Note to Conservatives: I am not out to destroy the world.

[Hamlet]

I made a mistake yesterday. While driving the office's pool car, I grew bored of the sports talk radio show that I usually listen to, and decided to try the pre-programmed stations of the car. Within an hour of listening to talk radio, I was told that, because of my political views: I hate America, I want the United States destroyed, I want democracy to fail, I want to oppress Christians, I want the social fabric of America to be rent apart, I want to destroy the family, and I want thousands of U.S. troops to die.

Wow, I'm a busy guy. Who knew?

So, a quick word to conservative talk radio "personalities", especially Eileen Byrne, Dennis Prager, and Rush Limbaugh:

I do not hate America, I love it.

I do not want America destroyed, I want it to be a beacon in a dark world.

I do not want democracy to fail, I want it to flourish, but I do not believe America has the right to violently invade countries in the name of democratization.

I do not want to oppress Christians, I want a proper separation of church and state.

I do not want to destroy the social fabric, I want it strengthened by the recognition of the value of diversity.

I do not want to destroy families, I want to strengthen them by recognizing the right of homosexuals to marry.

I do not want U.S. troops to die, I want each and everyone of them to return home safely and to be treated well by our government.


The sooner we can stop with the brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with you, the sooner we can start building a better, stronger, more united country. So stop spreading lies about what I want, stop protraying yourselves as victims of some massive liberal plot, and stop with the creation and destroying of strawmen to get ratings. And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". But, thank God, Dio does not have a talk radio show.

And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much.

[Elysian]

Can I add to your rant?

To the Christian announcer who said: "Evolution is a THEORY, NOT a FACT"

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BITCH

Did you not take eighth grade biology? Do you not know that a THEORY has been proven several times, unlike a proposition, which has not? Did you not read how bacteria EVOLVE to become more resistant to drugs like penicilin? Do you not know how roaches become resistant to poison? Did you not read the section I did about the moths in England that evolved from white to black to deal with the polution? You must have not read the same book I did, did you read any book at all? Or are you just a moron who believe whatever shit Falwell et al are spewing?

I swear, sometime I wish the scientific community would rename their categories of proposition/theory/law so these religious nuts (not everyone who is religious is a nut, okay? Just the ones with this attitude) wouldn't have the ammunition!

[Incubus]

Hamlet, it goes both ways, particularly here on the SDMB. Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world. What I think is a big shame is how much partisanship there is in the country right now, and how entrenched everybody is in their own beliefs. It feels like both sides are drifting father apart and trying to alienate themselves from each other. All I hear about these days is 'red states' and 'blue states', what is this, a fucking civil war?! I'd much prefer a 'middle of the road' approach where everyone can bring something useful to the table instead of accusations, complaints, and scapegoats.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally Posted by Incubus

All I hear about these days is 'red states' and 'blue states', what is this, a fucking civil war?!

Not yet. Give it time.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much.

Destroying a conservative's world, one radio station at a time.

[Try As I Might...]

Gee... and Air America doesn't engage in the "brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with them."

Oh, and include Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and a variety of others who purport that the Republican party is trying to remove all vestiges of democracy from our country...

Not too mention, it also appears to me that most threads in the Pit show a strong leaning towards demonizing any person who might support Bush. (See any thread that begins with genocide, bushbots, et cetera.)

We live in one of the most divisive partisan times we have seen in a loooong time--at least since Vietnam. Both parties adhere to the truth when it suits them and discard it just as easily.

The age of the statesman has unfortunately left us in this country. Where are our leaders? Where is the next Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Lincoln, Kennedy, or FDR going to come from? Agree with them or not--they were leaders. Who was the last great statesman in this country? Now we have politicians who appeal to public images created by banks of political marketing specialists. We have candidates that follow party lines. Really, was either Kerry or Bush appropriate candidates for presidency? Were they the best our country has to offer? Come on.

We need to get back to the point where political disagreement can be accepted. Demonization occurs on both sides now more than ever. Partisanship is at an almost all-time high. It sucks. I love my country, too. I love my Constitution. However, just because I am conservative, many people accuse me of trying to destroy it.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio...

