posted July 27, 2006 07:48 PM            

On July 18, CNN correspondent Nick Robertson aired a report from Beirut. Throughout his entire report on “Anderson Cooper 360,” Robertson accepted uncritically the claims of a Hezbollah “guide” about what he was seeing.

According to NewsBusters’ Rich Noyes: “Robertson touted his ‘exclusive’ exchange with a Hezbollah propagandist who led him on a tour of a bombed-out block of southern Beirut. Hezbollah claimed to show that Israeli bombs had struck civilian areas of the city, not the terrorist group’s headquarters.

Wrote Noyes: “The Hezbollah ‘press officer,’ Hussein Nabulsi, even directed CNN’s camera: ‘Just look. Shoot. Look at this building. Is it a military base? Is it a military base, or just civilians living in this building?’ A few moments later, Nabulsi instructed CNN to videotape him as he ran up to a pile of rubble: ‘Shoot me. Shoot. This is here where they said Sheikh Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, is living. This is wrong!’

At one point Roberston said: “As we run past the rubble, we see much that points to civilian life, no evidence apparent of military equipment.”

As he concluded his report, anchor John Roberts gushed, “Well, extraordinary tour that you took there today, Nic. And a lot of people here at CNN say you're very, very brave for doing it, but we expect nothing less. Nic Robertson in Beirut, thanks very much.”

Not once during the entire segment, which was unvarnished Hezbollah propaganda, did Robertson mention that he was being led around by the nose by a Hezbollah propagandist.

All this led NewsBusters to wonder if Robertson is looking to be the next Peter Arnett, the disgraced leftist Aussie journalist who allowed himself to become a mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein.

Robertson finally came clean on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” Sunday, when he admitted that “… there's no doubt about it. They had control of the situation. They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn't have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

If Robertson was alone in allowing himself to be used by the enemy it would just be an isolated incident, but instead, he’s just one of a pack of journalists who never seem to be able to support the U.S. or its ally Israel in the war on terror.

Thanks to the mainstream media’s constant carping about alleged U.S. or Israeli “brutality,” the hands of the American military in Iraq and the Israeli’s in Lebanon are tied up in all sorts of politically correct handicaps that prevent them from taking decisive action when that’s what is required to win.

Recently on my radio broadcast I said if I were president for one day ending the war would be the easiest thing in the world. I would simply sign an executive order pulling all embedded reporters out of war zones where America is involved. I’d sign a second executive order having a complete media blackout of the war zone for the next six months.

I had an army Lieutenant Colonel on the show and I asked him if I did that, how long it would take him to you to end this war?

“Maybe thirty days or so,” he said.

The war goes on longer because of the media’s slanted coverage – we can’t do what we need to do for fear of the backlash with the media questioning everything we do, everyplace we go.

The media have no problem taking the word of every insurgent posing as an innocent civilian. They ignore the established fact that the insurgent’s main strategy is to bury themselves in the civilian population.

posted July 27, 2006 07:59 PM            

quote:

---

Listen up buddy and listen good

---

I love it when you talk tough. *bats eyelashes*

quote:

---

First off, they are not ALL apart of the twit club- they did not condone what you did

---

They certainly did, and do, and all of them still post at the other place, so I don't know what to tell you there, except that some people know me and some don't. You obviously don't. That's your choice.

quote:

---

On the internet one can be anything and we can see you have embraced that fully- but you have no substance.

---

Yes, we can. Look at who chooses to be rude and disrespectful when she's anonymous.

If I've created a persona that's different from who I am, then I'm amazed at my own ability to be so consistent with it. What a great character to play.

quote:

---

but you have no substance

---

Someone who loves Ann Coulter and Jwhop telling me I don't have substance is hardly a put down.

quote:

---

posting ones chart without permission

---

I love how you keep bringing that up. What's that guy's name? I forget. Anyway, as I say each time (like a broken record) I didn't post, nor did I make disparaging remarks on Jwhop's chart. Even after Jwhop invited me to, I declined. I wholeheartedly stand by what I said, however. It's not a written rule. You're not the rule-maker. Whatever discussions may have taken place took place apart from both IQh and myself. People post charts of other people without their permission all the time.

