Bush's speech...
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Saturday, February 3, 2007 22:04
VIEWED: 12155
PAGE 1 of 2
... does anybody give a shit anymore?
For those of you who missed it, here's the summary of it: "Give war a chance".
Everything else was filler.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I live about 15 miles from the Capitol. I have no interest in seeing him on tv.
Meh...I watched Dirty Jobs instead.
I predicted his speech would be the same caca he's been spouting for years. And I see this AM that it was exactly that.
A tax cut if you buy insurance? Woo hoo.
Wake me up if someone interesting comes along.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Mavourneen:
I live about 15 miles from the Capitol. I have no interest in seeing him on tv.
Meh...I watched Dirty Jobs instead.
I predicted his speech would be the same caca he's been spouting for years. And I see this AM that it was exactly that.
A tax cut if you buy insurance? Woo hoo.
Wake me up if someone interesting comes along.
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.
Mike Rowe in 2008!
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*puts a smack-down on the rabble rouser* 
King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Six pages of transcript... Isn't that exciting?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1581787-1,00.html
Rules: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892
Voting: http://www.wunschliste.de/index.pl?vote&r=09
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.
I couldn't agree more.
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.
Mike Rowe in 2008!
I am informed.
I know what is best for me and mine.
I didn't vote for him.
Check out the 5th post in this thread from me from September. Mike Rowe for President!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23789
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
For those of you who missed it, here's the summary of it: "Give war a chance".
Everything else was filler.
There was a lot of filler. I liked the part where he recognizes the guests...and thats filler.
I also saw the first real Republican health care plan...I've been waiting 7 years and yes, I am liberal on health care. I make sixty grand/year and can't afford health insurance, that tells me there is a problem. But under this new plan I can and it costs me less in taxes. How bout that? National Health Care would cover me, but I'd pay more in taxes.
The war bit was more then just 'give war a chance'. Basically he said that 'this is what we're going to do, the decision has been made, so knock off the defeatist crap and give the plan a chance to work before you go out and trash it.' Thats a valid message. After all, suppose the daily news led every day with stories of how the US's plan to invade France in June of 1944, a surge if you will, was doomed to failure. Or better yet, why commit more troops to the war against Germany after they broke our lines in December of 1944? Should we not withdraw and seek a peaceful outcome with Hitler?
We don't need Monday morning quarterbacks and armchair generals or 535 would-be Commanders-in-Chief second guessing a plan even before the President formally presents it to the country. Bad for morale...or good for it if your a terrorist.
Then again some folk on this board have said, outright, that they want a military defeat. I'm sure those traitors have a few people in Congress that agree with them.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.
I couldn't agree more.
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
So, people are only "turly informed" if they agree with you?
I agree though, if people were better informed, November's elections may well have been different. We may have gotten rid of even more of the "do nothing congress". I imagine if people were better informed, the last couple Presidential elections would have been quite different as well. I think it's safe to say if everyone knew then what we know now, Dubya wouldn't be let anywhere near the White House.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Mavourneen:
I am informed.
I know what is best for me and mine.
I didn't vote for him.
Check out the 5th post in this thread from me from September. Mike Rowe for President!
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23789
That is too funny about Mike Rowe, though I tend to agree with Dream about him being a front man.
My point was that it was a State of the Union speech, not just another Bush speech. If one is for or against Bush, Democrat, Republican or Libertarian, it still behooves one to keep up with the present state and where it is heading, IMHO.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
That is too funny about Mike Rowe, though I tend to agree with Dream about him being a front man.
When you get right down to it...aren't they all just Front Men?
And I agree, an informed electorate is crucial.
Take my coworker, for instance, at whom I am looking at right now. Nice woman, 39 years old, woefully uninformed, and has NEVER voted in her life. Isn't that pitiful?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Bush's speech...
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
*choke*gasp*snork*
AHHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
Glory be, that was AWFUL, normally i dun think much of censorship, but that horror mighta fallen under an indecency clause!
Barring the fact that any FIFTH grader could have done a better job delivering it, the content was so abhorrent as to be downright wince-worthy - don't believe me ? watch Condi trying to keep a straight face as he spews this tired mess.
The staged applause had an almost humorous aspect in a sad demented kind of way - I had to check the channel guide to make sure i wasn't watching an episode of The Prisoner by mistake, it was just that damn surreal.
Some of my buddies, for reasons incomprehensible to me decided at several points to throw popcorn at the screen while offering simian impersonations, it was just THAT bad.
There's also some ironic amusement in watching the number one of the republican party try to mouth the words of the principles they've always claimed and never once in the history of the party ever held to for a minute... what kind of insane rationalized denial does it TAKE to believe they actually hold to any of it ? and with some nimrod as UN-convincing as that spouting it ?
*shaking head*
He'd have done far, far better to just shut up - i'm surprised his handlers didn't quickly usher him out of there under the guise of a terror threat or technical malfunction.
It was downright claw your eyes out, stuff your ears with cotton, skincrawling AWFUL, no doubt about it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.
And if you buy into the demagoguery of either party, well, then, you're not actually, truly informed at all.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Was at work, didn't see it or hear it. Will have to read it.
BTW usually I (sometimes with coworkers) will write a screamingly funny version of dubya's SOTU. They've had people laughing till they cried. If I get the time I'll write one and post it.
This is one of my favorite parts from past SOTUs, written by a contributor:
"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. But, lets not dwell on my recent accomplishments."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All I've heard from Bush & those that support sending more troops is " that if we pull out of Iraq it will be a disaster for America."
"They" say that Iran will occupy the South....Al Qaida will grow in the Sunni areas, & the Kurds will piss off Turkey if they hint at independence.
Funny how NOW all the "experts" can predict these scenarios, but were utterly clueless in predicting ANYTHING that has transpired in Iraq for the last 4 years.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm on Buffy, S7, so there's nothing keeping me away from these final episodes. I did hear clips though. Unsurpassed class by Bush at the introduction of Speaker Pelosi, if I do say so myself. I'm sure it caught a few folks off guard, hoping to see a bitter, broken W in defeat. So sorry . 
I could do w/ stronger border patrol and immigration controls. I wasn't thrilled by the healthcare bit, at first. It's actually pretty decent,but not stellar. I'm still jaded from his big Gov't prescription drug plan. Nice bit w/ the real heroes stuff. That guy and the subway rescue....incredible story.
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.
Which isn't really saying much...
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.
Which isn't really saying much...
Hmmm. I guess it's time to dust off this video that was making the rounds before the 2004 election (I was hoping that someone had YouTubed it, and they had
). It's a comparison of Bush's speaking ability during the 1994 Texas Governor debate and the 2004 Presidential debate. Different than reading a teleprompter, but if 2007 State of the Union Bush is less impressive than 1994 Governor Debate Bush, that would really suck for AURaptor's claim.Anyone have any links to SOTU 07 video footage that we can compare?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Barring the fact that any FIFTH grader could have done a better job delivering it...
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Substance might have been tepid, but most have agreed that his delivery was about the best he's ever been.
It's surprisingly easy to agree with both these statements.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They think they are, and that's all that really matters in the end...perception, and the control of same. The real route to power.
Originally posted by Causal:
And if you buy into the demagoguery of either party, well, then, you're not actually, truly informed at all.
Somnambulist public indeed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.
AMEN BROTHER!
This is why I'm tired of politics...
King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
That guy and the subway rescue....incredible story.
