PDA

View Full Version : A Wise Administration


Genesis 1.0
07-14-2005, 02:33 AM
Obviously, I've been pleased with George winning 2 in a row, he's done wonders and is a man of action, which is what America needed after a reign of pacifist Presidents. However, I can't help but turn around and see more Anti-Bush things all over this board, I've looked back through the archives and the most recent Bush related thread was 3 months ago, so here's another. People, try and keep in mind that everything here is opinon based, there has never been and probably never will be any factual absolute taken to decide a good or bad President.

I'm Republican to begin with, those are the ideals I agree with and those that promote accomplishements and not adulthood babysitting. The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists, radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property. It is opposed to free speech: witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will call it "defending human rights." This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents. Seeing Kerry come out and drawl on, he's just another guy that would have sat back, been bombed, and then open allow the U.S. to become a slave of the U.N.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Mr. Bush’s policies or not (although I do, for the most part), one certainly can’t deny the fact that the political left has had control over our media for a long time and it is most certainly true that the teachings at all levels of education are heavily laced with leftist doctrine. It was great to see some Pro-Bush members have the courage to come out and make people aware of these facts.

Of course, it is sad that it should take courage to express one’s opinion in today’s society, but the prevailing “left is good, right is bad” attitude has forced conservatism virtually underground. Why one is somehow an uncaring redneck for believing in right-wing philosophy is a mystery to me, but it is not an attitude that will be changed very easily. It is interesting how leftists are concerned about equality and freedom of speech as long as it concerns their own beliefs. They readily berate and criticize those on the other side of the political fence, further prepetuating the madness and yet think of themselves as political martrys. I actually think that people would like to see Clinton take office again, were it possible, and I'm sure he'd lead America to a better and safter tommorow. All kidding aside, I’d like to further expose you to the notorious left-wing bias that permeates the Social Science and Arts faculties.

Apparently, this is a serious problem in universities throughout North America. I would defend my point of view, bravely endorsing Dubya for President in the face of certain backlash. In fact, I didn't see how Bush could lose this election. There are a number of factors that did point to certain victory for the Republicans.

1) Most Americans agree with the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. Most Americans believe that 'evil-doers' should be destroyed, although 'evil' is the epitome of subjective, I must say that our President used that word to perfection, it aided to envison those they wanted revege against. That is, afterall, human nature; to be struck and strike back.

2) Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. He’s a born-again, evangelical Christian who unashamedly professes his faith in the Divine Creator. According to the very knowledgeable Republican commentator Mr. Ben Stein, America is undergoing a revival of the Christian faith with millions of people turning to God for guidance. He showcased his religon in a time when there's a spiritual revolution in progress, it is afterall what our country was founded on, just like most any nation or Empire.

3) The Republicans are better funded, better organized and more committed to the cause of winning. Democrats would be more than willing to get halfway through, look at the causalites and begin to negotiate away the lives of lost soilders so they can sleep better at night. This war is not one for the weak of heart, Bush is a man of action, one that would not become a puppet for the U.N. and that's the type of leadership we need.

On a whole, it is not surprising that any pro-Bush post has generated a lot of controversy, as being pro-Bush is difficult in a left-wing community that reveres Michael Moore and his blind left-wing propaganda.

Many students support Bush not because it is the popular thing to do and not because it’s the cool thing to do. They support Bush because they believe that he is the best choice for America today. Bush has chosen to base his decisions on what he believes is best for those he represents, not on what the media tells him is best. Bush calculated the risks involved with going to war and made a difficult decision to protect the lives of innocent people not just in Iraq or America, but around the world. Bush has been proven to value the important things in life — human life and dignity, traditional family and a strong moral code. While the Democratic National Convention offered little in the way of substance, the Republican Convention showcased Bush’s continued commitment to important domestic issues such as education and health care reform.

All are values that appeal to the ‘silent majority’ but are attacked on a daily basis by left-wing media. Bush’s record shows that he has the courage to make difficult choices in the face of adversity and the U.S. needs ‘four more years’ of strong leadership now more than ever.

