birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I isolated one point in the debate, not the entire situation as a whole. I more specifically stated that the Libertarian point of view basically refers to minimal Federal government intrusion. It does not necessarily follow that one who subscribes to this view would or would not agree with your opinion as it relates to private entities compromising one's privacy. it doesn't? you need a new handbook. they may take your card away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 it doesn't? you need a new handbook. they may take your card away. I'm not going to call you an idiot. I should, but I'm not going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44996 Just a little article having something to do with hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=44996 Just a little article having something to do with hypocrisy. Nice. Birddog just swallowed his stethoscope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44996 Just a little article having something to do with hypocrisy. moral relativism at it's worst. one wrong isn't as bad as another. everyone else does it so it's ok. he couldn't have known about it. isolated incident at one small part of his empire (we'll see). that's the essence of this weak argument, right. it shouldn't have taken a full page to communicate it. but it is ann coulter. i'd never accuse her of being concise or for that matter, thoughtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Nice. Birddog just swallowed his stethoscope. I'm still wondering about the variety of transgressions over a period of decades that can be attributed to Murdoch. If Birdog swallowed his stethoscope we may never know. I think it was his own little secret. moral relativism at it's worst. one wrong isn't as bad as another. everyone else does it so it's ok. he couldn't have known about it. isolated incident at one small part of his empire (we'll see). that's the essence of this weak argument, right. it shouldn't have taken a full page to communicate it. but it is ann coulter. i'd never accuse her of being concise or for that matter, thoughtful. So, what do you think of Obama's real estate dealings in Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 moral relativism at it's worst. one wrong isn't as bad as another. everyone else does it so it's ok. he couldn't have known about it. isolated incident at one small part of his empire (we'll see). that's the essence of this weak argument, right. it shouldn't have taken a full page to communicate it. but it is ann coulter. i'd never accuse her of being concise or for that matter, thoughtful. How totally predictably hackish of you. I'm particularly fond of how you dismiss the argument out of hand because it's Ann Coulter without refuting a single fact she's laid out. Ad hominem at its finest. From now on perhaps I should just refute your posts by labeling them the rantings of an aging liberal hippie douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 moral relativism at it's worst. one wrong isn't as bad as another. everyone else does it so it's ok. he couldn't have known about it. isolated incident at one small part of his empire (we'll see). that's the essence of this weak argument, right. it shouldn't have taken a full page to communicate it. but it is ann coulter. i'd never accuse her of being concise or for that matter, thoughtful. Damn dude, I was just about to post a "yeah but it's different when the other guys do it" and "anne coulter article!" response But you just did it yourself and you were serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not going to call you an idiot. I should, but I'm not going to. You should have just done it. You still owe Tom a dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 How totally predictably hackish of you. I'm particularly fond of how you dismiss the argument out of hand because it's Ann Coulter without refuting a single fact she's laid out. Ad hominem at its finest. From now on perhaps I should just refute your posts by labeling them the rantings of an aging liberal hippie douche. 1st week with a newly titled concept? you've been throwing it around like "the". in this case you're wrong. i did refute her arguments while simultaneousy criticizing her writing. not ad hominem in my logic book. and your refuting my posts by insuting me would be as elegant as any of the other weak arguments you've tried in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) 1st week with a newly titled concept? you've been throwing it around like "the". in this case you're wrong. i did refute her arguments while simultaneousy criticizing her writing. not ad hominem in my logic book. and your refuting my posts by insuting me would be as elegant as any of the other weak arguments you've tried in this thread. Which concept, ad hominem? I've used it twice. All you've shown here is that you don't know what that means either. You refuted nothing, you said it's a weak argument without providing any substantial basis for your claim, sidestepped the whole point of the column (which was hypocrisy) by labeling it relativism, then moved on. Your most sustantial point was that since it's Ann Coulter it's obviously ****. But I guess in the estrogen enriched mind of the liberal man (an oxymoron if ever one existed) that's considered attacking the argument rather than the speaker. What's both interesting and annoying about you is that not only do you refuse to think openly and logically about things in favor of unquestioningly deferring to your emotions, you somehow think that makes you morally superior to those who are willing to first accept the world the way it is and then determine what to do based on that premise. Edited July 22, 2011 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 1st week with a newly titled concept? you've been throwing it around like "the". in this case you're wrong. i did refute her arguments while simultaneousy criticizing her writing. not ad hominem in my logic book. and your refuting my posts by insuting me would be as elegant as any of the other weak arguments you've tried in this thread. Wow, it's obvious, you got nothin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Wow, it's obvious, you got nothin. nothing redux it appears the justice dept and murdoch's lawyers disagree with you. willing to first accept the world the way it is and then determine what to do based on that premise. no, i don't accept corporate spying on individuals and bribing of law enforcement as "the world the way it is" and how it must be. if you do, then your expectations are far too low. and once again the gender identification of political affiliation? is that really the best you can do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 nothing redux it appears the justice dept and murdoch's lawyers disagree with you. no, i don't accept corporate spying on individuals and bribing of law enforcement as "the world the way it is" and how it must be. if you do, then your expectations are far too low. and once again the gender identification of political affiliation? is that really the best you can do? Did you actually read the article? The DOJ is looking into allegations. Big f'n deal. How about the DOJ looking into allegations backed by video of black panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia? How about the DOJ looking into the government sale of weapons to drug dealing Mexicans? How about the DOJ looking into the shady dealings of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines et al? How about the DOJ looking into the shady deal that the POTUS made on his home in Chicago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Did you actually read the article? The DOJ is looking into allegations. Big f'n deal. How about the DOJ looking into allegations backed by video of black panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia? How about the DOJ looking into the government sale of weapons to drug dealing Mexicans? How about the DOJ looking into the shady dealings of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Franklin Raines et al? How about the DOJ looking into the shady deal that the POTUS made on his home in Chicago? There's a big difference between Murdoch and the other examples you provided. The current DoJ would actually pursue any wrongdoing by Murdoch instead of ignoring it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 There's a big difference between Murdoch and the other examples you provided. The current DoJ would actually pursue any wrongdoing by Murdoch instead of ignoring it Yes, but why didn't they pursue any of the examples I gave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Yes, but why didn't they pursue any of the examples I gave? The last thing Eric Holder wants to do is pursue Fast and Furious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You should have just done it. You still owe Tom a dollar. No, you're a towel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 29, 2011 Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Link Murdoch Paper Hacked Phone It Gave as Gift to Murdered Girl’s Mother Her mother, Sara, considered News of the World "a friend and ally" during the investigation, and had an especially close relationship with Brooks, then the paper's editor-in-chief. In fact, it was so close that Brooks gave Payne a cell phone "to help her stay in touch with her supporters." Brooks, of course, has denied she had any knowledge that the phone she gave Payne was hacked. Sure. Interesting. If they can prove that Brooks was in on it, it is just 1-2 steps to Murdoch. Edit - Well, Murdoch has his supporters. Piers Morgan says that Murdoch had nothing to do with it and he should know as he was seemingly in on it. Morgan, the host of CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" and a judge on NBC's "America's Got Talent," was accused of being one of the Murdoch News Corp. journalists who allegedly hacked into the voicemails of celebrities and government officials to get scoops. During the mid-1990s, Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/article_13293299-0595-5587-a513-9c5c15131c2c.html#ixzz1TRufFNgB "Nobody proved to, I don't think, any mutual neutral observer that Rupert Murdoch had any personal knowledge of what was going on with this phone hacking," Morgan said. "It's been very damaging for the Murdoch family, for the corporation." Edited July 29, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts