If you support Bush, you oppose freedom

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Of course it's misleading...that's the intent.

Not misleading at all....it's an honest look into the heart of Bill Clinton.

155429[/snapback]

The predictable rationalization one would expect from a hypocrite who cannot admit a mistake. I suspect you didn't really know the context of the Clinton quote that you cited. Google shows almost three-thousand hits for that "quote", most of them gross distortions of the man's words by Right Wing sites that obviously don't give a damn about the truth. If you were just man enough to admit that you simply didn't know the context, I could respect that. Like most Wing-nuts, you trust sources that you shouldn't, if you cared about truth, that is. But your response seems to suggest that you don't care about the truth at all. Any reasonable individual would readily say that this:

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..."

by itself, is a gross distortion of the man's meaning presented in an attempt to mislead. But not you. One of the most pathetic human displays is that of a man who digs him deeper into a character hole because he lacks the ego strength to admit he was wrong. This is a classic illustration of that.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

You're comparing 2 unlike things here. Sure, there is the issue of 'context', but it's hard to hold one up as a banner for/against the other.  As I was going down this slippery slope of responding to your post w/ an example from another unrelated one, I'll stop.  The 'point' of what ever is being discussed, I sense, is quickly blurring out of recognition.

155473[/snapback]

Translation: You've pointed out the obvious flaws in his "logic" so he'll be moving on now without admitting that.

[Tiger Al 0]

You're comparing 2 unlike things here. Sure, there is the issue of 'context', but it's hard to hold one up as a banner for/against the other.  As I was going down this slippery slope of responding to your post w/ an example from another unrelated one, I'll stop.  The 'point' of what ever is being discussed, I sense, is quickly blurring out of recognition.

155473[/snapback]

OK, just to get you back up to speed, the point that is being discussed now is freedom and its limitations. TexasTiger opened with the title, "If you support Bush, you oppose freedom". On your second post, the eleventh overall, you called TexasTiger a "blowhard hypocrite", apparantly in response to his using the same term in a more broad sense, and then followed with a fragmented quote from Clinton that read, "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]. TexasTiger then supplied you with, not only the full sentence, but the text of the press conference that it came from, because, as he rightly said, the quote you gave was not only incomplete, but misleading as well.

The following post, mine, which said, "Of course it's misleading...that's the intent." and affirmed that I thought it was misleading too. This was followed by meaningless chatter and post #21, yours, where you quoted my last post and said, "Not misleading at all....it's an honest look into the heart of Bill Clinton. Of course, there's nothing misleading about " Conservative sites Stalin as model" , now is there?

I then provided you a Bush quote, no ellipsis (...) was necessary in mine, that says pretty much the same thing and have asked you your thoughts on it. As you've probably figured out, I'm trying to establish why what Clinton said was bad whereas what Bush said was good because there seems to be a disconnect on your part so far.

You say they're two "unlike" things but they're really not. Sure, Clinton was talking about gun control and Bush was talking about free speech, but they were both talking about our freedom not being totally unbridled, that they should exist within responsible boundaries. Where they DO differ, however, is that Clinton was advocating responsible boundaries to protect the general public, Bush was advocating boundaries to protect himself.

As for the direction of this thread, don't worry about it. TexasTiger allowed it to be steered in this direction and if he's unhappy with it, he'll let us know.

So, again, what's wrong with what Clinton said, when taken within the context in which he said it if you find nothing wrong with what Bush said?

[WarTim 3,457]

Translation: A libby can't win an arguement, so, he changes the subject and/or starts calling conservatives "right wing".

[TexasTiger 12,998]

Translation: A libby can't win an arguement, so, he changes the subject and/or starts calling conservatives "right wing". 

155535[/snapback]

Since we have "conservatives" these days that the father of the modern Conservative movement, Barry Goldwater, would not even recognize or be welcomed by, I was wondering what you think the fundamental principles of conservatism are?

[WarTim 3,457]

To reign in the out of control libs and to control all branches of Govt.

(One out of two ain't bad.)

[TexasTiger 12,998]

To reign in the out of control libs and to control all branches of Govt.

(One out of two ain't bad.) 

155605[/snapback]

Thanks. Control and Oppose. Those are the only "conservative" principles I've been able to discern lately.

[Tiger Al 0]

To reign in the out of control libs and to control all branches of Govt.

(One out of two ain't bad.) 

155605[/snapback]

That was insightful and well thought out. Thanks, and by the way, are you thirsty?

[WarTim 3,457]

To reign in the out of control libs and to control all branches of Govt.

(One out of two ain't bad.) 

155605[/snapback]

Thanks. Control and Oppose. Those are the only "conservative" principles I've been able to discern lately.