Indeed. I first heard about it in early January (when it happened), as I listen to 1010 WINS and 880 WCBS when I'm driving.
While it's had some national attention, I don't know how it's been playing in other parts of the world.
The amazing thing is this guy saw another guy take a seizure and fall onto the tracks. As the train was zipping into the station, this hero dove down off the platform. Anyone who's taken the subway in NYC (as I have regularly) knows how fast those trains come into the station.
Not having enough time to get the guy off the tracks (much less back up onto the platform), he pushed the guy's arms and legs off the rails, and lay on top of him as the train passed over them both. (I actually saw a picture of the guy's knitted skull cap which was brushed by the underside of the train.)
He then had to stay on top of the guy for more than a half hour (if I recall correctly), until the authorities could be sure they could get them out without electricuting them both.
This guy literally had only a few seconds in which to act, and he didn't hesistate. It's quite an incredible story, and I'm glad he got some air time in front of a national audience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Read: people who don't agree with me are ignorant morons (I believe it's vital to quote Cartoon, as he has a habit to change his words after the fact to discredit others).
Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One question I do have to ask, why the two party system? Why does it have to be one or the other ultimatly in charge? I don't really get it.
Originally posted by Causal:
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:'Cause in this country everything has to be polarized.
Originally posted by citizen:
One question I do have to ask, why the two party system? Why does it have to be one or the other ultimatly in charge? I don't really get it.
Pepsi OR Coke
McDonald's OR Burger King
Traitor OR Patriot
Buffy OR Max
If you're not with us, you're against us.
Multiple parties would fragment our psyche, and force us to consider shades of grey...we would stand helpless at the buffet of political possibilities, unable to choose.
Say "baaaaa" Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
This guy literally had only a few seconds in which to act, and he didn't hesistate. It's quite an incredible story, and I'm glad he got some air time in front of a national audience.
I hear of 'hero' stories from time to time, and I'm more often amazed at how 'average' the events seem to be. Not trying to diminish what others have done, quite the contrary. But in most other cases, I think to myself..yeah, I'd have done something like that.
In THIS case, however,.....wow. I don't know. Granted, it must help living there and riding the rails to know what you're doing, but to do all that, notice what's going on, comprehend it then act on it...., all in an instant and NOT get yourself killed or maimed. It's heroic in every sense of the word.
( we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
)People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, the American electorate is considered to dumb to keep more than two things in their head at once.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Multiple parties would fragment our psyche, and force us to consider shades of grey...we would stand helpless at the buffet of political possibilities, unable to choose.
Why didn't you just say?
But still, limiting the choices too two parties seems, silly.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
Read: people who don't agree with me are ignorant morons (I believe it's vital to quote Cartoon, as he has a habit to change his words after the fact to discredit others).
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.
Because you do not agree with Cartoon, you are putting words in his mouth. And I am not just saying that because Cartoon happened to agree with me earlier.
Should a person actually watch the SOTU address before commenting or are you comfortable with uninformed opinions?
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
One question I do have to ask, why the two party system? Why does it have to be one or the other ultimatly in charge? I don't really get it.
you might find this interesting, the various methods that have been used to influence and guide society (carried on by the elite since the ancient world) towards a predetermined end *edit(i posted the wrong link originally-same topic, but not the one i wanted)
http://conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Delphi_Technique.htm
Quote:
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decisionmaking process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."
A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid., p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The "change agent" or "facilitator" goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument the "weak or noncommittal."
Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." He/she dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, he/she manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." He/she wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.
The method works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and any community group. The "targets" rarely, if ever, know that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect this is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The desired result is for group polarization, and for the facilitator to become accepted as a member of the group and group process. He/she will then throw the desired idea on the table and ask for opinions during discussion. Very soon his/her associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and pressure the entire group to accept the proposition.
This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires welltrained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually no, though you assertion is a Strawman, well done.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.
Thanks for pointing that out though, I hadn't read Storymarks post, I largely skimmed this thread you see. Strange how two posters independently read the same thing here, and the only one who so far had a problem with that interpretation was the guy who both agrees with Cartoons politics and recently had a rather large ego stroking from same. Although I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that, that has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Quote:How else is this to be taken except 'if they knew what they were talking about they'd stop whining'?
Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
Just so we're clear, whining is the word that tends to be attributed to a position that one disagrees with
.Quote:In other words if people were informed the election would have gone differently, people wouldn't have voted democrat and would have voted republican, like Cartoon does. Or, as I said, you either agree with Cartoon or you are uninformed.
Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
Quote:Actually I directly quoted him, right there for all too see, and now given clear reasons as to why I made the assertions I did, so try again, because this accusation is clearly erroneous. Oh and it's also a Strawman and a Red Herring because you both made up my argument and motivation for me.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Because you do not agree with Cartoon, you are putting words in his mouth.
Quote:Oh of course not, who ever could think such a thing?
And I am not just saying that because Cartoon happened to agree with me earlier.
Quote:Before commenting on the address, probably, but Cartoon wasn't talking about the address, he was talking about the election, it's right there in the quote if you care to take a look.
Should a person actually watch the SOTU address before commenting or are you comfortable with uninformed opinions?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Curses.. well, at least I can be semi-sure none of the folks I use it on are Browncoats, as some consolation.
You DO realize that technique works just as well in BOTH directions, Anti ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
true.. but atleast my motives would be pure
back to Bush though, i found this pretty humurous clip from the daily show, and it seems to characterize a noticeable change in Bushs idealogy and behavior.. which i believe is indicative of the mechanisms behind the office, that have turned him into a puppet, obviously selected, but still forced to sumbit to the NWO agenda(maybe even against his better judgement). check it out and let me know yourselves
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hmmm. I guess it's time to dust off this video that was making the rounds before the 2004 election (I was hoping that someone had YouTubed it, and they had
Anyone have any links to SOTU 07 video footage that we can compare?
- Bush SOTU '07, Illegal Immigration
Soup, now I'm worried about Mr. Bush.
He may have serious problems, and we should try to help him, not ridicule him (and I mean this in a very non-sarcastic way). Of course, I didn't really find a lot on Dr. Joseph M. Price (stupid broken links) - I'm not sure whether the Dr. is because he's a professor, or because he actually has a doctorate - but, still... Bush 1994 (and even Bush 2000) were just wow. Wow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, yes, it was a strawman. All Cartoon said was that there are people in the US who whine instead of informing themselves about the issues. And I doubt anyone will disagree with that. Your response was then to rephrase Cartoon’s argument to mean something that he did not say, which would allow you to criticize him. That’s a strawman.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Actually no, though you assertion is a Strawman, well done.
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.
Quote:If people were truly informed, they wouldn’t be played for dupes by either party, but for the most part people, in all countries, choose to be uninformed, often opting for easier sarcasm, ridicule or cynicism, and it’s hard to imagine how that is the fault of politicians.
Originally posted by Causal:
If the electorate were ever actually, truly informed, they'd realize that they're being played for dupes by both parties. They'd realize that the differences between the two, while made to seem big, are really just paper thin. They'd realize how those clowns are just using the system to promote personal power. And they'd either vote them all out, and abandon both parties in favor of some alternative, or just revolt against a government that doesn't give two shakes about you (regardless of party affiliation), and really just wants to hold on to power as long as possible.
