ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Wait till Pant Suit Hillary or Beautiful Obooma take over, they want the Government to run your whole life.
The Government should tap all "Democrat Phones" along with "Mosque Phones"
__________________________________________________ ________
God knows and he's watching.
Just a closer walk with thee.
Jesus loves me yes I know
For the bible tells me so
Martin Luther King Jr spoke often of his friend, Jesus Christ.
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Oh, and "nobody" around here wasn't going to jump on that point immediately.
Get real, yourself.
Actually, we have no idea what people would have done. What we do know is that you introduced it as a lead in your post and presumed to whine preemtively about it. I can only refer to myself, but I never regarded Helen Thomas as the "Moonie" reporter when the Moonies owned UPI. So again, get real man.
Quote:
Ah, yes, the "great country" argument. Like it's written in stone that things will always be as they are. Hate to rain on your parade but have you checked the balance of trade between the U.S. and China recently?? China has been receiving some $140 BILLION per MONTH for their goods sold in the U.S. China will have the largest economy in the world within ten-fifteen years. And, yes, they do put up a blockade on what internet traffic passes through their nation. Harm done? None. Protection level? Strong.
Do the math.//
Nice series of strawmen. But I'll only address what's germain here. As far as freedom of speech and freedom of information are concerned where the two are often the same issue, we have a thing called the Constitution that guys like you would try to piss away frivolously, and one which makes this country so attractive a destination for many Chinese expatriots. There is a difference systemic tyranny versus a constitutional or representative republic.
Actually, we have no idea what people would have done. What we do know is that you introduced it as a lead in your post and presumed to whine preemtively about it. I can only refer to myself, but I never regarded Helen Thomas as the "Moonie" reporter when the Moonies owned UPI. So again, get real man.
Actually, to her future (if not present) regret, Helen Thomas resigned from UPI the moment Rev. Moon directed that it be purchased.
Yeah, you can go on about how I "pre-emptively whined" and down-play it all you want, but you haven't been here very long, unless massively lurking; and, come to think of it, I haven't seen your name on the list in front of the site, therefore you indeed have only recently showed your face here.
So, after all is said and done, I'm the one who is keepin' it real, dude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wotan_the_Wanderer
Nice series of strawmen. But I'll only address what's germain here. As far as freedom of speech and freedom of information are concerned where the two are often the same issue, we have a thing called the Constitution that guys like you would try to piss away frivolously, and one which makes this country so attractive a destination for many Chinese expatriots. There is a difference systemic tyranny versus a constitutional or representative republic.
Yeah, let's get back on topic. That's what I like. So, anyway, your moaning and groaning -- not to mention gratuitous misrepresentation of my position, aka ad hominem lite -- over the looming destruction of the Free World and everything "we" (actually, YOU) hold dear: if you put it to a vote to the general population, as I have suggested, I'll wager that the majority would definitely favor curtailing the utterly destructive misuse of this invaluable God-given tool of communication known as the internet, by a bunch of malicious, self-serving extremists.
Anybody who says that we can't live without a totally uncontrolled internet, but that we don't need some controls as far as decency and even public safety over what gets shot around the internet is two-faced, at best. The garbage that too often travels over this medium is good for nothing except evil and has no place among normal, decent people. The First Amendment was written to secure the right to speak freely at a time when the absolute monarch could have you killed just for expressing disagreement; it was NOT created to protect pornographers, pedophiles, and terrorists in their efforts to spread their cancer around the world to others.
Yeah, let's get back on topic. That's what I like. So, anyway, your moaning and groaning -- not to mention gratuitous misrepresentation of my position, aka ad hominem lite -- over the looming destruction of the Free World and everything "we" (actually, YOU) hold dear: if you put it to a vote to the general population, as I have suggested, I'll wager that the majority would definitely favor curtailing the utterly destructive misuse of this invaluable God-given tool of communication known as the internet, by a bunch of malicious, self-serving extremists.
Keep whining and you're right, I've not been a lurker or a poster on the political forum for long. But I really can't say my few dealing with you have been all that favorable given your capricious insults that were completely unnecessary, red herrings, strawmen, preemptive whining and now preemptive accusations that I've reverted to ad hominems. Like I said, lose the hypocrisy and get real man. But given your approach to debate, I'm sure you'll come up with something from your bag of tricks to retort the above.
Quote:
The First Amendment was written to secure the right to speak freely at a time when the absolute monarch could have you killed just for expressing disagreement; it was NOT created to protect pornographers, pedophiles, and terrorists in their efforts to spread their cancer around the world to others.
And to get back to your point that the Chinese are doing fine with respect to censorship on the internet, and my following point also addressed what you wrote in the above quote, the Chinese political dissidents and the ethnic minorites residing in China, the Tibetans and the Uigars, beg to differ.
As for the base, the pornographers and the pedophiles, freedom always comes at a price where community standards often mediates such transgressions while at times perpetuating them. Also it's because of freedom of access that we're able to see pedophiles posted on the internet as a preventive measure to safeguard our children in addition to learning how to identify potential pedophiles via internet reading.