Most left-wingers are young and inexperienced, much like the hippies of the 70s, "Bomb us and we'll just plant flowers and pray for peace." Ugh. Winston Churchill once said, “If you’re young and not a socialist, you’ve got no heart. If you’re old and not a conservative, you’ve got no brains."

Incongruity
07-14-2005, 03:24 AM
Obviously, I've been pleased with George winning 2 in a row (if that's what you choose to believe), he's done wonders and is a man of action, which is what America needed after a reign of pacifist Presidents. (While true, he's lied to us; tell us that we're fighting for oil, and the intellectuals will support you) However, I can't help but turn around and see more Anti-Bush things all over this board, I've looked back through the archives and the most recent Bush related thread was 3 months ago, so here's another. (Extremist liberals and extremist conservatives populate this board. They're all teenagers rebelling against society) People, try and keep in mind that everything here is opinon based, there has never been and probably never will be any factual absolute taken to decide a good or bad President. (Yes, it's all speculation, but once established we cannot use this to say Bush is good)

I'm Republican to begin with, those are the ideals I agree with and those that promote accomplishements and not adulthood babysitting. The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites (OH THE IRONY! See every Conservative talk-show host, Bush's connection to Hitler, and, "In order to enter heaven, you must believe in Jesus Christ), racistsUmm yes. Of course. The Democratic party is racist. In fact, it's just one mob of homogenous people that basically goes against any equal opportunity for minorities. Woops, wrong party., radical environmentalists (True that, I hate radical environmentalists too), plundering trial lawyers (Meh, thse go on both sides), government employee unions (this is bad.. why?), and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the Constitution and loathe private property (This applies to the Republicans as well. Self-serving elites who despise the Constitution; they merely don't despise private property). It is opposed to free speech: witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations that carry the Swift Boat ads (Oh yes, of course, opposed to free speech... Such as... suppression of legal protests during the RNC). If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints (speculatory), particularly on talk radio (What? talk radio? the 90% neo-conservative form of media?) and in the university system (unfortunately, there is bias on both sides in the university system). They will attempt to enact "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine, initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries (The government will ALWAYS suppress freedom of speech, whether it be Democrat or Republican. Nobody likes being told they are wrong.). They will call it "defending human rights." (As opposed to "defending the nation against terrorism") This sort of activity may well make up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against opponents. Seeing Kerry come out and drawl on, he's just another guy that would have sat back, been bombed, and then open allow the U.S. to become a slave of the U.N. (Yar, Kerry quite sucks)

Regardless of whether one agrees with Mr. Bush’s policies or not (although I do, for the most part), one certainly can’t deny the fact that the political left has had control over our media for a long time and it is most certainly true that the teachings at all levels of education are heavily laced with leftist doctrine (lmfao; see talk radio, see Fox News, see flood of conservative news channels, blogs, and newspapers. For education, please. I live in New York, which constantly votes Democrat in federal elctions, and I have had dozens of conservative teachers, and not a single liberal teacher.). It was great to see some Pro-Bush members have the courage to come out and make people aware of these facts.

Of course, it is sad that it should take courage to express one’s opinion in today’s society, but the prevailing “left is good, right is bad” attitude has forced conservatism virtually underground (... The conservative persecution complex is not only ridiculous, but forces anyone who uses it to make an asstard out of his or her self. Our society is one of the most conservative on the planet). Why one is somehow an uncaring redneck for believing in right-wing philosophy is a mystery to me, but it is not an attitude that will be changed very easily (Why one is somehow a French homosexual transvestite that has had fifty abortions and ninety divorces as a result of cocaine abuse for believing in left-wing philosophy is a mystery to me. Even worse, why one is perceived as a weak, indecisive fool that is hated by both sides of the spectrume for being a moderate is an even darker enigma).. It is interesting how leftists are concerned about equality and freedom of speech as long as it concerns their own beliefs. They readily berate and criticize those on the other side of the political fence, further prepetuating the madness and yet think of themselves as political martrys. (Examples, please.) I actually think that people would like to see Clinton take office again, were it possible, and I'm sure he'd lead America to a better and safter tommorow. All kidding aside, I’d like to further expose you to the notorious left-wing bias that permeates the Social Science and Arts faculties.

