Barack Obama tells the truth to the activists

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I also couldn't help noticing that "activist" is for some reason becoming a dirty word to some people. While "activist judges" (the real ones that is) are a bad thing, activism in general is what leads up to positive social change.

Yes, but its in direct opposition to conservative perspectives. Conservative persectives oppose change, liberal ones embrace it.

Its interesting that these are the #1 definitions of each according to dictionary.com:

Conservative: Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Liberal: Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes it's not a game, it's a challenge. Defending the moron is so much harder. Sort of mental gymnastics you do for exercise.

It's always a challenge to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth, isn't it Moonie?

For you, of all people in here to provide that response is simply staggering. Obviously you talk a big game yourself but fail to actually live up to it.

Your words, not mine:

"Credibility doesn't come from criticizing Bush or bashing Bush. In fact, I have criticized Bush on the rare occasion in this forum. But the rule in here is - One awe sh!t ruins a thousand atta boys - and those that aren't consistent Bush bashers are spit upon. Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss. It's far more difficult to take the opposite tack. I prefer the challenge myself. ymmv."

You defend the absurd as a way to get over preconceptions, prejudices, distortions, lies, and outright bullsh!t in order to get to any sort of truth. How does that work, may I ask? My theory is that people cling to the absurd because they identify with it and the reason they do that is because it substitutes for inner self worth and that further, people can't change or be expected to change as long as they can't see that. But then you reject all that psychological BS. Pray, how did you become so advanced? What is this mystical power you have that derives from defending one absurd against another?

I can do it because, unlike you, I'm not with or against Bush. It's only absurd to you because you are firmly in the against camp. I don't let hate and emotions drive my thinking like so many in here. As such I could go either way and I choose to go the way of deflecting the bullsh!t tossed out by the left. Why do I do it? I do it because I actually care more about the left than the right and it's my opinion that the left are strangling themselves with their vile rhetoric, overstatements, proddings, and outright lies about Bush. It's one reason I posted Barack's diary entry. He's telling the left that very thing and it's clear by the responses to this thread that many on the left or either ignoring that part or just don't seem to be catching on in the first place.

That bullet you guys keep firing in the ground? Well you rarely seem to do it without ultimately shooting yourselves in the foot.

Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.

Hold that trigger finger Bub, something is wrong, wrong here. Hehe!

I'm not the one with my finger on the trigger, Moonie.

I am not saying that Bush is absurd. I was referring to your admission:

"Besides that, ranking on Bush is like shooting a bullet into the ground. Unless you're a complete and utter moron it's really hard to miss."

You are apparently the one who thinks he' pathetic. You just seem to be claiming you don't get worked up emotionally about it and allow it to distort your vision. So how does the formerly easy shot become shooting ourselves in the foot, because it's said with passion? Are you saying the superior argument is the one that is emotionally dead? Bush pisses in your soup and you jump on the first guy that attacks him. Hehe, it makes sense to me. OK, well I just want to report that Bush pissed in your soup, but I don't care. Just wanted to calmly note the fact. He is a nice man but has a few problems. I won't disembowel him or anything. Time for my lunch, I think my cucumber is cold.

:sigh:

It's not said with passion, it's said with vitriol, bile, and vomitous spew. If that's what passes for passion your world, and that seems to be the case, nothing I can say to you will be meaninful.

And what difference does that make. You assume, I assume, that these are bad things. And what, if they are, do you change by your style of argument? How does your sighing or your seeming despair that you can't meaningfully communicate with me further my evolution. You are repulsed by vitriol, bile, and 'vomitous' spew. How does that make you any different than those who feel that way about Bush?

 

[BoberFett]

Excellent piece. Very well written, and full of wisdom. Now THAT'S a Democrat I could vote for.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Democrats don't have to go very far. Abortion is the one issue that those who support it will never compromise on. Bush could invade Scotland unprovoked and I'd still vote for him because he believes abortion shouldn't be legal.

You take the one singular issue out of contention and I'd probably vote Democrat half the time.

The problem is that the most vocal of the liberal movement aren't staunch defenders of our civil liberties....they're anti-religeon fanatics who want abortion legal because as long as it is it means that America doesn't believe people have souls and, therefore, there is no need to ponder the condition of ones soul so religeon is no longer important.

