Download A Book Get Arrested, Call For Terror Attacks - No Problem!

[Pastor Larry]

He said what he said PL

But what did he mean by it? Was he giving his own view? Or was he employing a rhetorical device such as irony? You haven't bothered to interact with the substance of it.

as did many others there is no mistaking their convictions.

The PNACer's, Brzezinski, Gingrich and a host of other neocons and their supporters, even the 2005 memo says the same thing. They have consensus.[/quote]I don't know who "they" are, and I don't really care.

You seem to be the odd man out denying all that has been said and written.

I am not denying anything. You seem to have a very difficult time following the issue here. I said nothing about the PNACer's or Brzezinski. I did not say anything about any other comment Gingrich may have made. How should you know that? By looking at what I actually did say. It's right here on the page in front of you and it is inexcusable for you to miss it.

I made a comment on a very specific remark made by Gingrich. You trying to bring other stuff into it is silly, although all too typical of your arguments when you run out of substance.

Their own words policy papers and history prove you to be wrong.

Prove me wrong about what? All I said was that it seems clear that Gingrich was using a rhetorical device. "Their own words policy papers and history" are irrelevant to that. They would only be relevant if I had said something about "Their own words policy papers and history." But as you can see from reading my words, I did not say anything about "Their own words policy papers and history." So read more closely and don't embarrass yourself by getting this far off topic.

Do yourself and your fellow countrymen a favor PL stop chasing your tail around in circles acting as if all that has been said and written by these people really means something else altogether. Get educated on this subject and be a patriot instead of trying in vain to run interferance for these criminals.

This is pure nonsense. I have said nothing about anything that anyone has said save one comment. You are desperately trying to avoid the issue by confusing it with other things.

Perhaps you are blinded by your faith in the state and the idea that "our" government is incapable of such acts PL.

I don't have any faith in our state. I think it is corrupt. If you remember, I have been the odd man out here for a long time saying you guys care too much about the state.

An educated man such as yourself should know this.

I do, but that wasn't the topic.

Why you do not is beyond my powers of comprehension.

That's not saying much since it appears just about everything is beyond your comprehension.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you are just whoafully uninformed and have no interest in becoming fully informed.

Informed people spell "woefully" correctly. Informed people understand the use of rhetoric. Informed people do not attribute arguments to others that they didn't make. Informed people do not leave much beyond their comprehension. You fail on all four counts.

Your blind defense of everything anti-Bush is just as bad as the pro-Bush people. You need to get a little objectivity ... and a little comprehension wouldn't hurt you.


But I will have to applaud you. At least you came back and tried to defend your position. Ivon and Ken didn't bother to do that. Of course may be they have the good sense to run and hide because they have seen how silly and foolish their comments were and do not wish to continue to defend the indefensible.

 

[poncho]

But what did he mean by it? Was he giving his own view? Or was he employing a rhetorical device such as irony? You haven't bothered to interact with the substance of it.



The PNACer's, Brzezinski, Gingrich and a host of other neocons and their supporters, even the 2005 memo says the same thing. They have consensus. I don't know who "they" are, and I don't really care.

I am not denying anything. You seem to have a very difficult time following the issue here. I said nothing about the PNACer's or Brzezinski. I did not say anything about any other comment Gingrich may have made. How should you know that? By looking at what I actually did say. It's right here on the page in front of you and it is inexcusable for you to miss it.

I made a comment on a very specific remark made by Gingrich. You trying to bring other stuff into it is silly, although all too typical of your arguments when you run out of substance.

Prove me wrong about what? All I said was that it seems clear that Gingrich was using a rhetorical device. "Their own words policy papers and history" are irrelevant to that. They would only be relevant if I had said something about "Their own words policy papers and history." But as you can see from reading my words, I did not say anything about "Their own words policy papers and history." So read more closely and don't embarrass yourself by getting this far off topic.

This is pure nonsense. I have said nothing about anything that anyone has said save one comment. You are desperately trying to avoid the issue by confusing it with other things.

I don't have any faith in our state. I think it is corrupt. If you remember, I have been the odd man out here for a long time saying you guys care too much about the state.

I do, but that wasn't the topic.

That's not saying much since it appears just about everything is beyond your comprehension.

Informed people spell "woefully" correctly. Informed people understand the use of rhetoric. Informed people do not attribute arguments to others that they didn't make. Informed people do not leave much beyond their comprehension. You fail on all four counts.

Your blind defense of everything anti-Bush is just as bad as the pro-Bush people. You need to get a little objectivity ... and a little comprehension wouldn't hurt you.


But I will have to applaud you. At least you came back and tried to defend your position. Ivon and Ken didn't bother to do that. Of course may be they have the good sense to run and hide because they have seen how silly and foolish their comments were and do not wish to continue to defend the indefensible.

Anti Bush? :laugh:

Anti criminal is more like it PL. Here's the deal I've read what they were writting and I've read what they were saying for a long time now. I don't waste my time trying to parse their propaganda and spin as you keep wanting me to do. I want the truth PL not spin. If I wanted spin or to discuss spin I would be right in there arguing all the little partisan picayunities as y'all love to do so much. You've been lied to and manipulated by the state/mass media and it's criminals for so long now I doubt you can tell the difference between the truth and the lies anymore. The lack of knowledge you and others display in these threads shines like a beacon. It gives you away from the start.

I want the facts and the facts in this case come straight from the horse's mouths. Not just Newt's but a host of them. Their belief that more terror attacks would help their "cause" is written in many of their "scriptures". I've read them. Apparently you haven't so I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone that hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about. And frankly being given lessons in objectivity by people that consistantly refuse to look at the whole picture is quite amusing.

And from the sounds of it you have no problem with people being arrested for downloading books as you've made no mention of it at all.

*They = neocons/globalists and their blind and or criminal followers and supporters.

 

[billwald]

"British cops," RATS. I was looking forward to downloading a book and getting arrested.

 

[poncho]

"British cops," RATS. I was looking forward to downloading a book and getting arrested.

Give it some time it'll be common place here soon enough. Most here will be okay with it. They'll probably try to equate it with freedom and democracy somehow.

The New Order: When reading is a crime

Updated: Is this what it is going to be like? When simple possession of a proscribed document will be enough to see you clapped in irons and whisked down to the local police station?

<snip>

The role of the police is equally interesting. Supt Simon Nickless from Nottinghamshire Police claimed this operation was low-key, and the community's response to it had been "calm and rational".

In truly Orwellian style, he added: "Feedback is that people accept that this is the sort of operation that is necessary and reasonable for the welfare of communities."

Full Article...

Remember the FBI pamphlet of a few years ago? Just mentioning the constitution one to many times will put you under suspicion of being a "terrorist".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Anti Bush?

Yes. (And laughing about it won't change it.) If you honestly think you are not anti-Bush, you are loopier than the Bushies are.

Anti criminal is more like it PL.

You may be that as well.

Here's the deal I've read what they were writting and I've read what they were saying for a long time now. I don't waste my time trying to parse their propaganda and spin as you keep wanting me to do.

I am not interesetd in your spin. My concern, as always, is about honesty and integrity dealing with other people's words.

The lack of knowledge you and others display in these threads shines like a beacon. It gives you away from the start.

I rarely comment in this threads because they are inane, and quite frankly, most of them are dumb. But in this particular one, it seems pretty obvious that you have demonstrated a lack of integrity in dealing with people's words. That is shameful. I don't think many, if any, here believe you to be interested in the truth. This is yet another example.

Apparently you haven't so I'm not going to waste time arguing with someone that hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about.

I have a clue what I am talking about. The fact that you dont' recognize it says more about you than me.

And frankly being given lessons in objectivity by people that consistantly refuse to look at the whole picture is quite amusing.

I dont' find it amusing when you misuse the words of others. I find it demonstrates a lack of integrity that only politicians can appreciate.

And from the sounds of it you have no problem with people being arrested for downloading books as you've made no mention of it at all.

I don't know the story, and I don't comment on things I know nothing about. As I said from the beginning, I was commenting on one particular issue.

You seem to have no integrity. You do not deal with people's words fairly, and your handling of my words is evidence of that. You want to pretend you are truthful and objective, but I am telling you what my words are about and you won't even accept it "straight from the horse's mouth." You have decided what you want to believe and nothign will persuade you otherwise. And if that is so when I am sitting right here tellign you what the truth is about my words, how much more true is it when you are commenting on the words of others who are not here to correct you.

When you using people's words, you have the obligation to use them as they were intended. They are not your toys to play with and make them say whatever you want them to say. You should know better. And truth is you probably do ... but if you started using people's words fairliy, many of your arguments would no longer exist.

When you can't make your arguments without the misuse of people's words, you have nothing to say that anyone should listen to. The problem is that you keep talking.

You really, for the sake of your own integrity, should cease your ways. You can be anti-Bush and anti-Bush's policies (as I am in many cases) without misusing people's words to support it. There are plenty of legitimate reasons. You dont' need this other stuff.

 

[Pastor Larry]

When simple possession of a proscribed document will be enough to see you clapped in irons and whisked down to the local police station?

It is already that way, and even you agree it is appropriate. There are certain documents that are illegal to have and will have you ending up in prison.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

All one has to do is read the complete article to see precisely what Newt IS REALLY saying

FWIW, just-want-peace, I don't believe that Newt was wanting more Americans to die. I believe he chose a callous way to make a (perhaps) valid point. In similar fashion, it would be like my saying that, "Democrats are destroying morality in America. It's as if we'd all be better off if they just died and went to Hell," and then used the "it's as if" clause to justify my rhetoric as simply rhetoric. Gingrich could have and certainly should have been more sensitive in his word choice. Again, if you look at my initial complaint:

As of today, Gingrich is either obligated to provide context for his words (and what context could justify such sentiments is a gold medal placement in verbal gymnastics) or should do his country and his party great service by refraining from such loose dialogue.

I never accused him of bloodlust, but rather "loose dialogue" and surely you would concede that that isn't preferable.

 

[Pastor Larry]

FWIW, I don't believe that Newt was wanting more Americans to die. I believe he chose a callous way to make a (perhaps) valid point.

Thanks for answering my question. It's too bad the others here don't see this as well.

 

[poncho]

Whatever PL.

Click Listen And Learn Good Buddy.

I'm sure you aren't all that thrilled about my thread on Lincoln's Marxists either as it isn't "consistant" with your beloved mainstream consensus. :laugh:

 

[Pastor Larry]

Whatever PL.

Which sound like you got caught and can't defend it so you bail out.

Click Listen And Learn Good Buddy.

Are you under the impression that I don't have a life?

I'm sure you aren't all that thrilled about my thread on Lincoln's Marxists either as it isn't "consistant" with your beloved mainstream consensus.

I don't know what thread you are talking about, I don't know what "consistant" means, and I am probably so far out the mainstream I make you look like a Washington Beltway Politicans. So once again you aren't making much sense ...