay the course", "stay the course", "stay the course", "stay the course", "stay the course", "stay the course". I believe a little quote from Santayana is called for here... "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -- George Santayana And Dr Peter Ruckman too... "The only thing that men learn from history is that men never learn from history." There is a heck of alot more to being a conservative than being for a war ( a war that congress did not declare. See Article 1 Section 8 of US Constitution). The incumbants stayed the course during the congressional elections and got thrown overboard. Brian Solomon John 6:68 Conservative Christian Guy
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 10, 2007 9:04:12 GMT -5
WOMI,
I do not buy the "third parties must start at the bottom (city council, mayor, etc.) BS." That's rhetoric used to deter by party loyalists. That language serves to make people think they must support the old two party system, even when a good outsider comes along.
This sort of thing keeps us down. And if you really love this country, and I believe you do, you will stop trying to keep good candidates on the outside (just because they are not party yes-men.)
Please love your country and future generations more than your party.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 10, 2007 17:02:22 GMT -5
killer-
OK...if Third Parties can effectively start at the top, name the last Third Party candidate elected President.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 10, 2007 17:09:27 GMT -5
I'll say one thing for you- you're consistent.
You still haven't a CLUE as to what a "neocon" is, as evidenced by your list of radio personalities above, NONE OF WHICH are "neocon".
There was a really great article in "The American Spectator" a while back that covered the Left's intentially deceptive use of the term "neocon". The Left has redefined "neocon" to basically mean the same thing as "boogeyman"- and shown about the same level of intellectual sophistication in the process.
Oh...and if "stay the course" means "win the war"- and it does- then bring on the, ahem, "neocons".
An excellent quote indeed!
The history that needs to be learned from so that we do not repeat it is Europe, circa 1936-1938.
Sadly, since the Left does not recognize any history before January 20th, 2001, it's a history they won't learn, much less learn from.
"Christian"? I have no doubt.
"Conservative"? Not even close.
solomon, you're a Libertarian ("big L", as Matt Murphy would say).
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 10, 2007 18:46:58 GMT -5
I did vote for Banarik from the Libertarian Party the last Presidential Election. I am pro life and would not fight to legalize dope ( I don't think it would be a good testimony to do so). So I think that would remove me from the ranks of some libertarians. It is hard for me to label myself sometimes.
I just like who I like and if I disagree with policies that I disagree with. I know the answer to this present evil world lies in no political party but in the Jesus the Savior. I like to interject my opinions and beliefs on politics but I don't need to worry because I have read the end of The Book and the "Good Guys" win. Praise the Lord one day there will be no more wars.
WOMI, What do you think about the John Birch Society? (Hey they even believe the official story on 9/11) Do you like them? Do you ever get a chance to read any articles out of The New American? I'm throwing you some softballs here...
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 10, 2007 19:17:31 GMT -5
solomon-
I used to think that the John Birch Society was a collection of far-far- FAR right wing nuts.
Then I did a bit of research on them and found that I agreed with at least a couple-three of their positions:
1) US out of the UN and UN out of the US.
2) Secure the borders and deport illegals already here.
3) Pro- Second Amendment
That being the case, one of two things are true:
1) I'm a far-far-FAR Right wing nutjob too
2) They aren't nutjobs
I'd prefer to think the second is true, natch.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 11, 2007 7:59:41 GMT -5
10 Points to WOMI
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 20, 2007 8:05:20 GMT -5
Listened to a few minutes of Lee Davis last week. They were talking about debate. When a caller said he liked Ron Paul, Lee went into the "no chance" spill. Like, "Yeah... but he doesn't have a chance." I hate when media people do this. It's like they never want us to have better leaders. They do nothing to support raising the standard. Hope you're okay! Listening to 'davis' over 10 seconds, can be very bad for one's mental, emotional and Spiritual health!But if you're a 'card-carrying' Republican, I think they pass out strong medication to help you cope, if you were exposed over 10 seconds! --- But, to be safe, check with W.O.M.I.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 20, 2007 15:47:58 GMT -5
Name the last Third party candidate elected President.
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Deal with what is rather than what you wish was.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 20, 2007 16:24:00 GMT -5
people ARE trying to deal with "what is" CORRUPTION by BOTH parties, an UNconstitutional government, and attacks on our most basic freedom and borders.
womi the problem with those efforts are people like YOU, that SUPPORT the status quo.
in bama a senate that claims they COULDNT stop the huge pay raise BUT CAN stop everything else???
a national legislature that puts forth an AMNESTY bill then goes on TV saying repeqatedly this ISNT amnesty.
politicians that LIE every time they open their mouths, then a breath of frsh air shows up Ron Paul and womi YOU try to claim he is a nutjob isolationist....securing the border is NOT islolation, NOT starting wars, is NOT isolation, NO entangling alliances is NOT isolation.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 16:31:13 GMT -5
I'm curious. Has Ron Paul come out with a strategy of removing ourselves from the Middle East without all hell breaking lose? Or does he just plan to pull the troops and play a "wait and see what happens" strategy?
I'll admit, I NEVER like the idea of going to war. But the fact is, we are over there now. Somebody has to come up with a realistic strategy for what we do next. Pulling out or staying the course are both poor responses IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 20, 2007 16:36:52 GMT -5
IF we pulled out soon civil war would happen some other countries over there would get involved and they would be fighting in that region of the world.....JUST LIKE they have been for over 1400 YEARS now.
it is NOT our fight, we cant settle their religious differences, peace is NOT possible among people that claim they have divine rights!
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 20, 2007 16:41:16 GMT -5
IF we stay our military is being used as targets trying to sit in the middle of two warring factions of islam......the ONLY way to end this is to annouce to the world the proponents of islam will stop this teaching of kill the infidels OR we will actually use our military to KILL ALL those that havent taken action to end jihad.
either the islamics end this peacefully or we end it by killing them ALL!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 20, 2007 16:43:12 GMT -5
Billt, I have agreed with this from the start. For the latest shenanigens, check out the what the Fatah and Hamas do to each other. These are both Palestinian factions for crying out load! I thought they wanted Israel out. Seems if they can't fight somebody, they want to kill each other.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 20, 2007 18:41:39 GMT -5
bill-
I don't support the status quo; I recognize its existance.
Paul's supporters do not.
If you want to change the system, start at the bottom and work your way up. Paul isn't going to be elected President and, even if he was, he could get absolutely nothing done unless he signed Executive Orders to do so (which he wouldn't because he'd find them unconstitutional).
Now if you want to argue that a Do Nothing government might ultimately prove to be a good thing for America, you might find me more supportive of that thought than you'd think....
|
|