Bush is a hero

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175635 Mar 8, 2014
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>If your point here is that Holder sucks, and could probably be successfully prosecuted for various crimes, you'll get no argument out of me.
(One of the things we both see fit to be unhappy about.)
I'm not saying Obama was honest about his agenda, Chris. Far from it - I'm saying that if R's want to recapture the vote, we're going to have to quit offering the masses a steady diet of judgment, self-righteousness, and greed - people don't vote for that. They vote against it.
IMO, the reason Obama won, even the first time, wasn't the die-hard, left-leaning Democrats. It was the middle of the road Republicans, fed up with their party, and voting against the nonsense the GOP put right out in the open.
Of course, we screwed ourselves by voting for him in 2008 - but the damage was already done. And R's did nothing NOTHING nothing, in the interim, but keep rolling out the social issues as legislative fodder, screaming about 'entitlements' for everyone but the rich, and generally making obstructionist asses of themselves, while completely ignoring the economy. That's what the people voted against, in 2012.
We gotta get a new schtick.
QED.
Some of this I agree with. Just as when Lyndi brought up some of the same points for the right. But from what I understand the last two contenders, McCain and Romney supposedly were middle of the road? I know from where I stand during one of the debates where Romney gave Obama a pass on the never ending lies concerning Benghazi it seemed quite weak. But still I voted for him as did most that I know. One thing on self-righteousness... last week when my wife shared here story from 1999 on she gave all credit to God. Of course she was speaking at our church so it was well received but the few times I've been witness to anyone in public life even daring to bring up God its often called self-righteousness. What I think I hear many saying is some wish the Christians would just go away, I won't but if the rnc died on the vine I wouldn't miss a bit of sleep over it.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#175636 Mar 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>
I see a difference between racial humor and racist humor.
Racial humor plays with stereotypes; racist humor perpetuates them.
The problem is that there's no clear line marking where one ends and the other starts.
We could do without stereotyping.
Then we wouldn't have to discern where that line was.

If I, we, he, she, they... see how close we can get to that line, we'll probably end up stepping over it.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175637 Mar 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing is undeniable though.
You're a racist.
And what's worse is that you're not ashamed of your racism.
That can only be characterized as horrible.
Be cute all you want.
You just expose yourself further for what you are.
Now shoo. Go and find some of my posts in other threads.
If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan. Period. President Obama

You're a racist-- Catcher1

Your words carry as much weight. With that in mind post on troll.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175638 Mar 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have noticed subtle, poorly masked racist tendencies in Lyndi's posts for a while now. I have said nothing, principally because I knew she would cavalierly deny, attack with ad hominems, and change the subject (as she has done now in reply to my post).
But when the racism is blatant, I spoke up, as others have. Racism should be faced head-on whenever it rears its ugly head.
By the way, the RR (RiversideRedneck) she referred to in response to my post is an admitted racist.
So when you posted 'your boy' concerning Zimmerman some time back that wasn't racist? You speaking up is a bad joke. When you make a stand for 'caveman Cruz'(more bigoted words from you) or anyone you disagree with you will have a case.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175639 Mar 8, 2014
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
<quoted text>
We could do without stereotyping.
Then we wouldn't have to discern where that line was.
If I, we, he, she, they... see how close we can get to that line, we'll probably end up stepping over it.
We'll probably end up stepping over the line by SOMEONE's idea of where the line is, but everybody draws that line for themselves.

In my reply to Chris I included the line "Of course, if you don't agree with me about what's funny and what's not, well, then, you're wrong" followed by a smiley.

That is the attitude a lot of people take, but they're not usually smiling when they do it - they're snarling.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#175640 Mar 8, 2014
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing is undeniable though.
You're a racist.
And what's worse is that you're not ashamed of your racism.
That can only be characterized as horrible.
Be cute all you want.
You just expose yourself further for what you are.
Now shoo. Go and find some of my posts in other threads.
Worthless troll stalker!

