And Clinton killed half-a-million Iraqi kids with embargos, Dave.
Surely you can't rationalize murder by the hand that delivers it?
Do you know what the phrase "full of shit" means?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fairness doctrine is proof most liberals are socialist
- Thread starter NeoRio1
- Start date
And Clinton killed half-a-million Iraqi kids with embargos, Dave.
Surely you can't rationalize murder by the hand that delivers it?
Do you know what the phrase "full of shit" means?
A few things to address.
First i think i have a solid and controversial issue here because Iceman has gone off the deep end with total denial and disgust like he usually does when anyone utters conservative ideas and liberal problems.
Secondly the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with being a social liberal Gringho. The fairness doctrine is an attack on competition within a business environment and questions whether government can control certain business sectors because it wants too. Gringho you are against the restrictive beliefs and facist beliefs of neocons so wouldn't you agree with me when i advocate government staying out of the private sector of business?
Thirdly many of the liberals here argued that Limbaugh and the like are huge propaganda machines who spew hatred and only poison the minds of innocent people. If they are that extremely effective and harmful than how in the world did Obama get elected president?
Lastly the thing i wanted to hear most out of this was how liberals would respond to government taking over private business. If i was a liberal who wanted to persuade someone for this issue than i would want to reassure that person that government would only control this specific private sector of business and not control any other sectors of business. The fact is that no one can answer the last question. Government may promise to never control any other aspects of business but if government is willing to control one aspect than they are most likely willing to control more than that.
Once again there were no real answers given for the fairness doctrine issue.
First i think i have a solid and controversial issue here because Iceman has gone off the deep end with total denial and disgust like he usually does when anyone utters conservative ideas and liberal problems.
Secondly the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with being a social liberal Gringho. The fairness doctrine is an attack on competition within a business environment and questions whether government can control certain business sectors because it wants too. Gringho you are against the restrictive beliefs and facist beliefs of neocons so wouldn't you agree with me when i advocate government staying out of the private sector of business?
Thirdly many of the liberals here argued that Limbaugh and the like are huge propaganda machines who spew hatred and only poison the minds of innocent people. If they are that extremely effective and harmful than how in the world did Obama get elected president?
Lastly the thing i wanted to hear most out of this was how liberals would respond to government taking over private business. If i was a liberal who wanted to persuade someone for this issue than i would want to reassure that person that government would only control this specific private sector of business and not control any other sectors of business. The fact is that no one can answer the last question. Government may promise to never control any other aspects of business but if government is willing to control one aspect than they are most likely willing to control more than that.
Once again there were no real answers given for the fairness doctrine issue.
Quote from achilles28:
And Clinton killed half-a-million Iraqi kids with embargos, Dave.
Well that's what Saddam claimed. But unlike a unilateral action, that was an international embargo.
Surely you can't rationalize murder by the hand that delivers it?
I don't. Clinton didn't run the UN. And the embargo had exceptions for medicine for kids.
Again, more equivocation. You want to believe that one thing is like another, but it really isn't.
Do you know what the phrase "full of shit" means?
Yes, and thank you for the demonstration.
Quote from NeoRio1:
The fairness doctrine is an attack on competition within a business environment and questions whether government can control certain business sectors because it wants too.
Hey, businesses don't have to use the public airwaves if they don't want to.
That's why they're called "public airwaves."
Gringho you are against the restrictive beliefs and facist beliefs of neocons so wouldn't you agree with me when i advocate government staying out of the private sector of business?
Absolutely. Industry shouldn't use public property such as "public airwaves." Too many conditions.
Thirdly many of the liberals here argued that Limbaugh and the like are huge propaganda machines who spew hatred and only poison the minds of innocent people. If they are that extremely effective and harmful than how in the world did Obama get elected president?
Hate gets old.
Lastly the thing i wanted to hear most out of this was how liberals would respond to government taking over private business. If i was a liberal who wanted to persuade someone for this issue than i would want to reassure that person that government would only control this specific private sector of business and not control any other sectors of business. The fact is that no one can answer the last question. Government may promise to never control any other aspects of business but if government is willing to control one aspect than they are most likely willing to control more than that.
Once again there were no real answers given for the fairness doctrine issue.
They don't have to abide by the faiirness doctrine if it's ever implemented, just don't broadcast on public property.
Let me give an analogy.
Lets say theres a nice park that people go to to relax.
The park would be considered a public park.
John sells snacks and ice cream during the middle of the day at the public park.
Seeing Johns success Matt starts to sell snacks and ice cream in the park as well.
Unfortunately Matt can hardly sell any snacks and ice cream.
The park is public property.
Here is where things become really confusing.
Matt has two choices, he can either quit and find another job or he can go to the government and complain that John is taking all the profits.
BigDave. Do you think the government should forcefully cut off Johns day to only half a day and give matt johns other half?
Lets say theres a nice park that people go to to relax.
The park would be considered a public park.
John sells snacks and ice cream during the middle of the day at the public park.
Seeing Johns success Matt starts to sell snacks and ice cream in the park as well.
