0
masterblaster72

Debate on Cheney impeachment averted

Recommended Posts

Fox and Friends is editorial. Castro didn't say "dream team", but he speculated that a team-up between Clinton and Obama would be "invincible". The graphic is where the editorial aspect of the show comes in.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


See attachment.



1. Isn't "Fox and Friends" the editorial portion of the broadcast - sort of like Olberman or O'Reilly?


Yea, it's their morning circle jerk session. And this is helping to make my point as well. When the vast majority of the programming on FOX NEWS is "editorial" (Fox and Friends, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume, Gibson, Cavuto....etc) news content, when do they provide just "news"? And for the record, the "Obama makes a girl cry" bit was on "America's Newsroom".

Quote


2. Did Castro actually say that?



No. He didn't endorse the team. This is what he said.

"Today, talk is about the seemingly invincible ticket that might be created with Hillary for President and Obama for Vice President. Both of them feel the sacred duty of demanding "a democratic government in Cuba". They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon.

The media declares that this would be essential, unless Gore decides to run. I don't think he will do so; better than anyone, he knows about the kind of catastrophe that awaits humanity if it continues along its current course. When he was a candidate, he of course committed the error of yearning for "a democratic Cuba".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Ok...so it doesn't really rebut the claim, then.



:)


That was your cue to find out for yourself what Castro said, not wait for someone to give you a reply that you like and can erroneously quote later.



:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe they call that an affirmative defense.



No, it's simply a defense of "not true." An affirmative defense is the same thing as saying, "Even if everything they say is true, I win because xxxx." For example, the statute of limitations for a breach of an oral contract is two years in California. If a plaintiff alleges a breach of an oral agreement, and the defendant proves that the breach occurred in 2004 (hence the "affirmative" part) then he wins.

You are mixing terminology. Please make sure you are correct when making corrections. It increases your credibility.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Just another example of my persistent defense of Bush - the same Bush I described as taking power in a government that was already fucked up and fucking it up even more.

You'd think that he'd agree with me, but that constitutes my vigorous defense of MY president.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you don't support every little thing that he does, so you OBVIOUSLY are a rabid Bush supporter! I think that's how the (il)logic goes, anyway - at least as practiced by some of the more, um.... enthusiastic individuals here in SC.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another worthless one-liner from you, care to address this?

------What if they honestly fuck the country into the ground, does that make then noble? Even if the Repukes never lied, they have fucked the country into the ground as of the last 2 years or so, care to debate that? (HINT: provide examples)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Your very signature labels people as stupid.[:/]



I am sorry my sig line hits so close to home:o


In any event, I am not surprised you do not understand why I use it[:/]


Sure, it hits home by virtue of the part about you looking in the mirror ;)

Now you are getting it:)I have to remind myself more often than I should need to, NOT to take myself too seriously. I do not want you, or anybody else to either. (But I doubt that is a problem for some:P)

:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>>>>>>>Lucky to call someone on this forum a Nazi is disingenous, callous, shitty and deserving of a slap down.

If you bothered to read anything but one post at a time you would have understood that lawrocket was referring to Republicans as Nazis, I was agreeing. I didn't call, nor did Lawrocket call anyone here a Nazi. Perhaps a little help with reading and interpretation would be nice for you. Do I need to go back and post the origin of the statements, or will you concede that you fucked up again?

>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe you might want to retract that statement.

Why, I agreed tha the Repuke Party has been Nazis for 3 decades. So what, not directed at any peopole here, just your loyal captain, Bush and Co.

>>>>>>>>>That is one of the most vile things you could say about someone.

Who did I write it to? The Repub Party?

>>>>>>>>I may say it about the hildebeast, but she has really earned it, the woman believes she is the most fair minded and liberal thinking person who ever lived, so fair in fact that she can decide which of us should be able to keep our god given, constitutionally gauranteed rights.

From the party that wiretaps and then tries to immunize telecom co's for helping. Perhaps tell us how she has tried to cut away at your rights? Exampls, not hysterical emotion based upon incorret facts as you posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Lucky to call someone on this forum a Nazi is disingenous, callous, sitty and deserving of a slap down

Maybe you might want to retract that statement.

That is one of the most vile things yuo could say about someone.

I may say it about the heldebeast, but she has really earned it, the woman believes she is the most fair minded and liberal thinking person who ever lived, so fair in fact that she can decide which of us should be able to keep our god given, constitutionally gauranteed rights.



I swear, your timing is perfect:D


Yea, esp since I called the party a bunch of Nazis, not any one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky to call someone on this forum a Nazi is disingenous, callous, sitty and deserving of a slap down

Maybe you might want to retract that statement.

That is one of the most vile things yuo could say about someone.

I may say it about the heldebeast, but she has really earned it, the woman believes she is the most fair minded and liberal thinking person who ever lived, so fair in fact that she can decide which of us should be able to keep our god given, constitutionally gauranteed rights.



I swear, your timing is perfect:D


Yea, esp since I called the party a bunch of Nazis, not any one person.




Fun to watch:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I believe they call that an affirmative defense.



No, it's simply a defense of "not true." An affirmative defense is the same thing as saying, "Even if everything they say is true, I win because xxxx." For example, the statute of limitations for a breach of an oral contract is two years in California. If a plaintiff alleges a breach of an oral agreement, and the defendant proves that the breach occurred in 2004 (hence the "affirmative" part) then he wins.

You are mixing terminology. Please make sure you are correct when making corrections. It increases your credibility.



Hardly, an Affirmative Defense is simply a defense where the defendant bears the burden of proof, that 's how I was using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ouch - *that's* gonna leave a mark!




Take off your cheerleading uniform, his point is invalid. Read how I used Affirmative Defense, then put your cheerleading uniform back on as if you understand a thing about the law.



More



More fun:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>>>>>>>No. It just shows again how I defend the rich and seek to leave the homeless and the children to die.

Well, you do disavow any tax increases to help poor people, yes? You can't do that and still pretend to be compassionate. Oh, I get it, you want low taxes so when those impoverished and homeless become millionaires their tax code will be set to help them, I see.

>>>>>>>>>>Just another example of my persistent defense of Bush - the same Bush I described as taking power in a government that was already fucked up and fucking it up even more.

Forget Bush, you defend most things Republican.....proof / pudding.

>>>>>>>>>>You'd think that he'd agree with me, but that constitutes my vigorous defense of MY president.

Doesn't matter if I agree or not, all I read is about those GD taxes and employers looking for a free ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well, you don't support every little thing that he does, so you OBVIOUSLY are a rabid Bush supporter! I think that's how the (il)logic goes, anyway - at least as practiced by some of the more, um.... enthusiastic individuals here in SC.



Actually that statement disagreeswith his, he said he merely analyzed my assertions, not supported his own. To be a good cheerleader you must follow the thread more closely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Obviously you have not paid any attention to anything she has said or done since 1992.:|



I'm still waiting, just waiting to read your supporting assertions. I asked you to provide examples and I get this? WTF, post em with explanations as to why she is so bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0