Here is a helpful hint for you.

Maybe your "discerner" is in need of repair or replacement.

[TexasTiger 12,998]

To reign in the out of control libs and to control all branches of Govt.

(One out of two ain't bad.) 

155605[/snapback]

Thanks. Control and Oppose. Those are the only "conservative" principles I've been able to discern lately.

Here is a helpful hint for you.

Maybe your "discerner" is in need of repair or replacement.

155635[/snapback]

Not sure why you would say that after confirming that it was spot on.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense by showing the flaw in YOUR logic by posting such an absurd subject line.

Tiger Al - What Bush or Clinton said is moot. The premise of this thread is where the flaw lies.

[Tiger Al 0]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense by showing the flaw in YOUR logic  by posting such an absurd subject line.

Tiger Al  - What Bush or Clinton said is moot. The premise of this thread is  where the flaw lies.

155670[/snapback]

What is the flaw in the premise of this thread?

[TexasTiger 12,998]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense...

Don't drink and post.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense by showing the flaw in YOUR logic  by posting such an absurd subject line.

Tiger Al  - What Bush or Clinton said is moot. The premise of this thread is  where the flaw lies.

155670[/snapback]

What is the flaw in the premise of this thread?

155671[/snapback]

The premise that those who support Bush oppose freedom. Patently absurd

[AURaptor 1,126]

TesasTiger - you started this whole nonsense...

Don't drink and post.

155673[/snapback]

" If you support Bush, you oppose freedom " - TexasTiger

Game, set, match.

*edited to appease the typo NAZIS *

[Tiger Al 0]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense by showing the flaw in YOUR logic   by posting such an absurd subject line.

Tiger Al  - What Bush or Clinton said is moot. The premise of this thread is  where the flaw lies.

155670[/snapback]

What is the flaw in the premise of this thread?

155671[/snapback]

The premise that those who support Bush oppose freedom. Patently absurd

155678[/snapback]

Then you have to be disgusted with the fact that many people, taxpayers, mind you, were removed from public town hall meetings by republican party staffers because they might not be republicans. They wouldn't do that if they weren't told to do it or they didn't have reason to believe that it would be approved of. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to control who people have sex with so much that they are angry because Texas and other states have repealed laws prohibiting homosexual sex. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to dictate to religious institutions who they can and cannot proclaim as married. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

[CCTAU 3,340]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

If your kid were forced to recite my religious prayer in school every day, then he might not grow up like you. And then there would be hope for your kid. And mine.

All respect for a higher being and/or authority has gone out of schools. It started with my religious prayer not being allowed in school.

[Tiger Al 0]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

If your kid were forced to recite my religious prayer in school every day, then he might not grow up like you. And then there would be hope for your kid. And mine.

All respect for a higher being and/or authority has gone out of schools. It started with my religious prayer not being allowed in school.

155738[/snapback]

Bing, bing, bing. We have a winner! "If you support Bush, you oppose freedom." Thanks, CCT, you were the one I knew I could count on.

[AURaptor 1,126]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to control who people have sex with so much that they are angry because Texas and other states have repealed laws prohibiting homosexual sex. True or false? How many convoluted questions are you going to ask here? What laws were repealed when Bush was Gov of Texas, and how the heck does it affect me here in GA , where sodomy is LEGAL ? I see that you have a habbit of asking misleading questions. "There are people who support Bush"...sure, folks believe Bush may or may not do all sorts of things. Big deal! Then you go on to add on a unsubstantiated claim about Bush, "...because he wants to control...." blah blah blah. That's horse hockey! You can't claim that statement as factually accurate, that is only YOUR assessment of " what Bush wants". Very deceptive, you are.

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false? There may be people who DO support that, but as for Bush wants to do , that question is False

There are people who support Bush because he wants to dictate to religious institutions who they can and cannot proclaim as married. True or false? Again, the only thing false about this question is the manner in which it is presented.

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false? Ditto

[Auburn85 432]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense by showing the flaw in YOUR logic   by posting such an absurd subject line.

Tiger Al  - What Bush or Clinton said is moot. The premise of this thread is  where the flaw lies.

155670[/snapback]

What is the flaw in the premise of this thread?

155671[/snapback]

The premise that those who support Bush oppose freedom. Patently absurd

155678[/snapback]

Then you have to be disgusted with the fact that many people, taxpayers, mind you, were removed from public town hall meetings by republican party staffers because they might not be republicans. They wouldn't do that if they weren't told to do it or they didn't have reason to believe that it would be approved of. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to control who people have sex with so much that they are angry because Texas and other states have repealed laws prohibiting homosexual sex. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to dictate to religious institutions who they can and cannot proclaim as married. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

155707[/snapback]

For all these questions, I'd have to say that the support that people have for Bush just solely on this is equivilent to the support Ralph Nader got in this past election.

