posted on August 23, 2005 03:40:57 PM new
lol fenix - I'm willing to answer each and everyone of your questions....but it works both ways....and you haven't answered mine either.
Go....did you or did you not....do you or do you not....see what Robertson has suggested as being the exact same thing the clinton administration considered doing....and the exact same thing you were calling for doing to saddam, rather an sending in our ground troops?
THEN I'll answer you questions..promise.
-----
The most recent anti-gay marriage stats I could find was from the AJC, who approves of/supports gay marriage. They said that 40 of our 50 states have passed anti-gay marriage laws.
Then deduct Mass...that leaves 9 who still haven't voted on it. As I said....the majority of states don't want gay marriage.
----------------
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 04:01:14 PM new
::::lol fenix - I'm willing to answer each and everyone of your questions....but it works both ways....and you haven't answered mine either.::
That's probably because I originally asked the question five hours ago and despite four posts directed towards me since then you have not answered it yet.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 23, 2005 04:01 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 04:10:28 PM new
lol and just for the record....since that seems SO important to you fenix - You ask a question to conservatives on the 21st that no one answered until I did today. So...see...you're incorrect by saying I wasn't answering your questions. But as normal....the left doesn't answer questions/statements put to them....they just start with this childish game playing of falsely accusing others of not answering THEIR questions.
posted on August 23, 2005 04:39:26 PM new
Linda - I asked you a very direct question this morning which you still have not bothered to answer and rasther than do it you pull the"typical liberal" crap. Excuse me but I have extended you much respect answered question and not resorted to this cheap childlike name calling game that you go love and somehow I am the one who is in the wrong. So let me see how I can now play this game....
Typical conservative. When put on the line and asked to justify their "one rule for those I agree with, another for those I don't" mentality (much the same as the one you also displayed in the NKOTB thread) they instead try to divert attention away from the actual topic at hand.
How did I do?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 23, 2005 04:40 PM ]
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 23, 2005 04:41 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 04:52:25 PM newLOL....yep, just another liberal who won't answer the 'hard questions' put to them.
It appears as if Linda is playing her games once again. When someone asks her a question that is to difficult to answer she starts the "I won't answer your question until you answer mine."
Grow up Linda, you don't play in a sand box anymore.
Maybe Dave was right, perhaps it is time we put Linda on IGNORE.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on August 23, 2005 05:03:20 PM new "Maybe Dave was right, perhaps it is time we put Linda on IGNORE."
Why would anybody answer her questions while knowing that she will misinterpret and twist the meaning beyond all recognition. She is putting herself in an isolated corner. Who needs the ignore feature?
And to the question that Fenix asked..."How did I do?", I will say, Excellent!
posted on August 23, 2005 05:50:26 PM new Excuse me but I have extended you much respect answered question and not resorted to this cheap childlike name calling game that you go love and somehow I am the one who is in the wrong. So let me see how I can now play this game....
Sounds to me like one of those, "and you respect this guy Linda?-questions.
I think if I read this correctly, you (Linda) said: You see it no differently than if you (whoever) or clinton or anybody else said it.
Was that your Answer, that ms thing is demanding you didnt answer from five hours ago? LOL!!
What they dont get is, probably many have thought it, only Roberson was stupid enough not to be politically correct in actually voicing it. Who the heli is Robertson anyway? A preacher with his own tv station who leans conservative Christian. He doesnt speak for the U.S. Government. He speaks for himself. Big deal. You people are getting more and more desperate every day!
posted on August 23, 2005 06:03:05 PM new
Dbl - what's wrong sweetie - not enough attention from your only friend in every other thread so you needed some here. Aren't you the one that complains that others come to the defense of Krafty or Kiara or whoever your target of the hour is. Apparently it's not a problem for you to do the same. Linda is a big girl now Dbl and she can hold conversations all by herself. She doesn't need your help. She can answer the question all by herself. It's been asked twice now and no, it has not been answered.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:05:49 PM new
Lets go for a third time....