I may as well throw in your hypocrisy while I'm at it - just for good measure. You yourself backed up lalalinda when she did the very thing that you got upset at IQHunk for (trying to belittle WaterNymph using her Aries placements as her justification), so I can't help but consider you a little silly for continuing to bring this up.

quote:

---

running a voting scam to see who can and can't come into your club

---

Aside from it clearly not being a scam (which implies some tampering with the voting results), voting was the only logical way to progress once people (which didn't include myself) decided they wanted the board to be private while still wanting the membership to increase. If it's unfair, that's life. Ever gone before a panel to get hired before? Multiple people have to say "yay" or "nay," and if there's a dispute they've got to work it out. There's nothing extraordinary or petty about it. Immigration works similarly. There are requirements that have to be met. A number of people didn't think you passed their requirements. No one's going to lose sleep over that.

quote:

---

you justify it and act as though there as nothing wrong.

---

It's justified in itself. The only reason I seem to have to explain it is because people like yourself don't get it.

quote:

---

There is only one thing worse than someone that is ignorant and that is someone that is ignorant, unintelligent and arrogant.

---

Amen to that. People have been trying to tell you and Jwhop that for years.

quote:

---

No AG.. we aren't alike.. not at all.

---

posted July 28, 2006 02:59 AM              

quote:

---

Rainbow,
Homecoming queen? I didn't know they did such things for the old timey one roomed school houses. Funny, I didn't even know they had such an event back in the days of Little House on the Prarie. I'll bet Laura Ingells was p1ssed LMAO.... Did they get the material for Nellie from you? I'm only asking because you posted that pic with you and Michael Landon so I figured you must have given them direction regarding the period the show was shot in.. being an expert and all.

---

Goodness gracious woman...I might have known how you'd take that bit of information...

The lady can really "blow her own horn"....but just can't seem to take it when someone else blows theirs.....(kinda shows ya what she's really all about) LMAO

****************

Now Pid...I didn't get on YOUR case when you did all your self bragging...(altho I thought to myself that this is a person who REALLY thinks she is important! Kind of like Barney Fife on the old Andy Griffith show)

...and even though I thought it...I had the good taste NOT to point it out to you.....

...and you know why I didn't? Because I really wasn't as disturbed by your bragging....as you obviously were at mine...(see how different we are?)

....anyway...

things are different now....

......now that you've had YOUR fun with my "age" (line crossing?) etc...

Anyway....here is our modest little Pid blowing her own little Pid horn....

(I sure noticed an awful lot of "I's" in this bragging session of yours! )

***

"I get paid to write and my writing brings in money for education."

"I am over $200,000 in funds right now for a very rural county"

"I am judged alongside the counties that house Phoenix and Tucson."

"I wrote arguments for my thesis in college and in defense of scientific reports that I presented to the board of directors."

"I have written grant purprosals reviewed and accepted by the CDC, USDA, Az Dept of Ed and Health."

"Based on my record, I am allowed to write with authority on a number of subjects- whereas you what?"

Well once again....La de dah!

posted July 28, 2006 08:22 AM              

quote:

---

but the proof is in where we are in life at our age

---

I always find it fascinating how different people perceive things. For example, in my opinion it's who you are as a person that's important. How caring, how compassionate, how understanding, how tolerant, how kind, how thoughtful, how friendly, how giving, and above all how loving you are.

posted July 28, 2006 09:05 AM              

I'll post this - I think it should be retitled, "If EVERYONE knew" rather than just singling out Americans for the information on this site but hey ho. I know what the response will be from some quarters to this information, but I'll post it all the same as I feel it shows an imbalance; the imbalance that's causing many people to speak out against Israel's conduct in this matter.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html

posted July 28, 2006 12:54 PM            

You sure love to blather on don't you. Post after post making not one iota of sense. LOL... I would love for you to take on my achievements... I posted them in response to someone else, but if you would like to say anything about them.. please do.

As far as me using the "I" in getting where I am.. I would love to know how else to explain it LMAO...

I sure as hell didn't see YOU helping me out and since "I" was the one that paid my way and put myself through college and found my positions and wrote my papers I am not going to credit anyone else- with the exception of God blessing me the ability to make it and wonderful parents for encouraging me to do it on my own without b1tching and whining that the government should help me.

LMAO... you can't stomach it Rainblow and the only thing you can do is copy and paste what I wrote and then write "la te dah". You are free to post whatever you want, but in order to keep yourself looking like a total idiot, maybe you should read the entire dialog. AG questioned my abilities to write, I merely posted in defense of my abilities based on getting PAID to write arguments and winning money for schools in the process. Rather than b1tching about the system, some of us actual contribute to make changes.

AG.. I read the KS posts remember- and I said there were a few that posted in defense of your crap. I can bring that thread up again and post, repost until we take up another 45 pages here but it won't sink into that miniscule brain of yours.

I dare you to find where I called Pixie and Proxie twits.

posted July 28, 2006 03:23 PM              

quote:

---

You sure love to blather on don't you.

---

My dear girl....all anyone has to do is go back and look at YOUR posts to see where the "blathering" is coming from....

When you CAN'T come up with a response to what I say.......your only option is to accuse me of blathering as you hope it will get you off the hook....which it doesn't...

posted July 28, 2006 03:32 PM            

Only in fairytale land and only among the shreiking leftist choir.

This is what passes for leftist argument. Notice leftists...and Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Frank Leahy et al., are all leftists.

Note how Howard Dean opposed the Iraq war to get rid of Saddam, he's opposed aid to Israel but now, when Saddam is gone and there's a new representative government in Iraq, Dean is suddenly pro Israel and bad mouthing the new Iraqi Prime Minister because he didn't condemn Hezbollah.

Of course, the leftist democrats are the best friends terrorists have in the world. They haul their water in Congress, among leftist groups and are now in the midst of attempting a US cut and run in Iraq.

Is it any wonder the American electorate will not trust democrats with issues of national security? They talk out of every side of their mouths but talk is all it is. Democrats are all show and no go. They never saw an enemy they wouldn't surrender to...preferably before a shot was fired.

I would remind everyone that during the administration of Commander Corruption, Yasser Arafat was invited to the White House more than any other foreign person on Planet Earth. Arafat was from the beginning a terrorist devoted to the destruction of Israel.

So, when democrats gripe about the anti-semitism of the Iraqi Prime Minister, it's just more leftist drivel and yapping...and yet another manifestation of the utter hypocrisy of democrats in general.

Dean's Democrats step in it again
Posted: July 27, 2006
9:18 p.m. Eastern
David Limbaugh

Democrats will be hard-pressed to deny their extremism as long as they have mad Howard Dean as their party spokesman. Then again, cashiering Dean wouldn't solve all their problems on that front either, given their leadership's propensity to take the wrong side on important national security issues.

On the day Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki was addressing a joint meeting of Congress seeking America's continued support for Iraq, Dean said, "The Iraqi prime minister's an anti-Semite. We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy in Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

These are interesting words, coming from a man whom Sen. Joseph Lieberman attacked during the Democratic primary campaign in 2003 for saying, "it's not our place to take sides," in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dean later tried to squirm out of his comment – he even tried to blame Karl Rove for launching an e-mail campaign to circulate his problematic statement – but there was no way he could erase his utterances.

Dean's hypocrisy aside, what about other Democratic leaders? Surely they are standing solidly behind the democratically elected Iraqi leader. Think again.

Democrats urged House Speaker Denny Hastert to cancel al Maliki's invitation to address Congress – saying that if the prime minister's positions are at odds with U.S. foreign policy goals, then he should not be permitted to address American leaders. Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer boycotted the speech, and Sens. Dick Durbin and Jack Reed actually issued a public response to it, as if al Maliki is their political opponent.

I can certainly identify with the displeasure over al Maliki's refusal to condemn Hezbollah, but am mindful that he faces a different set of political complexities there. And while Iraq is our ally and its transformation to democracy is a wonderful development, I don't share the sanguine view of some that democracy is a panacea that will lead, for example, to its adoption of pro-Israeli sentiments.

But with the Democratic Party's fair-weather attitude toward Israel over the years and the left's oft-expressed sympathy for Palestinian grievances against Israel, it's hard to take seriously their feints toward outrage at the prime minister's position on Hezbollah. It's hard not to laugh – given their unwavering opposition to President Bush – when they say al Maliki should not be given a platform because he opposes U.S. foreign policy goals. But it isn't hard to conclude that what is motivating them to criticize him is their unfailing policy to oppose everything we do in Iraq.

Indeed, if the Democrats weren't so preprogrammed to oppose all things Iraq all the time, they might have been heartened by the prime minister's message to Congress: his affirmation of Iraq's commitment to democracy, his strong denunciation of terrorism, his expressions of gratitude to the United States and his earnest plea that we not abandon our mission.

But considering the anti-Iraq corner in which Democrats have placed themselves, it would be difficult for them to applaud al Maliki's optimism, much less his confirmation that Iraq is the front line in the war on terror.

While Durbin said some parts of the prime minister's speech were encouraging, he couldn't pass up the opportunity to condemn America's losses and expenditures in Iraq and to chide Iraq for not doing enough to take over the primary role in defending itself. Most offensively, he scolded Iraqis for not demonstrating a sufficient willingness to demonstrate they are willing to die for their own cause. Presumably, Durbin is unaware of the Iraqi elections where Iraqi voters risked their lives to participate and of the huge number of Iraqi casualties in this war.

Durbin's co-critic, Sen. Reed, took the podium to contradict al Maliki's favorable description of Iraq's economy and his "oversimpli[fication]" of the situation in Iraq. Reed said, "[Al Maliki] needs more than determination and public statements …; he needs a plan. …" Deja vu, anyone?

Ask yourselves: Why are Democrats so determined to slug the prime minister in the gut and discourage and insult the Iraqis who are caught in a life-threatening struggle for freedom by refusing to let stand – even for a few brief diplomatic moments – al Maliki's encouraging words about Iraqi progress?

posted July 28, 2006 03:34 PM              

Nice to see you here again....

Makes for a pleasant forum, when someone intelligent and open-minded shows up, (adding their input with the input of the other intelligent and open-mined people we already have here...)

posted July 28, 2006 03:50 PM            

****Nice edit to save face... just caught that.

In any case, we see the truth... and it's quite a joke. Huh Stainbow.. Homecoming queen Class of 1908. LMAO....

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted July 28, 2006 06:19 PM            

Petition for Genocide
By Jacob Laksin
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 28, 2006

Question: What’s the difference between the Arab League and the academic Left that despises Israel? Answer: Only the Arab League is willing to condemn Hezbollah.

The surreal politics of this war finds Saudi Arabia attributing “full responsibility” to Hezbollah and calling on the terrorists to “alone shoulder the crisis they have created;” it finds Kuwaiti journalists lauding the “operations of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon [that] are in the interest of people of Arab countries and the international community,” even as hundreds of American professors rush to denounce Israel for firing back at genocidal killers sworn to her destruction.

More than 1,000 such professors have signed a petition that is currently circulating on American college campuses. Written in the name of “academics who condemn Israel's aggression against Lebanon and Gaza,” the petition waxes indignant about Israel’s alleged crimes, including a “brutal bombing and invasion of Gaza,” and “acts of Israeli state terrorism” in Lebanon.

More noteworthy, however, is what the petition does not say. Not only is there no mention of Hamas or Hezbollah, but reading the petition one might conclude that terrorism plays no part in the current conflagration. Instead the petition calls for the immediate release of jailed terrorists, euphemistically described as “Palestinian and Lebanese political prisoners,” and effectively erases the role of anti-Israel terrorism in precipitating the current by asserting that “Israel's destructive and expansionist policies are primarily to blame for the seemingly perpetual ‘Middle East crisis.’”

Never mind that Israel has withdrawn from both Gaza and Lebanon, and that the current offensive was prompted by the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, first by Palestinian terrorists and then their Lebanese counterparts. Never mind, too, that the “expansionist policies” in the region have been pursued by Arab powers who launched four major wars against Israel since 1948; by Islamist jihadists who have never reconciled themselves to a Jewish presence in the Middle East; and by rogue states like Iran and Syria, who rely on terrorist surrogates to succeed where the earlier efforts failed. These details are aggressively ignored for, as a review of the petition’s signatories makes clear, the rewriting of history to serve the interests of Israel’s enemies commands no small following in the increasingly radicalized academic world.

In fact, some professors have gone far beyond the petition in declaring their support for the terrorists’ war on the Jewish state. Chief among them is Rabab Abdulhadi, the Palestinian-born director of the Center for Arab American Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. To appreciate the depth of Abdulhadi’s disdain for Israel, one need only consider that she dismisses as a “myth” the easily demonstrable fact of “Arab armies invading Israel in 1948.” Adapting a theme from the Hamas charter, which lays claim “to the land of Palestine,” Abdulhadi has charged that Israeli settlers are “living on stolen Palestinian land, sucking out the water which is very much needed from Palestinians and making lives.” Not only that but, according to Abdulhadi, “what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, in some instances, looks like what Nazi Germany did.” Abdulhadi consequently sees the Palestinian Authority’s admonitions against terrorism--infrequent and never unequivocal--as evidence that the PA is “exercising maximum reserve.”

