Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spunky, If accurately stating what a person said, no matter who that person is, makes one an apologist for their actions, then I now understand your mind set. I have finally met someone from the hollow earth society, a Jonestown survivor, or at the very least, the best example of social engineering I have seen yet. Who says propaganda needs to be sophisticated in order to be effective. You may want to reconsider that young wo/man
Tnhilltopper let me clear things up for you. . . Your not an apologist for as you put it "accurately stating what a person said. " Your statement that Clinton didn't "technically" have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky thus defending his position is what makes you an apologist!
And regarding your post and propaganda um, what's that saying? People in glass houses probably shouldn't be tossing those stones!
Kerry was over there with real guns and ammo. Unlike Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity and all the other right wing cowards.
Those punks are not fit to lick Kerry's boots. Total, utter cowards and traitors every single one of them.
Yup. You go over and have the guts to sacrifice for your country, you earn the right to say whatever you want about the conflict you have been sent to, even if it goes against the official propaganda.
No respect for chickenhawks that talk about sacrifice and send over others to die. Too busy making money to go over personally themselves.
Well my entire family knew Bush was wrong both times. And we will all vote for Hillary.
We were right on Bush, we are going to be right on Hillary also.
Well... good for you and the fam on the spotting the obvious.
But...a vote for Hilary is nothing better, though, I'm afraid. These people are all dictated by the same entities. Hilary is nothing more than an unattractive globalist with intentions on not veering the ship too much off course - just there to provide the illusion for change. Dig deep, you will find out.
But beyond that, just on the surface - who the hell wants another Clinton in office - sandwiched in between two Bush's? What has this country come to... when people are willing to stomach a potential 38 year rule - (If you go back to GW Sr.'s VP...) by two families. It all is truly mind boggling how some can passively except this.
Oh... but who knows anymore. The bar has been lowered so much. I think this country has jumped the shark. It's now just the Golden Age of Rust.
It's time to take the fam and head for the hills. Live off the land. Brew my own beer. Maybe start my own religion based on the musings of Hunter S. Thompson.
And, I'm really not a hippie - but this all looks like fun, no?
Tnhilltopper let me clear things up for you. . . Your not an apologist for as you put it "accurately stating what a person said. " Your statement that Clinton didn't "technically" have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky thus defending his position is what makes you an apologist!
And regarding your post and propaganda um, what's that saying? People in glass houses probably shouldn't be tossing those stones!
Well there spunkmiester, you see I tend to look at statements of such gravity with a legal eye, where things like semantics actually do matter. I noted that you carefully picked one small portion out of that post and then assumed that I am some flaming liberal for merely stating the same position that law chose to take.
You misrepresented Clinton's statements, or some might say you flat out made stuff up and claimed he said it. I corrected YOUR error, I did not apologize for Bill Clinton.
Now I want you to try and clearly state exactly what my propaganda is on this post or in this forum. I am rather curious to what you may think it is and I suspect you probably haven't read very many of my post or you would not have made these comments in the first place. Since you made the statement, you tell me, "What is this saying"?
PS, and this time, really make an effort as you say to "clear things up" because your last attempt left me rather confused.
Not really, I have sympathy for those that did NOT vote for this guy, but have to suffer the consequences and most of all, will have to PAY for the consequences.
Those that voted for him for the fist time and wised up and did not vote for him the second time, maybe... but those who voted for him again??? No. They are the kind of people that will vote for someone just because a certain label is attached to them, be it "christian" or "conservative" or whatever... obviously Bush is none of the things he claimed he would be (remember the "uniter" LOL?).
I have always thought that many 'leaders' of this 'new' Christianity are some sort of neo-Nazi hiding behind Christianity and just using it to get a motivated following. They certainly succeeded. Most of the changes that Bush has made promoting international corporations and curtailing liberties, would be agreeable to that sort of person.
When Guiliani ran in New York, he seemed like a pretty fair person, but he bacame a tyrant, even forming a committee to oversee and censure the arts, when he got power.
Now I see Pat Robinson backing him, although the guy has been divorced twice, his dad was imprisoned for being in the mob, his 'best friend' who he advanced in New York politics turned out to be a crook, and he is not anti-abortion.
So, though this guy seems the antithesis of what Pat say he believes in, Pat is promoting him. Methinks there is a hidden agenda here?
Wake up, Christians! Don't destroy the entire country and the freedoms that our forfathers cherished for the sake of a little propaganda during election time.
You made some very interesting points, goldengrain. There is a thread going on the former Mayor in 2008 Elections, where you might want to add some of these and/or other thoughts.
And as far as the administration is concerned, and the President, Studs Terkel said very similar things in an interview just today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldengrain
I have always thought that many 'leaders' of this 'new' Christianity are some sort of neo-Nazi hiding behind Christianity and just using it to get a motivated following. They certainly succeeded. Most of the changes that Bush has made promoting international corporations and curtailing liberties, would be agreeable to that sort of person.
When Guiliani ran in New York, he seemed like a pretty fair person, but he bacame a tyrant, even forming a committee to oversee and censure the arts, when he got power.
Now I see Pat Robinson backing him, although the guy has been divorced twice, his dad was imprisoned for being in the mob, his 'best friend' who he advanced in New York politics turned out to be a crook, and he is not anti-abortion.
So, though this guy seems the antithesis of what Pat say he believes in, Pat is promoting him. Methinks there is a hidden agenda here?
Wake up, Christians! Don't destroy the entire country and the freedoms that our forfathers cherished for the sake of a little propaganda during election time.
Look fella, you can huff all the glue fumes you want, it won't change the fact that grass is green, the sky is blue and the United States of America uses or has used, waterboarding as an interrogation technique.
Moderator cut: copyrighted article
For one thing, your claim was about Gitmo where neither of these prisoners were held. Secondly, there is a debate about whether waterboarding is or is not torture. Thirdly, it's also possible that Bush didn't know about these incidents. Therefore, considering these possibilities, it's likely Bush didn't lie at all.
I have always thought that many 'leaders' of this 'new' Christianity are some sort of neo-Nazi hiding behind Christianity and just using it to get a motivated following. They certainly succeeded. Most of the changes that Bush has made promoting international corporations and curtailing liberties, would be agreeable to that sort of person.
Are not neo-nazi's emulating Hilter's "National Socialist" type structure? If this is the case then neo-nazi's wouldn't be for a globalization type agenda, they would be for strong nationalist ideology. While Bush has certainly favored corporate rights and privilege over that of personal liberties which is a fascist belief, but I am not sure if these two issues culminate into neo-nazism.
Also, Bush's stance on keeping our borders open to anyone who might want to enter, friend or foe would also suggest a more globalist and internationalist type agenda. Try down the hall in the neoconservative, new world order room.
Just a reminder we are discussing the President, not his replacement.
Let's stay on topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