As for the State of the Union Address, I think it was a very strong address. Bush made the case for the war well, I think, but these are arguments that, however sound, have been made before (although that doesn't exonerate the Bush Administration for the lack of public engagement on this issue). If critics were going to accept them, they would have by now. While I think he did a good job with it, it won’t change any minds, and ironically the strength with which he made these arguments probably added vigor to the opposition, who will now feel the need to attack the president and his positions more strongly to compensate.
On the domestic front, Bush’s healthcare proposal, which I like very much, would help to provide health insurance for 80% of workers by, and would do so without instituting it in the government. The Democrats will not like this at all, though. Democrats want socialized healthcare. It’s possible though that there could be a compromise that would include an expansion of Medicare, maybe, along with Bush’s proposal.
Also Bush’s energy initiatives are a good step, but I really wish there was more incentive for the free market and fewer tariffs. However, Bush has the right idea. Technology and conservation are the direction we need to go on this.
One thing that I think was a major mistake to leave out was something on Missile Defense. Our defense technology is critical, but Democrats have a habit of putting defense on the backburner.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm Canadian and I somehow managed to find the time to watch.
Democracy is at it's best when fueled by an informed electorate.
I couldn't agree more.
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
So, people are only "turly informed" if they agree with you?
I agree though, if people were better informed, November's elections may well have been different. We may have gotten rid of even more of the "do nothing congress". I imagine if people were better informed, the last couple Presidential elections would have been quite different as well. I think it's safe to say if everyone knew then what we know now, Dubya wouldn't be let anywhere near the White House.
For the most part, I would be pegged a liberal - I do tend to lean in that direction. That being said, I did listen to the President last night and generally do. I do my best to listen to people with opinions and views that differ from my own. I am from Missouri and must admit that I didn't listen to our governor's state of the state speech tonight. I just have a whole lot of difficulty listening to him. Guess I have some work to do on myself but I keep trying.
It always troubles me to hear people resort to name calling and labelling others who don't agree with them - I try not to do that myself - even in my head. It seems to me that it adds to the polarity that already exists. We do it in our homes, in our workplaces and more and more in our churches - not sure about the synagogues but I suspect it's rampant. There's a new film called Children of God which I haven't seen yet but believe it is a semi-documentary of Christian camps that are attempting to indoctrinate young children as warriors of Christ or some sort of thing like that. Fight fire with fire kind of thing. So sad - and very scary. Calling people who disagree and voice their disagreement with the powers that be traitors and terrorist sympathizers is sad and not what I would hope from other Americans.
I'm not sure who really benefits from these kinds of actions. In the long run, it just seems to hurt us all and keeps us from working together to solve the problems that face humanity all over the globe. Seems like we need to shift the focus toward listening and problem solving - guns as the ultimate last resort.
Siri
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn, did you read Cartoon's statement all the way thru? Up through
Actually, yes, it was a strawman. All Cartoon said was that there are people in the US who whine instead of informing themselves about the issues. And I doubt anyone will disagree with that. Your response was then to rephrase Cartoon’s argument to mean something that he did not say, which would allow you to criticize him. That’s a strawman.
Quote:I would have agreed with you, but then he went on to say
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
Quote:?????
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Children of God is about a sci-fi near-future when women can no longer become pregnant.
Then one woman does become pregnant, and becomes the focus of a lot of attention.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When he starts talking about real efforts to protect our borders, a real attempt to solidify our right to bear arms and putting an end to the unconstitutional meddling with smokers rights and business owners who cater to them and letting the market decide if smoking should be allowed in establishments once and for all, as a Repuglican should be doing, than I'll give a damn what he has to say.
Till then, he can take his illegal war, socical security reform (or lack therof) and illegal survelance of American citizens and stick them up his unconstitutional, Communistic ass.
When did Repuglicans become Globalists and Communists anyways? I can only imagine how much worse it will be when the Demoncrats take over again.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
- Bush SOTU '07, Illegal Immigration
Soup, now I'm worried about Mr. Bush.
Thanks for the link, yinyang. He didn't embarass himself. Didn't make his mother proud either though. (Weird side note, Pelosi was quicker off the draw than Cheney when it came to clapping. If Cheney's reflexes are that crappy, that dude he shot in the face must've been moving in super slo mo).
As far as the link I posted, I personally don't put too much stock into the claims made on the video. Making a diagnosis via video smacks too much of Senate Majority Leader Frist RE: Terri Schiavo, if you ask me. I'm more interested in the actual clips of George Bush, rather than the argument that uses those clips as evidence.
Quite a contrast, isn't it?
I think part of it is affected. It's a designed mannerism to appeal to the, "He's the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with," demographic. But I also think that he just doesn't care anymore. He's tried this Presidenting and now he's bored. He's just phoning it in now.
What I saw in that clip from the 1994 debate was someone who was fluent on the issue being debated, had an opinion on a plan to improve that particular situation (at least in his mind) and a general idea on how to go about implementing that plan. In short, someone who was engaged and interested. I don't get that from Bush today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fascists, Jack.. Fascists of the Mussolini stripe, and not even any good at it, alas.
Communists wanna take your stuff and give it to everybody.
Fascists wanna take your stuff and give it to their buddies.
The Rethugs 'went global" with the phenomenon of outsourced slave labor cause it's cheaper for their corpo buddies than paying americans.
I'd give more credence to the term "Free Market" when the folks in power mouthing it don't actually MEAN "Government Sponsored/Subsidised Monopoly".
The Dems in the past fifteen years or so have been of a more socialista bent, too true, but right now they're all so busy sucking up to a country that shall not be named, while handing out all our treasure to em, and that's right pissin me off.
I'm favorin the YOYO philosophy on that right now - ya don't live here ?
YOYO - You On Your Own!
To hell with givin OUR money to ANY foreign country, particularly one that gains us zero benefit and endless obligation.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But still, limiting the choices to two parties seems, silly.
Last time I voted I remember seeing multiple Parties with candidates :
Green Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
Socialist Party
Independent Party
and others
Granted that these Parties in toto only represent about 1-2% of the voters in America, it still shows that we have choices other than Dems. or Repubs. It's too bad that the views and platforms of these lesser parties are not very well known.....they do have some good ideas and positions on issues; too bad they have no money or real organization. I see both Democrats and Republicans hell bent of destroying America...piece by piece....each party doing it in their own way...one from the left & one from the right & MOSTLY for the SAKE OF GETTING ELECTED...and along the way every single thing that America once stood for, and every single once-proud tradition of America is vanishing from our society. I'd love to see A NEW POLITICAL PARTY...something that embraces our traditions and values, and addresses the urgent problems in America without slinking down to the levels of the insane fringe left or the insane fringe right....something MODERATE...could call it The American Moderate Party?
!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Once you hang a name on it and define it, it's as good as corrupt. It becomes it's own thing with agendas that suit the peeps running it, and like all other organized well-meaning entities, it loses sight of the people in favour of fighting for it's dogma.
Originally posted by ShinyEd:
something MODERATE...could call it The American Moderate Party?
We need the 'American Whatever' party. (Whatever the issue is, we'll consider it from whatever point of view that best serves the people!)
Crap. I hung a name on it....
Can't win Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So what we need is the “American ﺦ Party.” The Party formerly known as ...
Originally posted by chrisisall:
We need the 'American Whatever' party. (Whatever the issue is, we'll consider it from whatever point of view that best serves the people!)
Crap. I hung a name on it....
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I was waiting for Cartoon to debunk this particular strawman when Storymark mentioned it earlier, but I'm too impatient.
Actually no, though you assertion is a Strawman, well done.
