PDA

View Full Version : Tucker Carlson: Michael Vick should have been executed




cindy25
12-29-2010, 05:55 AM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/tucker-carlson-michael-vick-should-have-been-executed/

RM918
12-29-2010, 06:21 AM
I don't like Vick but that's rather over the top.

payme_rick
12-29-2010, 06:25 AM
Wow, so that's a lot of Beck's crowd commenting over there, eh?

Golding
12-29-2010, 07:18 AM
Hysteria is a good argument against the death penalty. Considering how many people jumped towards that conclusion for Assange, and now Carlson for Vick, I'm beginning to see something disturbing arising.

speciallyblend
12-29-2010, 07:29 AM
I don't like Vick but that's rather over the top.

anyone still wearing a crappy bow tie should be executed:)

sounds like a good reason to invade iran and occupy to save the dogs and the nfl from a convicted felon that has served his time!! hint i am using neo-con reasoning makes sense to me;) (sarcasm)

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 07:48 AM
Ok. Let me get this straight. Is this the same Tucker Carlson that some folks here were kissing up to after he got upset at Jesse Ventura for exercising his first amendment rights at the rally for the republic? Yeah, that's the same Tucker Carlson. Carry on.

speciallyblend
12-29-2010, 07:57 AM
Ok. Let me get this straight. Is this the same Tucker Carlson that some folks here were kissing up to after he got upset at Jesse Ventura for exercising his first amendment rights at the rally for the republic? Yeah, that's the same Tucker Carlson. Carry on.

i hear ya, tucker reminds me of a crying beck but younger. I was at the rally for the republic and to be honest the revolution would be better off without tucker carlson!!

vita3
12-29-2010, 08:19 AM
Vick went to Prison & served his crime. No American who had a hand in 911 or profited from it, has gone to jail.

What a joke this prep-boy can be.

MRoCkEd
12-29-2010, 08:20 AM
Sadly, many here would likely agree with him.

I don't think he should have been convicted of any crime, but the NFL should have suspended/expelled him, caving from pressure.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 08:44 AM
Ok. Let me get this straight. Is this the same Tucker Carlson that some folks here were kissing up to after he got upset at Jesse Ventura for exercising his first amendment rights at the rally for the republic? Yeah, that's the same Tucker Carlson. Carry on.

Jesse Ventura didn't have 'first amendment rights' at the rally, it was a private event and I understand he was there on the specific understanding he wouldn't go there, because the rally was for a specific purpose and not that one. It was RON's rally and reflected on Ron. Ventura can put on his OWN rally any time he wants.

Having said that, I kinda like Tucker, but that was one of those comments he probably wishes he hadn't said. I think Vick is a degenerate, mind you, but I'm certainly not calling for his execution.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 08:58 AM
Jesse Ventura didn't have 'first amendment rights' at the rally, it was a private event and I understand he was there on the specific understanding he wouldn't go there, because the rally was for a specific purpose and not that one. It was RON's rally and reflected on Ron. Ventura can put on his OWN rally any time he wants.

Having said that, I kinda like Tucker, but that was one of those comments he probably wishes he hadn't said. I think Vick is a degenerate, mind you, but I'm certainly not calling for his execution.

First amendment rights are inalienable. You don't surrender them just because you were invited to speak at someone else's rally. The person holding the rally has the inalienable right to ask you to leave whether or not you say something they disagree with. Even if a "little voice inside your head" tells you to make someone leave, if it's your rally then fine. But they don't have a right to actually control what you say. Nor do they even have the power. That said Ron Paul didn't ask Ventura to leave and this was NOT TUCKER CARLSON'S RALLY! Further Ron Paul knew that Jesse has been in the news again specifically for coming out about 9/11 when he asked Ventura to come and speak. So, screw Tucker Calrson.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 09:02 AM
First amendment rights are inalienable. You don't surrender them just because you were invited to speak at someone else's rally. The person holding the rally has the inalienable right to ask you to leave whether or not you say something they disagree with. Even if a "little voice inside your head" tells you to make someone leave, if it's your rally then fine. But they don't have a right to actually control what you say. Nor do they even have the power. That said Ron Paul didn't ask Ventura to leave and this was NOT TUCKER CARLSON'S RALLY! Further Ron Paul knew that Jesse has been in the news again specifically for coming out about 9/11 when he asked Ventura to come and speak. So, screw Tucker Calrson.

The Constitution restricts the GOVERNMENT. If the GOVERNMENT said he couldn't talk about a subject, it would be unConstitutional. If a private party pays for and puts on an event and advertises it and gets an audience for it and restricts topics as a condition of speaking, then speaking in violation of the terms you accepted is a violation of contract, and enforcing that is not unConstitutional. Similarly, people who work with churches or Disney, etc., often have 'morals' clauses in their contracts, so if they are involved in notoriety the entity can disassociate from them. Tucker is in the public eye and may well have counted on any restriction of topics in accepting to MC the event. Ventura was out of line.

Jeremy
12-29-2010, 09:03 AM
Tucker never seemed to have a solid foundation in the libertarian philosophy. It makes sense that he wouldn't because the reason he is a libertarian is simply because he was born into a libertarian family.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 09:06 AM
Tucker never seemed to have a solid foundation in the libertarian philosophy. It makes sense that he wouldn't because the reason he is a libertarian is simply because he was born into a libertarian family.

I'm not 100% for Tucker, I think he isn't courageous. But I still kinda like him and am glad he started the Daily Caller, for example.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 09:16 AM
The Constitution restricts the GOVERNMENT. If the GOVERNMENT said he couldn't talk about a subject, it would be unConstitutional. If a private party pays for and puts on an event and advertises it and gets an audience for it and restricts topics as a condition of speaking, then speaking in violation of the terms you accepted is a violation of contract, and enforcing that is not unConstitutional. Similarly, people who work with churches or Disney, etc., often have 'morals' clauses in their contracts, so if they are involved in noteriety the entity can disassociate from them. Tucker is in the public eye and may well have counted on any restriction of topics in accepting to MC the event. Ventura was out of line.

You're missing the point. Private parties rely on the government to enforce their rights. If Ron Paul (and not that punk Tucker Carlson) didn't want Ventura at his rally he could have asked him to leave and if Ventura didn't Ron would have been within his right to ask security to eject Ventura and if they wouldn't/couldn't do the job he would have been within his right to ask the police to come and eject Ventura. Ron Paul didn't exercise any of those rights, presumably because he didn't care to. So, screw Carlson. He's out of line for asking for such a stupid stipulation in the first place. Ron shouldn't have idiots like him MC his events. Your first amendment right to speak is inalienable. A private party can have you ejected for any reason whatsoever. They can have the government sanction you for not leaving when asked. But they can't ask the government to sanction you for speaking. And for the last time, this was NOT Tucker Carlson's rally. He can have his own rally.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 09:18 AM
I'm not 100% for Tucker, I think he isn't courageous. But I still kinda like him and am glad he started the Daily Caller, for example.

