Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Suit: Iraq masterminded attack/Entire Oklahoma City plot allegedly 'aided by agents' of Baghdad
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 15, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty

Posted on 03/15/2002 1:12:33 AM PST by JohnHuang2

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last
To: one_particular_harbour
When you file a suit with no evidence, and claim your goal is to develop evidence, we call that "frivolous".

I can't even imagine who would have standing to bring such a suit. Larry Klayman: Venue America.

81 posted on 03/18/2002 4:00:09 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
Foolishness. You are merely talking to hear yourself talk. Everyone knows he is a liberal. He receives endorsements from all the liberal groups. You are simply applying a strict definition to try to justify your misguided view of the man.
82 posted on 03/18/2002 4:05:29 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: donozark
Foolishness. You are merely talking to hear yourself talk. Everyone knows he is a liberal. He receives endorsements from all the liberal groups. You are simply applying a strict definition to try to justify your misguided view of the man.

How is he liberal? He is promilitary, pro-drugwar, pro-death penalty.. That's a fail on three litmus tests for liberalism. I do not like Schumer. He is a big government statist and a member of the Democrat Party.

83 posted on 03/18/2002 4:34:53 AM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
Well, a counterterrorism expert named Larry Johnson on FOX & Friends was just discussing the Iraqui angle, and said there was credible evidence for an Iraqui tie to the bombing on, and that the FBI willfully ignored it. This guy Johnson sounded pretty credible to me.
84 posted on 03/18/2002 4:39:34 AM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
In post 16 you stated "....Clinton did not blame the NRA for OKC bombing." FACT: You were proved incorrect by myself and others.

In post 56 you claim Schumer is "Not (liberal) on the gun issue." FACT:He CO-AUTHORED the Assault Weapons ban! He has a LONG history of maintaining liberal positions on the Second Amendment. Everyone in RKBA movement knows this. And don't play childish word games. We are talking politics here.

In all posts you claim generally that Schumer is not a liberal nor liberal. FACT:Schumer was endorsed by the LIBERAL PARTY of NY in 1998 for the US Senate!

FACT:Approx. 55 Congressional Democrats are members of the Socialist Party, via Democratic Socialists of America. Such membership has been documented here on FR MANY times. See dsausa.org The Democrat Party has been taken over by Communists, Socialists, leftys, liberals, queers and tin-cup-rattlers long ago! Many Democrats openly brag of being liberal. Wellstone of MN for one.

You need to accept facts and move on. Stop wasting space here on FR with your much disproved arguements.

85 posted on 03/18/2002 5:37:21 AM PST by donozark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
These portions of that definition for "liberal" as listed following are PC claptrap:
... free from bigotry. ...
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others;
Not defintions, those, but spin. Conservatives are open to new ideas for progress -- conserving good old ideas does not preclude new ones. Conservatives are not intolerant of ideas, nor any more so of behaviours than liberals, although the set of tolerated behaviours vary. For example, in the same context of that very (but wrong) definition, "liberals" in universities are intolerant of other ideas.
86 posted on 03/18/2002 5:49:47 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
You are mixing definitions: classical liberalism (such as held by the Whig Party in England and the colonies at the times up through the Amercian Revolution), and modern PC liberalism. In the definition of the times, Schumer is a liberal. In the classical sense, as you point out, he is not -- he is a modern "Royalist" -- he supports the state, at the expense of individual liberties.
87 posted on 03/18/2002 5:54:50 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: donozark
In post 16 you stated "....Clinton did not blame the NRA for OKC bombing." FACT: You were proved incorrect by myself and others.

I have yet to see where Clinton said that the NRA was responsible.. he blamed Timothy McVeigh.

In post 56 you claim Schumer is "Not (liberal) on the gun issue." FACT:He CO-AUTHORED the Assault Weapons ban! He has a LONG history of maintaining liberal positions on the Second Amendment.

Which is it, he is liberal on the gun issue or he wants more restrictive gun legislation?

In all posts you claim generally that Schumer is not a liberal nor liberal. FACT:Schumer was endorsed by the LIBERAL PARTY of NY in 1998 for the US Senate!

So.. how is he liberal? Calling him a liberal doesn't make him a liberal, any more than Russian Vladimar Zhirinovsky or Austria's Haider calling themselves 'liberal democrats' makes them liberal democrats. I've heard people call President Bush a commie lib.. doesn't make him so. Liberal is as liberal does. I judge a person on their words, beliefs and actions, not by any labels attached to them.

FACT:Approx. 55 Congressional Democrats are members of the Socialist Party, via Democratic Socialists of America. Such membership has been documented here on FR MANY times.

umm.. what is your point?

See dsausa.org The Democrat Party has been taken over by Communists, Socialists, leftys, liberals, queers and tin-cup-rattlers long ago!

you should learn how to spell 'lefties' before you go off on a rant about them..

Many Democrats openly brag of being liberal. Wellstone of MN for one.

Wellstone is a moderate, based on his words, beliefs and actions.