Thanks for pointing that out though, I hadn't read Storymarks post, I largely skimmed this thread you see.
Then you are doing this thread and perhaps even this forum a disservice. Are you telling me that instead of reading the thread and contributing, you skim for the posters you disagree with to flamebait them?
Quote:Quote:How else is this to be taken except 'if they knew what they were talking about they'd stop whining'?
Originally posted by cartoon:
You're a credit to your country, and a shame to those in ours who complain about everything, but don't take the time to actually become informed about the subjects over which they continually whine.
Just so we're clear, whining is the word that tends to be attributed to a position that one disagrees with
I read the statement as whine all you like but at least know what you are whining about first.
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
If the electorate was ever actually, truly informed, who knows how different the results of last November's elections would have been. Unfortunately, not everyone is like you, and actually takes the time to become informed before making a statement (or voting).
In other words if people were informed the election would have gone differently, people wouldn't have voted democrat and would have voted republican, like Cartoon does. Or, as I said, you either agree with Cartoon or you are uninformed.
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.
Quote:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Because you do not agree with Cartoon, you are putting words in his mouth.
Actually I directly quoted him, right there for all too see, and now given clear reasons as to why I made the assertions I did, so try again, because this accusation is clearly erroneous. Oh and it's also a Strawman and a Red Herring because you both made up my argument and motivation for me.
Sort of like how you took Cartoon's post and are now making up his argument and motivation for him?
Quote:Quote:
Should a person actually watch the SOTU address before commenting or are you comfortable with uninformed opinions?
Before commenting on the address, probably, but Cartoon wasn't talking about the address, he was talking about the election, it's right there in the quote if you care to take a look.
Actually Cartoon was initially talking about an informed electorate. Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you would not take things out of context.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.
As you correctly stated, the first paragraph was in response to your post, where you mentioned that you had watched the speech, and addressed the benefit of an informed electorate.
I complimented you in that while American's who complain about his policies didn't watch, you as a non-American were able to find the time to watch our President's speech.
The second paragraph of my response was a general comment, not indicating any preference on my part. Naturally, as most posters know that I'm a conservative, they may have just assumed that this was a cut at the Democrats.
I believe that those in here who know me, know that if my intention had been to cut into the Democrats, I would've done it, and not beat around the bush (no pun intended).
Many of the contests in the November congressional elections in the U.S. were very close. And even though the Democrats took both houses, they only have a one-seat majority in the Senate, and nothing anyone would consider major in the House.
Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?
Given the said closeness of many of those races, an "informed" electorate could've turned them either way. Unfortunately, many people I know (and many I don't know, but whom I've heard speak on the subject), simply voted "against" one party, without even knowing what the other party stood for. To me, this certainly qualifies as an "uninformed" electorate (even if the situation were reversed, and people were voting against the Democrats, without knowing what the Republican's stood for, just because they were angry with the Democrat's).
Anyhow, I just skip over posts (including quotations included in other people's posts) made by such individuals who've long ago lost the right to occupy any of my time with name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies.
While I disagree with the vast majority of things I read on the internet, I've never once resorted to the tactics of these individuals, and their comments say more about themselves than they do about those who disagree with them. Those with whom I disagree, yet conduct themselves in a respectful manner (several persons in this thread come to mind) are worthy of my time. Those who don't, are not.
This is a policy I have long utilized on the internet, and one which I highly recommend. You'll find your stress level lowered considerably if you sieve out the responsible and courteous posters from those who are not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?
You're being a bit too kind on the "media". Any clear-thinking person could only conclude by their actions over the last decade or so that the elite media are nothing but whores & shills for the Democrats; ceaselessly attempting to shove fringe-left, ultra-liberal positions down American's throats in order to de-sensitize us to the many perversions and vile lifestyles that they endorse as well as their absurd adulation for anything anti-American...aka The UN and European socialism..
and while we're at it, consider the following :
All we ever heard from the Democrats from 2004 election loss was " rigged elections", " voter fraud","stolen election", "no paper trail", etc etc etc . For the recent 2006 election they had swarms of lawyers all around the country just ready to file suits and claim all of the above...if they lost!...but they didn't lose...they won...so ALL OF A SUDDEN the election process WORKS GREAT????? I didn't hear any sore loser Repub's blasting the election as " stolen", or "fraud" etc etc . Repubs took their hit with some dignity, as opposed to the Dems who were all too fully prepared to paralyze America with contested elections....so damn high-schoolish!...Either I won...OR YOU cheated!!!!...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Genius.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
the “American ﺦ Party.” The Party formerly known as ...
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As I recall from the Abortion thread, I was polite and on-point when I asked
While I disagree with the vast majority of things I read on the internet, I've never once resorted to the tactics of these individuals, and their comments say more about themselves than they do about those who disagree with them. Those with whom I disagree, yet conduct themselves in a respectful manner (several persons in this thread come to mind) are worthy of my time. Those who don't, are not.
Quote:but the answer I got was, well...
Do you have any arguments to refute that? Any other studies? And comments by the authors themselves on how they might have corrected for that? ... Any studies which- for example- show better development and more intact personalities when presumed fetal "pain" is controlled? Any comments on the mechanism of pain? Any insight on fetal EEGs? Comparative anatomy?
Quote:How do I classify THAT response?
Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No. I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony. Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sincere admiration....?
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do I classify THAT response?
The Klingon Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hahahahahahaha!!!! Thanks Chrisisall!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Many of the contests in the November congressional elections in the U.S. were very close. And even though the Democrats took both houses, they only have a one-seat majority in the Senate, and nothing anyone would consider major in the House.
Yes, the midterm elections did have many close races. Many Republican Representatives held on to their seats only by a slim margin. As far as only a one-seat majority in the Senate, go back and read the pundits from before the election. Very few, if any, gave the Democratic Party a shot at the Senate. Logistically, based on the number of seats the Democratic Party had to defend and where the opportunity for Republican pick-ups were located, it was an amazingly long shot. And calling the majority in the House "nothing anyone would consider major" makes the Republican majorities of the past 12 years look positively miniscule. The Democratic Party now has a bigger margin in the House than the Republican Party ever did following the Gingrich Revolution. So I guess we can start calling this the Pelosi Revolution.
Quote:
Be that as it may, all I've heard in the media since the day after the election is "Democrat mandate!" Interestingly, when the Republicans actually gained seats for their majority in the 2002 Congressional election, none of the liberal media pundits were crying "Republican mandate!" So, one wonders how they interpret this similar gain (but for a different party) in an entirely different manner?
That's funny because we remember things quite differently. I remember reading many stories in 2002 about the historic wins the Republican Party made during the midterm elections. How no President since FDR had seen his party actually gain seats during the first midterm after his election. And, if you want to read an overuse of the word mandate, just read articles after the 2004 election.
(snark dialed up)
My conclusion is that you think there is some vast liberal media conspiracy that picks on the Republican Party, who are your hope for an American Theocracy that will prevent access to birth control and teach all students in science classes that the Earth was created in six days less than ten thousand years ago.
(snark dialed back down)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Studies which will meet the only criteria accepted by this group -- from atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American sources? No. I imagine that even if one could produce a speaking, fully-educated fetus who solemnly swore that it felt "pain", there would still be those in this forum who would claim that the fetus was biased, and summarily dismiss its testimony. Given the apparent, omniscient attributes of many of the posters in this group, it seems rather pointless to even try.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How do I classify THAT response?
Name-calling? Misintrepretation? Lies?
Under which (or any) of those three do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories.
