(05-19-2012, 12:59 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Van jones en-cited the people he was speaking to using fear as a substantive motivation to act.

Terrorism at it's core essential is fear.

eco terrorism does not require violence only the embodiment of fear.

I get that, Dick. In fact, most eco-terrorism involves threats and not actual violence.

I feel like we're running in circles here. How does Van Jones' use of eco-terrorism relate to Obama or liberals being advocates for it, as you initially implied? I realize he once worked for Obama for a short time. Are you saying that makes the Democrats or Liberals advocates for eco-terrorism?

(05-19-2012, 01:03 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 12:59 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Van jones en-cited the people he was speaking to using fear as a substantive motivation to act.

Terrorism at it's core essential is fear.

eco terrorism does not require violence only the embodiment of fear.

I get that, Dick. In fact, most eco-terrorism involves threats and not actual violence.

I feel like we're running in circles here. How does Van Jones' use of eco-terrorism relate to Obama or liberals being advocates for it, as you initially implied? I realize he once worked for Obama for a short time. Are you saying that makes the Democrats or Liberals advocates for eco-terrorism?

Did you miss Solyndra? did you miss the denial of the oil pipeline? did you miss the EPA and it's expanded powers?

at some point The administrations position and the administrations rules and regulations need to be viewed in context.

What position did van jones hold again, please remind me?

(05-19-2012, 01:08 AM)IMaDick Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 01:03 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 12:59 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Van jones en-cited the people he was speaking to using fear as a substantive motivation to act.

Terrorism at it's core essential is fear.

eco terrorism does not require violence only the embodiment of fear.

I get that, Dick. In fact, most eco-terrorism involves threats and not actual violence.

I feel like we're running in circles here. How does Van Jones' use of eco-terrorism relate to Obama or liberals being advocates for it, as you initially implied? I realize he once worked for Obama for a short time. Are you saying that makes the Democrats or Liberals advocates for eco-terrorism?

Did you miss Solyndra? did you miss the denial of the oil pipeline? did you miss the EPA and it's expanded powers?

at some point The administrations position and the administrations rules and regulations need to be viewed in context.

What position did van jones hold again, please remind me?

You know I love you, Dick. And, you're my favorite person to debate with here because I find that you generally do have your facts straight, though your interpretations of how they fit into an argument often differ from mine. You don't claim to hold a position just because it seems cool or conforms. I glean insight from the exchanges and it's never personal.

In this case, I feel like you've made me do a bunch of homework and told me to connect dots and now you're asking me for one guy's position on adminstrative rules and regulations. Can I give it you? Sure. I can look it up. I say AGAIN, I was only taking you up on your offer to give your opinions/proof of what you asserted in a post because I was interested. No more homework for HOTD - it's the weekend for FFS. I don't care anymore.

Now, I just wish I was tossin' back a Maker's Mark around your fire pit and singing while you play guitar. Okay?

Do you want to move on to Eric holder? He's is the holder of the race war.

I still think you're playing stupid and as long as you do I will treat you like you are.

(05-19-2012, 01:49 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Do you want to move on to Eric holder? He's is the holder of the race war.

I still think you're playing stupid and as long as you do I will treat you like you are.

Okay, I no longer love you as a poster (shit, I still do, but reluctantly, you asshole). Stupid is not a word that's ever been used to characterize me, whether it be playing or for real. I don't do stupid, but certainly I'm ignorant about some things and that's why I ask questions. You wanna take back the "stupid" characterization, Dick? Then, we can talk about Mr. Holder?

I remember when someone else called you stupid.

Pretty stupid of them, also.

Playing stupid and being stupid are 2 different things.

(05-19-2012, 08:20 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Playing stupid and being stupid are 2 different things.

Yes, I know. I'm not doing either. I just can't read your mind, Dick. But, I can read the news, so I'll just do that for an independent conservative slant on the issues you mentioned.