Apparently, this is a serious problem in universities throughout North America. (If this proves anything at all (and this is a false assumption on your part that this is true, btw) it shows that a large population of intellectuals are liberal) I would defend my point of view, bravely endorsing Dubya for President in the face of certain backlash. In fact, I didn't see how Bush could lose this election. There are a number of factors that did point to certain victory for the Republicans. Yea, Bush was certain to win.

1) Most Americans agree with the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Saddam Hussein. Most Americans believe that 'evil-doers' should be destroyed, although 'evil' is the epitome of subjective, I must say that our President used that word to perfection, it aided to envison those they wanted revege against. That is, afterall, human nature; to be struck and strike back.

Huh? Struck by Iraq? Nah, struck by Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan. I feel even if we did not go into Iraq for oil, we should take their oil anyways; but it's just sucky when this is covered up with a facade of lies

2) Bush wears his religion on his sleeve. He’s a born-again, evangelical Christian who unashamedly professes his faith in the Divine Creator. According to the very knowledgeable Republican commentator Mr. Ben Stein, America is undergoing a revival of the Christian faith with millions of people turning to God for guidance. He showcased his religon in a time when there's a spiritual revolution in progress, it is afterall what our country was founded on, just like most any nation or Empire.

Indeed, this is a very sad thing

3) The Republicans are better funded, better organized and more committed to the cause of winning. Democrats would be more than willing to get halfway through, look at the causalites and begin to negotiate away the lives of lost soilders so they can sleep better at night. This war is not one for the weak of heart, Bush is a man of action, one that would not become a puppet for the U.N. and that's the type of leadership we need.

Good leaders are not necessarily correct.

On a whole, it is not surprising that any pro-Bush post has generated a lot of controversy, as being pro-Bush is difficult in a left-wing community that reveres Michael Moore and his blind left-wing propaganda.

#1: Everyone knows Michael Moore is a retard.

#2: Pro-Bush is everywhere.

#3: Being pro-Michael Moore is no worse than being an extremist conservative

Many students support Bush not because it is the popular thing to do and not because it’s the cool thing to do. They support Bush because they believe that he is the best choice for America today. Bush has chosen to base his decisions on what he believes is best for those he represents, not on what the media tells him is best. (Media is not as liberal as neo-cons proclaim it to be) Bush calculated the risks involved with going to war and made a difficult decision to protect the lives of innocent people not just in Iraq or America, (Unfortunately, he has not admitted that Iraq was not what he first proclaimed it to be. This shows he is a fascist; willing to defend any government action whether it be right or wrong. This makes him a stubborn extremist. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.") but around the world. Bush has been proven to value the important things in life — human life and dignity, traditional family and a strong moral code. While the Democratic National Convention offered little in the way of substance, the Republican Convention showcased Bush’s continued commitment to important domestic issues such as education and health care reform.(My family is yet to be able to afford health care =/)

All are values that appeal to the ‘silent majority’ but are attacked on a daily basis by left-wing media (... radio, TV, newspapers; all controlled by conservatives...). Bush’s record shows that he has the courage to make difficult choices in the face of adversity and the U.S. needs ‘four more years’ of strong leadership now more than ever.

Incongruity
07-14-2005, 03:24 AM
Most left-wingers are young and inexperienced, much like the hippies of the 70s, "Bomb us and we'll just plant flowers and pray for peace." (Too true; so many liberals are just the "I-hate-the-world" types. But this is a many, not a most, and certainly not an all) Ugh. Winston Churchill once said, “If you’re young and not a socialist, you’ve got no heart. If you’re old and not a conservative, you’ve got no brains." (And now we take this to an absolute; well done generalizing, stereotyping, and overall making a fool of yourself.)

There are two main reason I dislike Bush.

-Stubborn, extremist; just one example, he defends Iraq on the same basis on which he justified Iraq originally. In fact, one cannot judge which is better between the choices of left or right. There is moderate and extremist. Bush is an extremist. While extremists act quickly and are expedients to good actions, they are more often than not expedients to terrible failures.