Fine. Carlson can hold a "Daily Caller" rally and exercise the common sense of only inviting those to speak that he actually agrees with rather than pouting because someone said something at a rally that wasn't his that he didn't like.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 09:40 AM
Fine. Carlson can hold a "Daily Caller" rally and exercise the common sense of only inviting those to speak that he actually agrees with rather than pouting because someone said something at a rally that wasn't his that he didn't like.

My understanding is that Jesse was SPECIFICALLY ASKED not to speak of certain topics by Ron's organizers. I just saw that in a blog and have no idea if it is true, but IF Jesse accepted to speak under those circumstances he was morally bound to live by those terms. Bob Barr was not allowed to speak at ALL -- the rally was about Ron's positions, not Barr's candidacy nor about Jesse. In any event, if Carlson didn't want to be associated with what Jesse was saying, he had the right to leave. I didn't hear Ron complain of THAT, either. Of course, as we both know, Ron isn't big on complaining about people's behavior unless it hurts others.

TheDriver
12-29-2010, 09:50 AM
I never liked Vick before the government abused him, but after that, I wanted to see him succeed.

Tucker Carlson has once again showed he posses a feeble neoconish mind.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 09:56 AM
Ok. Let me get this straight. Is this the same Tucker Carlson that some folks here were kissing up to after he got upset at Jesse Ventura for exercising his first amendment rights at the rally for the republic? Yeah, that's the same Tucker Carlson. Carry on.

Yeah, and Tucker Carlson exercised his first amendment rights by walking out.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 09:58 AM
My understanding is that Jesse was SPECIFICALLY ASKED not to speak of certain topics by Ron's organizers. I just saw that in a blog and have no idea if it is true, but IF Jesse accepted to speak under those circumstances he was morally bound to live by those terms. Bob Barr was not allowed to speak at ALL -- the rally was about Ron's positions, not Barr's candidacy nor about Jesse. In any event, if Carlson didn't want to be associated with what Jesse was saying, he had the right to leave. I didn't hear Ron complain of THAT, either. Of course, as we both know, Ron isn't big on complaining about people's behavior unless it hurts others.

And who specifically ask Jesse to come? Ron or the organizers? Either way it was a stupid request. Jesse had hit the news cycle again specifically because of his comments on 9/11. So whoever asked him to speak was hoping to capitalize on his recent bump in visibility while wanting him not to comment on it. And I don't fault Carlson for leaving. I fault others for caring that he left.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 10:00 AM
Ron shouldn't have idiots like him MC his events.

Ron shouldn't have nutty 9-11 conspiracy theorists speak at his events.

Jeremy
12-29-2010, 10:03 AM
I agree that Jesse Ventura is way worse than Tucker Carlson.

TheDriver
12-29-2010, 10:04 AM
Yeah, and Tucker Carlson exercised his first amendment rights by walking out.

Yes, he did, and he also reminded those in attendance what a quitter does when faced with not getting his way.

Personally, I was a little offended he just walk out on us!

Jeremy
12-29-2010, 10:07 AM
Yes, he did, and he also reminded those in attendance what a quitter does when faced with not getting his way.

Personally, I was a little offended he just walk out on us!

Yeah, but I was offended when Jesse Ventura did what they told him not to do. That's disrespectful to Ron too.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 10:12 AM
Ron shouldn't have nutty 9-11 conspiracy theorists speak at his events.

If he truly felt such people were "nutty" then sure. But maybe he doesn't. ;) I suppose now Judge Andrew "It's hard for me to believe that it (WTC 7) came down by itself" Napolitano should now be barred from speaking at Ron Paul events. ;) But I will agree with you to a point. If Ron is truly against having any association with 9/11 conspiracy theorists then it would be better for him not to have people known for that to speak at his events, as opposed to letting them speak and then trying to tell them what to say. That said, it sounds like it was event organizers, and not Dr. Paul that tried to add the stipulations.

Travlyr
12-29-2010, 10:15 AM
Ron shouldn't have nutty 9-11 conspiracy theorists speak at his events.
"Hear no evil; See no evil; Speak no evil."

agitator
12-29-2010, 10:20 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7816675266710286414#

TheDriver
12-29-2010, 10:21 AM
Yeah, but I was offended when Jesse Ventura did what they told him not to do. That's disrespectful to Ron too.

I can understand that, assuming "Ron" told Jesse V. that, which I doubt he did. He may have had someone do it, but think about that........ "Excuse me, Governor... uh Mr. Ventura.. I'm Congressman Paul's staffer, and Dr. Paul wanted me to ask if you could go easy on the 9-11 stuff, uh... OK?"

Jesse V: "Sure kid, now get-the-fuck-out-of-here.


I mean isn't it a little offensive that Ron Paul would seek to restrict what Jesse V said? Would any of us stand for the shoe to be on the other foot? Would we be OK with censorship of Ron's speech to "fit the bill?"

KurtBoyer25L
12-29-2010, 10:35 AM
Maybe Tucker should go back to his supposed Christianity and learn about the "stewardship" model of humans & animals. Ignorant tool.

mport1
12-29-2010, 10:40 AM
Haha, and he calls himself a libertarian...

JustinTime
12-29-2010, 10:41 AM
A- The Vick issue isnt that big of a deal.

B- What he did was terrible, not the dog fighting but the way he killed some of the dogs, but for Gods sake, he did two years in prison for it. I sarcastically thought to myself last night "What ya wanna do, give him the chair?" This morning I see people are calling for just that.

Jesus.


Maybe Tucker should go back to his supposed Christianity and learn about the "stewardship" model of humans & animals. Ignorant tool.

Electrocution and lynching because they didnt fight well enough, now thats stewardship. Look, Vick was wrong. He did his time.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 10:47 AM
And who specifically ask Jesse to come? Ron or the organizers? Either way it was a stupid request. Jesse had hit the news cycle again specifically because of his comments on 9/11. So whoever asked him to speak was hoping to capitalize on his recent bump in visibility while wanting him not to comment on it. And I don't fault Carlson for leaving. I fault others for caring that he left.

If you think Ron was capitalizing on Ventura, I don't even know what to say. Ron was doing Jesse a favor, giving him a 12,000 person audience at the center and all the media that accompanied Ron's counter rally. Barr tried to crash the stage to speak and was turned back by security. If Jesse accepted those terms, he did.

I also was pissed Tucker ran out on Ron, but if he was told this topic wouldn't be associated with himself as MC, then he was.

I'm madder at Ventura who knew sensationalism was HIS calling card but that Ron absolutely avoids that.

TheDriver
12-29-2010, 10:50 AM
If you think Ron was capitalizing on Ventura, I don't even know what to say. If Jesse accepted those terms, he did.