If the rest of you could open your eyes for two seconds and see that abortion is not a debate of whether we should have certain civil liberties but is a question of life.

WWWWWHHHHAAAATTTT??????? Today's Republicans are the primary reason why are civil liberties are being eroded, ever heard of the Patriot Act? It's the most unconsitutional peice of legislation I've ever read and the one of the greatest threats to our civil liberites since the "Red Scare".

Ever heard of the DMCA? That gem belongs to the Democrats. Don't try to pin erosion of rights solely on the Republicans.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Democrats don't have to go very far. Abortion is the one issue that those who support it will never compromise on. Bush could invade Scotland unprovoked and I'd still vote for him because he believes abortion shouldn't be legal.

You take the one singular issue out of contention and I'd probably vote Democrat half the time.

The problem is that the most vocal of the liberal movement aren't staunch defenders of our civil liberties....they're anti-religeon fanatics who want abortion legal because as long as it is it means that America doesn't believe people have souls and, therefore, there is no need to ponder the condition of ones soul so religeon is no longer important.

If the rest of you could open your eyes for two seconds and see that abortion is not a debate of whether we should have certain civil liberties but is a question of life.

WWWWWHHHHAAAATTTT??????? Today's Republicans are the primary reason why are civil liberties are being eroded, ever heard of the Patriot Act? It's the most unconsitutional peice of legislation I've ever read and the one of the greatest threats to our civil liberites since the "Red Scare".

Ever heard of the DMCA? That gem belongs to the Democrats. Don't try to pin erosion of rights solely on the Republicans.

That is only partially correct.

It was Hollywood purchasing the party that was in power at the time.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
That is only partially correct.

It was Hollywood purchasing the party that was in power at the time.

What's the difference? Stop spinning. Whether it was a Democrat's idea, or Democrats were paid to do it, either way they're just as culpable for the continuing loss of rights for the average American.

 

[digiram]

Don't know what all the arguing is about, and don't really care. Good read...Thanks TLC(I can't believe I said that )

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Democrats don't have to go very far. Abortion is the one issue that those who support it will never compromise on. Bush could invade Scotland unprovoked and I'd still vote for him because he believes abortion shouldn't be legal.

You take the one singular issue out of contention and I'd probably vote Democrat half the time.

The problem is that the most vocal of the liberal movement aren't staunch defenders of our civil liberties....they're anti-religeon fanatics who want abortion legal because as long as it is it means that America doesn't believe people have souls and, therefore, there is no need to ponder the condition of ones soul so religeon is no longer important.

If the rest of you could open your eyes for two seconds and see that abortion is not a debate of whether we should have certain civil liberties but is a question of life.

WWWWWHHHHAAAATTTT??????? Today's Republicans are the primary reason why are civil liberties are being eroded, ever heard of the Patriot Act? It's the most unconsitutional peice of legislation I've ever read and the one of the greatest threats to our civil liberites since the "Red Scare".

Ever heard of the DMCA? That gem belongs to the Democrats. Don't try to pin erosion of rights solely on the Republicans.

What "rights" does the DMCA erode? Show me how it's primarly sponsered amoung Democratic leaders.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tab
WWWWWHHHHAAAATTTT??????? Today's Republicans are the primary reason why are civil liberties are being eroded, ever heard of the Patriot Act? It's the most unconsitutional peice of legislation I've ever read and the one of the greatest threats to our civil liberites since the "Red Scare".

Ever heard of the DMCA? That gem belongs to the Democrats. Don't try to pin erosion of rights solely on the Republicans.

What "rights" does the DMCA erode? Show me how it's primarly sponsered amoung Democratic leaders.

I think the DMCA is an especially odious piece of legislation, and a good example of how the Dems can be just as bad as the Repubs when it comes to whoring themselves to special interests. That said, as much as I detest the DMCA for eroding copyright fair use "rights", it hardly compares with the assault on civil liberties called PATRIOT. The right to due process is a bit more important that the right to watch Disney.