You need to accept facts and move on. Stop wasting space here on FR with your much disproved arguements.

Feel free to refute any of my 'arguements' (rolling eyes) with the facts..

88 posted on 03/18/2002 11:14:45 AM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: bvw
These portions of that definition for "liberal" as listed following are PC claptrap:

... free from bigotry. ... Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; Not defintions, those, but spin.

I got it from a dictionary (shrug).

Conservatives are open to new ideas for progress -- conserving good old ideas does not preclude new ones.

Conservatives are hardly progressive.. what great progressive ideas has the conservative movement come up with in the last 12 or so years? Conservatism is regressive.

Conservatives are not intolerant of ideas, nor any more so of behaviours than liberals, although the set of tolerated behaviours vary. For example, in the same context of that very (but wrong) definition, "liberals" in universities are intolerant of other ideas.

For example? Liberal is as liberal does.. if being liberal in one's attitudes means to be tolerant of other ideas than a liberal is someone who is tolerant of other ideas.

89 posted on 03/18/2002 11:23:56 AM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: bvw
You are mixing definitions: classical liberalism (such as held by the Whig Party in England and the colonies at the times up through the Amercian Revolution), and modern PC liberalism.

I am speaking of liberalism.. radical individualism. As espoused by great men such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King jr., Ralph Nader et al. Modern liberalism is the application of classical liberal principles to modern issues.

In the definition of the times, Schumer is a liberal.

No, he is a big government statist.

In the classical sense, as you point out, he is not -- he is a modern "Royalist" -- he supports the state, at the expense of individual liberties.

Yup.

90 posted on 03/18/2002 11:31:18 AM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
Since you sound like you have a lot of time on your hands playing word games about the word "liberal", let me fill you in with a little secret that it seems like everyone on FR knows except you:
The individuals in Washington who like to call themselves "liberals" are led by Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer and Kennedy. They all get an F rating by the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, SAS, RKBA and the state rifle associations. If there was a lower grade, they would receive it.
91 posted on 03/18/2002 11:57:51 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
Since you sound like you have a lot of time on your hands playing word games about the word "liberal", let me fill you in with a little secret that it seems like everyone on FR knows except you:
The individuals in Washington who like to call themselves "liberals" are led by Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer and Kennedy. They all get an F rating by the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, SAS, RKBA and the state rifle associations. If there was a lower grade, they would receive it.
92 posted on 03/18/2002 11:59:01 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

Comment #93 Removed by Moderator

To: Ubonic
Actually, Clinton specifically blamed talk radio for OKC.
94 posted on 03/18/2002 12:06:27 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Words mean things.
95 posted on 03/18/2002 12:08:25 PM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Actually, Clinton specifically blamed talk radio for OKC.

He said 'voices of hate' on the radio encouraged such an act. That was a reference to hate radio, not all talk radio. The kind of stuff Tim McVeigh listened to. For example, Sheriff Mack. McVeigh was an avid listener of hate radio shows.

96 posted on 03/18/2002 12:12:05 PM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
You're correct that words mean things. That's why I laid the blame for the socialists who co opted the word "liberal" with this phrase: ...The individuals in Washington who like to call themselves "liberals"...

I prefer to call them socialists and I fully agree with the flyer that depicted them as nazis. Nazis are not right wing, they are left wing but that was already discussed on another thread.

97 posted on 03/18/2002 12:18:38 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
Back when conspiracy theory theories popped up every day on FR, and when many FReepers doubted the fertilizer bomb explanation, I was listening to structural engineers ( my son was in architecture school).

It seemed obvious that the type of bomb was ideally suited to take advantage of a design weakness in this particular building -- namely that the floors were connected to the supporting pillars mainly by gravity.

I wondered how a couple of yokels could put this bomb/building matchup together. I believe they had technical help.

98 posted on 03/18/2002 12:22:19 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
You're correct that words mean things. That's why I laid the blame for the socialists who co opted the word "liberal" with this phrase: ...The individuals in Washington who like to call themselves "liberals"...

As far as I know the only self-professed socialist in DC is Bernie Sanders (I). All others call themselves Democrats or Republicans. As i said, anyone can call themselves a liberal. Jesse Helms or Dianne Feinswinne could call themselves liberals.. doesn't make it so!

I prefer to call them socialists and I fully agree with the flyer that depicted them as nazis.

I prefer to call socialists socialists and neo-nazis neo-nazis.

Nazis are not right wing, they are left wing but that was already discussed on another thread.

Nazis are right-wing. Fascist. As opposed to the Left. Two major threats to the Nazi regime were the liberal Jews and Socialists. This is why they were targetted for extermination.

99 posted on 03/18/2002 12:28:25 PM PST by Ubonic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ubonic
Nazis are right-wing. Fascist.

No, the Nazis were moderates. Really! Fascism was sold at the time as the "third way," BETWEEN capitalism and communism/socialism.

100 posted on 03/18/2002 12:30:59 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson