Thread for Cypress and lefties

I quickly found they were not anti-war or for peace, just a bunch of nutty free riders trying to get interest for their pet causes, e.g., Uhuru, anti-capitalists, anti-trade, conspiracy nuts, etc. Many even promoted violence.

This quickly tells me you're dishonest.
 
RStringfield said:
Criticial of fake libertarians who support war. You are back to claiming Feingold is a full fledged libertarian.
Click to expand...

Strawman .. I've never even mentioned the word "Feingold."

ALL the articles I posted here were written by libertarians and I noticed you didn't address them.

Let's see .. there are "fake" libertarians and "real" libertarians and you would be the "deciderer" of which is which.

As I said, libertarians are all over the place, including many who supported this mindless war.

Libertarians have participated in these. I did. I quickly found they were not anti-war or for peace, just a bunch of nutty free riders trying to get interest for their pet causes, e.g., Uhuru, anti-capitalists, anti-trade, conspiracy nuts, etc. Many even promoted violence.

Besides, these rallies don't achieve a god damn thing.
Click to expand...

I've attende many of these demonstrations, including the DC one I mentioned, and I've NEVER heard anyone promote violence at any of them.

What a pompous attitude you have there sir. You even hold your nose to antiwar groups and people who brought AWARENESS to the American people and demonstrated that all Americans weren't dumb as a rock standing behind the neocon horde.

Dems here claim the war is all important, but nearly all say they will vote for a warmonger if nominated, because the other side is so bad.
Click to expand...

The other side IS so bad .. and voting for Clinton, even with her prowar views, would be FAR superior to voting for a little known racist from Texas who has ZERO leadership capabilities, can't pass legislation, has a vapid legislative record, can't build coalitions, and isn't respected among his peers.
 
Damocles said:
It's cause you are too poor to pay for the best of teh pr0n. You Democrats are always poor, asking the government to get you stuff and everything.
Click to expand...

Kucinich is going to subsidize porn with Libertarian's tax dollars. That's why I'm voting for him.
 
Darla said:
Kucinich is going to subsidize porn with Libertarian's tax dollars. That's why I'm voting for him.
Click to expand...
Wow. If they just made it into a flat sales tax I'd vote for him. This progressive taxation just punishes us rich Libertarians and makes us want to be poor.
 
Darla said:
Isn't that the truth. It really steams me when people tell me they were against the war in the beginning, or that they have recently turned against it and realized it was a mistake, and then if I ask, well what are you doing about it? They tell me "they have a life". Oh yeah? Well, that puts you one up on a lot of people thanks to this war.

And it's funny that having a life doesn't interfere with posting on a message board, watching football games, downloading pornography (always time for that!) play video games, etc.

But we can't join a demonstration because we "have a life". Well, I guess I have no life. God knows I'm not downloading porn, so that probably qualifies me as a no life right there. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I got a bumpersticker that says 'Enough is enough: Vote Libertarian" :dunno:
 
Darla said:
Isn't that the truth. It really steams me when people tell me they were against the war in the beginning, or that they have recently turned against it and realized it was a mistake, and then if I ask, well what are you doing about it? They tell me "they have a life". Oh yeah? Well, that puts you one up on a lot of people thanks to this war.

And it's funny that having a life doesn't interfere with posting on a message board, watching football games, downloading pornography (always time for that!) play video games, etc.

But we can't join a demonstration because we "have a life". Well, I guess I have no life. God knows I'm not downloading porn, so that probably qualifies me as a no life right there. Whatever.
Click to expand...


Isn't that the truth. It really steams me when people tell me they were against the war in the beginning, or that they have recently turned against it and realized it was a mistake, and then if I ask, well what are you doing about it? They tell me "they have a life". Oh yeah? Well, that puts you one up on a lot of people thanks to this war.


Or that we talk about iraq too much, and that we're obsessed with it. As if one could be obssessed with the worst foreign policy disaster in american hisotry. Ha!
 
blackascoal said:
Strawman .. I've never even mentioned the word "Feingold."
Click to expand...

Huh? You have made no posts concerning Feingold?

blackascoal said:
ALL the articles I posted here were written by libertarians and I noticed you didn't address them.

Let's see .. there are "fake" libertarians and "real" libertarians and you would be the "deciderer" of which is which.

As I said, libertarians are all over the place, including many who supported this mindless war.
Click to expand...