Unless, ofcourse you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)
BTW, while you and I disagree on virtually everything... (i.e. Car: "The sky is blue." Sig: "No, it's red." Car: "You're right, it's red." Sig: "No, it's blue."), you are one of (many) who is civil with your disagreements.
However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion, and I thought my response adequately addressed that -- without name-calling, misinterpretation or lies.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chrisisall:
Sincere admiration....?
Yes, exactly!!
Chrisisall understands me perfectly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Unless, ofcourse you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling?
The anti-American part, yes. I do consider that insulting. I'm fed up with people saying it's anti-American to disagree with this administration, or to want the war to end.
How about we start calling everyone pro-war anti-American? Seems more logical to me. After all, they're the ones sending our troops off to die for a war started on a lie, with a strategy that all of the Joint Cheifs have said will not work.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME. And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group.
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American". So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.
Quote:Well if it's derogatory and untrue, it's name -calling.
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)
Quote:
BTW, while you and I disagree on virtually everything... (i.e. Car: "The sky is blue." Sig: "No, it's red." Car: "You're right, it's red." Sig: "No, it's blue.")
Misrepresentation
Quote:Wish I could say the same for you.
you are one of (many) who is civil with your disagreements.
Quote:You tossed up one source for each of your points. There were valid reasons to question both sources' methods and conclusions. I asked you to cite further. That hardly classifies as rejecting "every" source.
However, I do think it's fruitless debating with people who will never believe any source produced which contradicts their opinion.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American"
Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind. As far as the US having a two party system(another jack-assed assertion by Citz), we do have more than two options. Sorry we don't have 25 different parties like Great ole England. Why have that many options and still vote 3 parties to 97% of the seats? I say cheers to the strawman... these asses need to eat.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Put the Kool-aid down for a minute, lunatic.
Quote:
so ALL OF A SUDDEN the election process WORKS GREAT?????
Works great, my ass - were it not for the tremendous amount of slimy doings by the party you favor, proven fact this, it would have been a landslide for the dems and you'd be lookin down the barrel of a real mandate.
Problem at that point, the dems themselves are as hypocritical and untrustworthy as the Rethugs - don't let partisan bickering blind you into thinking the folks yer defendin ain't evil just cause ya hate the other side more.
The current crop of Rethugs is incompetent and the current crop of Dimocrats have no balls, I fail to see exactly where we've significantly benefitted in the process here.
And I highly doubt the screwed up and easily-exploited flaws in the elections process will be fixed cause no doubt the Dimocrats wanna exploit it to THEIR advantage in the future.
Me, i'm still pushing for Ron Paul, not that he'll be able to sort this mess out, that being generations worth of work now, but at least he'd get started on it.
-Frem
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16536269.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2007/1481
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?s=5646333
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_rob_kall_061117_clear_evidence
_2006_.htm
P.S. - And if you wanna get real snippy about it, start by explaining to me why in a dimocrat 'stronghold' we get hi-profile Rethugs winning key positions by 18,111 votes exactly - every single year for the past six.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anti-Citizen, huh? Well, he's British, so you must be anti-British too. And The UK is an ally on the holy fight against terror, so you must logically be against US, TOO!!!
Originally posted by kaneman:
Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind.
Kaneman, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!!!! Burn the flag and go to HELL, bitch!!!!! Piss on our Constitution, will ya? *loud smack sound* Take THAT, you pro-terrorist pinko!!!!!
Here's to the colours that never run Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Anti-Citizen, huh? Well, he's British, so you must be anti-British too. And The UK is an ally on the holy fight against terror, so you must logically be against US, TOO!!!
Originally posted by kaneman:
Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind.
Kaneman, YOU ANTI-AMERICAN!!!! Burn the flag and go to HELL, bitch!!!!! Piss on our Constitution, will ya? *loud smack sound* Take THAT, you pro-terrorist pinko!!!!!
Here's to the colours that never run Chrisisall
*BIG YAWN*
Whatever shitlips.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And why do you copy so much when what I posted is right above?
Originally posted by kaneman:
*BIG YAWN*
Only COMMIES post that way, you REDman. Hammer and sickle all the way for you, you waster of space. Why don't you post a big picture of Stallin and stretch out the thread? It would be your way. Say, what was your favourite line in Our Man Flint? Oh yeah, "An anti-American eagle. It's diabolical."
Who's yawning now? Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I can see that. But there’s a distinction to be made here. I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.
Originally posted by Storymark:
The anti-American part, yes. I do consider that insulting. I'm fed up with people saying it's anti-American to disagree with this administration, or to want the war to end.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME.
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.
Then, if the shoe doesn't fit, why do you insist on trying to cram it onto your foot?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group.
Fair enough. But, I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 that you will say any source I quote is "biased".
It seems that whenever anyone quotes a "Christian" source, it's automatically biased because it's "Christian". As if non-Christian sources are totally objective.
A pro-life source would also be "biased", as if a "pro-abortion" source would not.
A source with a conservative bent is biased. Liberal sources are not. Etc. etc. etc.
Does anyone detect a pattern here?
My experience here shows me that very few (if any) seem to accept anything coming from a source which isn't lock, stock and barrel, walking the idiology of their own personal belief.
Just as an illustration to emphasize my point (not to reopen that can of worms) -- even when I used Smoot as a source in another thread (who isn't a Christian apologetist), he was summarily dismissed. But, as it's difficult to dismiss someone who just won a Nobel Prize in Physics as "ignorant", people tried a complete untruth -- namely, that he was speaking outside of the realm of his expertise -- as if a cosmologist saying that the cosmos are too fine-tuned to have come into existence by chance (apart from an intelligent designer) is someone speaking outside of his expertise.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American".
I'm making no such assumptions. I'm not calling anyone anything which they haven't called themselves. I never said anyone was "anti-American" if they believe "such an such". You're putting words in my mouth.
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.
If you haven't identified yourself by any of these categories, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, and you are taking offense which wasn't directed at you.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.
Firstly, "fundamentalist" applies. So, no offense taken, and I do not consider that "name-calling" (see above bit -- re: self-classification).
As I've never categorized myself as a "Weasel", I imagine that would fall under the category of "name-calling", as would "inhumane".
I have never used such terms or types of terms either in a specific (directed at a single person) or non-specific (directed at a group) manner in this forum -- or anywhere in the 8 years I've been on the internet. There is no comparison, and you know it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was abovNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American"
Yeah..okay!.......Citz comes to mind. As far as the US having a two party system(another jack-assed assertion by Citz), we do have more than two options. Sorry we don't have 25 different parties like Great ole England. Why have that many options and still vote 3 parties to 97% of the seats? I say cheers to the strawman... these asses need to eat.
Dunno, I like choices, choices are good -- like bananas.
Actually thought I slag the Lib-Dems off they do actually serve a couple of usefull purposes in the UK system.
First, in a 2 party system one party is in power and the other thinks it should be. Ergo there is a lot of positioning on issues and not really a whole lot of incentive for either side to tell painfull truths. The guys that run things now want everything to appear nice and shiny and the other lot prefer to point out the mistakes the ruling party are making rather than talk about what they would do. Having a 3rd party means that there is someone else in politics that can get media attention who isn't afraid to put forth policies because they know they will never be elected. This means things are actually debated rather than just a cold war.
