Yeah I always thought Clinton was basically an idiot when dealing with the press. I'll cover lies in the next post

here goes... Man enough to admit the truth? Yeah clinton was stupid but Bush? Bush won't admit to being arrested for cocaine, bush started by saying mistakes during youth, then switched to I won't address rumors, now he just has people arrested that try to ask questions like that...

You can look at some of the posts a while back when the whole Iraq thing started, I supported it 100%. I actually believed the media machine, but it was a sad day for me when I realized our president had manipulated the entire country's fear for oil, sorry I think Bush takes the cake for lying. But I do have to give him credit, he's apparently good at it, the majority of Republicans refuse to admit he's at fault.

I really have to stop letting myself be pulled into these discussions

LOL, is it me or does page 3 of this thread not show up? I just got email notification that d33 zy replied to me and "poof" it's invisible.

i guess it goes with what I was saying... d33 zy has been "censored" because it is Drakino's right to express himself however he likes on his BBS. d33 zy is not being denied his freemdom of speech because this is a private BBS.

Here's a Howard Dean one that's pretty funny. Not a televised commercial but funny none the less. It's on the intro movie to Glenn Beck's website at www.glennbeck.com

It does require sound.

LOL, is it me or does page 3 of this thread not show up? I just got email notification that d33 zy replied to me and "poof" it's invisible.

The BBS does go a bit weird when we're denied access to a post -- the count of pages is done as if the inaccessible post were there, but the count of pages as if it weren't.

i guess it goes with what I was saying... d33 zy has been "censored" because it is Drakino's right to express himself however he likes on his BBS. d33 zy is not being denied his freemdom of speech because this is a private BBS.

Spending time on the Riovolution board has made me realise how unobtrusive the moderation on this BBS is by comparison... although anyone who's looked at the list of posts in Yz33d's user profile recently might disagree. Perhaps seeing Yz33d's posts could be a configuration option, like seeing signatures?

Peter

lol, I love the punchline there!

d33 zy has been "censored" because it is Drakino's right to express himself however he likes on his BBS.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, but when someone makes a habit of spouting off racial slurs that pretty much are made to offend 100% of the people that read them, it's time to draw the line.

lopan, peter, I hope you don't think I was complaining. I think it's Drakino's right to do so. I just thought itwas funny that it happened in this thead.

freedom of speach only applies to Democrats

I'm confused. He silenced a Lyndon LaRouche supporter. LaRouche is running for the Democratic nomination.

It actually happened a couple of weeks ago.

no no no.... not complaining, I'm the king of whiney ass complaining, and you my friend are not complaining. I'm actually torn on that issue, the guy has made some contributions here to conversation, but repeatedly and purposefully pushes waaaay to far. What do ya do? I think in this instance it's right. But still, it's a hard call.

our president had manipulated the entire country's fear for oil, sorry I think Bush takes the cake for lying.

Hmmmm... according to John Kerry on Monday:
"When the Bush administration presented the same evidence President Clinton used to justify the 1998 attack, Kerry said he was compelled to authorize the use of force because he had tried and failed to persuade Clinton to do the same thing."

Seems like Clinton and Bush were getting the same info. Perhaps that's because Bush's CIA director was originally hired by Clinton? I don't believe there is a problem with either president just that there is a huge problem with our intelligence methods.

Interesting article though.

Have you seen the interview with David Kay?; also very interesting.

I'm confused. He silenced a Lyndon LaRouche supporter. LaRouche is running for the Democratic nomination.

Hey man, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant!

I think Tony Fabris should get a medal for his ability to never get involved in them! But are bots political by nature?

It's merely political ignorance that keeps me out of most such discussions.

It's merely political ignorance that keeps me out of most such discussions.

Dude, you live in a state led by the Kindergarten Cop. I don't blame you.

I just mean that historically, when a "group" is out of power, they tend to spend more of they time being upset about it (as conservatives did during Clinton's stay).

Do you basically mean that the group in power is always being rocked by the group that isn't? If so, then good, because I would have been suprised if you thought it was as one-sided as your post seemed.


And remember, for every Franken there's also an O'Reilly.

Dude, you live in a state led by the Kindergarten Cop. I don't blame you.

ROFL

Well, it's my bad for not knowing who was doing the heckling, but I wouldn't call my post one sided. I voted for Nader, but I support Bush. So don't pigeon hole me yet. I'm a vegetarian because of animal rights, but I'm against abortion. I'm for gun control but I support lower taxes. I'm against capital punishment but I don't want the legalization of pot. One-sided? I'll leave that up to others to decide, but at least I'm not following some policital party's doctrine to the T.

