Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I dedicate this thread to the people who continually derail other threads by going on about how liberals have taken away the rights and freedoms of Americans.

I look forward to actual examples and I hope this thread helps to maintain continuity in other threads as this topic can solely be debated here.

I don't think liberals have taken away ANY rights and freedoms.

I do, however, as a result of tensions between BOTH parties, seen an increased in tacky displays from entertainment "icons," through concert performances, TV shows, and overall public appearances.

That is extremely tacky, not to mention embarrassing if only they'd sit back and examine what they look like.

i cant wait to read the answers to your question KD!


HA!!!!! yeah right.

you will get no answers because there are none. this thread will sink like a stone in a pond, but at the same time, ignorant fools will still go on to throw in ridiculous statements like "you liberals are taking away our freedom" in other threads.

the reason why it wont be answered? they are cowards and dont want people to know how ignorant they really are. so instead they will go on spewing the same lie over and over and hope that a single regurgitated line will eventually be seen as the truth...which is a strangely familiar tactic isnt it? *cough*dubya*cough*

I stepped in front of a bus and the driver--a LIBERAL--ran into me. I loss the use of my legs that day.

Oh, wait...

Firearms.

Originally posted by Gryn Jabar
Firearms.

Please elaborate.

I like my fire arms... Lets all be peacefull and take them away just like in Europe..NOT

What the hell was that? Anyway, restricting legislation regarding firearms.

Originally posted by Gryn Jabar
What the hell was that? Anyway, restricting legislation regarding firearms.

But the question was how have liberals taken away the rights and freedoms of Americans. Restictions on guns shouldn't count because they have not taken away your right to own a gun.

I was expecting so much more, from the way that Big Evil talked, I thought that the Liberals had taken away all of your rights in the United States.

I'm not American, but off the top of my head:
Assualt Weapons Ban: Restricts my right to own an assualt weapon.
DC Gun Banning: Restricts my right to own a gun.
Hate Speech Legislation (in Canada): Let me say whatever the **** I want.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

I've read that they would like to do away with the people choice to have fire arms but now you have to regester, though that may be a good idea, power always gets abused and it could be a step to banning them only to the people THEY see fit...Now if I have to regester it makes it much harder for me to get away with murdering them that way...I'll have to think of something else...Hmmmm. A wood grinder might be good.

For one thing, there's a common misconception about rights, people think they're absolute. WRONG. You only have freedom and rights until you infringe upon the freedom and rights of another person.

And the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that every person has the right to own a gun, it means that each state has the right to have a militia.

Originally posted by Gryn Jabar
I'm not American, but off the top of my head:
Assualt Weapons Ban: Restricts my right to own an assualt weapon.
DC Gun Banning: Restricts my right to own a gun.
Hate Speech Legislation (in Canada): Let me say whatever the **** I want.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/41491.html

So basically you are upset that liberals have hurt North America by trying to restrict weapons whose sole purpose is to kill others, and to try and stop others spewing hateful rhetoric?

confused

The militia is a good thing..

Wonder where big evil is? I am sure he has some input on this subject.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Wonder where big evil is? I am sure he has some input on this subject.

You may be waiting a while, Kharma m'dear.

I simply love though, how people try and say liberals are trying to take away rights and freedoms. They must just so conveniently forget who it is that made the Patriot act, ban same-sex marriage, abortion, etc....

hmm I have an assault weapon at home, nobody took it away. You are allowed to have weapon in Europe you just have to have them registered

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So basically you are upset that liberals have hurt North America by trying to restrict weapons whose sole purpose is to kill others.

confused

No protect ourselves.The criminals won't be turning in theirs.

Just because some people don't agree with the right to own guns or hate speech, doesn't mean that by taking them away you aren't taking away freedoms the country previously had. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion, but that it's taking away rights is a matter of fact.

Realistically, you can't have absolute freedom. There have to be some restrictions on what you can and can't do. I'm for reasonable gun laws but banning everyone from gun ownership is over the top. I'm not quite sure what qualifies as hate speech, if it's just threats and stuff like that then it has to be illegal. But if it's not threats just hateful words towards a race/religion/whatever then it shouldn't be illegal, people do have the right to be racist if they want to.

Overall I think people look at everything like a liberal vs conservative issue way too much. I don't like to affiliate myself with either group because frankly they are both annoying as hell.

Originally posted by finti
hmm I have an assault weapon at home, nobody took it away. You are allowed to have weapon in Europe you just have to have them registered

I heard in Europe, maybe it was Britten, or England, but people can't have them...Do the cops there even have them...Maybe I'm being mislead.

I don't think there are any guns allowing in England, not even for cops. England's gun laws are probably different from mainland Europe's.

Guns are allowed in every european country... They are just registered in most of them, restricted with owners so that the government can know who has what kind of weapon (makes it easier to find people that comit crimes with them) and to make sure that people that really shouldn't have guns can't buy them in a store.

But thats really not what this thread is about, I'm still waiting for some real examples..

Originally posted by debbiejo
No protect ourselves.The criminals won't be turning in theirs.

You do that most cases of death caused by gunshot in american homes is from a gun that is the possession of someone in that home?

I'm not against rifles or shotguns, I just think handguns or military equipment is a little over the top.

But this debate is focussing too much on the gun issues. Apparently there are other rights and freedoms that are being taken away by liberals, I am interested as to what they are.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Overall I think people look at everything like a liberal vs conservative issue way too much. I don't like to affiliate myself with either group because frankly they are both annoying as hell.

Ditto. I think for myself. Not for politics.

What about public housing developments and the rights to block the building of them? Obviously one group wants them a lot more than the other.

Or maybe it's not an issue. I'm not sure, but it was off the top of my head. If anyone knows anything about that situation and why it does/does not apply, please contribute.

people resort to the "we" arguement because its easier for people to claim to speak for half the population, and against half, rather than speak one person ideas against another's ideas.
its just a cowardly cop out

I own a hand gun and not a riffle...Can't imagine me with something big.
It's tucked away, though I'm sure I wouldn't remember to use it. I'd probably grab a knife if something were to appear. Otherwise, I can't think of anything else...I guess the conservatives are worried about liberals corrupting everyone with "OPEN PLAY TIME"...they are worried about the moral decay...

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Overall I think people look at everything like a liberal vs conservative issue way too much. I don't like to affiliate myself with either group because frankly they are both annoying as hell.

I sort of agree, I have more of a problem with the people who call themselves one or the other than the actual categorizing of a thought as one that is liberal or conservative.

Sometimes my viewpoint on a subject is liberal, sometimes it is more conservative, depends on the issue. I do find it amusing that people have to pigeon hole themselves.

Even more interesting is the reason why I felt compelled to start this thread. A person who declares themselves to be neither liberal or conservative announced that Liberals have taken away too many of America's rights and freedoms? I thought it was an interesting if not totally warped comment and I was interested to see if others felt the same.

Depending on how you've educated your self people tend to align themselves with that party, but if you really DID educated your self instead of parreting what others tell you, then you could be split. People stop voting....I'm probably going some 3rd party next time.