Obviously both parties felt it beneficial to have Jesse speak. Ron's side because Jesse was from MN, so they assumed it would help draw a few thousand more people there. From Jesse's side, a place to speak loudly, and perhaps reach a few people.

kahless
12-29-2010, 10:50 AM
In case anyone has forgotten, this is the same guy that during the 2008 campaign shows up at a Ron Paul press conference with a bordello owner and two hookers. Regardless of the facts or your belief in such matters, the average Conservative Joe picked up on the sound bite and was therefore damaging to the Paul campaign.

Just another story in the news cycle to create enough sound bites to make Ron Paul sound like a kook to the average voter.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 10:57 AM
In case anyone has forgotten, this is the same guy that during the 2008 campaign shows up at a Ron Paul press conference with a bordello owner and two hookers. Regardless of the facts or your belief in such matters, the average Conservative Joe picked up on the sound bite and was therefore damaging to the Paul campaign.

Just another story in the news cycle to create enough sound bites to make Ron Paul sound like a kook to the average voter.

I do agree that given Tucker's carelessness of Ron's association with hot topics Ron may tolerate but doesn't champion, Tucker is awfully careful of his own personal image. As I said, I have reservations about Tucker, and would never want to have to count on him. But I was furious when I heard Ventura's speech after Ron had taken so much flack for refusing to denounce truthers for saying what they believe, yet said it wasn't his own belief. I have also heard Tucker be the only one on various media panels with a defending word for Ron, during the campaign. And the Daily Caller hosts several authors who are sympathetic to Ron's views. (As well as some who are not.)

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 11:07 AM
If you think Ron was capitalizing on Ventura, I don't even know what to say. Ron was doing Jesse a favor, giving him a 12,000 person audience at the center and all the media that accompanied Ron's counter rally. Barr tried to crash the stage to speak and was turned back by security. If Jesse accepted those terms, he did.


Oh please! Jesse Ventura routinely speaks to bigger audiences than that. Do you know how many people watch Larry King Live? Ventura was by far the most famous person speaking at the rally, and yes that includes Ron Paul. Ventura was also the only speaker to have one a statewide election. To suggest Ventura was asked to speak as some sort of favor for Ventura is beyond silly. A favor for what exactly? The fact is that Ventura brought two things to the table: 1) household name recognition even for people who aren't into politics and 2) an olive branch to the truthers who had taken a beating during the campaign for people who should be friends since we all want the same thing (this criminal government reigned into control). There was a lot of talk about Alex Jones being asked to speak at the rally. But he would have been too controversial. So instead Ventura was asked.



I also was pissed Tucker ran out on Ron, but if he was told this topic wouldn't be associated with himself as MC, then he was.


If that was his stipulation to MC then he shouldn't have been asked to MC. Really, what did Carlson bring to the table? Some after the fact MSM "acceptance"? I doubt anybody that went to the rally was thinking "Man! This rally is going to be awesome now that Tucker Carlson is going to MC it!"



I'm madder at Ventura who knew sensationalism was HIS calling card but that Ron absolutely avoids that.

Whatever. Whoever asked Ventura to speak should have been intelligent enough to know Ventura was controversial. If they didn't want the controversy they shouldn't have asked him to speak. At the end it was a big plus. Ventura gave a great speech that covered a lot of important points. And there was little to no media fallout from his 9/11 remarks. Yeah it ticked off some of the "sky is falling" wing of the RP movement but cest la vie.

angelatc
12-29-2010, 11:12 AM
Ron shouldn't have nutty 9-11 conspiracy theorists speak at his events.

Exactly. And while Carlson was certainly acted quite unprofessional by walking out in the middle of the gig, he didn't sign up to emcee a truther rally.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 11:19 AM
Exactly. And while Carlson was certainly acted quite unprofessional by walking out in the middle of the gig, he didn't sign up to emcee a truther rally.

It's really simple. Either Carlson shouldn't have been asked to MC or Ventura shouldn't have been asked to speak. The fact is that whether you like it or not there are a lot of truthers in the RP movement, and there were fences that needed mending. It was either Ventura or Alex Jones. Ventura was the better choice. And what he said in his speech with regards to 9/11 pales in comparison to what Judge Napalitano has now come out and said.

Kludge
12-29-2010, 11:22 AM
Just as he is willing to drop support when someone says something he disapproves of, so am I. It was only coincidence I quit reading Daily Caller yesterday, but even if I did enjoy it, I would drop it today. I was less disgusted at having my wallet stolen than hearing Carlson say what he did.

TheDriver
12-29-2010, 11:25 AM
Exactly. And while Carlson was certainly acted quite unprofessional by walking out in the middle of the gig, he didn't sign up to emcee a truther rally.

Since when did being an emcee for an event mean you embraced all acts on the stage? That's a new one for me, unless the emcee is the organizer.

I always thought the emcee was hired to do a job, not discriminate against the lineup, but that's just my take.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 11:30 AM
Since when did being an emcee for an event mean you embraced all acts on the stage? That's a new one for me, unless the emcee is the organizer.

I always thought the emcee was hired to do a job, not discriminate against the lineup, but that's just my take.

I'm pretty certain Tucker wasn't 'hired', but volunteered for free, because he likes Ron. He would have had to follow Ventura on stage to introduce the next guest which apparently was more than he could take. I'd rather he'd acted differently, and it does figure into a loss of some of my respect for Tucker. I think he should have stood it, for Ron's sake, once he'd accepted the position. However, I think Ventura was more out of line, that day.

This bit about being executed, though.... I can't imagine what Tucker was thinking, to say that. I think the way the dogs were treated was terrible, and makes it clear to me Vick is no one I'd ever admire. However, he went to jail for it, already, as a previous poster pointed out.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 11:42 AM
Haha, and he calls himself a libertarian...

He certainly likes prostitutes. :)

Brian4Liberty
12-29-2010, 11:51 AM
Is Tucker a vegetarian? Some people might like to execute him for eating meat.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 11:54 AM
He certainly likes prostitutes. :)

Don't ya know? Libertarian means freedom to call for someone's execution for killing animals, hanging out with hookers, etc, but being a libertarian does NOT include questioning your government because it might make a certain insecure MSM hack feel uncomfortable. ;)

Lucille
12-29-2010, 11:56 AM
Vick is scum and should be completely shunned by society, but Carlson is being ridiculous.

The fact that the POTUS called that monster to congratulate him speaks volumes about O Duce.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 12:09 PM
I think that this was actually a smart move by Carlson. His name is all over the internet this morning, and he's getting more attention and getting more well known because of the comment that he made. I think he knew what he was doing.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 12:12 PM
I think that this was actually a smart move by Carlson. His name is all over the internet this morning, and he's getting more attention and getting more well known because of the comment that he made. I think he knew what he was doing.

Could be. I can see that in an entertainer, I guess.

dannno
12-29-2010, 12:17 PM
there were fences that needed mending. It was either Ventura or Alex Jones. Ventura was the better choice. And what he said in his speech with regards to 9/11 pales in comparison to what Judge Napalitano has now come out and said.