[Tiger Al 0]

There are people who support Bush because he wants to control who people have sex with so much that they are angry because Texas and other states have repealed laws prohibiting homosexual sex. True or false? How many convoluted questions are you going to ask here?  What laws were repealed when Bush was Gov of Texas, and how the heck does it affect me here in GA , where sodomy is LEGAL ?  I see that you have a habbit of asking misleading questions. "There are people who support Bush"...sure, folks believe Bush may or may not do all sorts of things. Big deal! Then you go on to add on a unsubstantiated claim about Bush, "...because he wants to control...." blah blah blah. That's horse hockey! You can't claim that statement as factually accurate, that is only YOUR assessment of " what Bush wants". Very deceptive, you are. 

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false? There may be people who DO support that, but as for Bush wants to do , that question is False

There are people who support Bush because he wants to dictate to religious institutions who they can and cannot proclaim as married. True or false? Again, the only thing false about this question is the manner in which it is presented.

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?  Ditto

155843[/snapback]

So, Bush DID NOT support anti-sodomy laws in Texas, he DID NOT want any government involvement in the Schiavo affair, he DOES NOT want the government to legally define marriage, and he DOES NOT want prayer in public schools???

Better go do some more homework.

[Auburn85 432]

So, Bush DID NOT support anti-sodomy laws in Texas, he DID NOT want any government involvement in the Schiavo affair, he DOES NOT want the government to legally define marriage, and he DOES NOT want prayer in public schools???

Better go do some more homework.

Bush has said, he wants to leave the decision of marriage to the states.

You can have prayer in public schools without FORCING every single person to pray.

[Tiger Al 0]

TesasTiger - you started this who nonsense by showing the flaw in YOUR logic   by posting such an absurd subject line.

Tiger Al  - What Bush or Clinton said is moot. The premise of this thread is  where the flaw lies.

155670[/snapback]

What is the flaw in the premise of this thread?

155671[/snapback]

The premise that those who support Bush oppose freedom. Patently absurd

155678[/snapback]

Then you have to be disgusted with the fact that many people, taxpayers, mind you, were removed from public town hall meetings by republican party staffers because they might not be republicans. They wouldn't do that if they weren't told to do it or they didn't have reason to believe that it would be approved of. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to control who people have sex with so much that they are angry because Texas and other states have repealed laws prohibiting homosexual sex. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to sit in Washington and tell some man in Florida what his wife really wanted if she found herself in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to dictate to religious institutions who they can and cannot proclaim as married. True or false?

There are people who support Bush because he wants to force my kid to recite your kid's religious prayers in a public school. True or false?

155707[/snapback]

For all these questions, I'd have to say that the support that people have for Bush just solely on this is equivilent to the support Ralph Nader got in this past election.

155845[/snapback]

Then they must ALL post on here because, aside from Schiavo, the WEN republicans march lockstep with Bush's views 99.9% of the time. Or, at least they claim to. I challenge you to search WEN and find conservative posts that oppose sodomy laws (which at its heart involves homosexual rights), that oppose defining marriage as between a man and woman (I'll even make it easier...oppose gov't. defining marriage period), and who oppose prayer in public schools. As I said, I'll give you Schiavo because reps were kind of split here.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So, Bush DID NOT support anti-sodomy laws in Texas, he DID NOT want any government involvement in the Schiavo affair, he DOES NOT want the government to legally define marriage, and he DOES NOT want prayer in public schools???

Better go do some more homework.

You didn't answer my questions, just made more unsubstantiated claims and added some inane comment about doing more homework. Typical.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, Bush DID NOT support anti-sodomy laws in Texas, he DID NOT want any government involvement in the Schiavo affair, he DOES NOT want the government to legally define marriage, and he DOES NOT want prayer in public schools???

Better go do some more homework.

You didn't answer my questions, just made more unsubstantiated claims and added some inane comment about doing more homework. Typical.

155853[/snapback]

I made no claims, unsubstantiated or otherwise. Those three things at the end of the sentence are question marks. I know you know what they mean. Anyway, I'll answer yours then you'll answer mine. Fair enough?

How many convoluted questions are you going to ask here?

I think I made my questions as straightforward as they can be.

What laws were repealed when Bush was Gov of Texas, and how the heck does it affect me here in GA , where sodomy is LEGAL ?

I'll assume you meant "What sodomy laws were repealed..." The Texas sodomy laws weren't repealed until 2003. Unless you are gay or have an interest in civil rights, whether they're yours or someone elses, it probably didn't affect you at all.

I think I've answered all of your questions. Ball's in your court.