Keep whining and you're right, I've not been a lurker or a poster on the political forum for long. But I really can't say my few dealing with you have been all that favorable given your capricious insults that were completely unnecessary, red herrings, strawmen, preemptive whining and now preemptive accusations that I've reverted to ad hominems. Like I said, lose the hypocrisy and get real man. But given your approach to debate, I'm sure you'll come up with something from your bag of tricks to retort the above.
And to get back to your point that the Chinese are doing fine with respect to censorship on the internet, and my following point also addressed what you wrote in the above quote, the Chinese political dissidents and the ethnic minorites residing in China, the Tibetans and the Uigars, beg to differ.
As for the base, the pornographers and the pedophiles, freedom always comes at a price where community standards often mediates such transgressions while at times perpetuating them. Also it's because of freedom of access that we're able to see pedophiles posted on the internet as a preventive measure to safeguard our children in addition to learning how to identify potential pedophiles via internet reading.
My retort to you is simple: you first appeared on the Religion site, in a thread which asked for people's religious beliefs. I stated mine, and you proceeded to attack it by expressing disbelief in something I had said. From then on, the war was started. Not by me, but by you.
If you had asked me for clarification instead of leading with your ignorant misrepresentation of Rev. Moon, we'd probably have gotten along better. From the get go. But now that you have shown you tend to lead with your presumption, rather than "politely" seek mutual understanding of one another, the onus is on you now to give what you ask of others. Until then, I get to disbelieve whatever you say as pure hoke, myopic sludge, and self-serving tripe.
Other than that, I'm sure you're a swell individual. Don't get no more real than that, man.
//
Last edited by Fogbuster; 10-01-2007 at 01:04 PM..
initiate the poll here then, tough guy.... if it's not a landslide, do you promise to go away for a while?.... direct challenge.... if you're not willing to take it, please shut the heil up...
Well, maybe you could have said that a little nicer, but I agree with you here PressCoverage (what is this world coming to?), I see no reason to limit these websites, even if they do support violence against the US. We allow nazi websites and the like, correct? Heck, we even allow people to look at the content of moveon.org on the web, and that'll twist your mind way more than any jihad site. At any rate, isn't it a positive from an intelligence gathering standpoint to have communication going on in a forum that our intelligence agencies can monitor? All we need is some high tech monitoring of who's going to these sites and we're all set (sorry PressCoverage, but I had to put SOMETHING in here that you would hate!).
Anybody who says that we can't live without a totally uncontrolled internet, but that we don't need some controls as far as decency and even public safety over what gets shot around the internet is two-faced, at best. The garbage that too often travels over this medium is good for nothing except evil and has no place among normal, decent people. The First Amendment was written to secure the right to speak freely at a time when the absolute monarch could have you killed just for expressing disagreement; it was NOT created to protect pornographers, pedophiles, and terrorists in their efforts to spread their cancer around the world to others.
//
Of course the counter argument here is that normal, decent people need not look at material on the internet they find objectionable. If you don't want to be a suicide bomber or a pornographer you aren't being forced to look at that content.
My retort to you is simple: you first appeared on the Religion site, in a thread which asked for people's religious beliefs. I stated mine, and you proceeded to attack it by expressing disbelief in something I had said. From then on, the war was started. Not by me, but by you.
If you had asked me for clarification instead of leading with your ignorant misrepresentation of Rev. Moon, we'd probably have gotten along better. From the get go. But now that you have shown you tend to lead with your presumption, rather than "politely" seek mutual understanding of one another, the onus is on you now to give what you ask of others. Until then, I get to disbelieve whatever you say as pure hoke, myopic sludge, and self-serving tripe.
Other than that, I'm sure you're a swell individual. Don't get no more real than that, man.
//
How old are you, five years old? War was started? LOL. And as I told you several times, I took issue with your false presentation that Moon Sun Myung the billionaire, was enduring "hardship." How many times do I have to explain this to you. Evidently, taking issue with one of your lies is starting a "war." Your calls for censorship on the internet and the curtailing of our fundamental civil liberties is becoming more clear under this context. Keep flailing away though.
Civil liberties are great until they get so out of hand that our enemies use our civil liberties to destroy our civil liberties, our culture and finally our country.
Should a line be drawn somewhere on "civil liberties" should someone say "enough is enough" when it gets to the point that civil liberties force the law abiding citizen to put bars on the first floor windows and stay off their own streets after dark (this is now being done in Cambridge Mass) the city of Cambridge has turned some if it neighborhoods over to the "Rats".
Shoul a line be drawn?
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Of course the counter argument here is that normal, decent people need not look at material on the internet they find objectionable. If you don't want to be a suicide bomber or a pornographer you aren't being forced to look at that content.
Yes, the old "don't look" argument. Well, you know, if something is injurious to people -- as pornography and terrorism have proven to be -- then there is no earthly reason to condone it, or even allow it to enter the minds of people. And if that is the case, it doesn't belong on the internet, either. If it's evil, injurious, and even lethal, then make it illegal. This argument that all speech is sacrosanct is totally hypocritical. Want proof?? Walk up randomly to ten people on the street and tell them you want to have sex with them or that you want to kill them. If somebody doesn't put you down or hustle you off to the can by the time you hit the third one, I'd be surprised.
Re: Al Qaeda on the ropes??
Linear Mode
