Originally Posted by RichieLion

Boy this thread really has you riled doesn't it. As my teachers always said "The truth hurts". You're going a little off the wall here.

Don't try to put words in my mouth or twist the words I do utter. I said exactly who I meant. Look up the history of the rise of Mussolini and see if the fascist/socialist state he created isn't eerily similar to was is incrementally being created right here in our country.

I pretty sure who you were referring to in your post, but I think the last time I heard that name it was by your friends referring to the former president.

P.S. Wait!!, I must be nuts. You see the correlation in the Mussolini and Obama regimes? Sorry; I just realized what I was asking.

And that is why you can't utter that name...

So I have a question....if you are so against Socialist things how do you feel about the non-funded multi-billion dollar entitlement Medicare prescription drug program.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

I know. Aren't we good?

Nope just hypocrits as this post proves.

Originally Posted by cologal

From your orginal post Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Why shouldn't Corporations pay taxes? The Supreme Court just made them people a few weeks ago....Let them be taxed. I didn't defend Dodd because he has no defense....however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. Frank wasn't chairman of the committee as long as the Repubs were. But I am glad you also admit that the Repubs surely were not fiscal conservitives. But Clinton did leave a surplus.... Protested the war.

I agree and have said many times there is blame enough to go around.....

I too enjoy a good debate.

You mean it would be OK to attack him if he was straight? You guys always hiding behind cards.(race, color, sexual orientation,etc. etc.)

Originally Posted by cologal

From your orginal post Corporations don't pay taxes, people do. Why shouldn't Corporations pay taxes? The Supreme Court just made them people a few weeks ago....Let them be taxed. I didn't defend Dodd because he has no defense....however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. Frank wasn't chairman of the committee as long as the Repubs were. But I am glad you also admit that the Repubs surely were not fiscal conservitives. But Clinton did leave a surplus.... Protested the war.

I agree and have said many times there is blame enough to go around.....

I too enjoy a good debate.

At NO point did I advocate not taxing corporations. What the point of the statement is, is that taxing a corporation or business does not have the same effect on them as it does on the individual. When business gets taxed, they simply figure that into the cost of doing business and raise prices accordingly to maintain a reasonable profit. If that cost becomes prohibitive, they simply stop doing business. How does that help the consumer? As far as Frank is concerned, or anyone else, I don't care if they are gay, straight, Vulcan, Klingon or Ferengi as long as they are honorable persons. Frank's problem is not his personal preferences but the fact that he is a complete IDIOT. He was the one to come out shortly before the 'meltdown' to assure us that "everything is fine, nothing to see here."
We also have quote 'ringing in our ears' too. Can you honestly be proud of "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." ?

Originally Posted by cologal

And that is why you can't utter that name...

So I have a question....if you are so against Socialist things how do you feel about the non-funded multi-billion dollar entitlement Medicare prescription drug program.

To name a name means I would have to be reading your mind. I, unlike you, try not to assume too much.

I don't want to live in a Socialist Bureauacracy. I don't was my President to admire the government of Venezeula.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

You mean it would be OK to attack him if he was straight? You guys always hiding behind cards.(race, color, sexual orientation,etc. etc.)

You are the ones you do the attacking.....

Originally Posted by RichieLion

To name a name means I would have to be reading your mind. I, unlike you, try not to assume too much.

I don't want to live in a Socialist Bureauacracy. I don't was my President to admire the government of Venezeula.

But you didn't answer the question.....

Originally Posted by cologal

You are the ones you do the attacking.....

You got to be kidding me. . Frank doesn't get the fraction of the attacks that your party gives Palin or Bush, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Pats2010

You got to be kidding me. . Frank doesn't get the fraction of the attacks that your party gives Palin or Bush, for that matter.

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

Originally Posted by cologal

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

I was only responding about your charges that republicans were attacking a gay guy. (your words)
".however Frank is just another Republican punching bag....lets attack the gay guy. "

Originally Posted by cologal

If you follow the string of posts here my point was that both sides employ attack politics and hate speech. Now with this post you agree.

True, as far as you take it. There are a few minor differences in the attacks though. For the most part, the conservative attacks focus on undesireable actions such as lies, criminal activities, and questionable actions or tactics. The 'Hate' speech is focused on hating what is being done to the country or system. The far-left seems to focus more on personal things such as looks, beliefs, race, family and labels. The most extreme examples that come to mind are the T.E.A. party events and what actually happens at them and how they are reported on, by the liberal media as opposed to events such as the protests at the G-20 conference, liberal demonstrations at campuses, etc. Would you care to clarify your definition of 'Hate Speech' and 'Rascist speech' ? I really am interested.

Originally Posted by macro

True, as far as you take it. There are a few minor differences in the attacks though. For the most part, the conservative attacks focus on undesirable actions such as lies, criminal activities, and questionable actions or tactics. The 'Hate' speech is focused on hating what is being done to the country or system. The far-left seems to focus more on personal things such as looks, beliefs, race, family and labels. The most extreme examples that come to mind are the T.E.A. party events and what actually happens at them and how they are reported on, by the liberal media as opposed to events such as the protests at the G-20 conference, liberal demonstrations at campuses, etc. Would you care to clarify your definition of 'Hate Speech' and 'Racist speech' ? I really am interested.

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......


In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

Originally Posted by cologal

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......