After several threads and bringing it up dozens of times, this little tidbit continues to be ignored by the anti-truther contingent.

Amazing, amazing.

dannno
12-29-2010, 12:18 PM
I think that this was actually a smart move by Carlson. His name is all over the internet this morning, and he's getting more attention and getting more well known because of the comment that he made. I think he knew what he was doing.

Yes, monetary gain should be the reward for all who call for the murder of others.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 12:27 PM
After several threads and bringing it up dozens of times, this little tidbit continues to be ignored by the anti-truther contingent.

Amazing, amazing.

Danno, I'm not anti-truther, I am just against issues that are not Ron's being used to paint Ron for public dissemination. He has his own issues to educate the public on, without that. As to the Judge, I'd have been furious if he had said that at Ron's rally after taking a speaking position on the understanding the topic was not going to come up, as well. what he says on his own show, or what Jesse says on HIS own show, is a completely separate matter. They are entitled to their own opinions.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 12:28 PM
Vick is scum and should be completely shunned by society, but Carlson is being ridiculous.

The fact that the POTUS called that monster to congratulate him speaks volumes about O Duce.

I have a question. Is the murder of baby humans less important than the murder of dogs? And I'm not just talking about abortion here. I doubt anybody would be shocked at Obama calling up this monster to congratulate her.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

And yeah, I'm sure most here don't like her either. But why is the fact that a repentant dog killer gets a second chance such a big deal for some folks, when unrepentant baby killers go unchallenged and unpunished?

MelissaCato
12-29-2010, 12:29 PM
What class is that where people can call for the execution of someone, who never killed another human being ?

Seriously ?

Ya, it's clear who's hanging and who's driving in the nails.

Hey Carlson, you must feel tough now dontcha ?

Good Luck with it. LOL

Travlyr
12-29-2010, 12:30 PM
I think that this was actually a smart move by Carlson. His name is all over the internet this morning, and he's getting more attention and getting more well known because of the comment that he made. I think he knew what he was doing.
Just like if Ron Paul came out and said, "Let's reopen the 9/11 investigation." He would be put in the spotlight and become absolutely famous overnight.

Watch the videos and read through the 9/11 threads seven times. Building 7 was on fire, but not fully engulfed in flames. As a matter of fact, the fire was cooler in the afternoon than it was in the morning. Then ask yourself, "How could this building been excluded from the official 9/11 report?" And further ask yourself, "How did BBC KNOW that Building 7 was going to collapse 23 minutes before it did?" Then realize that they didn't because it was still standing. She was just reading a script ... simply doing what she was told to do.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 12:31 PM
Danno, I'm not anti-truther, I am just against issues that are not Ron's being used to paint Ron for public dissemination. He has his own issues to educate the public on, without that. As to the Judge, I'd have been furious if he had said that at Ron's rally after taking a speaking position on the understanding the topic was not going to come up, as well. what he says on his own show, or what Jesse says on HIS own show, is a completely separate matter. They are entitled to their own opinions.

And again if you don't like what a speaker might say then don't invite him to speak. Really, I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp. It would be like the Eagle Forum inviting Dick Cheney's daughter to speak for them but then adding "Don't say anything about being gay".

Further the campaign was over by that time. In contrast Tucker Carlson's hooker ambush happened during the height of the campaign.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 12:33 PM
And again if you don't like what a speaker might say then don't invite him to speak. Really, I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept to grasp. Further the campaign was over by that time. In contrast Tucker Carlson's hooker ambush happened during the height of the campaign.

I grasp it and disagree with it because it was Ron's rally, not Jesse's. Jesse was living in MEXICO at the time as I recall, he was not 'in the news', and Ron was letting him speak at an event with specific guidelines. Don't agree to speak if you can't stick to the rules, is more like it, as far as I'm concerned.

I have a problem with Tucker's prostitute bit as well, IN FACT I SEE THEM AS EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF THING. And Ron likely spent a million on that rally -- whether he was in the presidential campaign or launching Campaign for Liberty is entirely beside the point.

guitarlifter
12-29-2010, 12:33 PM
Sadly, many here would likely agree with him.

I don't think he should have been convicted of any crime, but the NFL should have suspended/expelled him, caving from pressure.

This is exactly what I think. Animals have no rights, but the NFL should've certainly suspended him five, ten, maybe a full season (but not an expulsion because he's too valuable), and that would've been proper because, in the NFL, one is under contract to uphold the integrity of the NFL as a representative. The NFL has the right to penalize its players for immoral behavior because they agreed to that in the contract when they signed on the dotted line. The government, however, should've had no say in Michael Vick's case.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 12:35 PM
I grasp it and disagree with it because it was Ron's rally, not Jesse's.

And so far you've provided zero evidence that Ron told Jesse not to talk about 9/11. Carry on.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 12:37 PM
And so far you've provided zero evidence that Ron told Jesse not to talk about 9/11. Carry on.

My premise is that he was told that, based on reports at the time. If he wasn't, my conclusion is different.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 12:40 PM
I grasp it and disagree with it because it was Ron's rally, not Jesse's. Jesse was living in MEXICO at the time as I recall, he was not 'in the news', and Ron was letting him speak at an event with specific guidelines. Don't agree to speak if you can't stick to the rules, is more like it, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh. And your recollection is poor. Jesse Ventura was back in the news PRECISELY BECAUSE OF 9/11. That's what makes your argument so ridiculous. Ventura was making headlines at that point for being a truther. So if you don't want to be associated with truthers, don't ask someone who's just recently made truther headlines to speak. Really, would you ask Rossie O'Donnell to speak right after being kicked off the view and be so naive to think that people wouldn't see her as a truther whether she said anything about 9/11 or not?



I have a problem with Tucker's prostitute bit as well, IN FACT I SEE THEM AS EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF THING. And Ron likely spent a million on that rally -- whether he was in the presidential campaign or launching Campaign for Liberty is entirely beside the point.

Except it's not the same! The rally happened after the campaign was over. The amount of money spent on the rally is irrelevant.

Imaginos
12-29-2010, 12:41 PM
I am not a fan of that idiot/scum Vick but the comment from Carlson is just over the top.
By the way, Obama is a total moron and he proved himself once again.
Has he more urgent issues to focus on than this one?
Why on earth the president should spend any time to celebrate a grade-A+ idiot/scum like Vick?

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 12:41 PM
My premise is that he was told that, based on reports at the time. If he wasn't, my conclusion is different.

Told that by whom? Ron Paul or his staffers? If it's the latter then there is no evidence that Ron Paul agreed with or was even aware of that decision. During Rand's campaign he had to deal with the fact that one of his staffers had posted a position on his website that he disagreed with.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 12:45 PM
Told that by whom? Ron Paul or his staffers?