Well, i don't want to speak for him or anything, but most of the evidence i've seen on this board suggests that Diogenes is not, in fact, a liberal.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

The sooner we can stop with the brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with you, the sooner we can start building a better, stronger, more united country. So stop spreading lies about what I want, stop protraying yourselves as victims of some massive liberal plot, and stop with the creation and destroying of strawmen to get ratings.

This will never....ever......happen. We're a divided country, and the split is only growing.

Please tell me who or what can unite this country.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Elysian

To the Christian announcer who said: "Evolution is a THEORY, NOT a FACT"

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU YOU IGNORANT BITCH

Did you not take eighth grade biology? Do you not know that a THEORY has been proven several times, unlike a proposition, which has not?

Um, no. Theories can't be proven--they can be disproven, and they can be supported by empirical evidence (lots of it, in the case of evolution), but you can't prove a theory. And before anyone attacks me, yes, I "believe" in evolution.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Well, i don't want to speak for him or anything, but most of the evidence i've seen on this board suggests that Diogenes is not, in fact, a liberal.

What the hell, it's the pit...

How would you characterize Diogenes the Cynic?

[gobear]

Originally Posted by World Eater

This will never....ever......happen. We're a divided country, and the split is only growing.

Please tell me who or what can unite this country.

We're not that far gone. Our differences will heal just as they did after the 60s. Talk aobut your divided country, 2004 has nothing on 1968, when the country was polarized into olfd and young, left and white, white and black, hawks and doves. We had two assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, we had the Vietnam War, and we had a large, disaffected youth movement. Some historical perspective would do some of you a world of good.

Just wait until Al Qaeda detonates a dirty bomb in downtown DC or starts a smallpox epidemic in NYC--you'll see the country pull together then.

[El_Kabong]

Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world.

Maybe some do. I don't. My political stance tends toward the liberal, but I don't believe conservatives are out to destroy the world. I believe there are many people who try to hide their interest in lining their own pockets, or a childish desire to attract attention to themselves, under a political label, and that this behavior is common amongst political loudmouths of all stripes.

Most of all, I believe that most of poltically-oriented talk radio is utterly worthless as a discussion forum, and that its hosts should just shut the fuck up.

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Try As I Might...

Gee... and Air America doesn't engage in the "brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with them."

Oh, and include Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and a variety of others who purport that the Republican party is trying to remove all vestiges of democracy from our country...

Let me check the OP .... Nope. Nothing in there about Air America being blameless. Maybe I should check the OP again. Nope, Couldn't find anything praising Bah-bra or Moore. Wait a minute...... There's something in the OP about some liberals doing it too? Whodathunk.

Originally Posted by Try As I Might

Not too mention, it also appears to me that most threads in the Pit show a strong leaning towards demonizing any person who might support Bush. (See any thread that begins with genocide, bushbots, et cetera.)

Hey, I made that point in the OP too! Thanks.

Originally Posted by Try As I Might

We need to get back to the point where political disagreement can be accepted. Demonization occurs on both sides now more than ever. Partisanship is at an almost all-time high. It sucks. I love my country, too. I love my Constitution. However, just because I am conservative, many people accuse me of trying to destroy it.

You know, by and large I think the majority of demonization on this board of those who voted for Bush is along the lines of their ignorance of the issues rather than their desire to destroy the country. I'm not sure which is worse to be called: stupid or evil, but I'd rather the namecalling stop altogether.

Originally Posted by World Eater

This will never....ever......happen. We're a divided country, and the split is only growing.

Please tell me who or what can unite this country.

Well, I don't know about you, but for while there in late 2001, early 2002, I thought our country was pretty united. After 9/11, I thought our country was united more than it had been in years, and that there was an opportunity for great things to happen. The invasion of Afghanistan enjoyed bi-partisan support, the rhetoric on the "news channels" was comparitively tame, and, in our little neck of the world, there seemed to be a bit less political sniping going on.

The potential for, and a minor actualization of, unity was there. Although it took a horrible national tragedy to bring it about, there was hope we would be a more united country.....

No such luck.

But I think that can happen again. Looking back at my own personal take on history, I think it is certainly possible for this country to be less partisan and more cooperative. It's just we blew the one big chance we had.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Metacom

What the hell, it's the pit...

How would you characterize Diogenes the Cynic?

Well, if you were angling for some flaming, i'm afraid you'll be dissappointed.