Of course I addressed it. You quoted it... "Criticial of fake libertarians who support war." The articles are not pro-war. They speak about how the concept of a pro-war libertarian is an oxymoron. One even invents a funny word to show they are not libertarians.

There are not "many" libertarians who support the war. There are a few phoneys, e.g., your buddy Dondero, Boortz, etc. These guys are no more libertarian than Feingold, who you argued could not even be referred to as a civil libertarian. When I previously pointed out the inconsistency of calling these folks libertarians (with no caveat) while maintaining that Feingold could not even be called a civil libertarian, you ran away from the thread.

blackascoal said:
I've attende many of these demonstrations, including the DC one I mentioned, and I've NEVER heard anyone promote violence at any of them.
Click to expand...

I have been to a few and at all they promoted violence. Not just among the crowd, but from the speakers. The Uhuru's, who were the headliners at my first, were quite explicit in their calls to kill the "slave masters."

blackascoal said:
What a pompous attitude you have there sir. You even hold your nose to antiwar groups and people who brought AWARENESS to the American people and demonstrated that all Americans weren't dumb as a rock standing behind the neocon horde.

The other side IS so bad .. and voting for Clinton, even with her prowar views, would be FAR superior to voting for a little known racist from Texas who has ZERO leadership capabilities, can't pass legislation, has a vapid legislative record, can't build coalitions, and isn't respected among his peers.
Click to expand...

What a pompous attitude you have there sir. The candidate raising awareness about the injustice of Iraq and you spend most of your time here deriding him, lying about him and attempting to smear him.

Cynthia McKinney has the respect of her peers??? Or maybe, Kucinich? Ha... One of Paul's peers who has shown respect is Kucinich.

You can go to as many rallies as you damn well please, as long as you vote dem, no matter what, they are not going to worry much about your views on Iraq. Sheehan at least has some sort of realistic ideas here.
 
RStringfield said:
Huh? You have made no posts concerning Feingold?
Click to expand...

Care to post what I've said about Feingold?

Of course I addressed it. You quoted it... "Criticial of fake libertarians who support war." The articles are not pro-war. They speak about how the concept of a pro-war libertarian is an oxymoron. One even invents a funny word to show they are not libertarians.
Click to expand...

In every article I posted the libertarians who wrote the article called them PRO-WAR LIBERTARIANS .. which makes my point that libertarians are as all over the place as any political party, including those who do and do not support abortion, gay rights, and environmental issues.

But according to you, only libertarians you agree with are really libertarians .. which would be a really dumb position to take .. but not surprising.

There are not "many" libertarians who support the war. There are a few phoneys, e.g., your buddy Dondero, Boortz, etc. These guys are no more libertarian than Feingold, who you argued could not even be referred to as a civil libertarian. When I previously pointed out the inconsistency of calling these folks libertarians (with no caveat) while maintaining that Feingold could not even be called a civil libertarian, you ran away from the thread.
Click to expand...

CARE TO POST WHAT I'VE SUPPOSEDLY SAID ABOUT FEINGOLD?

I have been to a few and at all they promoted violence. Not just among the crowd, but from the speakers. The Uhuru's, who were the headliners at my first, were quite explicit in their calls to kill the "slave masters."
Click to expand...

Here's what you said ... "Many even promoted violence."

I've never heard of an antiwar demonstration "headlined" by anybody and I've never heard of "Uhuru's" and whoever they are don't amount to "many". Antiwar demonstrations are peaceful demonstrations nearly ALL the time and they do not promote violence.

What you're claiming is bullshit you made up.

What a pompous attitude you have there sir. The candidate raising awareness about the injustice of Iraq and you spend most of your time here deriding him, lying about him and attempting to smear him.

Cynthia McKinney has the respect of her peers??? Or maybe, Kucinich? Ha... One of Paul's peers who has shown respect is Kucinich.

You can go to as many rallies as you damn well please, as long as you vote dem, no matter what, they are not going to worry much about your views on Iraq. Sheehan at least has some sort of realistic ideas here.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul hasn't raised a damn thing .. including much money. The antiwar movement does not and has never needed Ron Paul. He hasn't led anything in his entire political career.

In case you're still in the dark, I'm not a democrat and Im more critical of them than I am republicans, whom I don't waste much time talking about .. except for your boy.
 