Originally posted by debbiejo
but if you really DID educated your self instead of parreting what others tell you, then you could be split

Does anyone else see the comedic irony here?

nor British or Norwegian cops wear guns, people are free to have them though,but you have to have them at home and there you have to keep them out of sight. And the guns have to be registered, you cant purchase a gun without it being registered if you do it considered to be an illegal weapon

Liberal PC is facist.

Originally posted by KidRock
Liberal PC is facist.

What the heck are you trying to say and what has it have to do with Liberals taken away your rights and freedoms?

And do you understand what fascist means? I am guessing that you meant fascist as opposed to facist.

FASCISM:A political movement that believes in an extreme form of nationalism: denying individual rights, insisting upon the supremacy of the state, and advocating one-party rule with ultimate authority resting in the hands of a dictator.

more rights and freedoms get taken away each day..and shockingly we allow this to happen

Originally posted by Deano
FASCISM:A political movement that believes in an extreme form of nationalism: denying individual rights, insisting upon the supremacy of the state, and advocating one-party rule with ultimate authority resting in the hands of a dictator.

Thank you. Got that Kid?

Originally posted by Deano
more rights and freedoms get taken away each day..and shockingly we allow this to happen

Yes, but the subject of the thread is how are liberals taking these away? Where are all the conservatives that spout this in all the other threads? I mean, I have totally devoted a thread for them to put forth their argument, but as of yet, we have received zilch.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Does anyone else see the comedic irony here?

Well, it's been one of those days....

its a tightrope of a subject indeed

the argument about the threat of terrorism is valid...but the longer the vigilance against the threat is successful the less the percieved threat becomes...and when the presumtion of safety appears then the pressure to reverse any restriction of liberties begins...which could potentially open up another chance for a terrorist act

i'm not arguing for increased restriction of liberties...please dont misunderstand me...

the police force for my local area are going to be responsible for next months G8 summit and as such have requested increased anti terror powers which are most definitely geared towards the restriction of liberties and my own father who is a delivery man who regularly takes parcels to the auchterarder area (the nearest town to Gleneagles hotel where the summit is being held) is already suffering from severe restrictions in the form of regular searches of his van when delivering to the hotel

all guests at the hotel for the past few months have all been subject to security checks by MI5

i definitely think it can be taken to far...

but there has to be some give and take in this debate to get a acceptable balance

how many of you americans regularly suffer inconvenience because of restriction of liberties...my guess is probably a very small number of people

its a very different world we live in post sept 11th even if it doesn't manifest itself very conspicuously

look at it from the security services point of view

if they told the public of every terrorist threat that appeared and which subsequently failed to materialize then they would be accused of scaremongering...if they never told the public anything and another major incident occured then they would be accused of cover ups and being incompetent

dont forget that the people that work for the security services aren't engaged in some giant conspiracy to enslave the US population...many of them are just normal people trying to do a job to benefit you

The perception here is simple.

In the States Liberal = Left Wing.

In general political ideology, left wing = greater legislation from Government

Therefore, Left Wing Government endemically involves more restrictions than right wing.

Therefore, the argument can be advanced that Liberal government, in the American sense of the term, restricts rights and freedoms.

-

Barcautastic says that it can't be liberal to ban smoking because to be liberal is the opposite to that. But he is from Europe, as am I, where the definition of liberal is, basically, capitalist- liberal markets and as little legislation as possible. Here, the right-wing are the ones who call themselves liberal, and hence would be much less likely to introduce restrictive laws. Margaret Thatcher, the most Republican-like leader we ever had, famously described herself as a Liberal, and her policies were all hardcore liberal ones, by our definition.

As has been discussed lately, the EU constitution was just rejected by France partially on the grounds of beeing too liberal- by which they meant too capitalist.

Very different.

Originally posted by jaden101
its a tightrope of a subject indeed

the argument about the threat of terrorism is valid...but the longer the vigilance against the threat is successful the less the percieved threat becomes...and when the presumtion of safety appears then the pressure to reverse any restriction of liberties begins...which could potentially open up another chance for a terrorist act

i'm not arguing for increased restriction of liberties...please dont misunderstand me...

the police force for my local area are going to be responsible for next months G8 summit and as such have requested increased anti terror powers which are most definitely geared towards the restriction of liberties and my own father who is a delivery man who regularly takes parcels to the auchterarder area (the nearest town to Gleneagles hotel where the summit is being held) is already suffering from severe restrictions in the form of regular searches of his van when delivering to the hotel

all guests at the hotel for the past few months have all been subject to security checks by MI5

i definitely think it can be taken to far...

but there has to be some give and take in this debate to get a acceptable balance

how many of you americans regularly suffer inconvenience because of restriction of liberties...my guess is probably a very small number of people

its a very different world we live in post sept 11th even if it doesn't manifest itself very conspicuously

look at it from the security services point of view

if they told the public of every terrorist threat that appeared and which subsequently failed to materialize then they would be accused of scaremongering...if they never told the public anything and another major incident occured then they would be accused of cover ups and being incompetent

dont forget that the people that work for the security services aren't engaged in some giant conspiracy to enslave the US population...many of them are just normal people trying to do a job to benefit you

the whole point of 9/11 was to help take our freedoms away...if the goverement didnt orchestrate the attacks..they certainly knew about them and allowed them to happen
know what hitler did? he firebombed his own reichstag building and blamed it on the terrorists..he scared his own people and he took there rights away and introduced homeland security..same thing happening with 9/11..look at the freedoms and rights that have been taken away since that event..its no conspiracy...its happening and people need to wake up to this

i know you love your conspiracy theories but please...dont talk rot

Originally posted by jaden101
i know you love your conspiracy theories but please...dont talk rot

im not...maybe you should look into these things..and stop talkin rot yourself
its not a conspiracy really if you look into it and stop believing what the the politicians and newspapers tell you, like everyone else does..human race is a goddamn herd..get back in line sheep!harrold2

'even if your in a minority of one,the truth is still the truth'

check this video out http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/alex_jones_-_martial_law_911__2_of_3_.wmv

"sanity is not statistical" <Winston Smith>

sanity is my vanity

Originally posted by Deano
im not...maybe you should look into these things..and stop talkin rot yourself
its not a conspiracy really if you look into it and stop believing what the the politicians and newspapers tell you, like everyone else does..human race is a goddamn herd..get back in line sheep!harrold2

'even if your in a minority of one,the truth is still the truth'

check this video out http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/alex_jones_-_martial_law_911__2_of_3_.wmv

i dont take any of what the media says at face value...on the contrary i do alot of research into topics im interested in...but the simple fact is that conspiracy theories are and will remain trash until some kind of proof emerges... so where is the proof that 9/11 was all staged by the US and by Bush's administration?

