Marked for next year's WHCA Dinner FReep.
Posted on 05/15/2005 9:53:52 PM PDT by CHARLITE
I don't know -- I get a little tired of both sides playing "offended" all the time. The Democrats did the same thing when Cheney told Leahey (sp?) to f-off. When did this country get to be some kind of rated-G, politically correct basket of whiners? I think that this "manners" thing has got to stop. I'm not only defending Reid -- I'm defending Cheney, and everyone else who speaks his or her mind about how they feel. It's better than the fake stuff.
What the h** are you talking about?
When did a false Cheney comment cause the death of 17 people?
Oh -- sorry -- I was responding to the Reid comment, only. :) My bad.
I agree that the Mainstream media is out to get conservatives, and can often threaten our soldiers, and security.
The left (which includes most of MSM) has never gotten over how they played a pivotal role in brining down the Nixon administration as well as "forcing" us out of Vietnam.
They continue to think the can operate with impunity and immunity.
I venture to say that if we had had Rush, Fox News, the Internet (and especially Freepers) the outcome of our involvement in Nam would have been different.
We probably would have pulled out anyway, but we may have been able to save hundreds of thousand of lives in the South as well as millions in Cambodia. Thank you Kerry, Fonda, et al.
I can't believe any Freepers actually buy (much less read) Newsweek, BUT, that rag (and others) HAVE SPONSORS.
What say you, we start doing a little due diligence and see how many we can identify and start putting pressure on them by threatening a boycott of their products if they don't withdraw support and advertising in Newsweek--for starters?
Let me know and I'll do my share.
In fact, this is something I've been toying with for some time.
You know that ol saying: "Money talks and . . . . .walks!"
Remember the boycotts of those states that wouldn't jump on the Martin Luther King National Holiday bandwagon?
Well, I was thinking along those same lines for those states of (at least cities or towns within) who provide sanctuary for illegal aliens; financial institutions which are providing mortgages to illegal aliens; those banks that not only accept the Matricula Consular ID cards, but actually facilitate their being issued, such as North Shore Bank, in Wisconsin:
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2004/09/18/local/iq_3112949.txt
I also read (but have not had time to verify) whereby Bank of America was doing the same thing---sponsoring these types of “events.”
As an aside, while Mexico pushes for the consular ID card’s acceptance in the U.S., no major bank in Mexico lists the card among the identification documents they accept to open an account, and only ten of Mexico’s 32 states and districts recognize the card for identification purposes.
The U.S. Constitution does not permit a local or state government to decide, based on the advice or desires of a foreign government, that its own concerns override the will and intent of Congress.
In choosing to recognize the consular ID card, local governments are raising significant legal issues by exercising a form of their own foreign policy, which the Constitution reserves for the federal government under the Constitution, and are in direct conflict with federal law.
Here is a starter anyway as to some Banks that accept the MC card although I imagine that there are many more, not listed herein.
http://www.fileus.com/dept/id/matricula/04-04-16-austin-tx-matricula.consular.banks.htm
Now here is an interesting little tidbit I just ran across and somehow managed to fly completely under the radar screen.
I don’t know if you were aware of this; I certainly was not. Of course, with all that was going on last year (and my total and complete focus on exposing The Snake—a.k.a. Kerry—and working toward his defeat) it is not surprising that I missed this.
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, was the chief sponsor of an amendment to the Transportation/Treasury Appropriations bill, H.R. 5025, that would essentially have prohibited the use of Mexican matricula consular ID cards for banking services in the U.S.
Now, here’s the kicker:
During full House consideration of H.R. 5025, Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) introduced an amendment to H.R. 5025 to strip the Culberson secure-ID amendment. The Oxley Amendment passed by a vote of 222-177, successfully stripping the Culberson Amendment from the Treasury-Transportation Appropriations bill.
Another POS RINO? Wonder how much and from where his campaign contributions came from
Anyway, you can probably see where I’m headed with this.
There probably could/should be at least two lists; one for the supporters/enablers on the war on terror—another for illegal aliens, although some (like Newsweek and others MSM outlets) would probably qualify under both categories, seeing how they are supporters and enablers of terrorists, illegal aliens and are bound and determined to undermine our country.
Wonder if this site would consider giving us a couple of threads (is that what their called?) dedicated to these two items in which all go visit and peruse as to who is being boycotted and for what reasons as well as making suggestions for adding other candidates?
Hell, I’m for boycotting countries as well. Though my Mom and Dad (and all of both their families) are from Montreal and other parts of Quebec; and though I still have relatives there; and though I used to love to visit Canada (only 50 miles from border) I not only No longer do that (and will never step foot in Canada again) but have renounced my heritage and ancestry and no longer publicize this to anyone in a “proud” manner, like I used to.
Likewise, I will NEVER step foot in Mexico again as well as some other places, such as Pain-ellas Park, Florida.
I’m certainly glad that Las Vegas and New Orleans (so far) don’t seem to qualify. LOL
If you like this idea (in part or in total) let me know and we can enlist the help of some others and see what happens?
But Reid simply calls Bush a loser. Bush is NOT a loser. Reid is demeaning the office by so doing, teaching kids to disrespect their President and all because he disagrees with him. That's really bad! The level of discourse is cheapened by his comments.
No net gain is awarded Reid here for honesty. He was just being destructive!
IRT Newsweek, it's atrocious to propagate lies which cause riots and deaths. It's called sedition. The punishment for such reckless speech has not historically speaking, been to issue an apology.
"Words Don't Kill People, People Kill People"
I don't think Bush is a "loser," and it's ludicrous to say that he is -- but it's still a valid opinion -- and yeah, it cheapens the discourse, but both parties do so. That's not to say it's good -- I just don't like political correctness.
As for "sedition," it's tough for me to balance national security with free speech. "Sedition" wasn't part of the Constitution, and was abused in its early forms -- requiring newspapers to conform to a standard that the courts would laugh at, today. I would say that to prove sedition, you'd have to prove, first, that it was reckless disregard -- which is really hard to prove. That said, Newsweek should have known better than to sensationalize something like this. Their gatekeepers need to get some sense in their heads.
I don't know if you saw the little weasel from Newsweek on CNN. This punk, Dan Klaidman, blew it off like it was nothing, and tried to deflect the story to the overall hatred of America all over the world! What an anti-American punk!
Reid has the constitutional right to behave as a disrespectful and shallow thinker in front of a bunch of high school juniors, even if it makes him sound like Howard Dean's crankier brother.
I can't see how it's a "valid" opinion. It's ad-hominem that's all, not a valid conclusion based on fact. Bush won the election, gained seats in House and Senate and now makes the opposition look petty. He has achieved so much in 4 years that the "loser" label doesn't fit him at all. Now if you are one who'd say that all opinions are valid and equal no matter how factually accurate they are, then we're really not discussing Reid's comments.
As for "sedition," it's tough for me to balance national security with free speech. "Sedition" wasn't part of the Constitution, and was abused in its early forms -- requiring newspapers to conform to a standard that the courts would laugh at, today.
Well my comment was qualified by the word, "historically". We have no laws for sedition and we can't go arrest him. He survives in our tolerant Country. In Rome sedition was a death penalty crime. Reckless comments that incited riots leading to death would have been punished by death. The most obvious example would be Barabbas. (see Matthew 27)
would say that to prove sedition, you'd have to prove, first, that it was reckless disregard -- which is really hard to prove.
OTOH, this stupid person's reporting is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater, which we do have laws against.
That said, Newsweek should have known better than to sensationalize something like this. Their gatekeepers need to get some sense in their heads.
Not sure where that "sense" would come from, if not from God.
These people are hostile, God-hating, America demeaning leeches.
Where would you suggest they go to get some "sense"?
Look, I think what they did is wrong, but it's ignorant and ludicrous to call them out-and-out "commies," -- even if, say, they did this, on purpose, and their only intent is to bring down the current administration. They may be "commies" for other reasons -- but somehow I doubt, and have a hard time holding the ideas of "commies" and "limosine liberals" in my head.
Don't get me wrong -- I don't agree with their program, but you're being as sensational as they were, by calling them "commies." I agree with you that if, en masse, people think they should be shut down boycott them or their advertisers, cancel their subscriptions -- whatever. It's called personal responsibility, and they have every right to do so.
Opinions don't have to be VALID. That's why they're called OPINIONS. Saying that an "opinion is not a fact," is redundant and unnecessary. Sure, it's ad hominem -- and it's a LOGICAL fallacy. But it was a personal opinion.
I don't know much about Newsweek, so I cannot disagree with you -- I am hesitant to call anyone "America Hating," however, because that term is actually meaningless -- and is an opinion. If one were using that as fact, it's no less of an ad hominem than one calling someone else a "loser."
I, OF COURSE, don't think that it's very nice to call the president a loser -- and it can easily be proven that he's not -- but to act "offended," is simply a different form of political correctness.
And one would get their sense from their own reason, of course. It may or may not come from a non-denominational Creator -- that's up to you to decide.
They lose credibility and we gain it. What's the problem?
Marked for next year's WHCA Dinner FReep.
Someone set up them the bomb. They have no chance to survive make their time. HA! HA! HA! HA!
(sorry for such a retro post)
Now it has shifted to a burden on the DOD to prove that none of its agents or employees have ever desecrated the Koran or disrespected a Muslim or disrespected the Muslim religion. Apparantly, leaving one in the same room as a toilet is taken as intimating the pages of the book are to be used as toilet paper.
The flushing of pages from the Koran was noted in a log entry as being performed by a Muslim prisoner.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050512-111805-5936r.htm <-- Link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.