Yet Abdulhadi is moderation personified next to another name that appears on the petition. Dr. El Guindi, an Egyptian-born professor of anthropology at the University of Southern California, has alleged that “Israel is engaged in practices muted by the media: massacres and genocides, trafficking of human organs, genetic experimentations, inhumane torture.” Hamas’s most zealous propagandists could not improve on the inflammatory rhetoric. And much like them, El Guindi has never offered any evidence for the charges, relying on innuendo and conspiracy theories to make her case. Failing that, she considers terrorism the answer to the Palestinians’ woes. In contrast to the petition, which at least condemns the killing of civilians in Israel even if it absolves the actual murderers, El Guindi has embraced anti-Israel terrorism as an acceptable form of “resistance.” Of Palestinian terrorism, she has written that “[i]t is a universal and legitimate right,” one appropriate to “colonized people.”

Similar sentiments frequently issue from Middle Eastern Studies departments. In keeping with tradition, the most notorious of these departments, Columbia’s department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC), boasts no fewer than four representatives in the recent petition. Most prominent among them is Hamid Dabashi, the Columbia professor of Islamic studies who despises not only Israel, which he views a “ghastly state of racism and apartheid,” but also Israeli Jews, to whom Dabashi ascribes a “vulgarity of character that is bone-deep.” His crude bigotry notwithstanding, Dabashi has his followers at Columbia, among them the Iranian-born Golbarg Bashi, a visiting scholar and a protégé of Dabashi specializing in “anti-colonial theory” and “black and Third World feminisms,” whose name likewise appears on the petition. Other MEALAC faculty who endorsed the petition are Suhail Shadoud, a Syrian professor of Arabic language, and Jeffrey Sacks a lecturer in Arabic who in recent years emerged as a leading advocate of divestment from Israel at Columbia. MEALAC’s reputation as a hotbed of political extremism is plainly well deserved.

Although the petition attracted the support of many disgruntled Arab and Muslim academics--such as New York University professor Sinan Antoon, an Iraqi exile who has written that “America tattoos its imperial insignia into the bodies of Iraqi children”--it also underscored the fact that some of Israel’s most unscrupulous antagonists are themselves of Jewish ancestry, including three of the most prominent signatories: MIT’s Noam Chomsky; Norman Finkelstein of DePaul; and Joel Beinin of Stanford University.

Why these professors would sign on to a petition assailing the “psychic terror of the Israeli military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon” while maintaining a studied silence on the actual terror that was its cause is readily explained. Chomsky is a longtime defender of Hezbollah, a sympathy born of a common hatred for the United States and Israel and demonstrated most recently when the aging radical traveled to Lebanon to pledge his support for the Shiite terrorist militia and to defend its refusal to disarm and, implicitly, to carry on its campaign of targeting Israeli civilians. Along with Chomsky, Beinin has urged that Hezbollah be regarded as an “activist” movement rather than as a terrorist group. Finkelstein, for his part, has little interest in the activities of terrorist organizations, preferring to focus on what he calls the far more egregious “state terrorism” supposedly practiced by Israel.

Behind the obscene double standard set forth in the petition, wherein Israel is attacked for defending its right to exist and terrorists escape all blame, is a conviction, all too common among the academic Left, that Israel’s very existence is both regrettable and undesirable. Thus Judith Butler, another Jewish academic who signed the petition, has declared against Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, writing that “political sovereignty based on religious status is misguided, undemocratic, and discriminatory, in principle and in practice.” (That this is precisely the end sought by Hamas, Hezbollah and their terrorist brethren is a contradiction conveniently ignored by Butler.) Another signatory, Marguerite Rosenthal, a professor of Social work at Salem State College, is an activist with a radical group calling itself Jewish Women for Justice in Israel Palestine, which blames Israel for the 60-year war waged against it. Sighing over the “desperate suicide attacks by Palestinians,” the group claims that “[f]ifty years of conflict have increasingly compromised the ideals that contributed to Israel's founding.” In the eyes of Rosenthal and countless others who committed their signatures to the petition, Israel alone can do wrong.

Of the more than twenty professors contacted for comment about the petition by FrontPageMag.com only one, NYU’s Sinan Antoon, responded. But rather than explain why he supported a petition demanding that Israel cease defending itself, while urging no such restraint on terrorist groups seeking its annihilation, Antoon attacked FrontPageMag.com contributor Daniel Pipes, whom he called “fascist and racist,” saying that the magazine‘s association with Pipes made it “fruitless to engage.”

posted July 28, 2006 08:04 PM              

quote:

---

In any case, we see the truth... and it's quite a joke. Huh Stainbow.. Homecoming queen Class of 1908. LMAO....