Darla said:
It's hard to tell with damo, he's not that funny bac. I try and humor him and laugh anyway. I figure he lets me post here for free, it's the least I can do.
Click to expand...

:)

I find it hard to tell when he's joking myself, which is why I thought I'd better ask first.
 
Cypress said:
Isn't that the truth. It really steams me when people tell me they were against the war in the beginning, or that they have recently turned against it and realized it was a mistake, and then if I ask, well what are you doing about it? They tell me "they have a life". Oh yeah? Well, that puts you one up on a lot of people thanks to this war.


Or that we talk about iraq too much, and that we're obsessed with it. As if one could be obssessed with the worst foreign policy disaster in american hisotry. Ha!
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's talk about "taxes' .. not the TRILLION DOLLARS we've thrown down the toliet in Iraq or the more than NINE BILLION DOLLARS that has been "lost" .. Ooopps' where did that 9 billion dollars go .. in Iraq.

Brave American men and women are dying and being blown apart everyday in Iraq .. but let's talk about "smaller government".

Countless numbers of Iraqis, including children are dead .. but let's talk about how bad the UN is, or how unjust Social Security and Medicaid are to libertarians.
 
"I have been to a few and at all they promoted violence. Not just among the crowd, but from the speakers. The Uhuru's, who were the headliners at my first, were quite explicit in their calls to kill the "slave masters."

Really. How interesting, I've never seen any such thing and I've marched in some of the largest anti-war demonstrations in this country, since 2003, in both DC and NYC. I find this very difficult to believe.
 
Darla said:
"I have been to a few and at all they promoted violence. Not just among the crowd, but from the speakers. The Uhuru's, who were the headliners at my first, were quite explicit in their calls to kill the "slave masters."

Really. How interesting, I've never seen any such thing and I've marched in some of the largest anti-war demonstrations in this country, since 2003, in both DC and NYC. I find this very difficult to believe.
Click to expand...


Uhuru's? Wasn't that Captian Kirk's communication's officer? Maybe RS was drunk and at a Star Trek convention, instead of a war protest.
 
"After eight months of weekly protests, the International People's Democratic Uhuru Movement decided to stop demonstrating last month after BayWalk officials agreed to loosen their code of conduct.

Laura Goodman, manager of White House Black Market, an upscale clothing store, said it has been much quieter since the Uhurus left.

"Now it's mostly the antiwar protesters," she said. "They don't have as much of an impact on the businesses."

James O. Simmons, president and CEO of the Pinellas County Urban League, agreed to intervene on behalf of BayWalk and broker a deal with the Uhurus. He said he wasn't aware of the city's most recent proposal and feared it may generate ill will.

"I can't speak for the Uhurus," Simmons said. "But it seems to me that when you attempt to herd people to where you want them to be, that's when you create a problem."[/quote]
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/20/Southpinellas/St_Petersburg_conside.shtml

This group uses non-violent protest as the means to and end, not violence .. nor does their platform promote violence.
http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/National_People's_Democratic_Uhuru_Movement

This is the "many" that Stringfields pretends promotes violence. One group.

What he's suggesting about antiwar demonstrations is a lie and how "antiwar" can he really be when he denegrates those who took the time and had the courage to get into the streets?
 
Cypress said:
Uhuru's? Wasn't that Captian Kirk's communication's officer? Maybe RS was drunk and at a Star Trek convention, instead of a war protest.
Click to expand...

Of course you know that it was Spock who had a thing for Uhuru, and one episode implied that she gave him a bit of his chocolate fantasy when he got hit by his 7 year itch and if he didn't get it off, it would kill him.

I think it was called, "Uhuru to the rescue"
 
blackascoal said:
Of course you know that it was Spock who had a thing for Uhuru, and one episode implied that she gave him a bit of his chocolate fantasy when he got hit by his 7 year itch and if he didn't get it off, it would kill him.

I think it was called, "Uhuru to the rescue"
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten that it was Uhuru who was involved in that one. I just remember that her and Kirks kiss was the first episode of an interracial relationship on TV. That show broke a lot of new ground; it was great.
 
Thorn said:
I'd forgotten that it was Uhuru who was involved in that one. I just remember that her and Kirks kiss was the first episode of an interracial relationship on TV. That show broke a lot of new ground; it was great.
Click to expand...

I don't think they ever got to do an on screen kiss .. but I do think I remember seeing him rub her booty when she passed once.

We called that "progress."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top