I was simply commenting on the loss of the definition of "freedom of speech." I think it's an abused term. And I never said that it was bad for an out-of-power group to be vocal. Try getting away with that outside of most Western societies.

Conservatives and Liberals both hate O'Reilly because he doesn't subscibe to 100% of either side, so I wish there were far more O'Reillys.

Personally, I hate O'Reilly because he's an obnoxious asshole who purports to run a talk show, but spends more time poorly promoting his own views than those of his guests, interrupting and dismissing his guests when they don't agree with him. Given that I don't really care what Bill O'Reilly thinks, I simply don't watch him, but his overexposure and unavoidableness cause me to hate everything about him, much like I hate reality TV programming.

I hate most things that George Will and William F. Buckley stand for, but they state their case well and non-histrionically, so I don't hate them. (Though Will has become increasingly reactionary over the years.) On the other hand, I agree with much of what Penn and Teller have to say in Bullshit, but they usually present it so incompetently that it's offensive.

> But just because some picketers can't get within earshot of the President of The United States for "security reasons"

I don't really think it is for security reasons, he just doesn't want the bad photo op of him and protestors in the same shot. Kinda the same reason he banned cameras from the ceremonies of dead soldiers in flag draped caskets being removed from the planes home because the pictures of all the dead soldiers might make Americans rethink this war. Besides, the protestors are not a real security threat I would think, if someone wanted to do harm to the president, I doubt very highly they would be carrying an anti-Bush banner and making themselves be noticed by shouting slogans. They are going to blend in with the crowd until they can get to a point where they can hurt him. I don't see any way this can be characterized as a security issue.

> The original intent of my post was to point out how the concept of "freedom of speech" is starting to apply only to "freedom of politically correct speech"

Tell that to all the war protestors that were called traitors repeatedly because they dared express an opinion different than that of the president. Yes, I agree that some liberals are doing exactly what you say they do, but they are hardly the only side trying to suppress free speech because they are merely unhappy with it. That certainly does not make it right no matter who does it, free speech is for everyone, no matter how abhorrent their views [insert Voltaire quote]. As much as [censored] annoys me for instance, I would not personally choose to shut him up.

I certainly have to agree that what Al Franken did was very wrong, and almost certainly assault and battery to boot. I am very dissappointed in him, I had thought better of him than that.

You're missing the point. Calling protestors "traitors" isn't violating their freedom of speech. They are using the same right as you. This isn't grade school where we all raise our hands and get 5 minutes to talk.

Also your Kinda the same reason he banned cameras from the ceremonies of dead soldiers in flag draped caskets being removed from the planes home because the pictures of all the dead soldiers might make Americans rethink this war. was a policy that Clinton had in place too. It is nothing new.

Hold back, there. I was merely speaking about your post, not your general opinion. I said your post seemed one-sided because, as I was saying, it was worded to imply something I gather you didn't mean. You said:

I know that the vocal ones are mostly liberal. Conservatives were probably more vocal during Clinton, I guess it's natural. Nobody voted Democrat during the last round of Congress votes, and most governorships are going Republican too (even California?) so I guess I'd be a little irked too.

This simply reads as one-sided without the clarification that I asked you for. That's all I'm saying, that it wasn't clear to me. I didn't mean to offend, just to clarify.

Ah.. okay, sorry I got defensive there. My bad AGAIN (and I'm embarrised over no knowing who Al tackled).

On a lighter note, I just noticed that your creature is running on Mars! whoa! Sorry, OT.

Lol! Yeah, Zeke made that in celebration of the landing. I guess I should change it back now that we no longer have our own creature running around up there

know you were probably taught in high school ... that means you have money, so you're evil.

No, we're not allowed to be taught that in school, because it comes straight from the Bible.

Perhaps seeing [censored]'s posts could be a configuration option, like seeing signatures?

Or porn.

It's merely political ignorance that keeps me out of most such discussions.

Hey, why should it Tony, when it doesn't keep the rest of us out?

Hey, why should it Tony, when it doesn't keep the rest of us out?

Good point. I'm often happy to pontificate on stuff that I know nothing about. Not sure why I avoid politics when I'm happy to talk about religion. Ah well...

If I may borrow a Rush-ism:

DITTO.

wtf