Second in a two party system you have your party of choice and "the other lot." People tend to be stupidly loyal to parties even when the party doent return the love. In part this is because the voter can't face crossing the divide between their profered party and the other lot, this is especially true in close houses. If you are a Republican who likes the Bush tax cut but hates the war what can you do? Vote Democrat to stop the war and if they get in you kiss goodbye to the tax break. Vote Rep and they will claim the Pres has a "mandate" for the war you disagree with. That leaves you with abstention or a vote for a fringe party nobody pays attention to. A viable 3rd party gives you an alternative. You can vote for them safe in the knowledge that they have little chance of effecting massive change. Their increase in popularity will still register nationally however so it will get people talking and be seen as a shot across the bows for your first choice party. You are issuing a threat "I didn't vote for the other lot this time but you're on notice."
Lib-Dems do great stuff in local government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I tend also to spew venom about how I should exersize more than I do, eat better, write this graphic novel I've been putting off, and remember to take my vitamins on a regular basis, not just when the mood strikes. Is this being 'anti-me'?
Originally posted by cartoon:
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.
(I actually never saw any say the words "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" in refrence to America...)
Loving your country means also seeing it's warts, and scheduling an appointment with the dermatologist as necessary.
Anti-complacentcy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Who's yawning now? Chrisisall"
Can't speak for the rest, but I still am.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm just curious about what all the interesting people with the anti-Iraq/ anti-Afganistan belief would do just after a 9/11 scenario happened in your country. What would you do if you were a president of America and 9/11 happened?
If 9/11, happened, I President Mavourneen, President Hero, President Storymark, President Shinyed, President Finn Mac Cumhal would .... Any missed presidents are also welcome to also contribute their ideas about what to do about 9/11. I doubt that there are going to be any comments because people that oppose the Afganistan/ Iraq war don't have ideas about what a country should do about a 9/11 scenario.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually err, no it wasn't.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Actually, yes, it was a strawman.
Quote:That's almost good, call me a big stupid head and it'll be perfect ;)
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Then you are doing this thread and perhaps even this forum a disservice. Are you telling me that instead of reading the thread and contributing, you skim for the posters you disagree with to flamebait them?
I believe the term you're looking for is skim the thread, then if you see anything you disagree with reply. Don't worry, I'll remember this conversation for next time you only reply to what you disagree with, or you know 'flambait' Rue because you disagree with her and tend to think getting her riled up is best when you haven't got a rhetorical reply to her real 'scientifical' responce. It's how Cartoon operates as well, no wonder you two get on so well.
Quote:Of course you did.
I read the statement as whine all you like but at least know what you are whining about first.
Because it's not a statement that leads directly to the implication that anyone saying anything Cartoon doesn't agree with is actually just uninformed whining.
Quote:Of course it was, Cartoon's just one of those unpartisan kind of guys.
Cartoon's statement was pretty non partisan if you ask me, it was open to multiple interpretations.
Quote:Nope, because I gave clear reasons for my interpretations, where as all you've given is unbacked attempts at character assassination. Well done you
Sort of like how you took Cartoon's post and are now making up his argument and motivation for him?
Quote:Read what he wrote, rather than what you wanted to see, you'll get it.
Actually Cartoon was initially talking about an informed electorate. Perhaps if you had read the entire thread you would not take things out of context.
The fact is I did read his words in context, you don't have to read the entire thread to read it in context. I read every post leading up to Cartoons, but I missed some that preceeded it, get it?
Hey go on, you really capitalised on it there, "You didn't read the whole thread you big stupid head", well done you, really push the issue, it's an easy way to win, come on, I didn't read every single post on this thread, and you're not a hypocrite for not reading every post on this site...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
I'm just curious about what all the interesting people with the anti-Iraq/ anti-Afganistan belief would do just after a 9/11 scenario happened in your country. What would you do if you were a president of America and 9/11 happened?
If 9/11, happened, I President Mavourneen, President Hero, President Storymark, President Shinyed, President Finn Mac Cumhal would .... Any missed presidents are also welcome to also contribute their ideas about what to do about 9/11. I doubt that there are going to be any comments because people that oppose the Afganistan/ Iraq war don't have ideas about what a country should do about a 9/11 scenario.
Well, not everyone is foolish enough to still believe that Iraw had anything to do with 9/11. I'm in awe that you'd actually admit to that.
I was all for the war in Afghanistan. I wished we'd finished it. Instead, we invaded Iraq for fabricated reasons, and the Taliban is regaining control, and the guyactually respinsible for 9/11 is still at large.
Instead of finishing a job that was justified, we're now loosing two wars. Great call.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WHEN you fools can evidence a thorough, working knowledge of the writings and speeches of our founding fathers, the constitution and american history, to any reasonable degree...
THEN you can try calling me unamerican.
You speak of things you know naught of.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree with Storymark's response, mazaen. You make a serious mistake by coupling Iraq with Afghanistan.
The Taliban provided a safe harbor for al Qaeda. Our invasion of Afghanistan was justified, at least in my mind, as a response to 9/11. But then we took our eye off the ball, let bin Laden get away and shifted our focus to Iraq.
Iraq is not related to 9/11. We are in Iraq by choice, not in defense of our country. It was the invasion of a nation that did not pose a threat to our own homeland. The three part rationale that was used to sell this war was that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a relationship with al Qaeday and he would provide al Qaeda with those weapons of mass destruction to attack in the United States. Now that was all a load of bullshit. The real reason for invading Iraq (and Iran and Syria, which were next on the list) can be found in the PNAC wonk documents. Although, at this point, I think it's safe to move them from the wonk category to the wank category.
The appropriate question to ask is, "Why do all those people who are against the Iraq War hate the idea of an American Empire in the Middle East?" Or, maybe a slightly different question, "Just because one man has a hard-on to kill the man who tried to kill his daddy, should he be allowed to mire an entire country in a crappy policy-wonk-inspired war."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon- I hate to beat a dead horse, but...
Quote:Because your post directly followed mine and was a response to it?
Under which (or any) of those three (name-calling, misinterpretations, and outright lies) do you think the quoted response would fall? I don't see it falling under any of those categories. Unless, of course you consider "atheistic, liberal, pro-abortion, anti-American" to be name-calling? Particularly, as there are many in this group who readily identify themselves as such.- Cartoon
First of all, it wasn't "the group" who asked a question, it was ME. -SignyM
Then, if the shoe doesn't fit, why do you insist on trying to cram it onto your foot?-Cartoon
Quote:I didn't reject your sources because they were "biased and/or Xtian. I rejected the New Zealand study because the group of abortion-obtaining females was selectively different that the comparison groups (a longitidinal study would have been better) and I rejected the argument of fetal pain because some neurologists claim that in order to feel "pain" thalamo-cortical connections need to be developed, and those connections are not in place at 20 weeks. I can think of several lines to refute my arguments and I tried to steer you into them. If you're detecting a apttern, it is the pattern of asking for evidence and reason.
And since I asked a topical question in a polite manner, I believe that I am owed a direct reply- which BTW I still haven't gotten- not splattering at a whole group. -SignyM
Fair enough. But, I'm willing to bet 10 to 1 that you will say any source I quote is "biased". It seems that whenever anyone quotes a "Christian" source, it's automatically biased because it's "Christian". As if non-Christian sources are totally objective. A pro-life source would also be "biased", as if a "pro-abortion" source would not. A source with a conservative bent is biased. Liberal sources are not. Does anyone detect a pattern here?
Quote:Really????? Please quote Rue, Chrisisall, Siri, Frem, or anyone else calling themselves "anti-american" or "pro-abortion."
