Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
[Poll]

Should Terrorism Be Censored?


Yes. We don't need to see that.
  12% (3)
No, we have every right to be fully aware of these things.
  44% (11)
It can't possibly matter either way, can it?
  4% (1)
Yes, deny terrorists their fame.
  40% (10)


Total Votes : 25


(last vote on : 9/11/2014 1:54:21 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 1:54:48 PM   
subrosaDom


Posts: 724
Joined: 2/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: subrosaDom





Close. One, otherwise known as "The One Under Whom The Seas Shall Recede, Thus Enabling Him To Golf On The Beach"


Besides you and your mom who else knows him as that?

He and Himself. Michelle. Probably Valerie Jarrett. I'd guess about the 10-15%of the population who are Obama acolytes. It's pretty much his term, you know.


So far we got just you and your mom.


has big ears that nevertheless are incapable of hearing or processing anything said outside of his own utterances

Just which occupant of 1600 pensylvania ave was different?

While most Presidents have some narcissistic traits, Obama is a pathological narcissist, as evidenced by his inability to accept disagreement without getting incrediblity irritated and angry; his pathological use of the first person pronoun, his desire to insert himself into every conversation or speech, etc. It would be hard to find one who compared.

It is good that you acknowledge your ignorance but it would mot be a difficult search to find those who surpassed him in arrogance. Washington and jefferson come to mind quickily as do jackson and both rossevelts. Polk and tyler are in a class by themselves one moves a hooker into the white house while his wife is dying then marries a teenager after her father died in a "tragic" explosion from which tyler was conspicuously absent the other starts a war that nearly doubles the size of the u.s.



LBJ may have been an arrogant, SOB and prick, but he did listen to you before punching you in the mouth.

When exactly did lbj ever have the balls to use his fists on anyone besides his wife?


Obama is sui generis.

and is fairly articulate when reading speeches written by others.

Which resident of 1600 pensylvania avenue has ever written his own speeches?

Reagan wrote a number of them.

I think you are mistaken so I will ask for some sort of validation.


In the days before speechwriters, almost all Presidents did.

I had asked you to tell me which presidents did not use speach writers...Monroe had j.q. adams to write many of his speeches and all of the ones concerning the monroe doctrine. This is not a new phenomenea. For you to ascribe it to this big eared looser is historically incorrect.


I leave it to historians to indicate when that trend changed,

I am and I just did. It was not a trend. It was and is common practice. Buchannan never uttered a word that was not scripted for him except to his boy friend.

but certainly from the Republic's founding through most of the 1800's and probably the early 20th century.

The word "probably" indicates that you have no clue aboout that which you speak.



The other has smaller ears that actually listen to people

Who besides carl rove?

Rove is a blowhard who is often wrong. It's not worth my time to defend him.
and is fairly articulate when speaking off the cuff.


So the only one he listened to was in your opion a moron. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if the only advice you listened to came from a moron that you would be a moron?


"is our children learning"


Incoherent speech is worse than ungrammatical speech and I'm a grammar Nazi.
They both spend too much though, by a lot.

Perhaps that is because there is no difference between them. We are still in the sand box and we are still in gitmo. Same shit different flies.

The fundamental difference is ideology. Bush loved America. I think Carter once did, including when he was President. Obama is anti-Western, anti-American. So he's much worse.

Besides you and your mom who else believes that he is anti amerikan? What precisely has he done besides being a member of the possie you ain't


http://www.whitehouseghostsbook.com/author.html (Robert Schlesinger is deputy assistant managing editor, opinion at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly political editor of the insider publication The Hill and a Washington correspondent for The Boston Globe, his work has appeared in The Washington Monthly, Salon.com, The Weekly Standard, and People. He teaches political journalism at Boston University's Washington Journalism Center. Robert also blogs at Robert Emmet, The Huffington Post and Snakes in My Pants and can be contacted at [email protected]. He lives with his wife in Alexandria, Virginia.)