I don't recall, but I don't care about that point as you do. If a staffer is in charge of setting up an event and Ron is paying for it, and if the staffer says there is a guideline for a speaker, that is that, unless he gets specific exemption from Ron. Ron couldn't do the set up work himself, he was busy.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 12:46 PM
I don't recall, but I don't care about that point as you do. If a staffer is in charge of setting up an event and Ron is paying for it, and if the staffer says there is a guideline for a speaker, that is that, unless he gets specific exemption from Ron. Ron couldn't do the set up work himself, he was busy.

You don't care, but I do. This staffer (if he even exists) is an idiot. If you're worried about what controversial person might say then you don't invite him period. Especially if the controversial person has just been all over the news cycle because of the controversy.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 12:52 PM
You don't care, but I do. This staffer (if he even exists) is an idiot. If you're worried about what controversial person might say then you don't invite him period. Especially if the controversial person has just been all over the news cycle because of the controversy.

Or maybe if you agree with them on many points and don't hold that one against them but don't want it to color your event because it is sensational and not your own opinion, you might say, 'we'd love to have you but only if you avoid this topic.' IF that was agreed to it doesn't matter who said it, anyone should live up to their agreement with anyone.

Whatever. I do hold it against Ventura, but not as a tv entertainer. It is fine for Ventura to believe what he believes, on his own.

dannno
12-29-2010, 01:01 PM
I grasp it and disagree with it because it was Ron's rally, not Jesse's.

Since it is Ron's rally, Ron has a GREATER responsibility in choosing who speaks there. Jesse didn't sign any contracts that had to do with discussing 9/11, so essentially anything that was asked of him by the staff was a recommendation. Ventura had every right to go up on stage and start talking about aliens and lizard people until the security guards came to take him off, it would have been Ron Paul's fault for asking him to speak.

And jmdrake is right, at that very time, Jesse was publicly coming out all over mainstream media about 9/11 truth. Obviously Ron Paul has different views on 9/11 than what he is trying to have perceived of him, especially at that time. By simply having a staffer ask Ventura not to talk about 9/11, it lets Ron Paul off the hook later on if he is asked why one of the speakers talked about 9/11 truth, he has plausible deniability that he had asked him not to speak on the subject. I'm sure he could care less that he actually brought it up.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 01:05 PM
Yes, monetary gain should be the reward for all who call for the murder of others.

The death penalty is not "murder." It's a just penalty for taking the life of another human being. Although I certainly don't agree with Carlson that it should be used when people kill animals. I didn't mean to imply that.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 01:32 PM
Or maybe if you agree with them on many points and don't hold that one against them but don't want it to color your event because it is sensational and not your own opinion, you might say, 'we'd love to have you but only if you avoid this topic.' IF that was agreed to it doesn't matter who said it, anyone should live up to their agreement with anyone.

Whatever. I do hold it against Ventura, but not as a tv entertainer. It is fine for Ventura to believe what he believes, on his own.

And so out of a millions of people that could have spoken Ventura was the only one that agreed on those "many points"? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Ventura was asked to speak because he had a high profile in part because of his recent statements about 9/11 truth and (possibly) as an olive branch to truthers. I would bet the national debt that if you could ask Ron about this privately he would tell you he wasn't nearly as bothered by Ventura's statements as you seem to be (if he was even bothered by them at all).

Lucille
12-29-2010, 01:41 PM
Carlson tells HotAir's Morrissey:
I love dogs — we have three — and I think what Vick did was horrifying and shockingly cruel. Executed? I don’t know. I do know that 19 months is a joke. People get more than that for tax evasion. He certainly shouldn’t be back in the NFL with Obama rooting for him. What the president said is disgusting. That’s the story as far as I’m concerned.

Lucille
12-29-2010, 03:05 PM
Vox Day weighs in:

Dogs are not people (http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/12/dogs-are-not-people.html)


Killing dogs is not called "homicide" for a reason. [...]

Now, I would no sooner want to be around a person who mistreats a dog than one who is prone to defecating in public. But if Vick deserves execution for killing his own dogs, then the people at the Humane Society are clearly worse than the Nazis and Soviets combined. And should the police investigate every suspicious canine death? Tucker clearly needs to take control his emotions on the subject; he is normally sharper than this.

MaxPower
12-29-2010, 03:25 PM
First, I oppose the death penalty altogether.

Second, I'm not sure how this discussion turned to Jesse Ventura and 9/11, but I want to say that I don't believe it is the case that Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther, as some here appear to be implying; do you really think that his eloquent, well-developed and logical blow-back theory is just a lot of hot air and lies? I think Ron Paul is a far greater man of principle than that.

Lucille
12-29-2010, 03:30 PM
Tucker Carlson is trending (http://twitter.com/#search?q=Tucker%20Carlson) on twitter, and this is one of the top RTs:

NotSoSexyTruth Tucker Carlson thinks Michael Vick should be executed. Hey Tucker, does that stupid bow-tie of yours fold out into a KKK costume?

Huh? How is what Carlson said racist exactly? That's not the only tweet accusing him of being racist either.

sailingaway
12-29-2010, 03:33 PM
Tucker Carlson is trending (http://twitter.com/#search?q=Tucker%20Carlson) on twitter, and this is one of the top RTs:

NotSoSexyTruth Tucker Carlson thinks Michael Vick should be executed. Hey Tucker, does that stupid bow-tie of yours fold out into a KKK costume?

Huh? How is what Carlson said racist exactly? That's not the only tweet accusing him of being racist either.

Snort.

That is reaching.

When I was a kid people used to say 'that's my name, don't wear it out'....

they've worn 'racist' out.....

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 03:34 PM
First, I oppose the death penalty altogether.

Second, I'm not sure how this discussion turned to Jesse Ventura and 9/11, but I want to say that I don't believe it is the case that Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther, as some here appear to be implying; do you really think that his eloquent, well-developed and logical blow-back theory is just a lot of hot air and lies? I think Ron Paul is a far greater man of principle than that.

I made the point that Tucker Carlson, the same guy calling for execution for Vick and who bushwacked Ron during the campaign with a pimp and a couple of hookers, got huffy over Ventura's remarks. And really, nobody has said during the thread that Ron is a truther. But having Ventura on was clearly reaching out to truthers. You don't have to believe in X to think that people who do should be included in your big tent.

Kludge
12-29-2010, 03:34 PM
First, I oppose the death penalty altogether.

Second, I'm not sure how this discussion turned to Jesse Ventura and 9/11, but I want to say that I don't believe it is the case that Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther, as some here appear to be implying; do you really think that his eloquent, well-developed and logical blow-back theory is just a lot of hot air and lies? I think Ron Paul is a far greater man of principle than that.

It isn't about 9/11 truth but rather an incident where Tucker Carlson agreed to be emcee for a major Ron Paul rally (Rally for the Republic) and left the event when Ventura came on and talked about 9/11.

Carlson explains his reasoning for leaving a bit after the 5m mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhiBfmfP_tw

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 03:36 PM
Tucker Carlson is trending (http://twitter.com/#search?q=Tucker%20Carlson) on twitter, and this is one of the top RTs:

NotSoSexyTruth Tucker Carlson thinks Michael Vick should be executed. Hey Tucker, does that stupid bow-tie of yours fold out into a KKK costume?

Huh? How is what Carlson said racist exactly? That's not the only tweet accusing him of being racist either.

Maybe they're conflating Tucker with this guy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V95eGgZbrU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzfK7AWx6_s

Brett85
12-29-2010, 03:38 PM
Just like if Ron Paul came out and said, "Let's reopen the 9/11 investigation." He would be put in the spotlight and become absolutely famous overnight.

Lol, and he would lose practically every Republican supporter that he had. I like Ron because he supports a non interventionist foreign policy and greatly reducing the size of the federal government. But I will never vote for a conspiracy theorist.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 03:44 PM
It isn't about 9/11 truth but rather an incident where Tucker Carlson agreed to be emcee for a major Ron Paul rally (Rally for the Republic) and left the event when Ventura came on and talked about 9/11.

Carlson explains his reasoning for leaving a bit after the 5m mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhiBfmfP_tw

Wow! What a douche! I can't believe anybody is defending this schmuck! Ventura didn't say "America" or "the Jews" did 9/11. He merely raised the questiond of why Osama Bin Laden hadn't been charged for 9/11 by the department of justice and why was that not on OBL's FBI wanted poster. Those are legitimate questions. And raising those questions do not make you "crazy" or "anti semetic" or anti America.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
Just like if Ron Paul came out and said, "Let's reopen the 9/11 investigation." He would be put in the spotlight and become absolutely famous overnight.

Lol, and he would lose practically every Republican supporter that he had. I like Ron because he supports a non interventionist foreign policy and greatly reducing the size of the federal government. But I will never vote for a conspiracy theorist.

Umm.....you do know that Ron Paul has said re-investigate 9/11 don't you?

squarepusher
12-29-2010, 03:48 PM
a lot of subtle racism comes out when dealing with Michael Vick. Yes, I know his actions were wrong about fighting animals and has nothing to do with his race, but honestly when people come out with something like this, in my heart is says racism (and I know use that often)

Stoli
12-29-2010, 04:23 PM
And so out of a millions of people that could have spoken Ventura was the only one that agreed on those "many points"? Sorry, I'm not buying it. Ventura was asked to speak because he had a high profile in part because of his recent statements about 9/11 truth and (possibly) as an olive branch to truthers. I would bet the national debt that if you could ask Ron about this privately he would tell you he wasn't nearly as bothered by Ventura's statements as you seem to be (if he was even bothered by them at all).

BINGO. The last sentence should end this debate. My hats off to you jmdrake! You have a lot of patients.....

Brett85
12-29-2010, 04:33 PM
Umm.....you do know that Ron Paul has said re-investigate 9/11 don't you?

Ron Paul is not a 9-11 truther! He has said that over and over again. Investigating government incompetence on 9-11 is completely different from saying that 9-11 was an inside job.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 05:30 PM
Ron Paul is not a 9-11 truther! He has said that over and over again. Investigating government incompetence on 9-11 is completely different from saying that 9-11 was an inside job.

I didn't say he was. But you were replying to someone who was theorizing about what would happen if Ron Paul said let's re investigate 9/11!

Again:



Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
Just like if Ron Paul came out and said, "Let's reopen the 9/11 investigation." He would be put in the spotlight and become absolutely famous overnight.

Lol, and he would lose practically every Republican supporter that he had. I like Ron because he supports a non interventionist foreign policy and greatly reducing the size of the federal government. But I will never vote for a conspiracy theorist.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 05:45 PM
I didn't say he was. But you were replying to someone who was theorizing about what would happen if Ron Paul said let's re investigate 9/11!

Again:

I interpreted that as asking what would happen if Ron Paul questioned whether 9-11 was an inside job or not.

dannno
12-29-2010, 05:46 PM
I interpreted that as asking what would happen if Ron Paul questioned whether 9-11 was an inside job or not.

So can I assume you're not a fan of Judge Nap?

Brett85
12-29-2010, 06:22 PM
So can I assume you're not a fan of Judge Nap?

I am, but I don't like it that he seems to be flirting with conspiracy theories. He's still never said explictly that he thinks that 9-11 was an inside job, however.

dannno
12-29-2010, 06:24 PM
I am, but I don't like it that he seems to be flirting with conspiracy theories. He's still never said explictly that he thinks that 9-11 was an inside job, however.

He said that he doesn't think 9/11 happened the way our government told us and that building 7 probably came down via controlled demolition.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 06:40 PM
I am, but I don't like it that he seems to be flirting with conspiracy theories. He's still never said explictly that he thinks that 9-11 was an inside job, however.

Most 9/11 truthers do not explicitly say that 9/11 was an "inside job". Most ask questions. Like the questions Jesse Ventura asked right before Tucker Carlson walked out. (Why is OBL not charged with 9/11 and why does the FBI not have 9/11 up on his wanted poster and why if the FBI says they don't have enough evidence to charge OBL with 9/11 did we go to war with two countries based on the theory that OBL did 9/11?)

Really, Judge Nap has not gone much further than Ventura did at the rally for the republic.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 07:01 PM
He said that he doesn't think 9/11 happened the way our government told us and that building 7 probably came down via controlled demolition.

Judge Nap didn't say that. Can you present your argument at least without lying? Please don't confuse reality with your wishful thinking.

dannno
12-29-2010, 07:02 PM
Judge Nap didn't say that. Can you present your argument at least without lying? Please don't confuse reality with your wishful thinking.

Did you hear Judge Naps interview on the Alex Jones show following his interview with Geraldo on Fox News?



“It’s hard for me to believe that it came down by itself…I am gratified to see that people across the board are interested. I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9/11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.”

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 07:04 PM
Yes, he did not say he thinks that building 7 probably came down via controlled demolition. That's your wishful thinking.

dannno
12-29-2010, 07:09 PM
Yes, he did not say he thinks that building 7 probably came down via controlled demolition. That's your wishful thinking.

If you want to pretend that "It's hard for me to believe that the building came down by itself" is much different than "The building probably didn't come down by itself" then be my guest, but I wasn't lying, it was just my interpretation of what he said without having to look up the exact quote.

In the mean time, I'm not going to pretend they are any different because they really aren't.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 07:10 PM
If you want to pretend that "It's hard for me to believe that the building came down by itself" is much different than "The building probably didn't come down by itself" then be my guest, but I wasn't lying, it was just my interpretation of what he said without having to look up the exact quote.

In the mean time, I'm not going to pretend they are any different because they really aren't.

Saying it didn't come down by itself is very different from saying X made it come down. What you said is an outright lie, and not because the wording wasn't exact.

dannno
12-29-2010, 07:12 PM
Saying it didn't come down by itself is very different from saying X made it come down. What you said is an outright lie, and not because the wording wasn't exact.

Ok, how else does a building NOT come down by itself, aka with the assistance of humans?

it's just the logical conclusion.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 07:13 PM
Saying it didn't come down by itself is very different from saying X made it come down. What you said is an outright lie, and not because the wording wasn't exact.

The official story is that it came down by itself. Whether the judge things it came down by controlled demolition or alien lasers, he's still way over in truther land.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 07:15 PM
Ok, how else does a building NOT come down by itself, aka with the assistance of humans?

it's just the logical conclusion.

No, it's not. In no way it implies that it came down by a specific method. Your conclusion is logical only if by logical you mean illogical.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 07:16 PM
The official story is that it came down by itself. Whether the judge things it came down by controlled demolition or alien lasers, he's still way over in truther land.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

BlackTerrel
12-29-2010, 07:47 PM
I didn't realize Tucker was still on TV.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 07:48 PM
I didn't realize Tucker was still on TV.

He was subbing for Hannity.

dannno
12-29-2010, 07:53 PM
No, it's not. In no way it implies that it came down by a specific method. Your conclusion is logical only if by logical you mean illogical.

He said he didn't think it came down by itself. That doesn't mean he thinks it came down due to fire damage or earthquake, he is specifically implying that there was some assistance in bringing down the building. Can you name a method of assistance besides controlled demolition that would assist in bringing a building down in a controlled fashion? I don't think you can, because controlled demolition is the only logical conclusion based on A. The Judge's statement and B. The manner in which the building actually came down

QueenB4Liberty
12-29-2010, 07:59 PM
This is exactly what I think. Animals have no rights, but the NFL should've certainly suspended him five, ten, maybe a full season (but not an expulsion because he's too valuable), and that would've been proper because, in the NFL, one is under contract to uphold the integrity of the NFL as a representative. The NFL has the right to penalize its players for immoral behavior because they agreed to that in the contract when they signed on the dotted line. The government, however, should've had no say in Michael Vick's case.


Animal abuse is a crime, right up there with child abuse.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 08:12 PM
He said he didn't think it came down by itself. That doesn't mean he thinks it came down due to fire damage or earthquake, he is specifically implying that there was some assistance in bringing down the building. Can you name a method of assistance besides controlled demolition that would assist in bringing a building down in a controlled fashion? I don't think you can, because controlled demolition is the only logical conclusion based on A. The Judge's statement and B. The manner in which the building actually came down

But you're making an argument that the Judge didn't make. Assuming your argument is correct, it's still like saying the Jesus (or any other preacher) believed that Fermat's last theorem was true, because he said he believed in the truth, and the theorem is true. Maybe they aren't even aware of the existence of the theorem, even when they claim they believe in the truth, and the fact that Fermat's theorem is true. Claiming the Judge "said the the building came down through controlled demolition" when the Judge just said "i don't think it came down by itself" is still an outright lie.

Short version: If you say that you think that A is true, that doesn't mean you are aware, believed, or said that all implications from A are also true.

ARealConservative
12-29-2010, 08:20 PM
In a perfect world, he wouldn't of served a day in jail for dog fighting, but no NFL team would employ him for being a classless punk and he could rely on his other skills, like asking me if I want fries with that.

BlackTerrel
12-29-2010, 08:29 PM
Animal abuse is a crime, right up there with child abuse.

Killing an ant is just as bad as killing a person....

You just come from a culture that places dogs in high regard. Michael Vick didn't.

Kludge
12-29-2010, 09:08 PM
Killing an ant is just as bad as killing a person....

You just come from a culture that places dogs in high regard. Michael Vick didn't.

Right, and that's why we have government -- the majority imposes their culture on the minority through law. A non-anarchist libertarian will often say he disapproves of people imposing their morality on others, but every law is a product of the majority of legislators' values.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 09:19 PM
Killing an ant is just as bad as killing a person....

You just come from a culture that places dogs in high regard. Michael Vick didn't.

There's a difference between killing a domesticated animal and killing a wild animal. Wouldn't you say that there's a difference between a hunter killing a deer and what Michael Vick did when he tortured dogs?

dannno
12-29-2010, 09:24 PM
But you're making an argument that the Judge didn't make. Assuming your argument is correct, it's still like saying the Jesus (or any other preacher) believed that Fermat's last theorem was true, because he said he believed in the truth, and the theorem is true. Maybe they aren't even aware of the existence of the theorem, even when they claim they believe in the truth, and the fact that Fermat's theorem is true. Claiming the Judge "said the the building came down through controlled demolition" when the Judge just said "i don't think it came down by itself" is still an outright lie.

Short version: If you say that you think that A is true, that doesn't mean you are aware, believed, or said that all implications from A are also true.

So you can't name any other ways that the building could come down that was 'not on it's own' ?

The Judge lives in our time, he knows what the options are, what I said wasn't that far off from what he said unless you can provide another way for that happening, because it is physically impossible. I never said "classic" controlled demolition, but a by definition a building coming down with assistance from humans in a controlled fashion is a controlled demolition. There's nothing else to call it.

ARealConservative
12-29-2010, 09:27 PM
There's a difference between killing a domesticated animal and killing a wild animal. Wouldn't you say that there's a difference between a hunter killing a deer and what Michael Vick did when he tortured dogs?

not from a property rights standpoint. the difference boils down to collectivism.

BlackTerrel
12-29-2010, 09:29 PM
There's a difference between killing a domesticated animal and killing a wild animal. Wouldn't you say that there's a difference between a hunter killing a deer and what Michael Vick did when he tortured dogs?

There's a difference. But I don't know what's worse.

There are religions/cultures in India where killing an ant would be considered a terrible crime.

In the South and primarily in the African American community there are regions where dogfighting is a sport. Just like "matador" is a sport in Spain.

EDIT: Guess I missed a couple pages in this thread. We're talking about 9/11 again?

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 09:33 PM
So you can't name any other ways that the building could come down that was 'not on it's own' ?

I ignored your request because it's irrelevant. The judge didn't say the building came down due to controlled demolition. Your statement is a lie.

Brett85
12-29-2010, 09:37 PM
not from a property rights standpoint. the difference boils down to collectivism.

An animal can't consent to this type of activity, which is why there's laws against it. That's also why we have laws against bestiality. An animal can't consent to have sex with a person, and this is the same type of issue. There's also limits to what you can do on your own private property. Obviously you can't kill somebody on your private property or rape somebody.

Anti Federalist
12-29-2010, 09:44 PM
Ok. Let me get this straight. Is this the same Tucker Carlson that some folks here were kissing up to after he got upset at Jesse Ventura for exercising his first amendment rights at the rally for the republic? Yeah, that's the same Tucker Carlson. Carry on.

That. No really, no shit, that. I really mean it, that. ^^^

Anti Federalist
12-29-2010, 09:47 PM
Yes, he did not say he thinks that building 7 probably came down via controlled demolition. That's your wishful thinking.

That's weak sauce.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 09:51 PM
Irrelevant to the discussion.

