cwsox Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The thing is. you are on the side of the protesters in this thread. I don't know if it's because you agree with their views or just because it is their right to free speech...However, if it's because of their right to free speech then why have you lost respect for us for posting our opinions.... OH I SEE you only agree with it if it's from your side....ahhh much clearer now...HYPOCRITE! God Bless my cousin PFC Victor Ferenzi Proudly Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan You are very, very wrong. Very wrong. I hope you are invokinmg God's blessings on mmy active duty marine son and on all who work for peace on all sides. And the response to what you are wrong about has already been given in this thread by The Cheat: The "photo essay" here, is hardly a photo essay. The photo's here are Mocking peoples differences. The photographer is spreading his view, his ANTI-FREE-SPEECH view, by inculding captions of people who don't shop at the Gap, are Obese, hula-hooping, or just plain goofy. He's trying to discout thier views by making them seem like freaks. What makes thier opinions any less valid than his? Many of the people in this section "everyone for Palestine" don't have any form of propoganda on thier person, the Photographer has labelled them Anti-semitic for simply visiting a park. I don't get dragged into many political conversations around here, but this particular section of "photo essay" is ridiculous. I respect everyones opinion. That's the true american way. -- But if this individual doesn't agree with them he doesn't have to Mock the opposing party. In the Palestine Chic part of the photo's he makes fun of peoples clothing. Thier RELIGIOUS clothing!!!. Why should I respect someone for opressing others religious freedoms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted March 24, 2004 Author Share Posted March 24, 2004 Absolutely, I invoke my blessings on you're son...and all who serve...I must tell ya though...I'm not the greatest Catholic in the world. I think you are wrong....and I think Cheat is wrong... Why is this guys photo's labeled ANTI-FREE SPEECH...and the protester's = free speech?? Photographer has labelled them Anti-semitic for simply visiting a park Where did he label any of them anti-semetic?? I Love the comment about people just visiting a park...yeah I'm sure they just happen to be at the park that day. Those poor people. This is classic if this individual doesn't agree with them he doesn't have to Mock the opposing party. In the Palestine Chic part of the photo's he makes fun of peoples clothing. Thier RELIGIOUS clothing!!!. Why should I respect someone for opressing others religious freedoms? Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy?? What the hell do you think the protestors are doing? Why is it ok for them to do it and not for the guy to post that they are doing it?? If anyone is making a mockery it's the protestors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 hahaha...the funny thing is, and I can't speak for everyone that posted, is that you think I give two s***s about you giving me respect. Who the f*** are you? Maybe you need to grow up As for the bin laden quote from a US congressman...I have yet to find it anywhere and I have looked all over for it...If that was said...then I agree with you that it was a ridiculous thing to say. However, it's no more ridiculous than the comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Either way I can't find your quote... So out of all the anti american and socialist communism pictures on there, you point out the "Queers for Palestine" and ramble on about some homophobic hatred. I believe the caption under that picture simply said "queers for palestine" I don't see much hatred in simply stating what the sign said. I also don't see anything outrageous about buddhists..nor did the guy who posted the picture as he simply said "meditators for palestine" Why are you trying to make s*** out to be something it's not. That is my flag too...I don't have to join the army to be patriotic and be disgusted by these protestors and those that align themselves with em!!! The thing is. you are on the side of the protesters in this thread. I don't know if it's because you agree with their views or just because it is their right to free speech...However, if it's because of their right to free speech then why have you lost respect for us for posting our opinions.... OH I SEE you only agree with it if it's from your side....ahhh much clearer now...HYPOCRITE! God Bless my cousin PFC Victor Ferenzi Proudly Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan Firstly, if you do a Google search for Tom Cole Hitler, you get about 18,800 hits with the article linked on there. So I have no idea how you didn't find the article on the internet since it's all over the place. http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/03/04/hitler/ is a link to the AP article about the topic so you can read it. I concur. There's no equation of Bush to Hitler. After all, Hitler was elected to his position and served in the front lines of WW I. So clearly, there is no comparison. You know, it just irks me when 2 out of hundreds of MoveOn.org commericals compared Bush to Hitler, the GOP leadership was up in arms. Now one of their Representatives makes a comment equating a vote against Bush as a vote for Hitler and they fall silent. I think some of the policies (outside of the killing of 11 million in concentration camps) have been advocated by the current administration but they are by no means specific only to the Bush administration. But fascism is not just Hitler's regime. You can bring in Mussolini, Franco, Suharto etc. http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm 14 Defining Aspects of a Fascist government that goes through the common points of all the major fascist regimes. As for the guy's comments on the site re: Palestine...a lot of the photos had people with no Palestinian activism items (buttons, shirts, etc) on so he was just making fun of the movement and the people. If they had anything on identifying their affiliation then it *could* be accurate. I mean, asserting that they ALL believe in Palestine just because they're in the park is like saying "All conservatives vote Bush" when there are plenty of conservatives who are against Bush because of his fiscal irresponsibility and many conservatives who want to be isolationist. (a few of the tenets of the old conservative movement) In fact, you should read www.conservativesagainstbush.com Actually, if we get the technical term of "Semite", it means all people in the Middle Eastern region...so that makes Palestinians "Semites". So they're Semite loving anti-Semites? I don't agree with this guy's speech but I will defend his right to say whatever goddamn thing that wants to fall out of his brain. Like the quote on the back of my favorite hoodie that I wear all the time says "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to say things you don't want to hear." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Bush was elected to Apu. I hate that s*** about how "Bush wasnt elected blah blah blah". You know, it's not the best way to elect presidents, but we've used this method of a electoral college since the 1790's. Its the way the country does it. He WON the election by the rules of how this country elects the president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 You know, it's not the best way to elect presidents, but we've used this method of a electoral college since the 1790's. Its the way the country does it. Which is something that needs updating (or eliminating), but that is another discussion for another time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Which is something that needs updating (or eliminating), but that is another discussion for another time... yes it probably does. But, for now, that is the way we do it, so it relaly irritates me when people say "bush wasnt really elected" and allude (sp?) to such. True, he didnt win the popular vote, but the popular vote is not how this country eletcs presidents (lol how bad does that sound) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Which is something that needs updating (or eliminating), but that is another discussion for another time... There's a legit reason behind it, but like you said, that another discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 There's a legit reason behind it, but like you said, that another discussion. there was a legit reason at the time. I took an American Revolution class last semester and learned a lot about it. It made sense then, but in this day and age, it needs to be fixed a little Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 there was a legit reason at the time. I took an American Revolution class last semester and learned a lot about it. It made sense then, but in this day and age, it needs to be fixed a little if the election of 2000 had been a nationwide popular vote, disputes could have been raised in several states in an effort to close or expand the narrow margin separating the two candidates. Under the current system, the dispute was limited to Florida. Imagine the mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Here's the entire article. It's from C-SPAN Reasons to keep the Electoral College? * In 48 of the 50 states, if a candidate wins the popular vote, they receive all of that states electoral votes. This forces the Democrats and Republicans to develop platforms that are diverse and inclusive in an attempt to attract as many voters as possible. * Due to the diverse platforms of the Democrat and Republican Parties, the electoral system discourages the development of significant third parties. As a result, it is virtually guaranteed that one of the candidates will receive an absolute majority (over 50%) of the electoral votes. * The Electoral College restricts significance of the popular vote to the state level. As a result, disputes have an impact at the state and local level rather than at the national level. For example, if the election of 2000 had been a nationwide popular vote, disputes could have been raised in several states in an effort to close or expand the narrow margin separating the two candidates. Under the current system, the dispute was limited to Florida. * Although presidential candidates rarely visit less populous states, the Electoral College guarantees each state a minimum of three electoral votes and a potential impact on the outcome of the election. With a nationwide popular vote, candidates would increase their visibility in populated regions of the country and reduce their already limited spending in sparsely populated states. Reasons to abolish the Electoral College? * The candidate who receives the most popular votes can lose the election (e.g. 1876 & 2000). Critics of the Electoral College would argue that the current system is inconsistent with the values of a democracy. * The Electoral College prevents the development of a third party that could mount a legitimate campaign to win the White House. The current winner-take-all system forces the Democrats and Republicans to develop wide ranging platforms in a attempt to attract as many voters as possible. As a result, regional campaigns or campaigns that emphasize a limited number of issues get shut out. * The electoral college was a result of a compromise at the Constitutional Convention in an effort to keep the presidential election out of the hands of the "uneducated." This system served its purpose in the early years of America's history. Today, the electoral college is an outdated system that needs to be Constitutionally amended. * Although it has not happened in modern American history, a presidential election could be thrown to the House of Representatives. In a House vote, each state would receive one vote, which gives less populous states a disproportionate level of influence in the selection of the president of the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 we need to bomb those protestors with bars of soap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 We are the United * States * of America. In principle we are a group of individual states united into one country. The group of states gets together and elects a president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 we need to bomb those protestors with bars of soap. Isn't that always the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 We are the United * States * of America. In principle we are a group of individual states united into one country. The group of states gets together and elects a president. Very good, Texsox! That's the way it's done in this country. It may not be a perfect system, but it's the best one known to man. The funny thing is, if Gore could have even carried his own home state, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. But then, the people of Tennessee apparently were familiar enough with their esteemed senator that they felt it was in their best interests not to have him be their president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Very good, Texsox! That's the way it's done in this country. It may not be a perfect system, but it's the best one known to man. The funny thing is, if Gore could have even carried his own home state, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. But then, the people of Tennessee apparently were familiar enough with their esteemed senator that they felt it was in their best interests not to have him be their president. It is the best way to run a large country. It is very costly. We have so many different government entities because of it. I sometimes wonder if I need city, country, state, and national governments. Then toss in School Districts, Water Districts, district this and district that, a couple regional thigns, and my head spins how much tax dollars are being spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Very good, Texsox! That's the way it's done in this country. It may not be a perfect system, but it's the best one known to man. I would certainly not say best known to man. But to each kis own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I would certainly not say best known to man. But to each kis own. Not for countries but I believe the optimum organization for a committee to quickly get something done, is to have an odd number of participants and 3 is too many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 They are the reason I wont go to a protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 They are the reason I wont go to a protest. Could you imagine a protest rally for moderates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Could you imagine a protest rally for moderates? I was going to find a GAP ad to photoshop in some Moderate protest signs like -- Apathy rules, or something like that -- I ran a GIS and this is what I found --- I can't top this one so I'll just post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 They are the reason I wont go to a protest. you should go - never know who you might meet - but I betcha it wouldn't be Israel4Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 you should go - never know who you might meet - but I betcha it wouldn't be Israel4Life Its I4 *EVER* PA4Life Geeze, gets the kooks straight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 you should go - never know who you might meet - but I betcha it wouldn't be Israel4Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Could you imagine a protest rally for moderates? I couldn't. They all have jobs to go to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 and why do people so despise and mock peaceful protests? Answer: No. We hate them for their point of view. Freedom of speech means I get to criticize these anti-american assclowns as much as I want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.