Re: {BS} Still waiting for the Liberals response to the FCC and the Internet

In article <p_iZo.4915$v97.3367@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, newstrash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
says...

"ByTor" <ByTor@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4d35ba7e$0$17226$c3e8da3$92d0a893@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <f6434f77-e0be-4d7f-826a-00f710121ea3
@k30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, edspyhill01@xxxxxxxxx says...

On Jan 18, 7:31 am, ByTor <By...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <21bZo.38656$231.7...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
newstr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...







"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PZ8Zo.78963$2G7.10332@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 21:50:52 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sz5Zo.24159$a66.17718@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hmmm...Obama wants the FCC to regulate the Internet.

Where are the Liberals who cried so hard about Bush wiretapping
international phone calls, and then said nothing when Obama
continuted
the wiretapping?

Now he wants to 'wiretap' the Internet. If it hasn't started
already.

Just to be sure we all share the exact same understanding of this
issue
as
you do, what is your primary source of information about it?

Try Google and I'll bet you'll find it.

You were drunk if you thought that was true when you typed it. Name
YOUR
source.

So lets see if I get this right.

1. You have no *real* answer to the *issue*
2. You deflect the issue by wanting the source so you can defelect
furthur by minimizing the source.
3. The *issue*, whether it's news sourced or not is STILL a legitimate
observation and you have no reply or *opinion* of your own on the matter
because of your suffering from partisan derangement syndrome.
4. Obviously double standards is not an issue for *your* side and they
should not be held accountable?

So anotherwords this tells me that there is *truth* to the observation
made about hypocrisy because you can't just simply admit it and have to
be RIGHT. Gawd bless America.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's the problem: Hach makes an assertion but doesn't post any
source data. The usual suspects reply that they agree and the left is
yada yada, but nothing else.

Hach and the usual suspects are just being old farts doing "the
country is going to hell in a handbasket" schtick.

Hach has not presented an argument with proofs so how can anyone
actually take a pro or con position?

But if a person is going to *ARGUE* about the source & use it *against*
someone why bother quoting it right? It is an *issue* & there is plenty
of referance to it to not *isolate* one position like MOST partisan
zombies do.

============

You're imagining things. I'm not interested in arguing about the source. I
never even remotely suggested that. I just want to know his source.

And this is an intelligent reply? I'm imagining things? I've been reding
your post's & the ping pong matches that go on in here for a long time
and one of your *strong* points is the quote the source game so why
wouldn't *any* consistent reader assume this?

Have a nice day Joe, I'm not feeding into your drama.
.

Relevant Pages