Do you believe that this freedom of speech that gives Robertson (who is a private citizen) the right to go on television and endorse using nuclear weapons upon our own governments and assasinating foreign leaders is a right that is held by all? Are you going to be just as supportive and eager to defend a Muslim leader that makes the same type of statement?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:10:01 PM new
Uhhh, Double, you're back! Umm, if you read anything I posted today that you think might have been aimed at you, it was only said because (pick one)...
a/ I was joking
b/ I was tired
c/ I was serious
d/ I was trying to find out if you really left
e/ I was being sarcastic
posted on August 23, 2005 06:16:42 PM new
It has been answered fenix, youre either just too stupid to comprehend it, or...as usual...you want to beat a dead horse to death.
I thought you needed some assistance in comprehending whats quite obvious to understand here.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:17:55 PM new
Look out Krafty and Fenix, DBL....will now accuse you of using some of the very same words she once used..and then will call you ugly names for being a word thief and stalker...
oh my!
posted on August 23, 2005 06:18:24 PM new
uh thanks kraft...tough decision,..kinda like trying to pick a single flower out a beautiful delicate bouquet! Do I have to pick only one?
posted on August 23, 2005 06:23:03 PM new
Well.. would ya just look at that..DBL.. said
kinda like....now you all know I have said those words before and she has the audacity to use my words..I tell you the woman is stalking my every move and now stealing my words....dog breath!
hahahahahahahahaha
posted on August 23, 2005 06:34:12 PM new
fenix - If you review our conversation...YOU will see that I asked you TWO questions first. [look on page one of this thread] Which you didn't answer....and with all the dems around here NOT answering questions.....I'm tired of being the only one who does.
I have long answered most all the questions you have put to me. I feel you have nothing to complain about this time. And I gave you MY WORD....which actually means something to me....as opposed to many here who's words don't mean anything to them. I have always stood by my word.....and you should know that by now. If you don't....that's not my problem.
--------------
and dbl - They don't see how the all come together...in attack mode....but if I have ONE person side with me on any subject.....they're like a pack of mad, rabid dogs....they'll go after that person from the first day they post...until they give up and leave.
That's the way it's always been here with them.....they can 'circle' their victim.....agree with the whole dem pack but let ONE person, even a dem such as yourself, agree with me on ONE issue....and then you too are their prey.
Just try to ignore them as much as you can. It's a game they play....they can't debate politics without making it personal....and they show right here and now....how well they can form a 'pack'.
Just laugh them off....it is funny...if you really stop and look at them.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
edited to change a question to TWO questions that went unanswered.
posted on August 23, 2005 06:40:32 PM new
And to answer your question, dbl
Yes, to all of this.
I think if I read this correctly, you (Linda) said: You see it no differently than if you (whoever) or clinton or anybody else said it.
Was that your Answer, that ms thing is demanding you didnt answer from five hours ago? LOL!!
What they dont get is, probably many have thought it, only Roberson was stupid enough not to be politically correct in actually voicing it. Who the heli is Robertson anyway? A preacher with his own tv station who leans conservative Christian. He doesnt speak for the U.S. Government. He speaks for himself. Big deal. You people are getting more and more desperate every day!
----
I agree they are. But what else do they have that's new to complain about? [no need to answer]
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 07:16:20 PM new
LInda - I think YOU need to reread the second page. I made two posts immediately after one another. You responded to and asked questions regarding the first post but not the second.
In the second post I asked you if you believed the the freedom of speech that your were exteneding to Roberts extended to all private individuals and if you would also support those same freedom for an Islamic leader that called for the assisantion of a world leader.
You have not responded to that question and you had not asked me any questions prior to me making that post. In fact, I had not made a post in this thread for two days prior to those consecutive posts. If you look at the time stamps - I asked you this question three hours before you returned to the thread and responded to anything said in those two consecutive posts.
The only question that I see you asked me on page 1 of this thread is...
fenix - Who's Cindy Schaffer?
That I will be glad to answer now although I didn't think it was a serious question.. It's a mistype. I meant Cindy Sheehan.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 23, 2005 07:17 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 07:28:30 PM new
I wish I did have a manager, Double. I've got 10 million things on the go and not enough time to do them all. The RT is my ONLY vice which doesn't help.
2) Too many different problems
when a few states allow gay marriage and most others don't. Do you force the states that don't allow gay marriage to honor the decision of what another state decided?
give me a minute...
2 again, cause #1 didn't count )
How would it be any different in Robertson's case. BOTH consider/ed it a way of not losing more lifes.