Secondly, you're making an awful lot of assumptions not only about me but about a whole group of people. There are MANY people who don't want the government in their business who are neither liberals nor atheists, and there is NOBODY in the group who would characterize themselves as "pro-abortion" or "anti-American".-SignyM
I'm making no such assumptions. I'm not calling anyone anything which they haven't called themselves.
Quote:Ah, then you ARE making assumptions, not only about what you think people would argue ("...I'm willing to bet...") but also how they see themselves ("...I think that they...")
Meanwhile, there have definitely been people in this forum who repeatedly spew venom about how "evil, backward, uncivilized and retarded" (insert the derogatory adjective of your choice) America is. I would certainly classify such people as "anti-American", and I think that they would tend to agree.
Quote:So for example- I shouldn't defend a Jew because I'm not a Jew?
If you haven't identified yourself by any of these categories, then obviously this doesn't apply to you, and you are taking offense which wasn't directed at you.
Quote:As would "anti-American".
So, yes, it IS name-calling, just as it would be if I were to call you an inhumane fundamentalist weasel who doesn't have the courage of his convictions to even take responsibility for his tone.-SignyM
Firstly, "fundamentalist" applies. So, no offense taken, and I do not consider that "name-calling" (see above bit -- re: self-classification). As I've never categorized myself as a "Weasel", I imagine that would fall under the category of "name-calling", as would "inhumane"... Regarding "omniscient" -- how is that derogatory? (I never said I was above sarcasm or hyperbole -- see last paragraph, below.)
Quote:
Hyperbole -- showing how we rarely agree. Methinks you protest too much, and find offense where none is intended.[/qNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now, to FINALLY respond the the actual thread topic:
A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy — and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth
ie.: Since the economy crashed in 2001. I think people winced when they heard this.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/famin.htm
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp162
First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 — and met that goal three years ahead of schedule.
I think we all know this is an attempt to strangle the government
Next, there is the matter of earmarks… cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.
This is something I can get behind. But why not just eliminate them entirely?
Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience — and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty — and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this Chamber knows this to be true — yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act.
“Wolf! Wolf!” cried the boy.
We must increase funds for students who struggle — and make sure these children get the special help they need. And we can make sure our children are prepared for the jobs of the future, and our country is more competitive, by strengthening math and science skills. The No Child Left Behind Act has worked for America's children — and I ask Congress to reauthorize this good law.
But not to fund it.
Tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income.
Is that on the first several thousands or last thousands?
At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job.
Unfocused, tosses lots of $$$ at people who’re already covered at the expense of ppl who are not. DOA
Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol — and funding new infrastructure and technology.
Great. Good start.
Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program.
No
We will enforce our immigration laws at the worksite, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers — so there is no excuse left for violating the law.
Does he mean he isn’t doing that NOW?
It is in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply
and blah blah blah…
and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
which isn’t happening and over which we have no control.
…one question has surely been settled — that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy… Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented — but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al-Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coa
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And he never will. He's a Troll.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Still, you have not attempted to substantively refute the arguments in the other thread, and I will keep pointing out for the forseeable future.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think he's confused more than anything.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I appreciate your comment storymark.
italics ("Well, not everyone is foolish enough to still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I'm in awe that you'd actually admit to that.")
I agree with you that 9/11 didn't have anything to do with Iraq. I guess your saying that is OK to defend one's country but not to attack other countries. When a country attacks a country that hasn't provoked it is not defence. If Iraq did not attack America then was morally wrong for America to attack Iraq.
What was was the reason that America invaded Iraq?
One reason America invaded Iraq might have been to change Iraq into a functioning stable democracy. A functioning democracy had a good chance of discouraging terrorism. A few reasons why Iraq had a good chance of becoming a functioning democracy was Iraq's had demonstrated a previous leadership role in the region, support of women in professional roles, a support for moderate muslims and support for research and educational opportunities.
In group theory, a group works most successfully if there is one clear leader. When you have one clear leader, rather than many leaders fighting for the top role, a group will united and work together. If a group doesn't have a clear leader it often becomes fragmented and falls apart and is unproductive and prone to conflict. So perhaps the American leadership wants Iraq to became a good leader country, then other countries in the region would follow Iraq's example of democracy.
Not that I agree just putting this idea to you to respond to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny because there's always the big thing about how the Middle East needs Democracy, but no one seems to mention it's already got it. Probably because the pre existing democracies are Anti-USA, but since the majority of people in them are Anti-USA surely that means they're doing pretty well, democratically speaking.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Funny because there's always the big thing about how the Middle East needs Democracy, but no one seems to mention it's already got it.
______________________________________________________
Oh you mean like how Sadaam Hussein won 99% of the democratic election.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No I mean like how Iran's government is elected in unrigged elections, which actually puts it slightly ahead of the US at the moment.
Originally posted by mazaen:
Oh you mean like how Sadaam Hussein won 99% of the democratic election.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No I mean like how Iran's government is elected in unrigged elections, which actually puts it slightly ahead of the US at the moment.
_____________________________________________________
Oh you mean how Iran's religious leaders choose the candidates that run for the elections.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And that's different from how US corporations choose the candidates that run for elections, how exactly?
Originally posted by mazaen:
Oh you mean how Iran's religious leaders choose the candidates that run for the elections.
Iran isn't a perfect example of democracy, but it is a democracy and it is improving. On the other hand the US government has a long history of supporting non-democractic regimes when the democratic alternative is not to their liking, for instance General Pinochet and Chile.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
US corporations effects easter because then we don't get as many chocolate easter bunnies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, at least you've stopped dressing up the nonsense now.
Originally posted by mazaen:
US corporations effects easter because then we don't get as many chocolate easter bunnies.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought you were going to say I was immature. Thanks anyway.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh dear. You talk crap, I'm going to tell you what I smell.
Originally posted by mazaen:
I thought you were going to say I was immature. Thanks anyway.
Please feel free to return when you have something a little more substantial than George Bush's latest talking points and a grasp of the Middle East situation worthy of a Martian, until then, best you stick to your easter bunnies mate.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There seems to be a lot of insulting going on here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What do you expect, you make a stream of endless flippant remarks, when you run out of them you spout some immature nonsense as if it's some profound statement, then act like it's an amazing piece of observation that you expected to be called on it. If you talk shit it doesn't make you a genius when you say "I thought you'd say there's a funny smell around here".
If you've got something to actually say on the topic go ahead, or go back insulting everyone's intelligence with talk of Easter bunnies.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only if they're solid chocolate easter bunnies, no foisting off those phony hollow ones on us.. well, unless they're filled with jellybeans.
MMMmmm, easter... candy... *drooool*...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s often about as much as you’ll get from Citizen, but not everyone here is that way.
Originally posted by mazaen:
There seems to be a lot of insulting going on here.
As for your question about what I would have done in response to 9/ll, I can’t say for sure that I would have done anything different then what was done. Actually, if the decisions had been mine, we might have entered Afghanistan in 1994 and Iraq in 1999. So the only real changes I might have made would have been to push up the timetable.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes finn, deamonise anyone you don't agree with, afterall that is all you've got.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s often about as much as you’ll get from Citizen, but not everyone here is that way.