In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

Since we are discussing opinions and not facts, I definitely agree that there is a lot of spin, however, I believe we differ greatly on where the spin is coming from. As far as postings go in the forum, those that are posted without FACTS to back them up are nothing more than personal OPINIONS. We are still free to have our OWN opinions, no matter what the facts are. (Not defending anyone, just saying) The 'hug' comment was an inappropriate, patronizing response to the poster. If you want to see real hate speech, go to some of the links provided by WayneT to back up his arguments. The posters are personal, vulgar and crude.
Do you find the T.E.A. parties scary from personal experience or from information provided by the unbiased, liberal press and news outlets? My PERSONAL experience has been very positive. (we have attended several events and meetings) I enjoy reading the creative signs and some of the costumes. I would feel safer at one of these events with dozens of people exercising their right to open carry than I would in some areas of large cities. (and even some small ones) At NO time have I heard 'Hate speech', racial or ethnic slurs. The "HATE" is directed at policies that infringe on our rights and freedoms. The only 'hate' expressed around these rallies came from a handful of people (at a safe distance fortunately for us) that were trying to protest the rally. After being ignored, they finally slunk off. Yes, the G-20 and similar demonstrations scare me. Only used that as a recent example. I have a distinct aversion to having rocks bounced off my admittedly (some say) hard head and being beaten into submission by peace-loving protesters with their signs. I don't understand why a protest is license to destroy property and harm those who don't agree with your views.
As for Clinton and Bush, never thought I would look sort of fondly on the Clinton era (compared to the current one) and IF Bush lied I think it was because of faulty intelligence gathered from multiple sources which fooled the entire free world. Hardest thing in the world to prove is a negative. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that, with the amount of time Saddam had, that he couldn't have moved them. Again, you asked what I think. Back to you.......

Originally Posted by cologal

Sorry...that is just spin. All you have to do is look at some of the things posted in this forum. Hate Speech, for example only would be to call someone a Fag, Queer etc. and I don't need to use the word for Racist speech. In this string someone said, in response to a poster, "I think someone needs a hug" that was labeled as liberal hate speech.

I find the TEA party events to be very scary and hate filled....just take a look at the signs and guns. But the G-20 demos scare you...sometimes I think that liberals get painted with the board brush of anarchists. Many of the protesters in Seattle were actually anarchists......


In my opinion the either party looks the other way or rationalizes any untruths but then sounds the alarm when they think the other party has lied.

So for example I think Clinton lied about having sex and I also think that GW Bush lied about WMD and the War on Terror. So what do you think?

How many Tea Parties have you attended? I bet your just repeating your sources who try to belittle the Tea Partiers by referring to them with sexual slurs.

Originally Posted by macro

Since we are discussing opinions and not facts, I definitely agree that there is a lot of spin, however, I believe we differ greatly on where the spin is coming from. As far as postings go in the forum, those that are posted without FACTS to back them up are nothing more than personal OPINIONS. We are still free to have our OWN opinions, no matter what the facts are. (Not defending anyone, just saying) The 'hug' comment was an inappropriate, patronizing response to the poster. If you want to see real hate speech, go to some of the links provided by WayneT to back up his arguments. The posters are personal, vulgar and crude.
Do you find the T.E.A. parties scary from personal experience or from information provided by the unbiased, liberal press and news outlets? My PERSONAL experience has been very positive. (we have attended several events and meetings) I enjoy reading the creative signs and some of the costumes. I would feel safer at one of these events with dozens of people exercising their right to open carry than I would in some areas of large cities. (and even some small ones) At NO time have I heard 'Hate speech', racial or ethnic slurs. The "HATE" is directed at policies that infringe on our rights and freedoms. The only 'hate' expressed around these rallies came from a handful of people (at a safe distance fortunately for us) that were trying to protest the rally. After being ignored, they finally slunk off. Yes, the G-20 and similar demonstrations scare me. Only used that as a recent example. I have a distinct aversion to having rocks bounced off my admittedly (some say) hard head and being beaten into submission by peace-loving protesters with their signs. I don't understand why a protest is license to destroy property and harm those who don't agree with your views.
As for Clinton and Bush, never thought I would look sort of fondly on the Clinton era (compared to the current one) and IF Bush lied I think it was because of faulty intelligence gathered from multiple sources which fooled the entire free world. Hardest thing in the world to prove is a negative. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that, with the amount of time Saddam had, that he couldn't have moved them. Again, you asked what I think. Back to you.......

I saw the HUG thing completely differently....the sad thing with the electronic age is we are really unable to tell, for the most part, the intent of the poster. So I took it at face value. I did meet some TEA party people and they did scare me....all the yelling, taking over meetings to what end? And the signs.....the guns. Guns scare me big time.

I have been to several anti-war protests all peaceful...no rock throwing.

As I have 3 nephews in the service, one has been to the war zone 5 times winning the purple heart on his Th tour, I expect the President to only use the troops in defense of the United States. I struggle with the Afghan war as the 9/11 attacks came from there...but there was no excuse to invade a country that did NOT attack us. I still say both Bush and his administration totally lied in the run up to the war and all through out the 8 years...leaving the current administration holding the bag.

You don't like the main stream media and I think Fox Noise is a mouth piece for the Republican party. I mainly watch Morning Joe, PBS Evening News and Rachel Maddow. Today I took in about 1 hour a Fox Noise just to check in.