Diogenes seems to me to be a leftist, not a liberal. Exactly what flavor of leftist is sometimes a little difficult to tell. At times, he seems to be espousing democratic socialist positions, especially on many economic questions. At other times he offers a more libertarian viewpoint, particularly on social and cultural isses. I certainly think he's further to the left that what passes for mainstream liberalism in America. Then, at other times, he comes across as an authoritarian Trotskyist.

Again, this is based only on my observations here. I don't want to speak for him, and if he does, in fact, consider himself a liberal, then that's how it is.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by gobear

Talk about your divided country, 2004 has nothing on 1968, when the country was polarized into old and young, left and white, white and black, hawks and doves.

gobear, known to his friends as Elmer Fudd.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Originally Posted by Try As I Might...

Gee... and Air America doesn't engage in the "brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with them."

Oh, and include Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, and a variety of others who purport that the Republican party is trying to remove all vestiges of democracy from our country... .

Does the ellipsis in your username replace the phrase "I can't read through an entire OP without a kneejerk?"

[Try As I Might...]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

Let me check the OP .... Nope. Nothing in there about Air America being blameless. Maybe I should check the OP again. Nope, Couldn't find anything praising Bah-bra or Moore. Wait a minute...... There's something in the OP about some liberals doing it too? Whodathunk.

...Hey, I made that point in the OP too! Thanks.

But I think that can happen again. Looking back at my own personal take on history, I think it is certainly possible for this country to be less partisan and more cooperative. It's just we blew the one big chance we had.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't get that from the OP. I take it you are suggesting i should have gleaned all of your fairly sacrastic remarks quoted above from this...
"And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". But, thank God, Dio does not have a talk radio show."
I appreciate the clarification. It appeared to my feeble mind to be an afterthought. I just wanted to point out that there are quite a few people (absenting Dio) who do have access to the mass media and make similarly idiotic accusations against conservatives.

However, I agree with your clarified response that we are divisive and both sides deserve blame. I agree that it is sad that both sides could not retain the unity found post 9/11; however, elections will do that.

GoBear. I totally agreed with everything you said.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood

Does the ellipsis in your username replace the phrase "I can't read through an entire OP without a kneejerk?"

Heh heh.

Especially since the OP took considerable pains to point out that the rant applies to people at all points of the political compass.

[lieu]

I would agree that a good leader has been lacking for awhile in either party and that disaffection with either party's choice has contributed in large part to the partisan gulf. As much as I am angered over Bush's decisions I can't say Gore or Kerry struck me mid-campaign as being any more capable or of possessing greater vision.

For all the reasons mentioned above we've faced as of late a serious dearth of leadership among our elected. I'm hoping real hard that someone capable will come forth while our problems and other's perceptions aren't insurmountable.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by gobear

We're not that far gone. Our differences will heal just as they did after the 60s. Talk aobut your divided country, 2004 has nothing on 1968, when the country was polarized into olfd and young, left and white, white and black, hawks and doves. We had two assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, we had the Vietnam War, and we had a large, disaffected youth movement. Some historical perspective would do some of you a world of good.

I'll have to trust you on this as I had yet to exist. I still can't envision anything (aside of an attack) uniting us.

Just wait until Al Qaeda detonates a dirty bomb in downtown DC or starts a smallpox epidemic in NYC--you'll see the country pull together then.

A horrific attack would do far more harm (the economy, the ensuing bullshit, erosion of rights, etc), then good (uniting country for 2 years).

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by World Eater

A horrific attack would do far more harm (the economy, the ensuing bullshit, erosion of rights, etc), then good (uniting country for 2 years).

Not only that, but the whole situation right now feeds straight into the hands of the morons running this country.

If there are no attacks (for whatever reason) then they can claim that their strategies are working, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

If there is an attack, then this will simply be seen as evidence that their strategies are not being pursued vigorously enough, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

It's a beautiful thing, if you're an administration chickenhawk.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Not only that, but the whole situation right now feeds straight into the hands of the morons running this country.

If there are no attacks (for whatever reason) then they can claim that their strategies are working, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

If there is an attack, then this will simply be seen as evidence that their strategies are not being pursued vigorously enough, and that they need to continue invading foreign countries and eroding civil liberties at home.

It's a beautiful thing, if you're an administration chickenhawk.

And don't forget that us "sane" ones are the ones responsible for ruining the country, ha!

1927...........1928...........1929.............1930.................

[gobear]

Originally Posted by mhendo

gobear, known to his friends as Elmer Fudd.

Be vewy, vewy quiet, I'm hunting weftists, hehehehehehehehehehe!

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally Posted by Try As I Might...

Where are our leaders? Where is the next ... Lincoln ... going to come from? Agree with them or not--they were leaders.

Ironic in that in Lincoln's second inaugural speech (March 1865), he said this:

Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Not exactly the words of a leader in my opinion...more like a fire and brimstone sermon. If you're going to look for leadership, try finding it in yourself -- not elected officials of any generation.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I do not deserve to be compared with talk radio morons. I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Well, if you were angling for some flaming, i'm afraid you'll be dissappointed.

Diogenes seems to me to be a leftist, not a liberal. Exactly what flavor of leftist is sometimes a little difficult to tell. At times, he seems to be espousing democratic socialist positions, especially on many economic questions. At other times he offers a more libertarian viewpoint, particularly on social and cultural isses. I certainly think he's further to the left that what passes for mainstream liberalism in America. Then, at other times, he comes across as an authoritarian Trotskyist.

Again, this is based only on my observations here. I don't want to speak for him, and if he does, in fact, consider himself a liberal, then that's how it is.

I'm pretty far left economically and a social libertarian (that includes gun rights despite my personal distaste for much of the gun culture.

I have never been a member of any political party.

[Psycho Pirate]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I do not deserve to be compared with talk radio morons. I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.

Never?

You apparently think all conservatives either hate their grandchildren, or they want to destroy the planet, or possibly both.

So, do you prefer Rush or Hannity as a nickname?

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole.

LIAR.

Originally Posted by Diogenes

The "ultra-nationalist militia movement" of the right IS the Republican party.

LIAR

Originally Posted by Diogenes

I know that the neocons don't give a shit about culture or history and have no feelings at all about protecting precious artifacts.

PANTS ON FIRE

Originally Posted by Diogenes

in a country which has a majority population of scumbags. bigots and morons. No reason to feel good about that either.

Lick my balls. you fucking fascists.

Referencing the election of Bush.

It took me about 3 minutes to find these quotes of yours. I am simply stunned that you could tell such a bald-faced lie. Well, not actually stunned. Not really surprised either. Your credibility here has taken some major hits recently, and now I know why.

[Psycho Pirate]

Great simulpost!

Maybe Coulter would be a better nickname?

[Age Quod Agis]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I do not deserve to be compared with talk radio morons. I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole. I'm just antiBush.

Cough, cough.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic (3 days ago)

I know that the neocons don't give a shit about culture or history and have no feelings at all about protecting precious artifacts. We know they let the museums get looted while they protected their oil. I know they're fucking scum and I shouldn't be surprised that they would feel perfectly entitled to set up camp in one of the most historically significant archaeological sites in history and treat it like a vacant lot in Jersey.
<snip>
But since the neocons don't stand to make any money from the site, I guess they can't be expected to give a shit.

Just one more atrocity committed in a long series of atrocities.

Ahem

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic (3 days ago, same thread)

Besides, since when do any of the warhawks give a shit about human life. The main reason we're in Iraq at all is to kill people for their oil.

[whistles softly to himself]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Not to insert a debate into a Pit thread, but my answer is that Hitler was playing on feelings that were already present in his audience. He didn't invent anti-semitism he just exploited it. He gave people a scapegoat and he gave them a vision- a mythology- about what Germany always was and would be again. When people are fed an ideology that makes them feel superior, special, chosen, entitled to destroy another people they invariably respond to it.

I have now just hit the delete button and will restrain myself from drawing contemporary parallels. Bush lacks vision anyway.

Hmmmm.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm getting really sick of whiny conservative bitches who have never seen a Michael Moore movie slandering the guy and shitting all over him becaues he's made a career out of exposing what a sham their fucking capitalist ideology really is.

I'm sure I could go on, but I assume you get my point.

This is not to say that I'm above the occasional foray into lowbrow shots at the opposition. I'd like to think I generally am, but I'm sure there are posts out there in which my gloves drop below the belt. But sometimes self-awareness is part of improvement. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit of hopeful improvement, because I find your non-political posts to be generally wonderful, and I hope that your wonderfulness can extend into the political arena, too.

[Try As I Might...]

Originally Posted by JohnBckWLD

Ironic in that in Lincoln's second inaugural speech (March 1865), he said this:Not exactly the words of a leader in my opinion...more like a fire and brimstone sermon. If you're going to look for leadership, try finding it in yourself -- not elected officials of any generation.

Maybe someday we can discuss the merits of his presidency and the context of that quote, but I don't want to hijack this thread. Your point, on the hand, is well-taken. I was referring to leadership in the sense of how a politically elected individual can affect a county's sense of unity, and other such qualities. Lincoln pretty clearly suceeded in leading this country through its most difficult period.

However, I am now extraordinarily looking forward to Dio's response.....

[rjung]

Originally Posted by Incubus

Hamlet, it goes both ways, particularly here on the SDMB. Both sides think the other is out to destroy the world.

Yes, but the difference is that us lefty types can pick up a newspaper and see which side is actually doing the destroying...

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much

A mistake, in my opinion. You are not a part of their target market anyway, and therefore your tuning out will have no effect on them. Instead, it pushes your enemy out of sight and mind — exactly the sort of strategic blunder that has put the left out of touch.

[mhendo]

Well, while a couple of Hamlet's examples seem to cast some doubt on Dio's assertion, the examples given by Age Quo Agis are completely beside the point. Dio said:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I do not EVER make generalizations about conservatives or a Republicans as a whole.

Of Age Quo Agis's examples:

In Number 1, Dio is specifically referring to neocons, not conservatives or Republicans as a whole. If you don't know how these things differ, i suggest some reading is in order.

Number 2 is referring to "warhawks." Again, this doesn't apply to all conservatives, or all Republicans.

Number 3 simply suggested that there might be some contemporary parallels to Hitler's use of propaganda, scapegoating, and nationalist rhetoric. And it said that "Bush lacks vision."

Number 4 refers specifically to a subset of conservatives who complain about Michael Moore without ever having seen his movies. Hardly a blanket condemnation of all conservatives or all Republicans.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension, A.Q.A..

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

I made a mistake yesterday. While driving the office's pool car, I grew bored of the sports talk radio show that I usually listen to, and decided to try the pre-programmed stations of the car. Within an hour of listening to talk radio, I was told that, because of my political views: I hate America, I want the United States destroyed, I want democracy to fail, I want to oppress Christians, I want the social fabric of America to be rent apart, I want to destroy the family, and I want thousands of U.S. troops to die.

Wow, I'm a busy guy. Who knew?

So, a quick word to conservative talk radio "personalities", especially Eileen Byrne, Dennis Prager, and Rush Limbaugh:

I do not hate America, I love it.

I do not want America destroyed, I want it to be a beacon in a dark world.

I do not want democracy to fail, I want it to flourish, but I do not believe America has the right to violently invade countries in the name of democratization.

I do not want to oppress Christians, I want a proper separation of church and state.

I do not want to destroy the social fabric, I want it strengthened by the recognition of the value of diversity.

I do not want to destroy families, I want to strengthen them by recognizing the right of homosexuals to marry.

I do not want U.S. troops to die, I want each and everyone of them to return home safely and to be treated well by our government.


The sooner we can stop with the brainless demonization of those who disagree politically with you, the sooner we can start building a better, stronger, more united country. So stop spreading lies about what I want, stop protraying yourselves as victims of some massive liberal plot, and stop with the creation and destroying of strawmen to get ratings. And, lest anyone get the wrong idea, this rant can easily be directed to liberals like Dio who engage in the same fanatical, unthinking hatred of the "opposition". But, thank God, Dio does not have a talk radio show.

And, just so you know, I re-programmed all the stations to NPR. It's the little victories that matter so much.

Not all conservatives believe in binding people to one social order, binding Church and State, taking away peoples rights.

We profess freedom of the individual, the right to work and be as successful as you can, to work and attain what you want within a free society.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

We profess freedom of the individual, the right to work and be as successful as you can, to work and attain what you want within a free society.

And a free society detains people without due process right?

What is this free society you speak of?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thank you, mhendo.

I rest my case. After all that searching, not one of you fuckers could come up with an example of me making generalizations about conservatives or Republicans. I said shit about neocons. I said shit about conservatives who trash Michael Moore without watching his movies. I said the Republican party is "ultra-nationalist" (which it is) and I made an election night generalizations about AMERICANS, not just consrvatives.

I was right. I will accept your fucking apologies now...and Hamlet can eat my taint.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

LIAR.

LIAR


PANTS ON FIREReferencing the election of Bush.

It took me about 3 minutes to find these quotes of yours. I am simply stunned that you could tell such a bald-faced lie. Well, not actually stunned. Not really surprised either. Your credibility here has taken some major hits recently, and now I know why.

Did you actually read those things? Which one of those quotes constitutes a generalization about conservatives or Republicans. Surely you know the difference between conservatives and neocons. My last quote was about a majority of American voters, not just conservatives (unless you think only conservatives voted for Bush). In the first quote I facetiously call the GOP "ultra-nationalist" and a "militia movement" and I think that both of those characterizations are rhetorically defensible.

What I do NOT do is constantly talk about how conservative hate America or how conservatives are stupid or any of that shit that those right wing radio assholes do. I am viciously anti-Bush but I do not divide the world into "us and them" and that has never been a characteristic of my posting here.

[Try As I Might...]

Originally Posted by World Eater

And a free society detains people without due process right?

What is this free society you speak of?

Please define what you believe a free country is and please give me an example of a country that does not allow a detention without the right to due process of law and does it without exception. I don't believe one exists. Is this statement purely rhetorical or is it serious?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ah....well....if other countries do it that makes it ok.


Of course we actually have it written in our Constitution but I guess Constitutions were made to be pissed on.

[Psycho Pirate]

Diogenes, I see you didn't respond in the negative with regard to my statement.

Truth hurts, doesn't it Coulter?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Psycho Pirate

Diogenes, I see you didn't respond in the negative with regard to my statement.

Truth hurts, doesn't it Coulter?

It was a valid question. Fuck you.

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by Try As I Might...

Please define what you believe a free country is and please give me an example of a country that does not allow a detention without the right to due process of law and does it without exception. I don't believe one exists. Is this statement purely rhetorical or is it serious?

My definition of a free country includes charging someone of a crime if you have evidence, and releasing them if you don't. It doesn't include detaining people indefinitely on vague charges. As far as other countries, are Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, etc currently detaining people without charges?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Oh. fuck it. I'm going to just acknowledge Psycho Pirate's quote.

Congratulations. Out of almost 13,000 posts you managed to uncover a single nasty (albeit sarcastic) generalization about conservatives. I guess that makes me the left Coulter.

[Try As I Might...]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Ah....well....if other countries do it that makes it ok.


Of course we actually have it written in our Constitution but I guess Constitutions were made to be pissed on.

Every Constitutional protection has limitations depending on the circumstances in which it is being applied. I assume that is nothing new to you.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Try As I Might...

Every Constitutional protection has limitations depending on the circumstances in which it is being applied.

What the fuck are you talking about? No they don't.

[Try As I Might...]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What the fuck are you talking about? No they don't.

OK...
Which one would you like to talk about?

Let's just take due process. (and i'm going to use a basic example for clarity)
detention: police require only reasonable suspicion
arrest: probable cause is required, and if not accompanied with a warrant, it also requires exigent circumstances. A simple detention does not require that.
If there aren't limitations on one's right to due process given the situation, then why do we have different standards for police conduct for these two circumstances?

[Psycho Pirate]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Oh. fuck it. I'm going to just acknowledge Psycho Pirate's quote.

Congratulations. Out of almost 13,000 posts you managed to uncover a single nasty (albeit sarcastic) generalization about conservatives. I guess that makes me the left Coulter.

No, it doesn't. It just goes to show that all generalizations are wrong, including your own about yourself. Kudos for admitting to your mistake.

Besides, I shouldn't compare you to Ann Coulter. I find Ann Coulter much more witty, enlightening, and beautiful than you.

[Ryan_Liam]

Originally Posted by World Eater

And a free society detains people without due process right?

What is this free society you speak of?

Like the countless Leftist governments have enacted? Labour is leftist here, and the Conservatives oppose it.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam

Labour is leftist here, and the Conservatives oppose it.

If you really believe that the current British Labour government is leftist, may i suggest you get out a little more?