given that ive done a little investigation into the group known to intelligence agencies throughout the world as "the hamburg cell" and which was planning the 911 attacks since 1993 and who operated out of Germany

does these facts mean that the German government were part of the conspiracy because they knew about the islamic extremism being preached at the university of hamburg yet they did nothing

are the UK government also involved after all they were the ones who helped gather intelligence and reported a specific threat the US well in advance of the attack

and where would the benefit of a tightening of civil liberties come to a democratically elected government who could easily be turfed out on their collective ass if they pissed off their public

or does this mean you are going to propose that before the next US election, Bush is going to declare an end to democracy and install himself as emperor of the world

Originally posted by jaden101
i dont take any of what the media says at face value...on the contrary i do alot of research into topics im interested in...but the simple fact is that conspiracy theories are and will remain trash until some kind of proof emerges... so where is the proof that 9/11 was all staged by the US and by Bush's administration?

given that ive done a little investigation into the group known to intelligence agencies throughout the world as "the hamburg cell" and which was planning the 911 attacks since 1993 and who operated out of Germany

does these facts mean that the German government were part of the conspiracy because they knew about the islamic extremism being preached at the university of hamburg yet they did nothing

are the UK government also involved after all they were the ones who helped gather intelligence and reported a specific threat the US well in advance of the attack

and where would the benefit of a tightening of civil liberties come to a democratically elected government who could easily be turfed out on their collective ass if they pissed off their public

or does this mean you are going to propose that before the next US election, Bush is going to declare an end to democracy and install himself as emperor of the world

why dont you watch the video i posted and judge for yourself
there is a lot of proof in there..i think you will be quite surprised
you are very quick to dismiss

its taking an age to download for some reason...88 megs is quite a bit but i will...dont worry


the problem being ive already seen loads of ridiculous fakes of supposed missles hitting the wtc just as the planes did and other such nonsense...i hope your vid isnt more of the same

Originally posted by jaden101
its taking an age to download for some reason...88 megs is quite a bit but i will...dont worry


the problem being ive already seen loads of ridiculous fakes of supposed missles hitting the wtc just as the planes did and other such nonsense...i hope your vid isnt more of the same

it makes a lot of sense..really it does
its on for about 45 minutes but it is really worth seeing
it never mentions anythin about missiles hitting the building..but it does mention bombs going off in the building...firefighters reported this and were told to keep quiet..the media never reported this(controlled media)

comon though..the steel building in madrid was on fire for a couple of days and didnt collapse....twin towers has minimal amounts of fire..crashes to the ground within an hour..even though the towers are meant to withstand fire and planes...thats very strange if you ask me..and people are so afraid to face the real truth

Every building is different.

If I am not mistaken there was substaintial CONCRETE supports in the Madrid building that you talk of. Concrete is much better at withstanding fire than Steel.

Also the TT were designed to cope with the collision of a plane, but a smaller plane than those which hit.

Moreover, with Steel the fire-proofing is critical. The explosion wave caused when the planes hit probably dislodged the spray on fire-proofing. After all the spray-on stuff is designed to cope with fire, not shock-waves.

I would not decribe the fires caused by fully fueled aeroplanes as "minimal!"

Once the fire causes one steel column, beam or most importantly CONNECTIONS (weakest parts) to lose their rigidity, the weight of the buildings must be carried by the rest. Bear in mind steel conducts heat rather well so, in the unlikely event of the fires hardly spreading, the effects of the fire would have been transferred, to an extent, through the steel.

Steel is not like timber, it does not turn to charcoal and remain standing for hours. With the effectiveness of the fire-proofing reduced by the impact/blast it is entirely likely that the buildings would collapse after 40-50 mins.

ive started to watch it and im going to confront it in sections

first off..the guy who heckles rudolf guilliani says that it was the american government that trained al queda...this is not some big conspiracy...its true... but it happened a) as a means to fight against the soviets during the cold war....and b) happened over between 20 and 30 years ago...so isnt a big Bush conspiracy

next...he states that all the rubble from the WTC was removed and melted down...not true...much of it still remains stored in new jersey even after the FBI investigation...not to mention that you cant leave thousands of tonnes of rubble just laying around the centre of one of the busiest areas of one of the worlds busiest cities... thats just not a feasible option

as for the phone calls...its just people saying...no documented evidence...no recording of phone calls...no phone records given and most crucially and rather conveniently...not a single person of the supposedly hundreds of people who got these calls...NONE...interviewed...mmm...and people say the Bush administration had no proof of WMD in iraq...yet are willing to believe this

larry silverstein said they pulled the building on US tv..he states that the fire department made the desicion to pull the building due to being unable to control the fire...whats the conspiracy there?...i dont recall any claim to the contrary...and no-one was killed in the collapsing/demolition of that building...you also have a man who is apparently a civilian who had no part in the investigation saying that building 7 didn't catch fire from the main buildings with absolutely no evidence or experts willing to back up this claim...thats about as valid as saying the Bush came and set the building on fire himself

and where is the conspiracy in demolishing 4,5 and 6...look at the state they were in...hardly something a lick of paint would cover up is it

and why is it part of some kind of financial scheme when it costs far more to demolish and rebuild a building than it does to repair fire damage particularly if it has been destroyed by consensus anyway...the insurance job would most likely not cover it without fire chiefs approval and recommendation to knock the building done...unless you are suggesting that they were in on it and then you have to prove that allegation also and how they benefited from it

as for the deigner of the WTC going on record as saying the building was designed to take "jumbo jet strikes"...a total misquote

the building was designed to take a hit from the largest passenger plane of the day which was actually smaller the ones used on sept 11th...not to mention it was designed to take these impacts at relatively low speeds as it was generally thought that any impact would be the result of an accident...the planes infact struck the tower at far higher speeds that anticipated for

also...the building was designed with massive fire protection sprayed onto the metal framework of the building which it turns out during fire safety investigations several years before 911 had turned out to be highly inadequate in both application and maintainence

also...the main WTC building were designed in a way that the individual floors acted to keep the 4 main columns of the building straight...when floors were removed due to the impact of the plane then this causes a massive stress point where the missing floors should be causing a pushing out of the corner columns from the floors above...when you look at the video of the collapse of the main towers this is exactly what happens...the corners of the building are pushed out by the weight of the floors above

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

then you have the firefighters saying that they stood and watched from "at least 2 blocks" away that there were controlled demolitions going on inside the building although it doesnt say if its supposed to be the admitted demolition of wtc7 or one of the main buildings

if its the main buildings then why...despite the fact that the collapses were recorded by hundreds of film cameras and thousands of photography cameras...does not a single shot show this happening?

next point being the threat reports from other countries... i know for a fact the UK government gets about 20 serious threat reports every single say...in the US the president gets a top 10 set of the most serious threats everyday...almost all of which never materialise...

but the 2 biggest points of all that go against the conspiracy theorist claims are these

the WTC attacks triggered a recession in the world economy due to the loss of huge numbers of financial experts...who stands to lose the most from any recession based on holdings in PLC companies and based on share price?...the same people who are supposed to be benefiting from the attacks

but the single biggest problem in the whole affair...

how do you get capatalist,decmocracy and american hating islamic extremists to do exactly what you want and when you want?

im about 3/4 the way through the vid...i'll watch the rest later

well apart from 9/11. Gun control is needed. here in so called "Communist Canada" you can buy guys and there are 7 million of them i heard here, but they should be registered and certain types are banned. Serious if you need a desert egale or a m-16 to protect your family in a rich suburban neighbourhood you should be really thinking "how did it come to this?"

personal experience. I was in the US Atlanta and my friends neighbour had a mini armoury in his house. Not to offend anyone he said "I'm worried that a black or Hispanic guy is going to rape my Baby girl" His 19 year old daughter. Well i never laughed so hard in my life, but then i found out that was quite a problem in that neighbourhood.

