Firestarter

...hey!

<suppresses a hysterical gigglefit and starts badgering Agent of Oblivion for a cupcake>

... I find this exchange very disturbing. Dames, make them get a room.

Imagine the reaction if I had said something like that about the French (again). But hey! - we're only bashing America, so it's A-OK! Just like it's also A-OK to say that white Republican men are bigots because they want a colour-blind society (as dreamt of by that disgusting sell-out, that shameless, pandering, self-loathing Uncle Tom, Dr Martin Luther King) which judges people solely on their merits, but it's unacceptable to say that blacks, women, or Democrats are bigots because they prefer to hire, educate, and appoint only people whose skin colour, genitalia, and political views fit the quotas, "diversity programs," and left-of-sanity judicial activism they want. What grand fun! - being a hypocrite means you never have to acknowledge the facts!

Can you cite a particular sentence in the Patriot Act which would define such a 15 year-old as a terrorist? The DOJ's website flatly contradicts you: "Under the Patriot Act, the definition of 'domestic terrorism' is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life."

CNN story Oh, good.

The Star-Spangled Banner. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, especially the second and fourth movements.

Click here for the full text of HR 3162 (the USA PATRIOT Act). Click here to read the Justice Department's response to three of the major misconceptions about the Act. Frankly, I don't like the Attorney General. I don't particularly like the Act. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's important, and I don't think it's useful. No one I know in law enforcement was overjoyed when this passed. I discussed it with at least a dozen people in depth but not one person said "I'm so happy about this; now we'll finally have the power to put behind bars criminals we couldn't touch before." On the contrary, everyone was either confused, indifferent, or cynical. "Feel-good politics" was how most people saw it. Not law, politics. And that was pretty much the most favourable and the least apathetic response. And then we have the hysterical public reaction, fostered, fed, and exaggerated by the media and the ACLU. It's so overblown there's little point in even discussing it. When Jobber says, I really don't know what has him all fired up. Honestly, I can't imagine he or anyone like him has even read the thing. Not that I blame them. It's boring, insipid, and pointless. But for the same reason, I can't understand why anyone would care about it. What on earth is everyone's problem? Seriously, why does it bother you? Why do you think it affects you? Has your life been directly changed by it? Even a little bit? I mean I realise all the leftists have to take half a dozen more antacid tablets per day, but seriously, how has the Patriot Act itself changed the life of ANYONE here? Or anyone you know? Or anyone anyone you know knows? A vanishingly small number of people have been charged under it, and in less than a week it will have been in effect for two whole years. That's pretty pathetic for your garden-variety grand right-wing conspiracy to eliminate civil liberties.

Oh yes? What have you personally been prohibited from doing that you could have done before the Patriot Act was signed into law?

you could pretty much say that about Uzbekistan(a country of the coalition). should we liberate them as well? Yes. And the fact that your smiley implies ambivalence to the idea at best and antipathy at worst is in itself an adequate commentary on the moral bankruptcy of the left.

It's been stated hundreds of times already that it is as big as California. Iraq is actually over 271,583 miles square. That's more than 100,000 square miles bigger than the state of California.

O'Reilly Sucks! Can I get a free pass? Nice try. <g>

Don't give NPR a free pass? Bah. When they turn their guns on O'Reilly and his ilk, I head the goddamn cheerleading squad. Terry's "free pass" is in the mail, and entitles her to one solid hour of oral sex, a bottle of Dom Perignon '85, and a full body massage in my locker room.

The "No-Spin Zone" tagline is fucking hilarious. O'Reilly's utterly deluded if he thinks it's true, or a completely shameless hypocrite if he knows it's not.

Feh. O'Reilly just proved that although he can dish it out he'll scream like a maddened infant with a soiled diaper if he's forced to take it. I listened to the entire interview and at the end he was just pathetic. As for the "empty chair" shit, give me a break. She'd already brought up the article and after O'Reilly stomped out in a tearing impotent rage she had every right to finish addressing the point. Especially as his final actions on the show proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. O'Reilly was slaughtered, flayed, dissected, and put on display. Go, Terry!

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

It doesn't belong in NHB at all. I have no interest in trading insults right now; I am simply pointing out Tyler's errors, deliberate lies, and patterns of behaviour. All of these are fully documented and need be buttressed by neither invective nor rhetorical tricks. The evidence is plain to see.

For anyone who doesn't understand my references to Tyler McClelland's previous documented lies, kindly read this thread, especially my last post to him on the second page. All allegations are proven and thoroughly substantiated, often through Tyler's own words, and sometimes through external sources, such as official records of pending legislation, and transcripts and articles culled from liberal mainstream media (such as CNN, rather than FNC).

Just as relevant as your silly directionless carping. It's simply comical now. No. Reasonably, I won't. I can't. You claimed that the President said something he did not. You slandered him with no basis but your ignorance because of your hatred for him. You've done the same thing countless times in the past. I won't give you a free pass on your lies, your laziness, and your ignorance. I won't forgive you. No one without an ideological motive will. If you make a claim you have a responsibility to back it up. And the very document you cited proved you wrong without a shadow of a doubt. That's pretty sad, Tyler, but it's not unprecedented. Remember all the crap you were spewing a month or so ago about United States citizens being executed without trial? It's an exact parallel. That you are a liar. Another lie. Proof: Wrong like usual, Mike... he declared it VERY often before the war You said that the President of the United States had stated that Iraq presented an imminent threat. You were wrong. And now you are lying. As usual. No. You made it the crux of your argument. And you were wrong. You don't get to change your claims in mid-argument after you've been proved wrong, and then claim you were right all along. The DNC may do business that way, but you will be held to a higher standard on this board. Get used to it. The President and the President alone defines the message "presented by the administration."

First of all, it's a speech, not a "speach." Second, there is precisely one instance of the word "imminent" in it, and it does not refer to the threat in Iraq ("Approving this [uN Security Council] resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable"). Third, in the President's State of the Union on 28/01/03 he explicitly classified Iraq as a threat which was not imminent and could not be allowed to become imminent: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." Mike isn't wrong, Tyler. You are.

Oh, great... Now where's Eagan469 when he'd actually be of some use?

He'd already said "drama queen." I thought the diction was fine.

Since I still couldn't possibly care less, I'm not even going to try to understand the myriad subtle nuances that I'm sure lurk under the surface of this deceptively complex and utterly fascinating ethical dilemma.

The verb "pay" indicates a transfer of money between subject and object. Unless my mouse has some sort of connexion to my bank account that I'm unaware of, I'm not paying anyone a damn thing by clicking on any link whatsoever. If they make a buck off some internet company because of it, how does it come out of your wallet? Or any other poster's? In short, how is it any of your business? Or are you just trying to start shit for no good reason?

... <notes this post number for future reference as well>