0
   

The Worst President in History?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 03:17 pm
Trying to reason with an American conservative is like trying to reason with a rabid skunk.

But at least with a rabid skunk...you've got some chance of success.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 05:52 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Then: a Big W with a RED line through it!!!!!

Loved it. Worst President EVER!


I have a bunch of stickers that are circles with big red lines through them on a clear background - the classic 'no' symbol.

When I ride my bike around town, and I notice a 'W' sticker, I often stop to slap one of mine on top of it... I wonder how long it takes people to notice...

Cycloptichorn


So,vandalism and destruction of private property are liberal values?

That explains quite a bit.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 05:59 pm
That's like Clinton getting a blow job, and Bush blowing up Iraq and killing tens of thousands of innocent people. Yeah, tell us about it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 10:15 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Trying to reason with an American conservative is like trying to reason with a rabid skunk.

But at least with a rabid skunk...you've got some chance of success.


An interesting, albeit idiotic, post.

Is this the actual moronic view of Frank, or is it the bait of a provocateur?

My bet is that it is the former.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 10:24 pm
Amigo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
And the ACLU agenda is?
We are waiting Tico. Whats the agenda you dissagree with so much.


Gosh, I hope I didn't put you out by not answering within the timeframe you thought I should. I'm afraid I had more pressing matters to take care of, but that's really no excuse for making you wait.

The ACLU's agenda includes the following objectives:

To promote the legalization of prostitution.
To ensure that any woman can kill her unborn child whenever she wants.
To legalize child pornography.
To promote and defend the right of all Americans to use and possess illegal controlled substances.
To advocate for the legalization of gay marriage.
To oppose prayer in school.
To advocate for the elimination of laws prohibiting polygamy.
To oppose the inclusion of "one nation under god" in the Pledge of Allegience.
To oppose the private ownership of guns.
To advocate for the elimination of any public display of the Ten Commandments or Christmas.

Yep ... the ACLU believes the First Amendment protects child pornography, and believes there should be no governmental restrictions on its distribution, reproduction, sale, and use by pedophiles and others. Do you think that's what the Founding Father's had in mind?

-----

Here are the words of Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU:

Quote:
I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.


LINK

He was a communist, and it's a communist organization.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 10:26 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Trying to reason with an American conservative is like trying to reason with a rabid skunk.

But at least with a rabid skunk...you've got some chance of success.


An interesting, albeit idiotic, post.


Though I can't speak for Frank, in all likelihood he only meant the radical wingnut right, the truly insipid ones.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 11:30 pm
Hey look, guys. Joe McCarthy is back posting as Ticomaya.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2006 11:36 pm
http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/07/liebadmerkel.png
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 03:08 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Trying to reason with an American conservative is like trying to reason with a rabid skunk.

But at least with a rabid skunk...you've got some chance of success.


An interesting, albeit idiotic, post.

Is this the actual moronic view of Frank, or is it the bait of a provocateur?

My bet is that it is the former.


It is simply an observation.

But let me help you understand it.

In the first sentence, I make the point that it is extremely difficult to "reason" with a rabid skunk...and that it is extremely difficult to "reason" with an American conservative also.

In the second sentence, I indicated that I thought, though, that trying to reason with a rabid skunk had a greater likelihood of being successful than trying to reason with an American conservative.

Come to think of it...the possible stench is more tolerable when dealing with the skunk. I should have added that.

Hope that helps you with your decision, Finn.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 03:13 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
And the ACLU agenda is?
We are waiting Tico. Whats the agenda you dissagree with so much.


Gosh, I hope I didn't put you out by not answering within the timeframe you thought I should. I'm afraid I had more pressing matters to take care of, but that's really no excuse for making you wait.

The ACLU's agenda includes the following objectives:

To promote the legalization of prostitution.
To ensure that any woman can kill her unborn child whenever she wants.
To legalize child pornography.
To promote and defend the right of all Americans to use and possess illegal controlled substances.
To advocate for the legalization of gay marriage.
To oppose prayer in school.
To advocate for the elimination of laws prohibiting polygamy.
To oppose the inclusion of "one nation under god" in the Pledge of Allegience.
To oppose the private ownership of guns.
To advocate for the elimination of any public display of the Ten Commandments or Christmas.

Yep ... the ACLU believes the First Amendment protects child pornography, and believes there should be no governmental restrictions on its distribution, reproduction, sale, and use by pedophiles and others. Do you think that's what the Founding Father's had in mind?

-----

Here are the words of Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU:

Quote:
I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.


LINK

He was a communist, and it's a communist organization.


The purpose of the ACLU is to protect the constitution of the United States.

You phony American conservatives love to spout words about love of country and love of its freedoms...but when push comes to shove...your knee-jerk need to throw mud at this worthy organization shows that all you are doing is giving lip-service to the notion.

Anyone with a brain can see through you silly hypocrites.

By the way...take a look at your list. Many of those items are protection of freedoms...albeit, freedoms you phonies want to pretend you defend but actually want to subvert.

You folks are a laugh.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 05:25 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Amigo wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
And the ACLU agenda is?
We are waiting Tico. Whats the agenda you dissagree with so much.