And for the record, no not everyone here is like me, many are much worse, like Finn who likes to paint anyone who disagrees with him as a Nazi. He's worse than I could ever want to be. And also, I might add, no insult I made (not that I made any) is as bad as yours.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is for the intelligent chocolate easter bunny lovers out there. I'm one and fully support chocolate eating in moderation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm still waiting for a response from Cartoon. I don't think Cartoon is a troll- I think his position is heartfelt- but he runs away from substantive discussion.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What was was the reason that America invaded Iraq?
One reason America invaded Iraq might have been to change Iraq into a functioning stable democracy."
I think that was reason number, uhmmm ... 1) wmd 2) al-Qaeda 3) toppling Hussein 4) capturing Hussein 5) spreading democracy 6) fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here 7) "failure" would be a disaster ... that would be number 5, which has since been superceded.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.
Sorry. Have to disagree with you here. I am an equal partisan hater and I think the Dems will just take us further down the road to Communism than we already are. That being said, not only do I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president, but I believe he will take Christianity down with him. I believe that George W. Bush is far worse a human being than Saddam Hussain. The crimes we've committed against others when we don't have any Goddamned business there in the first place all because his administration lied to us and said they had nukes there. He's just one man in a long succession of men, from both parties, who have sold this country under our noses.
Wake up buddy. The "America" you knew and loved is gone. I have absolutely no love for our Government and I don't trust a single word that escapes their lips. These fascists will not rest until they are able to micromanage every single little thing we do, and have each other being their eyes and ears.
I love the idea of America. I love the great American ideals and the Constitution and it's ammendments. Some of those ammendments and rights specifically address rising up against a Government which has overstepped its boundaries. I do believe that time is dangerously close and what better a reason for them to try to destroy the true ideals of America and replace them with your misplaced loyalty to a Government who considers you cattle.
I share no for with our Government and I do not see patriotism and love of Government being even remotely related, given our current circumstances.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.
Sorry. Have to disagree with you here. I am an equal partisan hater and I think the Dems will just take us further down the road to Communism than we already are. That being said, not only do I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president, but I believe he will take Christianity down with him. I believe that George W. Bush is far worse a human being than Saddam Hussain. The crimes we've committed against others when we don't have any Goddamned business there in the first place all because his administration lied to us and said they had nukes there. He's just one man in a long succession of men, from both parties, who have sold this country under our noses.
Wake up buddy. The "America" you knew and loved is gone. I have absolutely no love for our Government and I don't trust a single word that escapes their lips. These fascists will not rest until they are able to micromanage every single little thing we do, and have each other being their eyes and ears.
I love the idea of America. I love the great American ideals and the Constitution and it's ammendments. Some of those ammendments and rights specifically address rising up against a Government which has overstepped its boundaries. I do believe that time is dangerously close and what better a reason for them to try to destroy the true ideals of America and replace them with your misplaced loyalty to a Government who considers you cattle.
I share no love for with our Government and I do not see patriotism and love of Government being even remotely related, given our current circumstances.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think "dangerously close" has alredy come and gone, and if you have to ask yourself if you should act - it's already mostly too late to do so.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn: The reason why you think this is because YOU equate "America" with it's President or with George Bush personally. My definition of "America" is quite a bit broader. I think of America is its ideals and its people, as well as its armed forces and politicians. My definition allows for the fact that a part of America- whether it may be a right-wing hate group or a corrupt politican- can splinter away from the concepts that make this nation special, and that EVERYONE should be held accountable for betraying the Constitution and the trust of the people.
I don’t consider equating Bush to Hussein or similar kinds of comments to be merely disagreement or war-weariness. These kinds of statement, which occur far too frequently on this board, could rightly be called anti-American. In fact, even though I generally don’t say it, that’s exactly what I think they are in many cases.
I see a pattern in your arguments, Finn. It's like your argument about "human life": your definitions are naive and you allow them to trump reality.
----------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. Equating Bush to Hussein to is a product of hatred and/or ignorance. But few of the people who make those kinds of comparisons know George Bush personally enough to make such a comparison. So while “Bush” has become a symbol of their hatred, the reality is that what they are probably referring to is “America.” Criticizing Bush is one thing, but equating him with a tyrant and a murdering thug with genocidal tendencies, that’s something completely different. I think in most cases it is a symptom of anti-American sentiment.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: The reason why you think this is because YOU equate "America" with it's President or with George Bush personally. My definition of "America" is quite a bit broader. I think of America is its ideals and its people, as well as its armed forces and politicians. My definition allows for the fact that a part of America- whether it may be a right-wing hate group or a corrupt politican- can splinter away from the concepts that make this nation special, and that EVERYONE should be held accountable for betraying the Constitution and the trust of the people.
Quote:That means little to me. I’m sure you see that pattern in anyone you disagree with you.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I see a pattern in your arguments, Finn. It's like your argument about "human life": your definitions are naive and you allow them to trump reality.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Criticizing Bush is one thing, but equating him with a tyrant and a murdering thug with genocidal tendencies, that’s something completely different.
Oh ?
The problem with that thought is that he *IS* a murdering thug with genocidal tendancies, or does the taunting of a soon-to-be-executed person not factor in here ?
How bout HALF A MILLION dead in Iraq ?
How does he not qualify ?
How does announced intent to defy the will of the people, signing statements and "I am the decider" not make him a Tyrant ?
Hell, that ain't even criticism, that's just folk callin it like they sees it.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And while others have made some deep and pointed comments, I'm adding just a little bit.
"Equating Bush to Hussein to is a product of hatred and/or ignorance. But few of the people who make those kinds of comparisons know George Bush personally enough to make such a comparison."
This is sloppy writing and thinking. If not 'knowing' Bush is your objection, most people know Hussein even less. I'm sure that's true for you. By your logic, even you know too little to make a comparison defense. For all you know it could be accurate.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The problem with that thought is that he *IS* a murdering thug with genocidal tendancies, or does the taunting of a soon-to-be-executed person not factor in here ?
How bout HALF A MILLION dead in Iraq ?
How does he not qualify ?
Forgive me for quoting myself from an earlier thread (which, with dial-up, took me a considerable time to find), but I believe that given the above post it's necessary to repeat myself...
Originally posted byAURaptor:
"Bush and Blair freed more from Saddams tyranny than were accidentally killed. You want to equate the intentional murders by Saddam w/ the colateral dammage from the Iraq war? You're not worth wasting my time."
To which, I responded:
"Exactly.
If every head of state were responsible for deaths caused by the wars they oversaw, then by the definition of some in this forum, I suppose that Abraham Lincoln should've been killed for liberating an enslaved population.
Oh wait. Lincoln was killed for liberating an enslaved population. Apparently, some of the people in this forum have the same mindset as John Wilkes Booth -- "Blame and kill the liberators!" "
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How does announced intent to defy the will of the people, signing statements and "I am the decider" not make him a Tyrant ?
Uh, this thing called The Constitution of the United States makes the U.S. President the Commander-in-Chief. That gives him the right to be the "decider" in all matters pertaining to usage of the military.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I call it like I sees it, too. And this is how I sees it: you believe that the US is a tyrannical nation that commits genocide and is lead by a murderous dictator who mocks “soon-to-be-executed” persons. You can’t get much more anti-American then that.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh ?
The problem with that thought is that he *IS* a murdering thug with genocidal tendancies, or does the taunting of a soon-to-be-executed person not factor in here ?
How bout HALF A MILLION dead in Iraq ?
How does he not qualify ?
How does announced intent to defy the will of the people, signing statements and "I am the decider" not make him a Tyrant ?
Hell, that ain't even criticism, that's just folk callin it like they sees it.
I rest my case.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME