Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Thank you for the admission.
I see Lurker has covered the distinction between the two acts.
Bill O'Reilly
- Thread starter m_huber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bill o'reilly
I see Lurker has covered the distinction between the two acts.
patrick767
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
- Messages
- 194
And "progressive"... and "elite"... what the hell? I thought being elite at something was good!
O'Reilly is an R-R. Religious-Regressive.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
"Gnomic" or not, it's the rules of the board. So cool it, k?
...Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, as none of the people we're talking about have advocated the violent overthrow of the United States governnment.
Sean Penn's comment sure seems to be advocating the violent overthrow of the government:
"I don' know if people value the thought of revolution any more. I think it would be an enormously patriotic movement to invest in the possibility of revolution."
"You guys misprinted me. You had me talking about some kind of cultural revolution, and I was talking about taking arms against the government...."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/penn-s03.shtml
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
OK, let's lock up Sean Penn. Clearly his one comment from 7 years ago before America was at "war" with terrorism and before 911 is enough evidence of a treasonous heart.
Last edited:
You are the only person to suggest "locking" Penn in a pen. On the other hand, I'm sure his benighted and outlandish comments down through the years make him the darling of the far left set. Do you think his comments since 911 are any less vitriolic?
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
In your mind, you might be "sure," but you are wrong. You really should get out more.
First, you bring up the Dixie Chicks, and when your point is refuted, you attempt to deflect the attention to Penn.
When your point is refuted again (that the law doesn't apply because 7 years ago we were not at war), you again attempt to deflect by moving the goalposts to simply criticising Penn for some unnamed, "vitriolic" comments.
Along with your numerous tu quoques in this and other threads, you are really exposing yourself. Your tactics may work well when debating in other places, but not here amongst skeptics.
Still, please stick around. I am enjoying it.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
pomeroo:
I've not had a minute to respond to your response on page 8 of this thread. I will let it go for now and hope your eyes are well; floaters are a pain.
Cicero:
Any luck finding those cites that show "Penn...and Streisand have proclaimed 911 [sic] to be an inside job?"
I've not had a minute to respond to your response on page 8 of this thread. I will let it go for now and hope your eyes are well; floaters are a pain.
Cicero:
Any luck finding those cites that show "Penn...and Streisand have proclaimed 911 [sic] to be an inside job?"
Um, I guess the point would be that Steve Kroft, who is not exactly a rightwinger, was pretty shocked. When you're fourteen, you're not four, if you get my drift.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Cicero, this country has also supported slavery and McCarthyism. I know all about he Sedition Act and the multiple times various versions of it were used by our not so perfect governments to quell criticisms of their administrations. We aren't in a declared war that the nation was behind. We were misled into a confrontation by some very incompetent leadership. I recommend you re-read the Declaration of Independence. This nation was founded on the principle that speaking out against a bad government is the right thing to do.
1) What point about the Dipsey Chics was refuted? You mean they didn't make jackasses of themselves in a foreign country, during their own country's time of war?
2) What does America being, or not being, at war have to do with the Smith Act? But who said Penn should be prosecuted for being a moron either?
3) I had no idea that Penn was such an icon of the JREF liberal set. But here is another pearl of wisdom belched up by your hero:
"You cower as you point your fingers telling us to support our troops but you and the swarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and blood-soaked underwear can take that noise and shove it!" SP on Bush 43
4) You really need to expand your French phrases. Perhaps it is just your nostaliga de la boue.
You now equate the Bush 43 administration with King George III's rule over the colonies? But there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence that states Americans are not allowed to ridicule and denounce those who venture to foreign countries and make asinine comments about the President of their country during a time of war.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Last edited:
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
1) See post 401. The Dixie Chicks did not embarrass themselves (they would need to be embarrassed for that to be so), no matter how much you wish it to be.
2) My bad. So I did some reading up on Smith Act case law, and sorry, you wouldn't have a case.
I don't know who said he should be prosecuted. Certainly wasn't me. Regardless, Penn was only brought up in the first place (by you) because you bombed with your Dixie Chicks comment. It was a poor diversion attempt.
3) He isn't (on either point). Keep believing it though...it's quite entertaining.
4) To what French phrase are you referring in saying I need to learn more?
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Why would I care that Kroft was shocked?
When I was 14, I saw stuff that I wasn't smart enough to be shocked about.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Is there a poltical version of the Gish Gallop when Conservatives keep changing the subject?
A: Clinton bad for X.
B: But Clinton wasn't responsiblefor X.
A: George Soros did Y.
B: But George Soros didn't Y.
A: I meant George Cloony.
B: George Cloony wasn't didn't Y either.
A: Chappaquiddick!
As a Texan, I hate to admit this, but yes, I must have missed him becoming governor of Alaska.
When did that happen?
Or are you taking a page from Oh Really's playbook that all truths are equal and we'll just have to agree to disagree?
A: Clinton bad for X.
B: But Clinton wasn't responsiblefor X.
A: George Soros did Y.
B: But George Soros didn't Y.
A: I meant George Cloony.
B: George Cloony wasn't didn't Y either.
A: Chappaquiddick!
As a Texan, I hate to admit this, but yes, I must have missed him becoming governor of Alaska.
When did that happen?
Or are you taking a page from Oh Really's playbook that all truths are equal and we'll just have to agree to disagree?
California, while not the largest in area, is the largest in population. Since land mass does not vote for a governor, the size of the state's population is much more relevant to Arnold's political achievement.
A. Clinton is incapable of lying.
B. Except when he is waggin his finger.
A. George Soros does not finance liberal causes.
B. Except America Coming Together (ACT), MoveOn.org, Media Matters, and the Center for American Progress.
A. George Clooney, "Run for office? No. I've slept with too many women, I've done too many drugs, and I've been to too many parties. "
B. Since when has that resume been a disqualification for winning in politics?
A. Teddy was not responsible for Mary Jo Kopechne death, the water in her lungs was.
When people talk about the "biggest" state, do you think they refer to area or population? Seriously. The answer depends on context, right? So, in the sense that an Austrian immigrant achieved something remarkable, becoming governor of the "largest" state, i.e., the most populous and influential state with the biggest economy, means becoming governor of California.
Last edited:
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
At what?
How do I know what he was prepared to understand about what he was seeing when he was 14?