(05-19-2012, 09:30 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 08:20 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Playing stupid and being stupid are 2 different things.

Yes, I know. I'm not doing either. I just can't read your mind, Dick. But, I can read the news, so I'll just do that for an independent conservative slant on the issues you mentioned.

Yeah, the news, that should tie up all of the loose ends.

(05-19-2012, 09:30 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 08:20 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Playing stupid and being stupid are 2 different things.

Yes, I know. I'm not doing either. I just can't read your mind, Dick. But, I can read the news, so I'll just do that for an independent conservative slant on the issues you mentioned.

Yeah, the news, that should tie up all of the loose ends.

http://www.infowars.com/judge-blocks-portion-of-ndaa/

(05-19-2012, 09:48 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Yeah, the news, that should tie up all of the loose ends.

http://www.infowars.com/judge-blocks-portion-of-ndaa/

Oh yes!, that bastion of ethical journalism Infowars and prisonplanet!

Brought by Alex "New world order" Jones.

When you are using links to that idiots sites you really have well and truly lost the debate.

(05-19-2012, 10:00 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 09:48 AM)IMaDick Wrote: Yeah, the news, that should tie up all of the loose ends.

http://www.infowars.com/judge-blocks-portion-of-ndaa/

Oh yes!, that bastion of ethical journalism Infowars and prisonplanet!

Brought by Alex "New world order" Jones.

When you are using links to that idiots sites you really have well and truly lost the debate.

I wasn't having a debate, HotD was , that was the reason for the problem she was having connecting the dots.

The article is factual.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

You are still a nutfuck.

(05-19-2012, 10:09 AM)IMaDick Wrote: I wasn't having a debate, HotD was , that was the reason for the problem she was having connecting the dots.

The article is factual.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

You are still a nutfuck.

You use Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Fox News as your primary sources of information and you call ME a nutfuck?

I'm still surprised when I see people admit to tuning into a news source that is an international joke.

I am still amazed people think one news source is any different than another. Media is media. When I see "Faux News" I automatically ignore anything that comes next. Like one view is any more relevant than any other.

Fox News breaks some stories other news outlets won't touch. Then the others have to take it and add their spin. Why is that better?

ACORN mutherfuckers.

(05-19-2012, 10:24 AM)Cracker Wrote: I am still amazed people think one news source is any different than another. Media is media.

No, Cracker, media is not media & you're smart enough to know better. Jesus Christ.

(05-19-2012, 10:27 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 10:24 AM)Cracker Wrote: I am still amazed people think one news source is any different than another. Media is media.

No, Cracker, media is not media & you're smart enough to know better. Jesus Christ.

So you think that the Federal judge did not block part of that law?

Interesting.

You think that I can't post the same info from several different news sources?

Interesting.

To look at the source and discount the info is ignorant.

(05-19-2012, 10:16 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 10:09 AM)IMaDick Wrote: I wasn't having a debate, HotD was , that was the reason for the problem she was having connecting the dots.

The article is factual.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

You are still a nutfuck.

You use Alex Jones, Glenn Beck and Fox News as your primary sources of information and you call ME a nutfuck?

Yep. that is exactly what happened.

(05-19-2012, 10:27 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(05-19-2012, 10:24 AM)Cracker Wrote: I am still amazed people think one news source is any different than another. Media is media.

No, Cracker, media is not media & you're smart enough to know better. Jesus Christ.

Yes, it is. It is all opinion. Very few media sources just print facts without inserting their own subjectivity into it.

People here are confusing the editorial portions of different news sites with the actual reporting. They are two different things.

Thinking any news source is unbiased is a fallacy. News sources market themselves to certain audiences because they are in it for a profit.

One is not better than another. People need to take in every side and decide for themselves. Purporting one as better than another is just purely political. There is NO unbiased media. Hasn't been since black and white TVs.

I offer up Trayvon Martin for proof.

Maybe you and your little dog will like this one better Duchess.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/1...mesticNews