In any case, one need not look to the DMCA for an example of Dems contributing to the erosion of our rights. Even though BushCo Republicans spawned the original PATRIOT Act, there were a lot of cowardly Dems who voted for it. Similarly, IIRC, there was significant support for the DMCA on the Republican side of the aisle. Both parties deserve blame for eroding Americans rights; the Republicans have merely been worse lately.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tab
WWWWWHHHHAAAATTTT??????? Today's Republicans are the primary reason why are civil liberties are being eroded, ever heard of the Patriot Act? It's the most unconsitutional peice of legislation I've ever read and the one of the greatest threats to our civil liberites since the "Red Scare".

Ever heard of the DMCA? That gem belongs to the Democrats. Don't try to pin erosion of rights solely on the Republicans.

What "rights" does the DMCA erode? Show me how it's primarly sponsered amoung Democratic leaders.

I think the DMCA is an especially odious piece of legislation, and a good example of how the Dems can be just as bad as the Repubs when it comes to whoring themselves to special interests. That said, as much as I detest the DMCA for eroding copyright fair use "rights", it hardly compares with the assault on civil liberties called PATRIOT. The right to due process is a bit more important that the right to watch Disney.

In any case, one need not look to the DMCA for an example of Dems contributing to the erosion of our rights. Even though BushCo Republicans spawned the original PATRIOT Act, there were a lot of cowardly Dems who voted for it. Similarly, IIRC, there was significant support for the DMCA on the Republican side of the aisle. Both parties deserve blame for eroding Americans rights; the Republicans have merely been worse lately.

I've read most of the Patriot Act, it's scary. Anyone who's even skimmed through the consititution will quickly these two documents aren't very compatitible. The Patriot Act just expands the goverment into areas it shouldn't be and gives them too much power. The ALCU did a TV segment on this and the ad was extremely informative. It was posted on the forum a while back.

I'd agree with your opinion on the DMCA. I don't find it particularly tastefull, if I buy a movie I should be able to make as many damn copies of it as I want. That being said; I have little sympathy for those who participate in the "warez" scene. I will say that I find the RIAA being just as mature as those who activily perform copyright infrigment. I find $2,000 fines absurd for downloading music, not to mention the fact that it's consider a criminal offense.

I am more for the democrats than the republicans; this is obivious as the democrats fit closer to my own ideology. I've personally never heard of any big democrat support of the DMCA. The only name the rings a bell on the subject as this is Orrin Hatch; but he's a republican.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Have you even read the Patriot Act? Dear god...

Is that it?

Yes I've read it and I understand what it does. I know you are up in arms about it but my life hasn't changed a bit because of it to be honest. I haven't lost any freedoms.

If I was Japanese under Truman I would have lost my money, land, and possibly my life. If I was a citizen of Maryland when Lincoln was in office my representative would have been denied the right to vote and I would have been stripped of many other rights.

Yet these two men are regarded as two of the best presidents in history. They didn't ask to do these things, they simply said "make it so" and people's rights were revoked, democracy set aside, and the constitution thrown out of the window.

I fail to see how Bush who put the Patriot Act to a vote, it recieved bi-partisan support, and has to come up for re-affirment after the 2004 election is somehow so horrible.

Would you care to address my points at all or are you too busy beating your head in the wall trying to avoid the facts?

What FDR/Lincoln did was absolutely unspeakable; what they did was unconsitutional as well as unethical and immoral. There is absolutely no excuse for what they did, history may reguarded them as "good men". For the most part both of them did a very good job; that doesn't mean they're perfect by any means. Infact both of them were far from perfection. The Japanesse interment camps is one of the worst parts of America History besides our ordeals with Native Americans. The patriot is a crap peice of legislation, I don't give a damn if it has "bi-partisan" support whoever is supporting it is either an arrogant jerkoff or an ignorant douche.

You're a troll and you have no wisdom. Your posts lack any substance and is for the most part utterly worthless due to the numerous logical fallacys such as typical the "Strawmans" and "Ad Hominem". The "crap" you post is almost physically painfull for me to read; I'd say your opinions come from your ignorace and arrogance. I only come back to this forum to read several peoples posts due to nature of value of their thoughts they make me think; something your incapable of doing.