One nation under god where same morality must apply to all

[tw]

From the NY Times of 5 Jun 2007:

F.C.C. Rebuffed by Court on Indecency Fines
If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can use vulgar language, then the government cannot punish others for doing the same thing on television.

That, in essence, was the decision today when a federal appeals court struck down the government policy of fining stations and networks that broadcast programs with profanity.

The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the Federal Communications Commission and for the Bush administration. It was a major victory in a legal battle being waged by the four television networks - Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC - that had filed the case.

Those [expletive deleted] liberal judges.

For those not familiar with "expletive deleted", it was made famous by president that used vulgar language repeatedly and rountinely - and was beloved by moral, right wing, extremist conservatives.

May the morality wars begin in the glory of god and the Spanish Inquisition.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Republican Presidents consistently do do more to further the interests of the Republic, thus democracy, and thus humanity, than Democratic Presidents do. Been that way since you were in short pants, tw. 'Bout time you acknowledged it like a with-it, intelligent person would.

[xoxoxoBruce]

By censorship? Fuck them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Republican Presidents consistently do do more to further the interests of the Republic, thus democracy, and thus humanity, than Democratic Presidents do.

Demonstrated by Urbane Guerrilla is that wacko extremists use a political agenda rather than a grasp of reality.

So UG - did your Republican party handlers tell you to say that; or did you think it up yourself? Just more contempt of those who so hate America as to support George Jr, advocate more "Mission Accomplished" wars, and hate the American soldier.

Meanwhile, UG, when do we go after bin Laden. .... Why so much silence from UG? Why does he fear to answer that question? Does the political agenda have no answer? It’s like talking to a robot. When the party does not want to answer, then UG cannot answer. When do we go after bin Laden? Or do we continue to blame Saddam for 11 September? Oh. That's right. You rewrote history - tried to claim you did not accuse Saddam of complicity. So now we are beyond a political agenda and into UG's credibility.

UG, did you even think of joining Extremists Anonymous? Did you ever consider becoming a reformed political extremist?

So how many good Americans died today in Iraq do to wackos extremists in Washington? So how many decent Iraqis died? Does god tell wacko extremists to create these deaths? Does god talk to you as he does George Jr? Or do you also just automatically know like TheMercenary?

When do we go after bin Laden - and when do you read Barnett's book - learn what militaries do when led by honest men?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Okay, you mindless crank, listen up! I'm going lay some enlightement on you, which you are quite unwilling to receive, as you prefer to be the crank you are rather than ever understand anything accurately. I know I'm condescending to a worm, but who better? Maybe the pig doesn't learn to sing, but everyone else around him can -- and we can all have smoked pork chops later, if the pig never manifests a musical gift.

History shows Republican Presidents advancing democracy's march by taking dictatorships and other less-than-democracies down. Noriega -- still jailed. Ortega -- out of power for twenty years and staying quiet now. Taliban -- out, whether or not they're fighting back. Ba'athist Hussein -- dead. Soviet Russia -- broken by Reagan. And did any Democratic President have anything to do with Chinese reform? Don't make me laugh.

Democratic Presidents haven't managed communistofascist removal since Truman. You might look it up. So you've gotten one thing wrong, because of your leftwing extremist agenda -- oh, call it what it is: your pathological obsession which keeps you a ninny. You justify, through your postings, the application of any uncomplimentary epithet I know of short of "pedophile" or in other rhetorical flights, "a precious child of God." (As in, called him everything but. . .)

"Republican Party handlers" are in no hurry to "handle" a voter with Libertarian as his declared political persuasion. I think more up for myself than you can -- for one instance, I'm not prone to conspiracy theories the way you are; conspiracists generally strike me as having fried frontal lobes. Your hamfisted attempt at a flight of rhetoric amounts to a second mistake.

I understand that getting bin Laden or not getting bin Laden is simply symbolic. The real work is getting his organization, tying it up in a shadowy web of crippling mutual mistrusts, and destroying the Islamoterrorists' supporters. There's nothing to suggest that with bin Laden in a cage or a hole that our actual troubles would be over. The President understands this, I understand this -- and you won't understand this, which is why I'm free to tell you you are singularly, cripplingly, criminally stupid. Why are you so afraid we might win, you who try so hard to see that we lose? Answer! -- or know that the rest of the Cellar thinks you're a syphilis case.

Saddam was complicit in terrorism generally, as evidenced by those 25K payments to suicide bombers' families, and a practicer of genocide, and was manifestly desirous to seize a substantial fraction of the world's oil reserves as shown by which nations he attacked. Seems control of a quarter of the world's oil reserves wasn't enough. Half the time, these were attacks on nations friendly to us, which isn't something we're going to take lying down. You may try and twist my words, tw, but we can all see you doing it, and we snicker at your incompetence and your obviousness. We can hardly believe how constistently stupidly you behave. You will persuade absolutely no one but yourself, and you'd be more honest if you failed even at that. I know how you think, and it's a very poor way to think. There's a sigline running around on The Cellar: There are a lot more people who will tell me what people think than people who think that way.

Winning the war on terror takes a holistic approach: hostile, but failed, states must be neutralized as well as their terrorist proxy fighters. This calls for the use of one force against states, another sort of force against their proxies -- and there will be overlap of these spheres of action.

Rant at me a bit by way of conclusion, would you? Sounds extremist, doesn't it? -- well, you wouldn't know. Put another way: Vulcan, Schmulcan. You have never in your life been the master of your passions.

[Happy Monkey]

Heh. Noriega, Ortega, and Saddam, those were real victories!

Bin Laden? Eh. He's just symbolic.

[Rexmons]

i always thought the government controller "curse words" was a weird thing. besides whats a normal word today can become a curse word tomorrow and vice versa, take for instance "Hummer". I'm stil trying to figure out, however, why all of a sudden they started beeping out the phrase "God Damn It!"

Who were supporting Noriega, Ortega, and Saddam originally? I forget... it couldn't have been any republican presidents... naw... that would be hypocritical an shit.

[Cloud]

I have no idea what any of this ranting gibberish means

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Heh. Noriega, Ortega, and Saddam, those were real victories!

Bin Laden? Eh. He's just symbolic.

Happy Monkey, if you've ever had a moment of intellectual honesty, I'd like you to show me where and when. Your kneejerk attempts to challenge, rebut, and downplay any assertion whatsoever that I make [The sky is blue in the daytime when it is not cloudy.] are not something that is going to persuade anyone that you have the right answer, nor are they evidence of deep thought. They do irritate, but is irritation your whole reason for being? I'm glad I have higher ambitions than that.

If we get Osama tomorrow, do his followers quit the next day and go set up coffeehouses? Like fun they will. If we get Osama tomorrow, will the anti-George faction quit finding faults and alleged failures ad nauseam? Like fun these will, either. If we get Osama tomorrow, sure, he'd be nice to have -- but he wouldn't be essential.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I have no idea what any of this ranting gibberish means

Demonstrated is what wacko extremists - brown shirt supporters of George Jr - use for logic. IOW demonstrated is how deeply embedded is that political agenda. Urbane Guerrilla and others like him are totally incapable of grasping any reality that contradicts their extremist rhetoric. Demonstrated is why almost one-third of America still supports the mental midget president - and why Hitler was also so successful with his brown shirts. Demonstrated is why brown shirts in any nation can be so dangerous to democracies and why they will even rewrite history when necessary.

Demonstrated is why wacko extremists like Nixon can swear profusely and yet condemn (even fine) others who might do same in public. Demonstrated is why wacko extremists even call themselves moral, will impose their 'political agenda' version of morality on everyone else (also called the Spanish Inquistion), and yet have more in common with Hitler's brown shirts.

UG automatically knows using a political agenda that even justified the rewriting of history and automatically blaming Democrats for all problems.

If the subject was not politics, then Urbane Guerrilla would be declared insane. Political agendas justify all kinds of wacko ideas.

Demonstrated is why the current American government has so much contempt for other nations - even to the point of restarting the cold war, trashing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, destroying the anti-ballistic missile treaty, trashing the Oslo Accords, promoting and lying about torture, destroying the nuclear test ban treaty - and doing this all unilaterally because we are Americans - other nations must follow.

If you think Urbane Guerrilla is wacky, then appreciate how dangerous Pres Cheney and his front man George Jr are. Urbane Guerrilla demonstrates the kind of people that support Cheney et al. The point - a scary point - should be obvious from UG's long reply. No wonder these same people wanted to create war with China over a silly spy plane. Look at what UG posts for logic.

When does he read and talk about that Barnett book that he promised to discuss? Oh. It also contradicts his political agenda. So this post seven months ago from him was a lie?

So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

You -- you? -- believe you grasp reality?

You really should quit believing that one at once, sir. Nobody else here believes you. Might as well make it unanimous.

While you're at it, quit your damned hysterics about Barnett's book. A mature, well-balanced man knows when to have patience, instead of carrying on like a three-year-old. Or are you three years old inside a fiftyish body? Your intemperate language tells us this is so. Kindly write with your brain, not your neurotic cyanotic necrotic -- organ.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Your kneejerk attempts to challenge, rebut, and downplay any assertion whatsoever that I make are not something that is going to persuade anyone that you have the right answer, nor are they evidence of deep thought.

I tried engaging you in debate a few times, but you proved incapable. You reap what you sow.

[warch]

HM has a long history of hitting nails on heads.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

He's never managed it with me, Warch, nor has he found the way to engage me in ongoing bigtime debate without merely submerging the effort in being irritating. Not all that reliably, at least -- I remember thinking he's not stupid.

HM simply doesn't like what I tell him. Doesn't make it any less right. About the time he gets honest, we might have something fruitful. This isn't unique to HM, but something I require of all persons.