Gosh, I hope I didn't put you out by not answering within the timeframe you thought I should. I'm afraid I had more pressing matters to take care of, but that's really no excuse for making you wait.

The ACLU's agenda includes the following objectives:

To promote the legalization of prostitution.
To ensure that any woman can kill her unborn child whenever she wants.
To legalize child pornography.
To promote and defend the right of all Americans to use and possess illegal controlled substances.
To advocate for the legalization of gay marriage.
To oppose prayer in school.
To advocate for the elimination of laws prohibiting polygamy.
To oppose the inclusion of "one nation under god" in the Pledge of Allegience.
To oppose the private ownership of guns.
To advocate for the elimination of any public display of the Ten Commandments or Christmas.

Yep ... the ACLU believes the First Amendment protects child pornography, and believes there should be no governmental restrictions on its distribution, reproduction, sale, and use by pedophiles and others. Do you think that's what the Founding Father's had in mind?

-----

Here are the words of Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU:

Quote:
I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.


LINK

He was a communist, and it's a communist organization.


Congrats, tico. You've written a post which, in its intellectual grasp and level of honesty, is the equal of anything Gungasnake might contribute.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:14 am
Frank Apisa wrote:

The purpose of the ACLU is to protect the constitution of the United States.


No, the purpose of the ACLU is to protect its perverted view of the Constitution of the US.

So my question to the ACLU defenders on this thread is:

Do you think the First Amendment protects child pornography as "free speech"?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:14 am
blatham wrote:
Congrats, tico. You've written a post which, in its intellectual grasp and level of honesty, is the equal of anything Gungasnake might contribute.


And congratulations to you, blatham. The above is a fine example of a post Magginkat or Dookiestix might be proud of.

I take it you hold your ideological notions of what the ACLU stands for quite dearly. Care to answer the question in the post above?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:17 am
What is the answer to the question, Tico?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:28 am
Waiting
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:30 am
Tico has picked a classically devisive example of all those that could be picked, in order to illlustrate a disingenuous point.

If one says that child pornography is protected speech, he can get the vapors and be morally outraged. If one says it is not, he can push in the other direction and ask "Why, oh why not? If you say you're for equal protection under the law, why not the pedophiles, too?"

The disingenuous and chickenshyt point he thinks to make by this is to prove that the ACLU has an agenda that's destructive and perverted.

When all he really does is look desperate, and reiterate the truism that when standing for free speech, there are certain extremely difficult decisions (pornography, flag burning, hate speech, etc...) that have to be made. That the ACLU attempts to take an unambiguous stand doesn't make them the one's to blame that the issue is difficult.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:47 am
snood wrote:
Tico has picked a classically devisive example of all those that could be picked, in order to illlustrate a disingenuous point.

If one says that child pornography is protected speech, he can get the vapors and be morally outraged. If one says it is not, he can push in the other direction and ask "Why, oh why not? If you say you're for equal protection under the law, why not the pedophiles, too?"

The disingenuous and chickenshyt point he thinks to make by this is to prove that the ACLU has an agenda that's destructive and perverted.

When all he really does is look desperate, and reiterate the truism that when standing for free speech, there are certain extremely difficult decisions (pornography, flag burning, hate speech, etc...) that have to be made. That the ACLU attempts to take an unambiguous stand doesn't make them the one's to blame that the issue is difficult.


Excellent response, Snood.

No need to add anything to it.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:47 am
Wouldn't the inclusion of petition effectively curtail the matter of child pornography?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 08:58 am
snood wrote:
Tico has picked a classically devisive example of all those that could be picked, in order to illlustrate a disingenuous point.

If one says that child pornography is protected speech, he can get the vapors and be morally outraged. If one says it is not, he can push in the other direction and ask "Why, oh why not? If you say you're for equal protection under the law, why not the pedophiles, too?"

The disingenuous and chickenshyt point he thinks to make by this is to prove that the ACLU has an agenda that's destructive and perverted.

When all he really does is look desperate, and reiterate the truism that when standing for free speech, there are certain extremely difficult decisions (pornography, flag burning, hate speech, etc...) that have to be made. That the ACLU attempts to take an unambiguous stand doesn't make them the one's to blame that the issue is difficult.


Close, snood. Yes, I did pick a devisive example in order to illustrate a point, but not a point I would characterize as "disingenuous."

You have correctly identified that if one responds that child pornography is protected speech, the other can (and should) be morally outraged. But if one says it is not protected speech, rather than "push in the other direction," I would point out that the ACLU has taken the position that the First Amendment does protect child pornography. The point I expect to be illustrated by this exercise, is that the ACLU has a perverted view of what the Constitution stands for, and it is not sufficient to hold the view that the organization "protects the Constitution," just because that's what they claim they do. They protect their "view" of the Constitution, which for them includes protecting child pedophiles in disseminating child pornography.

If you believe the ACLU protects the Constitution, it follows that you must also believe that the Constitution protects child pornography. Please explain how I'm wrong, snood.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jul, 2006 09:01 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
What is the answer to the question, Tico?


You're not asking me to answer what Frank Apisa or blatham thinks about the First Amendment protecting child pornography, are you?

For me, the answer is "no."

gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Waiting


For what?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 07:50:27