-Not really a conservative; while fiscally conservative, he is not socially conservative. In fact, he is all for government intervention in social issues; see Patriot Act, views on homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, etc. In fact, this goes for many modern Republicans (and the Republicans who don't believe in such oppression will inevitably vote on party lines because of the monstrosities we have that we call political parties).

AlakazamTrainer
07-14-2005, 06:02 AM
Me And My Friends Were Talking About This Bush And How He Is Running Things We Would Like To See An African American,chinese,mexican,french,britsh,japenese,mu slim,italian President To See If Things Will Change Just Another Race Cause The Government Is Still Being Racist Only White Male.thats Messed Up All Races Should Be Able To Be President.notjust One All.if It Don't Work Then Go Back Or Try Putting A Female In The Presidencey

Crealow
07-14-2005, 06:12 AM
Any race or gender can run for presidency, but, in all honesty, they won't win at this point in time. I'm not a racist, but it's the truth.

Sudo
07-14-2005, 04:18 PM
Any race or gender can run for presidency, but, in all honesty, they won't win at this point in time. I'm not a racist, but it's the truth.

Yes it does seem that way at the moment...

Realy why couldnt America of had a woman president like Hillary Clinton?

Instead a man who recently hurt a British police officer to the extent that he had to seek hospital treatment was elected. President Bush achieved this crashing into him while out on a bike ride at the G8 summit.

Incongruity
07-14-2005, 05:03 PM
Just because Bush constantly confirms the rumors about his idocy does not make him incapable. He is a capable leader; he simply does not have just ideals. For example, let's look at Hitler. He was decisive, quick, a man of action, and denounced pacifists. He was a religious fanatic that was able to rally his people. Good leader, bad person.


However, for the same reasons, a woman/non-white president would not work.


First of all, our society is patriarchal. No matter how much we want equality between the genders, and we do, there will always be an underlying feeling of male superiority until some major change occurs.

A non-white president would not work for the same reason someone not born in America would not work. There would always be suspicion placed upon a foreigner, even if they were rooted in America for generations. An African-American would not be able to represent the KKK majority in the United States. An Asian-American would not work for the same reason. An Arab would have even less of a chance because of the massive prejudice against them in the United States, a prejudice that exists even outside of the conservative circles. Any non-white that did not practice Christianity would be denied by the fundamentalist majority.

JohtoTrainer
07-14-2005, 05:03 PM
Yes it does seem that way at the moment...

Realy why couldnt America of had a woman president like Hillary Clinton?

Instead a man who recently hurt a British police officer to the extent that he had to seek hospital treatment was elected. President Bush achieved this crashing into him while out on a bike ride at the G8 summit.

Because Hilary Clinton is just as much of an idiot as her husband, that's why. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, let's bash Bush because he wrecked on his bicycle, like OMG THAT'S A CRIME. People crash and injure other people all the time. Bu, bush did it, that must mean he's an idiot, and a bad president. But if you crash into somebody, it's just an accident right?

The American government is not racist. The government does not pick the president, the people do. And there are Black, Mexican, Italian Senators. So, don't blame the US Government for there only being white presidents. And there haven't exactly been that many minorities runnning for president anyway. Alakazam Trainer, why do you start every word with a capital letter.

Everything in bold is directed at Alakazam Trainer. :tongue:

Incongruity
07-14-2005, 05:04 PM
JT, there is a black SENATOR. Not plural :P. If you wish to count the 5 black senators there have been in history, then you can use plural.

I can think of two Hispanic senators, (neither of which are in the Senate right now; lemme check up on this) edit: here we go

5 black senators, 1 right now
5 asian senators, 1 right now
5 hispanics, 2 right now (actually, neither is of Mexican descent)
3 native americans, none right now


oh and why are we bashing Clinton again? If it's because you're conforming to the conservative media and your Republican party, shame on you. Too often it goes "Determine political party" -> "Conform views to that party." However, it should go, "Find out the facts" -> "Determine views based on those facts"

Miravana
07-14-2005, 05:22 PM
Oh, I liked Bill Clinton, he was a good speaker.