And about rights, In canada, there is limited free speech on matter of race and religion, disabilities and gender. Everything else is free to yell at. Thats the way it should and be and i doubt it will ever change in Canada.
Why because the house of commons has to pass it. NO way. The senate.NO way. The ten provinces. No way. Chance of a radical party that like getting elected to even to introduce that. NO!!!! Chances of massive protests and terribile riots. Likely!

watched a little bit more and its crdibility is dropping further with claims of gas being used to knock out passengers on board the flights...so how do they explain the fact that there are recordings of phone calls made by people on the flights both from flight attendants to the ground control as well as passengers to loved ones?

i have to say though...i love the cuts of the republican party conferences..."terrorism terrorism global terrorism blah blah"...its a pity you could do with with the democrat conferences just as easily though

and how can you trust a person who makes claims like "cnn and fox are just fronts for the CIA"....without any proof...

as for the skull and bones society...stick that up there with the iluminati and the wisemens committee and the philosophers legacy and whatever other new world order theories are bandied around that people might think are all real...

thanx for your input...part 3 of those videos talks more about skull and bones

it is quite interesting...i'll give you that...but i dont think the guy does himself any favours just ranting on and getting a bunch of nutters to yell at the camera...

(Rubs hands together)Ok by this:

Taken away our freedom of speech by not be able to sing christmas songs in fear that we may be insulting people who are around us or have the mary and joey statue on our front yard.

And othr then that I can't think of anymore.I have more bt I can't think of it right now.JM

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
(Rubs hands together)Ok by this:

Taken away our freedom of speech by not be able to sing christmas songs in fear that we may be insulting people who are around us or have the mary and joey statue on our front yard.

And othr then that I can't think of anymore.I have more bt I can't think of it right now.JM

You can sing your stupid God is great songs all you want you just can't do it where other people may be offended (common sense godammit)

As for guns, well some regulations on them don't really take away a lot of freedom (well except your freedom to kill someone with a gun withion an hour)

Oh and people that call the husband of Maria Joey don't deserve to sing anything aboot them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh and people that call the husband of Maria Joey don't deserve to sing anything aboot them.

And people that call Mary "Maria" don't deserve to insult them.

and people that call Miryam/Miriam for Mary should shut up

So who called anyone Miryam/Miriam?

Originally posted by finti
and people that call Miryam/Miriam for Mary should shut up

They call them Joey....Joey....thats an insult...Mary is good Miryam too ...but they call the stepdad of their lord Joey.....I wouldn't mind if that was the only name in any way similiar but they have the name Joseph, they still call some guy 2000 years ago Joey as if he was some dude at a Mc Donalds drive through.

hebrew name

Originally posted by finti
and people that call Miryam/Miriam for Mary should shut up

Nevermind. I think I know what you're saying. I just think the English is backwards.

But yeah, with what Bardock is saying, it's like calling someone "Bobby" or "Mary Sue."

Originally posted by botankus
Nevermind. I think I know what you're saying. I just think the English is backwards.

But yeah, with what Bardock is saying, it's like calling someone "Bobby" or "Mary Sue."

Yes thats what I meant

Mary is Maria in Norwegian and I think it is the same in German

You guys got to cut me some slack.

For God's sake,

I'M DEFENDING JACKIE!!!!



Someone please knock some sense into me.

Originally posted by finti
Mary is Maria in Norwegian and I think it is the same in German

I know but it is a respectful name, of course we could call her Miriam too a good name too, but like botankus said Joey is a name for a boy not for a man....I think Robin Williams had a routine aboot that.

I just continued the name roll so.... Joey = Joseph???? I thought she ment that duede in Friends

Originally posted by finti
I just continued the name roll so.... Joey = Joseph???? I thought she ment that duede in Friends

Yes
Thats why I don't like this name....I always have to think aboot this friends guy

yeah ok JM...

under conservative rule: you can be held in a concentration camp as an 'enemy combatant' indefinately with no due process. under the patriot act you can be bugged, spied on, have your home invaded with no warrant.

under liberal rule: you cant sing chrismas carols....????????? who the f*** said you cant sing christmas carols? the rule is that you cant impose your religion on others on public property, be it school, the courthouses, and any other public american institution. you do realise that not everyone in america worships christ dont you? how would you like it if you were forced to hear scripture from the koran?

think child, and come up with something better

Okay, here's a scenario.

What if there was a ban on the singing of the National Anthem before sporting events? I don't think this would have to do with Liberals in particular, but what if some group decided that some people in attendance would be offended for whatever reason.

Sounds farfetched, but nowadays, hardly anything is.

Originally posted by botankus
Okay, here's a scenario.

What if there was a ban on the singing of the National Anthem before sporting events? I don't think this would have to do with Liberals in particular, but what if some group decided that some people in attendance would be offended for whatever reason.

Sounds farfetched, but nowadays, hardly anything is.

the national anthem is just that..the national anthem. completely unrealated.

everyone is free to express their religion. if you want to stand around at your town hall and sing christmas carols, nobody is going to throw you out. however, the government of that town/state can't put up a christmas tree or nativity scene, nor a manora(spelling?) or any other religious icon. thats the difference. nobody is forbidden to practice their religion. thats just lies and horseshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Its really unbelivable ( she even claims to be jewish)
I am almost sure you were right with your theory, she must do that on purpose, no one can be that ignorant and even more look at her spellin she always, I repeat always spells nothering instead of nothing and inleast instead of atleast...no one even says that...it makes no sense.
kind of like the chebacca defence...i will use it now to convince all of you


There's nothering wrong with any of that.

I was thinking about how that word might have originated. I believe it's stemmed from a confusion between the words "everything" and "nothing." When she thinks of "nothing," the word "everything" lurks in her mind and the result is a giant spelling error of magnificent proportions. To sum up, don't look to any of the schools in your area, PVS, to employ her as a teacher in the next decade or so.

What do you mean with: "There's nothing wrong with any of that"?

Originally posted by PVS
the national anthem is just that..the national anthem. completely unrealated.

I agree but the reason I bring that up is:

1) As ridiculous and isolated as it may sound now, there is no way anyone can 100% rule out that ever being the case in the future.

2) It is a very sensitive "ritual" (if you will) that has the potential to cause high tensions if revoked, much like the problem people have with The Pledge of Allegiance and all that.

Guys let's try to be civilized to eachother shall we.

Personally I don't see how liberals could take away freedoms or rights (isn't the essence of modern-day liberalism to have as few rules as possible?)

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean with: "There's nothing wrong with any of that"?

Oh, come on, look closer about how I spelled "nothing" as part of my joke.

Originally posted by botankus
I agree but the reason I bring that up is:

1) As ridiculous and isolated as it may sound now, there is no way anyone can 100% rule out that ever being the case in the future.

2) It is a very sensitive "ritual" (if you will) that has the potential to cause high tensions if revoked, much like the problem people have with The Pledge of Allegiance and all that.

Still very random

Originally posted by botankus
Oh, come on, look closer about how I spelled "nothing" as part of my joke.

Oh god, oh god , oh god...she did it ...I am unable to detect the most blatant spelling mistakes

the death of another serious discussion...sadly predictable

Originally posted by jaden101
the death of another serious discussion...sadly predictable

Look it can only be a discussion if there are two sides....but there are not...no one brought anything up that the "liberals" of the US have taken away from them ( even Kid Rock and JM don't post a second tim e in this thread cause they know there is nothing)

Originally posted by botankus
2) It is a very sensitive "ritual" (if you will) that has the potential to cause high tensions if revoked, much like the problem people have with The Pledge of Allegiance and all that.

the words "under god" were added to the pledge of allegence in the 1950's.
that is what people have a problem with. this country was founded partly on the principle of religious freedom. to include a particular religious figure in the pledge means that this country is based in certain religions religion. how comfortable would you feel if it was "one nation under alah"?

So what does the swearing in of witnesses in court mean for people who refuse to acknowledge "God" as anything of significance in their lives except for offense?

That the right to perjure is acceptable?

Originally posted by botankus
So what does the swearing in of witnesses in court mean for people who refuse to acknowledge "God" as anything of significance in their lives except for offense?

That the right to perjure is acceptable?

swearing in is different for different religions and even for aethiests.
if you are a hindu and on the witness stand, you dont say "under god"
because its irrelevant. the whole point of it is to make you swear on what
YOU hold sacred, not what the state holds sacred.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look it can only be a discussion if there are two sides....but there are not...no one brought anything up that the "liberals" of the US have taken away from them ( even Kid Rock and JM don't post a second tim e in this thread cause they know there is nothing)

how can the liberals take anything away when they aren't in power

however...take Britain where the labour party was founded on socialist ideals and IS a liberal party

national biometric identify cards being introduced

new powers to allow police to stop demonstrations and protests

anti terror laws that allow for anyone to be held indefinitely without charge

even last night in tv a liberal blatently told that the British people wouldn't be getting their democratic right to vote in the refurendum on the EU constitution for no other reason than they would not get the result they wanted

now they are introducing the freedom from religious hatred bill on top of the already suitable freedom from racial hatred bill which can and most probably will be used to stop comedians from making jokes about any kind of religion no matter how mild...even billy connelly's "how do you play safe chess...put a condom on the bishop" joke could mean he ends up in court

I have to admit I am not that familiar with the British Political System...nor do I know if you can just say Labour = Democrats (as Ush pointed out the continents liberals are more like capitalists)

I agree that, the labour party seems to take away some freedoms (if what you say is true) but for the purpose of this thread was to ask people like KD, JM, BE who claim the liberals (democrats) would take their freedom how they can support that view.

whats odd in america and what makes it difficult to understand is that
not only have the lines between conservative and liberal blurred, but they
pretty much switched sides. the 'liberals' today are what i believe to be genuine conservative republicans, and the republicans we see today are actually neo-republicans who pretty much stand against traditional republican ideals. for instance, notice how the powers of the executive branch have expanded drastically since bush took office? no way is that republican. the patriot act? anti-republican. the core of the republican ideal is a complete lack of trust for centralised power, and yet we see the complete opposite today, dont we? 'liberal' and 'conservative' are meaningless terms today, and only serve to aid the ignorant in name calling

They are still true terms over here....

But its right your liberals might still be considered "light" conswervatives over here

PVS if the conservative republicans are liberals than what are the democrats (just wondering) your idea's do make tons of sense tho

Originally posted by Fire
PVS if the conservative republicans are liberals than what are the democrats (just wondering) your idea's do make tons of sense tho

The conservative Republicans are not really liberals...they have some liberal ideas but to some extend they are even fascist.

well that's my opinion as well but I just took what he said so

Originally posted by Fire
PVS if the conservative republicans are liberals than what are the democrats (just wondering) your idea's do make tons of sense tho

the democrat party as a whole are a bunch of spineless self-defeating wishy washy idiots who really dont strike me as much different than the conservatives, only that their views vary, whereas conservatives have managed to alienate any in their party who do not subscribe to their exact ideals. thats how i see it.

thx for the input

The only right that liberals have taken from me is my ability to put faith in the human race.

Flame on.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The only right that liberals have taken from me is my ability to put faith in the human race.

Flame on.

Thats not a right though..its a priviledge

A Composition I stumbled upon entitled :

Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal
It's Time to Reconfigure the United States

by Mike Thompson
Posted Nov 3, 2004


From the author: This is an essay I've been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush's final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome.

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South's secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

No state may leave the Union without the other states' approval, according to Lincoln's doctrine--an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies' unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier. Lincoln's grotesque legal argument also disregards a state's inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs, society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage), and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world's leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won't even admit that they are liberals--because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions.

Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore'sfat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It's as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.

As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.

The truth is, America is not just broken--it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face.

That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart--not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic's inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree. Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union. Is there, after all, any human organization in existence (including a family or law firm) that may not disown, disinherit, ostracize, alienate or expel diabolical members? Whether the nation is purged of these 12 states via the Constitution or statute, the process of elimination must begin now, for the need of societal detoxification has waxed so overwhelmingly clear.

Examine the "Mostly Mainstream 38" and "Fringe 12." Of the 50 states, Bush won 30 in the 2000 presidential election against Gore, and 31 in 2004 against Kerry. More dramatic is the huge disparity among counties. Of 3,112 counties nationwide, Bush in 2000, for example, won 2,434, a crushing 78% majority. (In the counties composing "Bush USA" live approximately 150 million persons; in the 678 of "Gore/Kerry USA," 140 million.) Gore/Kerry denizens are concentrated in the metropolises of the East and West Coasts and those big cities on the Great Lakes or Mississippi River. Other significant pockets of ultraliberal extremists may be found in intellectually incestuous college towns and pro-big-government state capitals, along the estranged and overwhelmed Mexican border, and in Dixie's welfare-addicted Cotton Belt.

The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" envisioned by Kerry'sMarxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):
BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma'am" and "yes, sir."


GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.
Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA--2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).

A downsized, post-expulsion United States still would be geographically big enough (and personally generous enough) to welcome millions of authentic refugees from the ousted former states, real Americans who crave lower taxes, smaller government, safer neighborhoods, more secure borders, greater moral leadership, and all the other aspects of a markedly better society-- one that spawns harmony, not cacophony; excellence, not dependence; justice, not histrionics; education, not brainwashing; enterprise, not welfare, and Godliness, not devilishness. As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?


Still Relevant After All These Years:

Language of the 1776 Declaration of Independence that rings true today for expulsion:


When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . .


Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . .


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . but when a long train of abuses . . . evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Language of Barry Goldwater, 1964 Republican presidential nominee that also rings true:


Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw off the eastern seaboard and let it float out to sea.



comment ? anyone ?

You wanted my reply fine, hopefuly it won't earn me another 3-day ban. (Which I know full well you and your little liberal friends sent in the six required PMs do it..)

THAT is why you liberals infringe on rights and are horrible fascists. It is beyond your comprehension to accept something you don't like. Don't like violance? BAN GUNS! Violance starts with the person, not the tool.

Don't like violant thoughts? ENFORCE MEDICATION! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. You'd sell your soul inorder to deny the fact that is exsists..

That's why liberals are a fascist party and are weak and pitiful. Which is why I have no respect for you. The fact that you're so pathetic as to have me banned for "being mean to you" only further proves my advocation..

Ofcourse when I say liberal I mean the global right-wing. As we all know, America is ass-backward. Our roads are on the otherside, our toilets go counter-clock wise, and our liberals think along the lines of Hitler.. If you don't believe me just take a look at Bush'es best friend.. TONY BLAIR! THE SOCIALIST! (Which by the way I'm a hardcore advocate of..)

And that's how I KNOW you're American Liberal and dislike you for it. Because everything I believe you wish didn't exsist and will do everything in your power to hide that it does. A rock nosed, hard-working, moraly upright socialist. Oh how you must wakeup in cold sweat at night thinking about how more of me exsist.

However there's also a science to this, this gos far deeper then political agendas. 6/10 people are "American Liberal". So how come you don't control EVERYTHING?

Cause you're weak..
And that's how it's suppose to be. Unfourataely you think this justifies your opression over the strong and we are diswilling to subject ourselves to your wishes as you are lower on the power scale. This is how the blood wars were, are, and shall forever be.

GCG, I wouldn't even know where to start in picking that apart...I could spend all night.

Big Evil, you were banned because WD warned that any further flaming in that other thread would result in a banning, and you didn't quit. No PM sending was required, you directly ignored an order from a global mod. No one should have to accept being called names because they disagree with YOU.

I just hope i posted it in the right thread ; seems to add more fule to the fire, as in more levels of discussion without steering away from subject. my dear Lana,

Big Evil got banned ?

Originally posted by Big Evil
You wanted my reply fine, hopefuly it won't earn me another 3-day ban. (Which I know full well you and your little liberal friends sent in the six required PMs do it..)

THAT is why you liberals infringe on rights and are horrible fascists. It is beyond your comprehension to accept something you don't like. Don't like violance? BAN GUNS! Violance starts with the person, not the tool.

Don't like violant thoughts? ENFORCE MEDICATION! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. You'd sell your soul inorder to deny the fact that is exsists..

That's why liberals are a fascist party and are weak and pitiful. Which is why I have no respect for you. The fact that you're so pathetic as to have me banned for "being mean to you" only further proves my advocation..

Ofcourse when I say liberal I mean the global right-wing. As we all know, America is ass-backward. Our roads are on the otherside, our toilets go counter-clock wise, and our liberals think along the lines of Hitler.. If you don't believe me just take a look at Bush'es best friend.. TONY BLAIR! THE SOCIALIST! (Which by the way I'm a hardcore advocate of..)

And that's how I KNOW you're American Liberal and dislike you for it. Because everything I believe you wish didn't exsist and will do everything in your power to hide that it does. A rock nosed, hard-working, moraly upright socialist. Oh how you must wakeup in cold sweat at night thinking about how more of me exsist.

However there's also a science to this, this gos far deeper then political agendas. 6/10 people are "American Liberal". So how come you don't control EVERYTHING?

Cause you're weak..
And that's how it's suppose to be. Unfourataely you think this justifies your opression over the strong and we are diswilling to subject ourselves to your wishes as you are lower on the power scale. This is how the blood wars were, are, and shall forever be.

and might i add: shit

Originally posted by PVS
and might i add: shit

And you call our posts immature.


Are all liberals hypocrits too PVS?

nah you managed that all by yourself, dont blame others for your own doings. At least have the guts to to take responsibility for what you post

otherside of what? the majority of the worlds countries are indeed right roaded if thats what you aim at

oh enlighten us on these liberal/global right wingers, who are they where do they come from and what is their political platform

you should adress that to big evil not PVS

I guess I do have something to add about liberals, I think there are times that the protective species law are wacked out..For instance I can't go in my back yard and pick Trillium cause it's endangered...And I think I should be able to grow or pick anything in my yard for my own personal use. Many might not agree with me that that would include pot.

i posted this in another thread, but i think it applies here as well:

its easy to place labels on people.
easier because then all you have to do is argue and pick apart the label, rather than confront the issue, and the person. its a cop out...a tool of the weak minded

every dictatorship must have a scapegoat. usually that scapegoat is a minority, but what makes today's situation unique is that the minority rules and half the population is the scapegoat. strange.

Originally posted by PVS
but what makes today's situation unique is that the minority rules and half the population is the scapegoat. strange.
Yep, George W. took you liberal's affirmative action stradegy and made it better, faster, stronger, don't you just feel crunchy.

that made absolutely no sense at all.
why dont you try talking out your mouth and give your rectum a break

What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you have to have it told to you on Sessame Street?

Affirmative Action. "Leveling the playing field". Political correctness was an even more extreme version of this atrocious discrimination in the guise of equality.

"Oh lookit me I'm black! Pity me because my people were slaves and harassed!"
Guess what *****, slave-trade is still done in many countries and alot of people are still very much harrassed.
The reason liberals couldn't keep this up was because the minorities themselves were not buying in the horse dung. For instance: Warner Bros discountinued Speedy Gonzallus cartoons in the U.S. because it stereotyped Mexicans. I'm Mexican, did I get a ****ing memo? No..

And how a little chirpy mouse who managed to outsmart a dumbass cat every week while throwing a shindig at his house I fail to see how is stereotyping Mexicans. If anything his cousin Slowpoke did a better job and Slowpoke ruled which was why I watched those stupid cartoons. Nothing says Hispanic better then a ****ing psycho who will use jedi mind tricks and if need be pop a cap in yo' ass biautch!

Another funny thing is how liberals expect black, hispanic, and other minority groups to vote democrat but infact: most vote republican. CRUNCHATIZE ME CAP'N!

The fact is you liberals don't appeal to ANYONE because you're hatemongering bafoons who have no real clue on how to help anyone, are just spiteful bullies out to seize control because you don't like the current leader. You're ignorant, annoying, and frankly I don't know why our goverment puts up with you. I think it's horribble how our goverment treats immigrants like crap, they're actually grateful for this country and very hard-working people. It's liberals like yourselves who should either be forced to move or given up to the slave trade to help our economy. If I were incharge I'd give you something to cry about..

And don't try spinning it neither that I'm a tool of the republican agenda. Because if you took a look at some of my arguments against the rightwing or my country on the nationstates game, you'd know I'm a very VERY hard-nosed socialist. We're talking Stalin level here.. Here's some other socialists the democratic party refuses to acknowledge despite how they would've instanously fixed what Bush messed up..