The fact that the judge is way over in truther territory is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he's a truther? :rolleyes: What is irrelevant is your hair splitting about whether or not the judge said "controlled demolition". There are only two general ways for a building to come down. Either it comes down on its own (fire, earthquake, flood, etc) or it's brought down via a controlled demolition (explosives, wrecking ball, alien lasers etc).

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 09:54 PM
The fact that the judge is way over in truther territory is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not he's a truther?

irrelevant to the discussion of what the judge said. at most the judge implied, but he did not say it came down by controlled demolition. so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Anti Federalist
12-29-2010, 10:07 PM
irrelevant to the discussion of what the judge said. at most the judge implied, but he did not say it came through controlled demolition. so its irrelevant to the discussion.

The Judge said:


It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.

Seems to me that is an inclusive statement on the whole of the events of 9/11.

Even a cursory examination of the facts and contradictions of that event, then compared to the "official" story, will lead any objective, reasonable person to that same conclusion.

agitator
12-29-2010, 10:15 PM
There's a difference. But I don't know what's worse.

There are religions/cultures in India where killing an ant would be considered a terrible crime.

In the South and primarily in the African American community there are regions where dogfighting is a sport. Just like "matador" is a sport in Spain.

EDIT: Guess I missed a couple pages in this thread. We're talking about 9/11 again?

Wait, whose on first?

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 10:22 PM
irrelevant to the discussion of what the judge said. at most the judge implied, but he did not say it came down by controlled demolition. so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

I see you snipped out the relevant part.

What is irrelevant is your hair splitting about whether or not the judge said "controlled demolition". There are only two general ways for a building to come down. Either it comes down on its own (fire, earthquake, flood, etc) or it's brought down via a controlled demolition (explosives, wrecking ball, alien lasers etc).

If the building didn't come down on its own, it was brought down. If it was brought down that's a controlled demolition. By ruling out the alternative the judge spoke in the affirmative. You're just being obtuse.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 10:25 PM
I see you snipped out the relevant part.

What is irrelevant is your hair splitting about whether or not the judge said "controlled demolition". There are only two general ways for a building to come down. Either it comes down on its own (fire, earthquake, flood, etc) or it's brought down via a controlled demolition (explosives, wrecking ball, alien lasers etc).

If the building didn't come down on its own, it was brought down. If it was brought down that's a controlled demolition. By ruling out the alternative the judge spoke in the affirmative. You're just being obtuse.

again. at most, he implied. he did not say. you're arguing about what he implied, i'm arguing about what the judge said.

ARealConservative
12-29-2010, 10:26 PM
An animal can't consent to this type of activity, which is why there's laws against it. That's also why we have laws against bestiality. An animal can't consent to have sex with a person, and this is the same type of issue. There's also limits to what you can do on your own private property. Obviously you can't kill somebody on your private property or rape somebody.

huh? you originally compared a wild animal to a domesticated animal. now you claim it has to do with consent? wild animals dont give consent

there are laws against it because a majority of people don't want the activity to occur. it has zero to do with property rights, it has to do with collectivism. as in placing the well being of the group ahead of the individual. The group wants domesticated animals protected, and places this desire ahead of the individual right to do what you want with your domesticated animal even though it is viewed as property

Brett85
12-29-2010, 10:52 PM
huh? you originally compared a wild animal to a domesticated animal. now you claim it has to do with consent? wild animals dont give consent

there are laws against it because a majority of people don't want the activity to occur. it has zero to do with property rights, it has to do with collectivism. as in placing the well being of the group ahead of the individual. The group wants domesticated animals protected, and places this desire ahead of the individual right to do what you want with your domesticated animal even though it is viewed as property

So you're in favor of allowing people to torture dogs? That's a pretty disgusting position to be honest.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 10:55 PM
again. at most, he implied. he did not say. you're arguing about what he implied, i'm arguing about what the judge said.

A ref flips a coin. Team A calls "heads" in the air. The ref tells team B they won the toss. Later Dannno says the ref said the coin was tails. You say "Liar! The ref never said that". :rolleyes:

ARealConservative
12-29-2010, 10:59 PM
So you're in favor of allowing people to torture dogs? That's a pretty disgusting position to be honest.

you don't really embrace freedom if you only allow people to do things you agree with.

I find that behavior from you even more disgusting.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 11:02 PM
A ref flips a coin. Team A calls "heads" in the air. The ref tells team B they won the toss. Later Dannno says the ref said the coin was tails. You say "Liar! The ref never said that". :rolleyes:

dannno's case it's not an immediate implication. look at your own argument. it has many sentences, more than needed for the flipping coin example. any true proposition is implied but any other. but when you say "My nickname is jmdrake", I don't say that you said you live in the united states. which is a true implication from the first statement.

your analogy is dishonest because assuming that a controlled demolition is an implication of what the judge said, it's not an immediate implication like the flipping a coin example.

furthermore, i'm not even sure if it's a true implication. if someone asks the judge "do you think the building came down by a controlled demolition", i expect he won't say yes.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 11:03 PM
you don't really embrace freedom if you only allow people to do things you agree with.

I find that behavior from you even more disgusting.

agree

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 11:07 PM
dannno's case it's not an immediate implication. look at your own argument. it has many sentences, more than needed for the flipping coin example. any true proposition is implied but any other. but when you say "My nickname is jmdrake", I don't say that you said you live in the united states. which is a true implication from the first statement.

your analogy is dishonest because assuming that a controlled demolition is an implication of what the judge said, it's not an immediate implication like the flipping a coin example.

My analogy is honest and 100% correct. There are only two general ways a building can come down. Either it comes down on its own, or it's taken down on purpose. When a building is taken down on purpose that is a controlled demolition. Note that some controlled demolitions do not even involve explosives. (For example, using a wrecking ball is a controlled demolition). If you want to claim my analogy is wrong, the come up with a third option outside of the building falling on it's on and it being demolished is some form or fashion.

low preference guy
12-29-2010, 11:09 PM
My analogy is honest and 100% correct. There are only two general ways a building can come down. Either it comes down on its own, or it's taken down on purpose. When a building is taken down on purpose that is a controlled demolition. Note that some controlled demolitions do not even involve explosives. (For example, using a wrecking ball is a controlled demolition). If you want to claim my analogy is wrong, the come up with a third option outside of the building falling on it's on and it being demolished is some form or fashion.

assuming that you were born in the united states, show me how the fact that your nickname is jmdrake doesn't imply that you were born in the united states.

jmdrake
12-29-2010, 11:12 PM
assuming that you were born in the united states, show me how the fact that your nickname is jmdrake doesn't imply that you were born in the united states.

I see you are afraid of my challenge. I asked you for a third option. You can find jmdrakes living in England so that disproves your hypothesis. Now since you are so sure I was being dishonest you should be able to come up with a counter example to my hypothesis that the only two ways to bring down a building is through controlled demolition or the building falling on its own. Come on, it can't be that hard for a man of your great intellect.