George Bush is not a good speaker. I bet I'd like him more if he was a better speaker.

blahblah
07-14-2005, 06:42 PM
How the #@%$% is hilary an idiot..and at least Bill Clinton didn't go bombing other countries for reasons that he didn't reveal to the public...

Genesis 1.0
07-15-2005, 01:36 AM
[QUOTE=ssk1911](if that's what you choose to believe)

Choosing to believe has nothing to do with the facts, bro

(While true, he's lied to us; tell us that we're fighting for oil, and the intellectuals will support you)

We've talked about this before, you have to give the general public an excuse that they can feel secure in order to get something like this done. The American public wants to hear whatever allows them to get a decent sleep at night, thinking that they're doing something for the good of others and themselves. Perfect example, the Civil War "Free the Slaves", it wasn't the real reason but it damn sure motivated an entire alliance of states in righteous fury and won them the war, and all for reasons the general public never knew and many still don't today. "Liberate Iraq" is the same thing. Is it morally correct? No, but if everything that happened was rich in moral value, we wouldn't be the superpower we are today.

(Extremist liberals and extremist conservatives populate this board. They're all teenagers rebelling against society)

Not true, I've seen many who are not extremist, simply partisan stating their opinons, contrary to what you seem to think not everyone is an extremist.

(Yes, it's all speculation, but once established we cannot use this to say Bush is good)

And you can't use it to say he's bad either, please don't try to bend your opinon into solid fact while trying to exclude your opposition. "We can't use this to say he's good, but he's bad because I said so." Pfft.

(OH THE IRONY! See every Conservative talk-show host, Bush's connection to Hitler, and, "In order to enter heaven, you must believe in Jesus Christ)

Presidents set trends, whatever they do makes waves across the country, so why wouldn't he promote his own religon? He's the President, not God, just because he promotes his Christian beliefs dosen't mean anyone has to follow. And to date, he hasn't said anything that can't be found in the Bible, so that makes him religously correct as well, which earns him more respect for that portion of our country.

Umm yes. Of course. The Democratic party is racist. In fact, it's just one mob of homogenous people that basically goes against any equal opportunity for minorities. Woops, wrong party.,

Oh spare me that generic garbage. Just because the Republic party supports actually WORKING to get social status and the Democrats would hand feed success to those unwilling to get off their asses does not mean they're against equal opportunity.

(True that, I hate radical environmentalists too)

Wow, we agreed on something.

(Meh, thse go on both sides)

Take a look at the statistics, there's a decidingly larger portion in the Democartic party.

(this is bad.. why?)

Unions demmand rights and pay that ruin whatever industry they work in, gaining benefits that others that do the same job, do not get. And when one of them do something against the company rules, the Union pretty much boycotts the entire company and economically blackmails the company in question until they get what they want. Bringing entire industries to a standstill for a raise, no wonder they populate the Democratic party.

(This applies to the Republicans as well. Self-serving elites who despise the Constitution; they merely don't despise private property)

Take a look at your Democartic front runners, almost every argument goes against the Constitutional rights of Americans. The Constitution was written by men that created it based on 'working for what you get', no wonder the Democrats hate it so much.

(Oh yes, of course, opposed to free speech... Such as... suppression of legal protests during the RNC)

There's a thin line between protests and inciting riots, and undermining the administration that runs your country.

(speculatory)

98% of debates are speculation, what was the purpose of saying 'speculatory', because if it was to demean my statement, it fell flat on it's face

Genesis 1.0
07-15-2005, 01:36 AM
(What? talk radio? the 90% neo-conservative form of media?)

So now you blame men in talk radio for being in a party that agrees with their lifestyle and social station? If there were more Democartic talk show hosts that were willing to stick with it and were plausible enough to back up their party, they could change that, but it's obviously not that much of an issue since nothing's changed for years.

(unfortunately, there is bias on both sides in the university system).

Alot of the profesors and teachers fit into the Democratic cookie cutter image, and they push their dispositon to their students. Again, look at the Universities across America and take a good guess how many of the instructors fit into the middle class image typical of Democrats. You'd be a fool to think that they don't pass that on to their students.

(The government will ALWAYS suppress freedom of speech, whether it be Democrat or Republican. Nobody likes being told they are wrong.)