Unfortunately Matt can hardly sell any snacks and ice cream.
The park is public property.
Here is where things become really confusing.
Matt has two choices, he can either quit and find another job or he can go to the government and complain that John is taking all the profits.
BigDave. Do you think the government should forcefully cut off Johns day to only half a day and give matt johns other half?
Quote from bigdavediode:
Well that's what Saddam claimed. But unlike a unilateral action, that was an international embargo.
How about we quote a favorite Liberal Rag quoting another Liberal Rag?
CNN Quotes the UN:
"The United Nations estimates 1 million Iraqis, mostly children, have died under the sanctions."
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9908/06/iraq.sanctions/
Btw, a mere "international embargo" qualifies as an Act of War. And has for Centuries.
How do you suppose import-based economies survive full-blown embargos? They can't. Thats the point. It ravages the population.
Quote from bigdavediode:
I don't. Clinton didn't run the UN. And the embargo had exceptions for medicine for kids.
Oh, right. Now its the "UN's fault" despite the US having veto power over Resolutions. Needless to say, the entire time the embargo was in effect, the US - under your beloved Klinton - was a full supporter and advocate of the sanctions, despite the human devastation wrought.
And the medicine for kids amounted to squat. Chlorine was banned. There was no clean water. Kids were malnourished from the raped economy and medicine was scarce. Hence the million person death toll.
Quote from bigdavediode:
Again, more equivocation. You want to believe that one thing is like another, but it really isn't..
You're fooling yourself.
Extremists on both sides rationalize to defend their Fuhrer.
Its called willful delusion.
And you're 110% Obama Star-struck
Achilles the only way your going to get through to Bigdave is if you use second grade stories.
Try saying this. When you don't feed or defend an animal that is about to be eaten it might be eaten and it might be your fault for it being eaten.
I should write a liberal story book with pictures and the like.
Try saying this. When you don't feed or defend an animal that is about to be eaten it might be eaten and it might be your fault for it being eaten.
I should write a liberal story book with pictures and the like.
Quote from NeoRio1:
Matt has two choices, he can either quit and find another job or he can go to the government and complain that John is taking all the profits.
BigDave. Do you think the government should forcefully cut off Johns day to only half a day and give matt johns other half?
Well I think Matt and John shouldn't BOTH be using VERY LOUD BULLHORNS in the park causing crosstalk and interference and that rather than cutting one guy's day in half, they should regulate the use of the bullhorns, for example, regulate the volume, the range and so on.
And if they ARE going to use the bullhorns at full volume, they'd bloody well better make it something that everybody wants to listen to.
Quote from NeoRio1:
Achilles the only way your going to get through to Bigdave is if you use second grade stories.
Try saying this. When you don't feed or defend an animal that is about to be eaten it might be eaten and it might be your fault for it being eaten.
I should write a liberal story book with pictures and the like.
LOl.
its true. The right is just as guilty, though.
The neocons around here couldn't get enough open borders and spy programs. It was open season on the constitution and they just sucked it right up.
Now, its their turn. Lets watch how much they squeel bloody murder when their Fuhuer ain't in the hot seat.
Quote from achilles28:
How about we quote a favorite Liberal Rag quoting another Liberal Rag?
CNN Quotes the UN:
"The United Nations estimates 1 million Iraqis, mostly children, have died under the sanctions."
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9908/06/iraq.sanctions/
Fair enough. What part of "international" are you having trouble with? (And no, Bush's adventurism with Mauritius, Tongo, Australia doesn't count.)
Btw, a mere "international embargo" qualifies as an Act of War. And has for Centuries.
Not under UN rules it does not. Everybody signed the UN charter and agreed to the rules.
How do you suppose import-based economies survive full-blown embargos? They can't. Thats the point. It ravages the population.
Well it wasn't actually a full blown embargo, either. Again, medicine was allowed in, in addition the regime was allowed to sell oil for food.
But whether it was right or wrong, it was a UN embargo.
Bush demanded to go to the UN, get an "up or down" vote, he "wanted to know where people stand."
Then, when it wasn't going his way, he just went and started killing people.
Oh, right. Now its the "UN's fault" despite the US having veto power over Resolutions.
What resolution did the US veto?
Needless to say, the entire time the embargo was in effect, the US - under your beloved Klinton - was a full supporter and advocate of the sanctions, despite the human devastation wrought.
Because it was better than the alternative, as we've seen.
And the medicine for kids amounted to squat. Chlorine was banned. There was no clean water. Kids were malnourished from the raped economy and medicine was scarce. Hence the million person death toll.
One of the ways that Republicans lie is to always omit the causes (infant mortality in Iraq was never good) and omit the time frames. You ever notice that? It's "a million dead" without saying over what period, as if it's just as bad as four million refugees plus hundreds of thousands who died violently, not just died of all causes.
Extremists on both sides rationalize to defend their Fuhrer.
Its called willful delusion.
And you're 110% Obama Star-struck
He hasn't done anything yet, so there's nothing to dislike.
He hasn't killed anyone, for example.