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175641 Mar 8, 2014
Philadelphia Judge Issues Ruling That Could Give Anonymous Online Commenters Second Thoughts

Really? More chilling for speech imo. But I'd guess when Waters tells the tea party to go to hell, no problems. After all, no one person is being singled out.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/p...

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175642 Mar 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>We'll probably end up stepping over the line by SOMEONE's idea of where the line is, but everybody draws that line for themselves.
In my reply to Chris I included the line "Of course, if you don't agree with me about what's funny and what's not, well, then, you're wrong" followed by a smiley.
That is the attitude a lot of people take, but they're not usually smiling when they do it - they're snarling.
Quite a few years ago I'd say comedy was my favorite kind of movie. Loved many from snl fame and it seems to me like other things the volume or in your face gross out factor has been amped up by 1000%. So much so that its rare I even watch one now. Same with action flicks. Or perhaps this is what getting old feels like. Just discovered the ability to watch old Magnum p.i shows for free with my provider.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175643 Mar 8, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
Philadelphia Judge Issues Ruling That Could Give Anonymous Online Commenters Second Thoughts
Really? More chilling for speech imo. But I'd guess when Waters tells the tea party to go to hell, no problems. After all, no one person is being singled out.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/p...
The article you linked to said the anonymous poster called a union head a name.

The 'name' was pedophile. Are you saying that should be protected speech, Chris?

If you're actually interested in what defamation is, the article at the link below gives a pretty good overview. Telling someone to go to hell is not defamation - nor is saying someone serves Satan, btw.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/lia...

There have been several defamation suits related to our little forum home here - not the Top Stories section, but some of the local sections are downright cesspools of the internet, with allegations of drug dealing, child molestation, child abuse, incest, and more BY NAME.

it's an area of law that still has to catch up to technology.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175644 Mar 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The article you linked to said the anonymous poster called a union head a name.
The 'name' was pedophile. Are you saying that should be protected speech, Chris?
If you're actually interested in what defamation is, the article at the link below gives a pretty good overview. Telling someone to go to hell is not defamation - nor is saying someone serves Satan, btw.
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/lia...
There have been several defamation suits related to our little forum home here - not the Top Stories section, but some of the local sections are downright cesspools of the internet, with allegations of drug dealing, child molestation, child abuse, incest, and more BY NAME.
it's an area of law that still has to catch up to technology.
In a forum on atheism Catcher all but called me one some time back. While he didn't use the word in his sick mind he found a joke about homosexual incest and a cousin funny. While the man makes me puke with his so called stands I would much rather err on the side of freedom. And I think you yourself have said for people in the public eye to expect it, please correct me if I'm wrong.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175645 Mar 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The article you linked to said the anonymous poster called a union head a name.
The 'name' was pedophile. Are you saying that should be protected speech, Chris?
If you're actually interested in what defamation is, the article at the link below gives a pretty good overview. Telling someone to go to hell is not defamation - nor is saying someone serves Satan, btw.
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/lia...
There have been several defamation suits related to our little forum home here - not the Top Stories section, but some of the local sections are downright cesspools of the internet, with allegations of drug dealing, child molestation, child abuse, incest, and more BY NAME.
it's an area of law that still has to catch up to technology.
To be clear you bet I think that should be protected speech. To my mind we all will face a judgment much higher than anything in this short life for "every idle word" but its quite clear to me the direction we are going and it isn't good. As I've said for some time I do think within my lifetime the first amendment will no longer apply as much speech is redefined as hate speech. And I doubt that the people that fill these forums with the never ending name-calling directed to Christians have anything to fear, just the people that stand on the gospel.

USA_1

“For F***'s Sake”

Since: Aug 13

Tanner Flats

#175646 Mar 8, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
Philadelphia Judge Issues Ruling That Could Give Anonymous Online Commenters Second Thoughts
Really? More chilling for speech imo. But I'd guess when Waters tells the tea party to go to hell, no problems. After all, no one person is being singled out.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/p...
The progressives love legislating from the judicial branch, don't they.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175647 Mar 8, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>The article you linked to said the anonymous poster called a union head a name.
The 'name' was pedophile. Are you saying that should be protected speech, Chris?
If you're actually interested in what defamation is, the article at the link below gives a pretty good overview. Telling someone to go to hell is not defamation - nor is saying someone serves Satan, btw.
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/lia...
There have been several defamation suits related to our little forum home here - not the Top Stories section, but some of the local sections are downright cesspools of the internet, with allegations of drug dealing, child molestation, child abuse, incest, and more BY NAME.
it's an area of law that still has to catch up to technology.
This is from the link you just gave me:

Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.

Darn Willie, and good part of the postings in this very forum concerning posters fit that. Still think people should say whatever they want. Man up or call the waaablence chasing lawyers and cry. This judge from the article imo is nuts.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Safety Harbor, FL

#175648 Mar 8, 2014
USA_1 wrote:
<quoted text>The progressives love legislating from the judicial branch, don't they.
Yep, its bunk.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175649 Mar 8, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
To be clear you bet I think that should be protected speech. To my mind we all will face a judgment much higher than anything in this short life for "every idle word" but its quite clear to me the direction we are going and it isn't good. As I've said for some time I do think within my lifetime the first amendment will no longer apply as much speech is redefined as hate speech. And I doubt that the people that fill these forums with the never ending name-calling directed to Christians have anything to fear, just the people that stand on the gospel.
Unless there's someone in this thread stupid enough to be using their given/legal name as their board name, then no - what happens in this thread is nothing like what the lawsuit about.

You seem to miss that fact, Chris. This wasn't one fake name claiming another fake name was a so-and-so. This was some coward anonymously calling a person a pedophile by name. Defamation, slander, and libel have never been considered free speech.

Let's suppose I found out your legal name. Under what you say, I should be able to post as protected speech that you, a truck driver, have a history of drunk driving. I can put that out there on the internet where, for example, future employers can run across it. Topiix shouldn't have to give you my name, and you shouldn't be able to sue me for defamation.

I couldn't do this verbally in your community, I couldn't do this in broadcast journalism, I couldn't do this in print journalism. If I did any of those things you could sue me. Yet according to you, I can do it anonymously on the internet without fear of repercussion.

USA_1

“For F***'s Sake”

Since: Aug 13

Tanner Flats

#175650 Mar 8, 2014
LittleWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Unless there's someone in this thread stupid enough to be using their given/legal name as their board name, then no - what happens in this thread is nothing like what the lawsuit about.
You seem to miss that fact, Chris. This wasn't one fake name claiming another fake name was a so-and-so. This was some coward anonymously calling a person a pedophile by name. Defamation, slander, and libel have never been considered free speech.
Let's suppose I found out your legal name. Under what you say, I should be able to post as protected speech that you, a truck driver, have a history of drunk driving. I can put that out there on the internet where, for example, future employers can run across it. Topiix shouldn't have to give you my name, and you shouldn't be able to sue me for defamation.
I couldn't do this verbally in your community, I couldn't do this in broadcast journalism, I couldn't do this in print journalism. If I did any of those things you could sue me. Yet according to you, I can do it anonymously on the internet without fear of repercussion.
You're right about the slander and libel, but that's not what the progressives are concerned with. They want everyone's identity out in the open so that the left-wing enforcers, weather it winds up being the IRS, DOJ or FCC can readily jack slap whoever posts something that's not in step with the Federal or State governments and you know that, weather you want to admitt it or not. <¦-o

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Auburndale, FL

#175652 Mar 9, 2014
USA_1 wrote:
<quoted text>You're right about the slander and libel, but that's not what the progressives are concerned with. They want everyone's identity out in the open so that the left-wing enforcers, weather it winds up being the IRS, DOJ or FCC can readily jack slap whoever posts something that's not in step with the Federal or State governments and you know that, weather you want to admitt it or not. <¦-o
Indeed. When you look at where we are going its clear to me many don't give a rip about the spirit of the law but are fine concerning the letter of the law. Quite good at perverting it for a stated agenda. When the news broke of the IRS targeting right leaning groups most libs here dismissed it. Just listened yesterday to one say not only did the IRS target his 9-12 group but homeland security as well. Props to Bush for starting this crap up.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#175653 Mar 9, 2014
The court case in Philadelphia, and others like it, are not as political as some people seem to think. They are a case of the law trying to keep pace with technology.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I mean, maybe ...

I suppose it's possible that ...

The individuals who are really behind the court case in Philadelphia that Chris posted about are:

“ Xue Rengui”

Since: Oct 09

Khitan extraordinaire

#175654 Mar 9, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
Philadelphia Judge Issues Ruling That Could Give Anonymous Online Commenters Second Thoughts
Really? More chilling for speech imo. But I'd guess when Waters tells the tea party to go to hell, no problems. After all, no one person is being singled out.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/p...
Hello Chris,

Thanks for the update,btw:)
Here's an article from the site in question:

http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-08/news/48...

Just a passin' thru... have a Great Day - All...

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#175655 Mar 9, 2014
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of this I agree with. Just as when Lyndi brought up some of the same points for the right.
Lyndi and I agree on a whole lotta things. I don't have any problem at all with most of her politics. It's her delivery that rankles, not her points. I probably need to look in a few mirrors, in that regard.(Just ask Bob.) On the other hand, "We're born that way," as the opening statement in a national dialogue about racism in America...well, I can't do that with her...I simply can't.
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text> But from what I understand the last two contenders, McCain and Romney supposedly were middle of the road?
To my mind,'middle of the road' means fiscal conservatism, and social liberalism, in the same political stance. And, as Willie is so fond of pointing out, the middle has skewed so far to the right, that the current President's policies are indistinguishable from his predecessor's. Face it, if the left was REALLY IN CHARGE, would we be having this radical conversation? Hell, no! You and I'd have been rounded up into camps, or exterminated, long ago.
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text> I know from where I stand during one of the debates where Romney gave Obama a pass on the never ending lies concerning Benghazi it seemed quite weak. But still I voted for him as did most that I know.
So did I - and Benghazi was just a symptom of an insidious disease, spread by BOTH carriers. The two-party system is an ongoing lie, and if we don't get the Independents a spot in the National Debate forums, we might as well just say we have ONE party.
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>One thing on self-righteousness... last week when my wife shared her story from 1999 on she gave all credit to God. Of course she was speaking at our church so it was well received
By 'well received', did you mean everybody bought it? I get why you're so invested in homosexuality being 'curable', but frankly, I believe the same creative force created everybody....and there are far to many homosexuals, for their creation to have been some cosmic mistake. JMO.
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>but the few times I've been witness to anyone in public life even daring to bring up God its often called self-righteousness. What I think I hear many saying is some wish the Christians would just go away, I won't but if the rnc died on the vine I wouldn't miss a bit of sleep over it.
Let me say that I'm truly sorry, if I've made you think I wish Christians would just 'go away', Chris. I don't. Many of the people I love, deeply, identify as Christians. Most of my family, and not a few of my friends, are quite vocal about their religious views, and we have had some spirited debates - but we don't hate each other, sir. I must tell you, that your willingness to call dissent 'hate' is unsettling. At least, I beg you to consider, that you see what you want to see, from a sense of persecution, with regard to non-Christians being ANTI-Christians. Most of your assertions about this sort of thing, indicate aspirations to martyrdom.
Again, JMO.
I hope your day is going well.
:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 21 min Wisdom of Ages 699,464
My mom is getting married again 45 min jaxon66 1
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 58 min Rednek 71,851
I travel a lot and it affects my dating life 58 min lance63 1
News Ex-Teacher Back in Jail (May '06) 1 hr nutzaplente 4
Are Quadroons and Griffes Considered Mulatto? (Aug '10) 1 hr Johnny 56
"O.J. hit me while he (BLEEPED!) me! 1 hr Johnny 9
James Comey's conflicted TWO FACES 2 hr Johnny 133
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr Big Al 995,081
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 hr Big Al 447,425