Very interesting site. Among the quotes:

Starting with George Washington and his farewell address, many presidents have sought others' advice on speeches and other public communications. Judson Welliver, "literary clerk" during the Harding administration, from 1921 to 1923, is generally considered the first presidential speechwriter in the modern sense - someone whose job description includes helping to compose speeches. Emmet J. Hughes, who wrote speeches for President Dwight D. Eisenhower during the first year of his first term (and again briefly in the 1956 campaign and into the Ike's second term) was the first staffer to officially be called "speechwriter."

Each president brings different gifts to public communications. JFK had a strong sense of style and a flair for improvisation. Richard Nixon spent more time than any other president writing his own speeches. Ronald Reagan jotted long sections of major speeches himself, especially early in his first term. Bill Clinton could extemporize and interpolate seamlessly, moving back and forth between his prepared text and his ad-libbed remarks. President George W. Bush has a strong sense of order and structure. One thing that most presidents have in common is a strong ability as an editor, both in terms of clarifying and streamlining prose but also in terms of translating it into language that is more natural to them.



_____________________________

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

- Nietzsche

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 2:03:20 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Reagan wrote parts of his speeches occasionally but never wrote his speeches.

He had a team, headed by Bentley Elliot, and Peggy Noonan.

He didnt break up the Soviet Union neither.

Nor was he a real cowboy type as he was depicted, he was a Jodhpurs guy.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to subrosaDom)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 2:48:27 PM   
subrosaDom


Posts: 724
Joined: 2/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Reagan wrote parts of his speeches occasionally but never wrote his speeches.

He had a team, headed by Bentley Elliot, and Peggy Noonan.

He didnt break up the Soviet Union neither.

Nor was he a real cowboy type as he was depicted, he was a Jodhpurs guy.


From my previous post, citing a liberal author who literally wrote the book on it: "Ronald Reagan jotted long sections of major speeches himself."

In my view, Reagan's singularity of purpose as well as his ability to clearly articulate the right ideas clearly led to the demise of the SU. Was he the only reason? No. But was he a factor? I would say, absolutely, yes. Sometimes it's as simple as supporting the right people. Obama had a chance to support the Green opposition in Iran. Instead, he did nothing. Words from POTUS matter, good or bad, reassuring or worrisome. Reagan understand that. So did FDR. Obama doesn't.

_____________________________

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

- Nietzsche

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 3:32:27 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom



It is good that you acknowledge your ignorance but it would not be a difficult search to find those who surpassed him in arrogance. Washington and jefferson come to mind quickily

Very interesting site. Among the quotes:

Starting with George Washington and his farewell address, many presidents have sought others' advice on speeches and other public communications.

It appears that your cite agrees with me.



as do jackson and both rossevelts. Polk and tyler are in a class by themselves one moves a hooker into the white house while his wife is dying then marries a teenager after her father died in a "tragic" explosion from which tyler was conspicuously absent the other starts a war that nearly doubles the size of the u.s.


Obama is sui generis.
and is fairly articulate when reading speeches written by others.

Which resident of 1600 pensylvania avenue has ever written his own speeches?

Reagan wrote a number of them.

I think you are mistaken so I will ask for some sort of validation.


In the days before speechwriters, almost all Presidents did.

I had asked you to tell me which presidents did not use speach writers...Monroe had j.q. adams to write many of his speeches and all of the ones concerning the monroe doctrine. This is not a new phenomenea. For you to ascribe it to this big eared looser is historically incorrect.


I leave it to historians to indicate when that trend changed,

I am and I just did. It was not a trend. It was and is common practice. Buchannan never uttered a word that was not scripted for him except to his boy friend.

but certainly from the Republic's founding through most of the 1800's and probably the early 20th century.

The word "probably" indicates that you have no clue aboout that which you speak.