3) Come to think of it, fenix....I do believe it was you who offered this same suggestion when it came to a supposedly 'better' way to take out saddam. Rather than going to war and putting our soldiers lives at risk. Is that not true? So how do you see your statement of support for doing that to saddam vs. Robertson suggesting it?
4)Yes Linda, many have, but others have legaized it and that drives conservatives crazy so in order to override states rights they atre pushing for a Federal statute to override individual will of states which do not fall into line with them.
Others? fenix....what 'others'. The only state that has is Mass.
----------
There fenix....I've presented my side of this kangaroo court. Do you see my unanswered questions now?
If not....I can't help you. But I decided after four of my questions were being ignored by you...then I wasn't willing to continue answering yours.
I guess I shouldn't have answered your questions to conservative posters to begin with....if this is what I get to go through for doing so. This is so childish....yes you did...no you didn't.
geeze - I'm off....had enough of this for one day.
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 23, 2005 08:09 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 08:06:53 PM new
:: Do you force the states that don't allow gay marriage to honor the decision of what another state decided?::
You mean is a couple that was married in Mass sitill a married couple if they move to Florida? Yes, with a caveat. The couple must have been legal residents of the state in which they were married at that time. Although I think that gay marriage should be legalized everywhere, I'm willing to conceed that at this time it is not. A state should not have to recognize a union that made in another state for the express reason of bypassing their laws but a legal union of two persons who for whatever reason find themselves moving to a different state should not disolved.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 23, 2005 08:07 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 08:15:09 PM new
OMG...please...please...please...answer her Fenix.. I can't take it anymore..shoot I missed the exorcism...!!
posted on August 23, 2005 08:29:41 PM new
Linda - please go back to those questions you just posted from page two then scroll up 5 posts and see the first time I asked you my question.
There fenix....I've presented my side of this kangaroo court. Do you see my unanswered questions now?
Yes I see them Linda - I have seen the questions from page two for awhile now but as I stated when you asked them, you had not yet answered mine.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 23, 2005 08:32 PM ]
posted on August 23, 2005 08:56:28 PM newDo you believe that this freedom of speech that gives Robertson (who is a private citizen) the right to go on television and endorse using nuclear weapons upon our own governments and assasinating foreign leaders is a right that is held by all? Are you going to be just as supportive and eager to defend a Muslim leader that makes the same type of statement?
I'll take a stab at this. I believe Robertson has the right to say whatever he wants even if that includes dropping his pants and making an ass out of himself. I don't agree with or endorse his ideas and will exercise my right to tune him out. If a muslim leader wants to say the same things (and it seems to me some have) I'm not going to stop him and will again, exercise my right to speak out against those ideas or tune him out.
posted on August 23, 2005 09:15:59 PM new
Red, the reason that I ask this question of LInda is that she has been quite vocal in her support of British officials that are cracking down on Muslims leaders that preach hate against the west. Because of that I find it ironic that she feels the Roberts statements should be brushed off as simple free speach. I'm basically asking her to clarify whether she believes that free speech should apply to all across the board or if it applies only to those that share common belief with her.
Personally, I think Roberts is a crackpot whose relevence has long since wained. He does have the right to say what he wants but anytime that one endorses the breaking of international law by the assasination of a leader on broadcast televeision in front of a million plus people I think that they would be niave to believe that there would not be some reprocussions. This is a guy that once ran for president. You gotta think that had he won and had a religious leader in another country done the same thing, he would have the CIa and our ambassador talking with that leaders government without much delay.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 23, 2005 10:24:38 PM new
And, of course , my side of the story is a tad different.
[i]Red, the reason that I ask this question of LInda is that she has been quite vocal in her support of British officials that are cracking down on Muslims leaders that preach hate against the west[i].
I've been quite vocal in my support of not only the UK cracking down on the miliant clericsthat are calling for their kind to murder innocent civilians in their countries, but those from other countries too that are also expelling these radical cleric militants. We're not talking about 'hate speech' we're talking about a call to continue the London bombings of innocents.
There's a BIG difference there, imo. It's like here....not ALL speech is 'free'. Can't yell fire in a theatre...etc.
And I agree with these countries who are forcing out those who are screaming for the deaths of infidels in their own [birth sometimes] countries.
Because of that I find it ironic that she feels the Roberts statements should be brushed off as simple free speach.