Howard Dean.
Michal Moore.
Tony Blair.
Bono.

All socialist. Which is the global left-wing because had you know about the political compass and how the people on it worked thier magick, you'd know you and your little pallies are closer to Hitler. Now, do you want the fruity-tooty or chocorama Captain Crunch cereal?

Hmm I don't like socialists....I am more right wing (Republicans like Bush are not socialist though)

I like how Big Evil accuses liberals of stereotyping minorities. Yet he sits there and stereotypes the whole liberal party.

I'm going to have to agree with some of what Big Evil says, just not the means by which he says it.

ironically enough the "liberals" in Britain are considered to be the ones who are tolerant of all creeds, colours, religions, sexual orientations etc etc etc

but when someone who comes along that doesn't share those same strict values then they are immediatly shouted down as being homophobic, xenophobic right wing nut jobs who hate everyone...

this always happen here in Britain and even more so in the political spectrum and is the reason why there is never any sensible debate about issues such as asylum and immigration

whats really ironic about the pursuit of this liberal ideal is that there has been some totally bizzare things occured because of it

things such as shopping centres not having santa at christmas

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003858.php

councils sending out christmas cards without the "C" word




attempting to ban bibles from hospitals

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/03/nbible03.xml

so called "positive discrimination" against white applicants to the metropolitan police in London

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/05/white_applicant.phphttp://www.billyarmstrong.co.uk/ 041223_equality_commission's_christmas_card_howler
.htm

oops...one of the links wasn't working and i kind of messed up the edit....never mind

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
I like how Big Evil accuses liberals of stereotyping minorities. Yet he sits there and stereotypes the whole liberal party.

If you can name one person who regularly posts in the GDF who doesn't use some form of bias and stereotype, you automatically are declared the winner of this discussion.

PVS doesn't

I don't either, you narrow-minded Scottish goat herder.

hahaha

liberals have taken away my right to huff kerosine, but i can still drink it so their not that bad.

Originally posted by botankus
If you can name one person who regularly posts in the GDF who doesn't use some form of bias and stereotype, you automatically are declared the winner of this discussion.
Everyone is bias, everyone stereotypes. That is our hummasnity showing. We stereotype because that is our general exprieince. We're generalizing because it's obviously the most common occurance. It's not all that bad despite what the liberals might have you believe..

And yes, everyone too is also bias. Some just less then others. For instance, CNN is liberal bias, but not nearly as much so as that atrocious MSNBC. I'm suprised thier showcase hasn't just ripped a baby out of the womb and stick in on a frying pan yet. CNN is liberal on a more realistic scale. Just as FOX is conservative on the same realist spectrum.

Originally posted by Big Evil
Everyone is bias, everyone stereotypes.

there are some who acknowledge that and strive to better themselves, and rise above that mentallity, however diffiult or impossible it may be (i am guilty as well) and there are some who embrace it and pride themselves as an ignorant bigot. im not going to mention any names though, since there is no need.

Peace is a lie.. There is only passion..

...and with that this thread has hit rock bottom

goodnight

Originally posted by baracustastic
Every building is different.

If I am not mistaken there was substaintial CONCRETE supports in the Madrid building that you talk of. Concrete is much better at withstanding fire than Steel.

Also the TT were designed to cope with the collision of a plane, but a smaller plane than those which hit.

Moreover, with Steel the fire-proofing is critical. The explosion wave caused when the planes hit probably dislodged the spray on fire-proofing. After all the spray-on stuff is designed to cope with fire, not shock-waves.

I would not decribe the fires caused by fully fueled aeroplanes as "minimal!"

Once the fire causes one steel column, beam or most importantly CONNECTIONS (weakest parts) to lose their rigidity, the weight of the buildings must be carried by the rest. Bear in mind steel conducts heat rather well so, in the unlikely event of the fires hardly spreading, the effects of the fire would have been transferred, to an extent, through the steel.

Steel is not like timber, it does not turn to charcoal and remain standing for hours. With the effectiveness of the fire-proofing reduced by the impact/blast it is entirely likely that the buildings would collapse after 40-50 mins.

Apparently the guy who designed the buildings was shocked when they collapsed. They were hugely over-engineered. The other interesting thing brought up in the video was the fact that people were seen standing in the holes the planes made in the buildings, which were supposedly hot enough to melt, or at least weaken steel.

Then there's the bit about the gentleman who bought the entire WTC property and took out a massive insurance policy shortly before 9/11... And demolished another of the buildings there on 9/11 even though it had almost no structural damage.

What this has to do with the thread topic, I don't know.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
liberals have taken away my right to huff kerosine, but i can still drink it so their not that bad.

big evil Im still waiting for a response to the question that was more or less for you.
So you are a hardcore socialist huh?, you are for stronger government control of the marked, you for higher taxes(much higher taxes), more taxes on goods and commodity's, government control of large corporation like oil companies phone companies , government control of the economy?

Big Evil - you have written a few posts since your return, all with the passion and bluster, but you still haven't answered the question.

How have the Liberals taken away your rights and freedoms?

I want rights and freedoms that have been taken away from you by liberals. That is all. Not opinions or political pontifications. Just examples. No insults, no lame attempts at humour just 3 or 4 examples.

As for your comment about the media being liberally biased, that topic has been covered in this forum ad nauseum. Check it out if you wish, however I doubt that you will.

Originally posted by botankus
If you can name one person who regularly posts in the GDF who doesn't use some form of bias and stereotype, you automatically are declared the winner of this discussion.


I know one...Bardock42

7 pages and 125 posts later, we still await an answer besides
"DEY TUK R GUNS!!!"


waiting....waiting....waiting...................

Originally posted by PVS
7 pages and 125 posts later, we still await an answer besides
"DEY TUK R GUNS!!!"


waiting....waiting....waiting...................

Well they arfe too socialist anyways....damn liberals...DEY TUK R Capitalism

Your're slurring

nah just took a national twist to it too se if he comprehend, fools miss the point I made though

The ACLU is a perfect example of a liberal organization infringing on the rights and freedoms of the whole by demanding rights for an individual.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The ACLU is a perfect example of a liberal organization infringing on the rights and freedoms of the whole by demanding rights for an individual.

an example.....?

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The ACLU is a perfect example of a liberal organization infringing on the rights and freedoms of the whole by demanding rights for an individual.
PETA is another good example..

Although I can't stand PETA, the have not taken away anyone's rights or freedoms. And to call PETA a liberal organization is a misnomer, I would consider them a radical group.

Try again. You have stated that Liberals have taken rights and freedoms, yet you have still come up with nothing, give at leaast 3 examples to prove your point please.

and when are you gonna produce some examples to prove your arguments

wtf does PETA have to do with anything?
its completely obscure and unrelated.
by the same mentallity, i could connect the KKK
with the conservative right.

what a crock

Originally posted by PVS
an example.....?

The sex offender registration law is a prime example. The ACLU come rushing to aid of sex offenders saying it is a violation of their civil rights, because it embarrasses the person on the list. When asked about the parents' rights to protect their children, the ACLU's stance was that the issues was the offenders' rights, not the rights of the parent.

There are numerous cases in which the ACLU has been involved in championing the rights of an individual over the rights of the many.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The sex offender registration law is a prime example. The ACLU come rushing to aid of sex offenders saying it is a violation of their civil rights, because it embarrasses the person on the list. When asked about the parents' rights to protect their children, the ACLU's stance was that the issues was the offenders' rights, not the rights of the parent.

There are numerous cases in which the ACLU has been involved in championing the rights of an individual over the rights of the many.

interesting points.

really illustrates the line between rights and liberty, and how thick it can be in certain instances. but the ACLU by nature and by name is for the protection of civil liberties, for EVERYONE...even the scumbags. they cant be selective in who's liberty they seek to protect or they become a hypocrisy.

as far as the 'right' for a parent to be safe and secure, that opens up a can of worms. the issue of sacrificing liberty for safety comes to mind. a dangerous slippery slope.

personally, im glad we have megan's law, and i'm ALSO glad there are those who would argue against it. its all about checks and balances, and im comfortable in the fact that they had the rocks to question it when so many consider it taboo to do so.

if only congress would be so questioning of bills brought before them. had they had the balls to actually read and perhaps question the patriot act or the iraq war, they may have proven useful. instead they bowed their heads in a meaningless gesture of respect and allowed such deals to pass, simply because of 9/11. not to mix issues, but i think the "dont question what is sacred" mentallity is related.

Originally posted by PVS
interesting points.

really illustrates the line between rights and liberty, and how thick it can be in certain instances. but the ACLU by nature and by name is for the protection of civil liberties, for EVERYONE...even the scumbags. they cant be selective in who's liberty they seek to protect or they become a hypocrisy.

as far as the 'right' for a parent to be safe and secure, that opens up a can of worms. the issue of sacrificing liberty for safety comes to mind. a dangerous slippery slope.

personally, im glad we have megan's law, and i'm ALSO glad there are those who would argue against it. its all about checks and balances, and im comfortable in the fact that they had the rocks to question it when so many consider it taboo to do so.

if only congress would be so questioning of bills brought before them. had they had the balls to actually read and perhaps question the patriot act or the iraq war, they may have proven useful. instead they bowed their heads in a meaningless gesture of respect and allowed such deals to pass, simply because of 9/11. not to mix issues, but i think the "dont question what is sacred" mentallity is related.

This topic is too broad. Liberals as a whole have not infringed on the rights and freedoms of others, nor have conservatives as a whole. For me, both doctrines make excellent points. My problem with the ACLU is that one group's liberties are ignored in defense of another. They do not stand for all persons' liberties, just the ones who they feel like defending.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
This topic is too broad. Liberals as a whole have not infringed on the rights and freedoms of others, nor have conservatives as a whole. For me, both doctrines make excellent points. My problem with the ACLU is that one group's liberties are ignored in defense of another. They do not stand for all persons' liberties, just the ones who they feel like defending.

The ACLU does seem to infringe doesn't it...

Though I don't like anyone telling me what I should do with my land. And most of that does come from liberals.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
My problem with the ACLU is that one group's liberties are ignored in defense of another. They do not stand for all persons' liberties, just the ones who they feel like defending.

please be specific. who's liberty did they ignore?

Originally posted by PVS
please be specific. who's liberty did they ignore?
My right to ban homosexuals from my parades!

Originally posted by PVS
please be specific. who's liberty did they ignore?

I feel if people want to pray let them pray...If people want to protest let them...Though...I think they are working on getting rid of hate speech that could be good, but doesn't that take some rights away?

Originally posted by debbiejo
I feel if people want to pray let them pray...If people want to protest let them...Though...I think they are working on getting rid of hate speech that could be good, but doesn't that take some rights away?

but they never forbid people from praying.
the whole point of their organisation is to prevent restrictions...the very definition of liberty is a lack of restriction. there is no restriction on anyone's right to practice faith, and the aclu certainly never pushed for that.

you are free to pray whenever you wish. i can stop typing right now, say a prayer, then continue, and nobody will ever know or care. HOWEVER structuring a ritual around a particular religion in a public institution goes against the religious freedom our country partially stands for. it alienates others and thus they are not free to feel accepted. i think many who protest such things are way too dramatic in saying they were 'damaged' because of such an issue, but that doesnt change my view that religion should NEVER be imposed on others.

what if every day in school (when you go or went) the class was instructed to pray to alah? you are NOT being forced to do so, but you must sit silent and observe this everyday. certainly not traumatic, but certainly not american, right?

the aclu feels as i do, that government institutions should be devoid of religious icons and scripture of ANY kind.

Hmmmmm....OK, but what if a group want to pray at a flag pole or a game? Should it all be silent? Maybe it should. If Christians pray, do Muslims take it as a type of hate speech?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Hmmmmm....OK, but what if a group want to pray at a flag pole or a game? Should it all be silent? Maybe it should. If Christians pray, do Muslims take it as a type of hate speech?

people are free to pray wherever they wish.
thats a misconception many make, that its somehow illegal to practice faith
in public places or government institutions. the rule is simply that the practice of faith cannot be a part of the POLICY of a government/public institution.

weird that you would pray to a flagpole...

Originally posted by debbiejo
I feel if people want to pray let them pray...If people want to protest let them...Though...I think they are working on getting rid of hate speech that could be good, but doesn't that take some rights away?

Getting rid of hate speech really doesn't get rid of rights, because the constitution says that you have rights until you infringe on the rights of someone else. You have the right to say what you want until it turns to something that demeans another person, which is what hate speech does. Also remember that a lot of hate speech promotes violence against a certain group, which is DEFINITELY infringing upon the rights of the targets/victims. You also can't say what are called "fighting words" -- ie, you shout something stupid and a fight breaks out over it, you will be held responsible.

Originally posted by PVS
people are free to pray wherever they wish.
thats a misconception many make, that its somehow illegal to practice faith
in public places or government institutions. the rule is simply that the practice of faith cannot be a part of the POLICY of a government/public institution.

weird that you would pray to a flagpole...
Yes thats right...I saw this in one episode of Boston Public....and it always has to be right...cause its on TV

Originally posted by Lana
Getting rid of hate speech really doesn't get rid of rights, because the constitution says that you have rights until you infringe on the rights of someone else. You have the right to say what you want until it turns to something that demeans another person, which is what hate speech does. Also remember that a lot of hate speech promotes violence against a certain group, which is DEFINITELY infringing upon the rights of the targets/victims. You also can't say what are called "fighting words" -- ie, you shout something stupid and a fight breaks out over it, you will be held responsible.



also the classic example of yelling "fire" in a movie theater when there is none.
freedom of speech is more freedom of thought. you are free to hate people of other ethnicities and religions, as the kkk and baptists prove every day of their meaningless lives...but to voice that hate as a tool to incite violence, and put another person in danger is not their right.