Besides you and your mom who else believes that he is anti amerikan? What precisely has he done besides being a member of the possie you ain't
[/quote]

http://www.whitehouseghostsbook.com/author.html (Robert Schlesinger is deputy assistant managing editor, opinion at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly political editor of the insider publication The Hill and a Washington correspondent for The Boston Globe, his work has appeared in The Washington Monthly, Salon.com, The Weekly Standard, and People. He teaches political journalism at Boston University's Washington Journalism Center. Robert also blogs at Robert Emmet, The Huffington Post and Snakes in My Pants and can be contacted at [email protected]. He lives with his wife in Alexandria, Virginia.)

Very interesting site. Among the quotes:

Starting with George Washington and his farewell address, many presidents have sought others' advice on speeches and other public communications.

I am pretty sure I mentioned this.


Judson Welliver, "literary clerk" during the Harding administration, from 1921 to 1923, is generally considered the first presidential speechwriter in the modern sense - someone whose job description includes helping to compose speeches.

Your source says that it starts with washington and points out that it actually got a job discription about a hundred and thirty years later he does not say that 1921 was the first speech writer he points out that washington was the first president to utilize a speech writer.



Emmet J. Hughes, who wrote speeches for President Dwight D. Eisenhower during the first year of his first term (and again briefly in the 1956 campaign and into the Ike's second term) was the first staffer to officially be called "speechwriter."

Now thirty more years elapse before it is an actually titled position.

Each president brings different gifts to public communications. JFK had a strong sense of style and a flair for improvisation. Richard Nixon spent more time than any other president writing his own speeches.

The historical record will show that j.q.adams holds that record and not nixxon.



Ronald Reagan jotted long sections of major speeches himself, especially early in his first term.

Long sections are not quite the same as "Ragun wrote many of them"



(in reply to subrosaDom)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 3:47:51 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Reagan wrote parts of his speeches occasionally but never wrote his speeches.

He had a team, headed by Bentley Elliot, and Peggy Noonan.

He didnt break up the Soviet Union neither.

Nor was he a real cowboy type as he was depicted, he was a Jodhpurs guy.


From my previous post, citing a liberal author who literally wrote the book on it: "Ronald Reagan jotted long sections of major speeches himself."

In my view, Reagan's singularity of purpose as well as his ability to clearly articulate the right ideas clearly led to the demise of the SU. Was he the only reason? No. But was he a factor? I would say, absolutely, yes. Sometimes it's as simple as supporting the right people. Obama had a chance to support the Green opposition in Iran. Instead, he did nothing. Words from POTUS matter, good or bad, reassuring or worrisome. Reagan understand that. So did FDR. Obama doesn't.


In my view, Charlie Wilson a Democrat from Texas, brought down the Soviet Union by miring them in an unwinnable and costly war in Afghanistan, Much like W did to us. As CreativeDominant once told me, C'mon Ron, we are not Guatemala. Insofar as supporting the green opposition in Iran, that would be stupid, Aminadjad was elected by vote. Done deal. You play with whats on the cart. And it would have went nowhere and made our entire nation look like nutsuckers. And we dont want that.

The operative word being sections. That means he did not write his speeches, lets be punctilious and let no asswipe slide by as fact.
The statement was:

Which resident of 1600 pensylvania avenue has ever written his own speeches?

Reagan wrote a number of them. (no, he did not, by your own citation)

Hey, many Presidents wrote parts of their own speeches. Nothing special in that.



< Message edited by mnottertail -- 9/11/2014 3:51:17 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to subrosaDom)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 4:01:18 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Hell, a corporation might even have a strategy. That's more than we can say for our President.


Ever read "Oath of Fealty"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_%28novel%29



Doesn't look familiar. I either missed it, or don't recall it from the description.

Lots of censorship between the city and walled society?


Not really. The walled city is controlled by a corporation. People's lives are actually pretty awesome and lots of those on the outside are jealous.