And I've already answered her by saying I see his statement as being NO different from what the clinton administration talked about doing....and what she, herself recommending doing instead of taking our soldiers to war.
But, as everyone can see...she refuses to accept that as my answer. I think I was QUITE clear about seeing no difference at all....the message is/was the same.
I find it very ironic that when she supported it herself....that she's so offended when Robertson says the same thing. I think this is once again because he's religious many any here are not at all tolerant of the religious, as you will see later. Nothing more, imo. Otherwise it would be okay for all to say it....as they have done.
There....now everybody has both sides of the disagreement.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 23, 2005 10:49:54 PM new
There was a great article in the NYT on the 14th that spoke to the issue of 'What Is Free Speech and What Is Terrorism.
Very interesting article that speaks to what different countries are doing to stop this talk of jihad against innocents.
NYT - I'll post the link....but one has to be registered to access their articles.
August 14, 2005
What Is Free Speech, and What Is Terrorism?
By RICHARD BERNSTEIN
BERLIN —
Radical Muslim preachers have hated the West for decades - at least since the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb famously visited the United States in the late 1940's and loathed what he saw. And yet the West is facing something rather new these days as it collectively asks, What should be done with the imams living in London, Paris, Rome and other Western cities who preach the murder of nonbelievers?
Indeed, the late Qutb himself, who remains highly influential in the world of Muslim radicalism, may have hated what he called the "primitiveness" of the West and seen it as a menace to civilization, but he never called for terrorism.
The same cannot be said about many latter-day Qutbs who have come to Western democracies to revile them. There is, for example, the case of Abu Qatada, otherwise known as Omar Mahmoud Abu Omar, who, according to Spanish investigators, is Osama bin Laden's "ambassador to Europe."
Mr. Qatada and at least a few dozen others represent something new and, certainly since the London bombings last month, something extremely scary: Islamic sojourners in the West who have imported the radicalized, self-immolating rage of the Middle East to their adopted countries, preaching violence and hatred, and, according to a number of European governments, at times recruiting soldiers for holy war.
What to do about them?
Throughout Europe, governments have become conspicuously tougher with radicals in their midst, far readier than before to deport them.
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister, announced a "zero tolerance" policy for Muslims who preach violence or recruit fighters for battles elsewhere, as in Iraq.
The French last week deported two imams to Algeria, one of whom, Reda Ameuroud, had been arrested earlier in what was called "a preventive antiterror operation" in a Paris neighborhood with a mosque known for attracting radicals.
Germany, though not so far a terror target, had well before the London bombings been waging a campaign against Islamists believed to be violating the country's strict laws against inciting racial hatred. A couple of months ago, for example, Germany banned the Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir and has quietly deported a few of its members.
The group's spokesmen deny that they preach hatred or advocate violence, but the Germans are embarrassed that they had unwittingly harbored three of the Sept. 11 hijackers in a secret Qaeda cell in Hamburg.
In Bavaria alone, according to published reports, 14 "extremists and hate preachers" have been removed since November 2004.
Some defense lawyers and human rights activists argue that the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits sending anybody to countries where they might face abuse, torture or the death penalty.
And while Britain is in the midst of negotiating deals with 10 Muslim countries, including Jordan, Algeria and Morocco, to assure that deportees will get humane treatment, civil rights advocates and moderate Muslim spokesmen have criticized the absence of safeguards to assure abuses don't take place.
Beyond that, these groups ask: in clamping down on radicals, are democracies violating their own values and, in this sense, handing a kind of unintended victory to the terrorists?
One aim of terrorism is to provoke responses that will intensify anger in the Muslim world. The retort to this argument is that the hatred already exists, and those who foment it cannot be left to encourage violence against the very countries that have given them refuge.
Here, a look at how countries are handling their radicals.
---
And the article goes on to name these countries that are now taking action against these known terrorists....and clerics calling for these jihads.
France
Britain
Germany
Australia
Italy
Canada - who allows their speech, but monitors it. They delete "abusive comments" from the Al Jazeera programs which are shown in their country. Get that...wouldn't allow Fox News in...but did allow Al Jazeera. A poll of Canadians said that 81% favor"deporting or jailing anyone who publically supports terrorist bombers."
As I said...a very interesting read to see how other countries ARE making changes to deal with these times and those who have been freely allowed to support terrorism in their countries.