---

Once again, I'm having a difficult time fathoming the nonesense you've blathered above......

Maybe if I break it down, you can make it more clear to me or whomever else you may want to understand it!

***

First of all, I'd like to know why you are laughing your A$$ off?

Seems you're ALWAYS doing that...I guess it doesn't take much to set you off, huh? Have you had a sanity check, lately?

I think deranged people do a lot of laughing for no apparent reason...

***

Next I'd like you to tell me precisely what you mean by "In any case, we see the truth... and it's quite a joke. Huh Stainbow.."

What in hell are you talking about?

Why do you always speak in riddles???

What "truth" are you talking about? and what is the "joke?"

***

The next thing I want to address is your HITTING BELOW THE BELT INSULTS (for which you are famous), pointing out to me that I belong to the class of 1908 as Homecoming Queen....

Granted, I'm older than most around here, I've let that be known.....

....but I (and most other people of sound mind) never consider "getting older" as some kind wierd thing to be laughed at, joked about, or made fun of, as though it were some kind of disgrace...

(but I guess our wise Linda knew "human nature" [well in your case we'll leave off the human part] when she decided to never reveal her age...)

Because wise Linda knew there will always be those small minded' dolts who don't have the brain power to think......as well as cruel and malacious vilifiers who see "aging" as some kind of "curse"..... which one should avoid at all costs!!!

Now which catagory Pid falls into, I'm not really sure....but it's obvious she's there somewhere........

.....as she boldly reveals herself to be one who blatantly and shamelessly "makes fun" of older people (as if "being older" were something to to hold against someone.)

THAT kind of attitude Pid, is so base....so sleazy....so small...so revealing of your character!

Maybe one day, if you're so blessed Pid.....the Good Lord will give YOU as many years as he's given me.......and if he does....may you get it thrown in your face by some smart alec little snot-nosed punk
that "you are old" and getting old is a "bad thing,"

*sigh*

posted July 28, 2006 08:57 PM              

quote:

---

but..it's okay for you to post picture's of the president..that are even more degrading?

---

Yes it is, lutus....

.....because I don't like that man....I don't respect that man....and I don't consider him "my president."

.....and besides....he "degrades" himself!

I am disgusted and horrified that a limited person such as GWB is allowed to hold the reigns of our country in his hands....

That's a very, very, scary thought....

.....and....

....if it weren't so serious.....it would be a joke!

***

Now you need to get it into your head (if you are able) that poking fun at bush.....who is a public figure.... IS NOT THE SAME as poking fun at someone whom you interact with on this board.

Name calling on this board is uncalled for

I used to NOT do it as a matter of principle, but as time goes by, I have found that it is very difficult for me to ignore it when someone is "name calling" me.

Maybe someday I'll move beyond that....but right now....that's where I am...

So all those who dish it out should be able to take it...

***

As for expressing my opinion of bush via pictures....THAT IS MY RIGHT - so far!

The moment that right is taken from me, I will know that we will have finally reached that point where we are in a nazi type police state, (which we've been headed for - for quite some time.)

....but.....this is NOT an ACTUAL police state - yet!

(tho god knows it's getting there).....

....so I still have the right to post pictures of the idiot as a way of EXPRESSING my disapproval of him....

posted July 28, 2006 09:11 PM              

...because this is what she said.....

quote:

---

so..what you are saying Rainbow..is.. it's okay for you to bad mouth people..put them down..degrade them..
but it's not okay for anyOne else..

---

That's NOT what I said at all lotus, and if you had read what I said carefully....you would have KNOWN that's NOT WHAT I SAID!!!!!

I said it is NOT okay to bad mouth PEOPLE HERE, whom we know and talk to regularly...

BUT IT IS OKAY to express opinions of a public figure of whom you disapprove!

People in the public eye know it goes with the territory

Okay....got that straight?????

posted July 28, 2006 09:16 PM              

I don't know if it's possible to make it any clearer?!?

posted July 28, 2006 09:25 PM              

It's so refreshing to be communicating with someone who is clear thinking...*sigh*

I knew YOU would understand....since you're not fuzzy-brained....

posted July 28, 2006 09:26 PM              

you are just being mean..and that's okay..