_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/11/2014 9:24:56 PM   
ThirdWheelWanted


Posts: 391
Joined: 4/23/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Hell, a corporation might even have a strategy. That's more than we can say for our President.


Ever read "Oath of Fealty"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Fealty_%28novel%29


Fantastic book, but then I like just about everything that Niven and Pournelle did.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/14/2014 12:01:15 PM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
Ronald Reagan = not a real cowboy but he played one on TV. <grin>

My two cents worth: When the news reports are excessively sanitized it creates a perception of the unreality that the world is a very dangerous place out there. Too many will tell you "Things like that don't really happen." when told of beheading, crucifixions, female circumcision, and induction of children into prostitution.

Seeing the reality of the nastiness of existence in many locales might just jar some portion of the population out of complacency. I remember when the death of Daniel Pearl was released onto the internet and the attempts to block it in the U.S. as it was "inflammatory against the Muslim population".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl


(in reply to ThirdWheelWanted)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/14/2014 9:52:28 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Ronald Reagan = not a real cowboy but he played one on TV. <grin>

My two cents worth: When the news reports are excessively sanitized it creates a perception of the unreality that the world is a very dangerous place out there. Too many will tell you "Things like that don't really happen." when told of beheading, crucifixions, female circumcision, and induction of children into prostitution.

Seeing the reality of the nastiness of existence in many locales might just jar some portion of the population out of complacency. I remember when the death of Daniel Pearl was released onto the internet and the attempts to block it in the U.S. as it was "inflammatory against the Muslim population".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl




Didn't something similar happen in WW 2? The reports of atrocities in WW 1 were overstated (and many did not happen) and so reported atrocities in WW 2 were not believed especially since no pics, videos, or witnesses?

The idea that "things like that don't really happen, it is all made up."

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 129
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/15/2014 4:25:13 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Ronald Reagan = not a real cowboy but he played one on TV. <grin>

My two cents worth: When the news reports are excessively sanitized it creates a perception of the unreality that the world is a very dangerous place out there. Too many will tell you "Things like that don't really happen." when told of beheading, crucifixions, female circumcision, and induction of children into prostitution.

Seeing the reality of the nastiness of existence in many locales might just jar some portion of the population out of complacency. I remember when the death of Daniel Pearl was released onto the internet and the attempts to block it in the U.S. as it was "inflammatory against the Muslim population".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl




People need an education. I've been out in the world, been to some desperate places and many historical sites. Too many have no clue how easy they have things, or how quickly things could drastically change for them and the ones they love. Isolationists like DS seem profoundly selfish and self centered to me, and ignorant. Not caring one wit about others on the planet or how they are made to needlessly suffer unimaginable atrocities.

Of course it is ours to make this planet a better place.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 130
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/15/2014 5:12:27 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Sanity

People need an education.


How about we start with you?

I've been out in the world, been to some desperate places and many historical sites.

Been all the way to boisie ehh?


Too many have no clue how easy they have things,

No one who lives in an apartment recognizes that they dont have to fetch water from a well? How phoquing ignorant of them?


or how quickly things could drastically change for them and the ones they love.

Perhaps you could cite for us just how quickly this has happened in the past say thousand or so years?



Isolationists like DS seem profoundly selfish and self centered to me, and ignorant.

That is clearly based in your own vast well of ignorance.



Not caring one wit about others on the planet or how they are made to needlessly suffer unimaginable atrocities.

Well we have blessed many with our gmo foods, firebombs and nukes.

Of course it is ours to make this planet a better place.

Just where in the constitution of my country is that stated?

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 131
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/16/2014 7:19:13 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Ronald Reagan = not a real cowboy but he played one on TV. <grin>

My two cents worth: When the news reports are excessively sanitized it creates a perception of the unreality that the world is a very dangerous place out there. Too many will tell you "Things like that don't really happen." when told of beheading, crucifixions, female circumcision, and induction of children into prostitution.

Seeing the reality of the nastiness of existence in many locales might just jar some portion of the population out of complacency. I remember when the death of Daniel Pearl was released onto the internet and the attempts to block it in the U.S. as it was "inflammatory against the Muslim population".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl




People need an education. I've been out in the world, been to some desperate places and many historical sites. Too many have no clue how easy they have things, or how quickly things could drastically change for them and the ones they love. Isolationists like DS seem profoundly selfish and self centered to me, and ignorant. Not caring one wit about others on the planet or how they are made to needlessly suffer unimaginable atrocities.

Of course it is ours to make this planet a better place.


So, all your posturing and war-mongering is due to some compassionate, selfless desire to help end the suffering of others - all because we have it so "easy"? Is that it?

Of course, one might look at the fact that we have it so "easy" in the West, while other countries suffer unimaginable atrocities. One might try to look at the historical causes of how such an uneven situation developed in the first place, and try to determine if there's any connection between our life of ease and luxury and others' lives of unimaginable atrocities. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be extremely selfish and self-centered, something you feel comfortable judging others for.

If you want to be a war-monger, then be a war-monger. At least be honest about it. But if you try to dress it up as something more than that, saying things like "people need an education" and trying to pass yourself off as more knowledgeable and worldly wise, that's just ridiculous. I asked you in another thread whether you "know your enemy" or not, and all I got was silence from you on that point. You're an artful dodger, always ducking the tough questions where you might actually have to reveal some of this vast knowledge and expertise you claim to have, since you've been "out in the world."


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 132
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/16/2014 9:18:06 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

Ronald Reagan = not a real cowboy but he played one on TV. <grin>

My two cents worth: When the news reports are excessively sanitized it creates a perception of the unreality that the world is a very dangerous place out there. Too many will tell you "Things like that don't really happen." when told of beheading, crucifixions, female circumcision, and induction of children into prostitution.

Seeing the reality of the nastiness of existence in many locales might just jar some portion of the population out of complacency. I remember when the death of Daniel Pearl was released onto the internet and the attempts to block it in the U.S. as it was "inflammatory against the Muslim population".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl




People need an education. I've been out in the world, been to some desperate places and many historical sites. Too many have no clue how easy they have things, or how quickly things could drastically change for them and the ones they love. Isolationists like DS seem profoundly selfish and self centered to me, and ignorant. Not caring one wit about others on the planet or how they are made to needlessly suffer unimaginable atrocities.

Of course it is ours to make this planet a better place.


So, all your posturing and war-mongering is due to some compassionate, selfless desire to help end the suffering of others - all because we have it so "easy"? Is that it?

Of course, one might look at the fact that we have it so "easy" in the West, while other countries suffer unimaginable atrocities. One might try to look at the historical causes of how such an uneven situation developed in the first place, and try to determine if there's any connection between our life of ease and luxury and others' lives of unimaginable atrocities. To do otherwise, in my opinion, would be extremely selfish and self-centered, something you feel comfortable judging others for.

If you want to be a war-monger, then be a war-monger. At least be honest about it. But if you try to dress it up as something more than that, saying things like "people need an education" and trying to pass yourself off as more knowledgeable and worldly wise, that's just ridiculous. I asked you in another thread whether you "know your enemy" or not, and all I got was silence from you on that point. You're an artful dodger, always ducking the tough questions where you might actually have to reveal some of this vast knowledge and expertise you claim to have, since you've been "out in the world."




If advocating against ISIS makes Barack and I warmongers, then so be it.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 133
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/16/2014 9:32:59 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
If advocating against ISIS makes Barack and I warmongers, then so be it.


Yes, I suppose that's how it shall be.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 134
RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? - 9/16/2014 9:36:06 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Sanity

If advocating against ISIS makes Barack and I warmongers, then so be it.


Get a phoquing grammar book. It is barack and me dumbass.
Who knew you and barry were bff?


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 135
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Should Terrorism Be Censored? Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109