Funny, you try to generalize that with 'always' funny that they don't control radio talk shows, televison aired debates and anti Republican comedy on almost any television show, and most Democratic rallies that are nothing more than trash sessions for the government in general.

(As opposed to "defending the nation against terrorism")

As I recollect, we were actually attacked by terrorist, so that's plausible. Defending human rights? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

(Yar, Kerry quite sucks)

We agree again.

(lmfao; see talk radio, see Fox News, see flood of conservative news channels, blogs, and newspapers. For education, please. I live in New York, which constantly votes Democrat in federal elctions, and I have had dozens of conservative teachers, and not a single liberal teacher.)

Again you blame entrepreneurs who show the initiative to defend their party while the Democrats sit on their asses and complain. Fox news, news in general, blogs, and newspapers are NOT all conservative so you can trying to make it seem as if that's the case. Maybe the Democrats could try something new to them: "Get out and do something about it."

(... The conservative persecution complex is not only ridiculous, but forces anyone who uses it to make an asstard out of his or her self. Our society is one of the most conservative on the planet)

Again, you make it seem as if EVERYTHING is conservative, and that's total bull. Since out governement was established it's been a see saw battle between the two, you say Democrat and nobody really cares. But say you're a Republican and you have a riot on your hands, the Liberal media has molded the public into thinking that the Democratic is one for the 'people' and Republicans are nothing but money grubbing, power hungry white men that want to censor everyone. It's bull and you continue to prepetuate it.

(Why one is somehow a French homosexual transvestite that has had fifty abortions and ninety divorces as a result of cocaine abuse for believing in left-wing philosophy is a mystery to me. Even worse, why one is perceived as a weak, indecisive fool that is hated by both sides of the spectrume for being a moderate is an even darker enigma)

'Moderate'? They have no set of social expectations, they have no set of political values and are liable to sway either way the wind blows. They don't want what's best for the country, they're based solely on personal gain, what fits them best. Pfft.

(If this proves anything at all (and this is a false assumption on your part that this is true, btw) it shows that a large population of intellectuals are liberal)

No, it shows that certain liberals are simply more vocal and willing to trash our government in the public eye, it's not a show of numbers, just a show.

Yea, Bush was certain to win.

Yet another blockbuster agreement.

Huh? Struck by Iraq? Nah, struck by Islamic fanatics in Afghanistan. I feel even if we did not go into Iraq for oil, we should take their oil anyways; but it's just sucky when this is covered up with a facade of lies

Refer to the top of the debate for this reply to 'a facde of lies.'

Indeed, this is a very sad thing

Sad to you, really biased there. Fact of the matter remains that every nation and Empire on Earth is based on religon or series of spiritual beliefs. People love to try and rebel against that, not even realizing that they can't escape the fact, especially in America. Our Constituion, hell, our preception of right and wrong are based on the religous standard that our ancestors built this nation on, as is true around the world. It may be sad to you, but the fact of the matter is that it's a fundamental part of this planet and always will be.

Good leaders are not necessarily correct.

What's 'correct' always varies with each person, so what may be correct to you may be incorrect to me. The above statement is totally subjective.

#1: Everyone knows Michael Moore is a retard.

#2: Pro-Bush is everywhere.

#3: Being pro-Michael Moore is no worse than being an extremist conservative

Incorrect again, Moore is about ripping this governement and it's leader in front of the rest of the world, an extermist conservative is about the betterment of this nation and the elevation of the ideals of striving for social status, again a fundamemtal ideal.

(Media is not as liberal as neo-cons proclaim it to be)

Actually, it is.

(Unfortunately, he has not admitted that Iraq was not what he first proclaimed it to be. This shows he is a fascist; willing to defend any government action whether it be right or wrong. This makes him a stubborn extremist. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.")

Better that he continues with his original motive than to change in mid-stride, show America what they didn't want to see and leave the country half-ass into the war, leaving it's people to rebuild on their own after we've invaded.

(My family is yet to be able to afford health care =/)

Ah, so because your family can't afford it you'd presecute an entire national policy for that reason alone? How selfish. Nothing is perfect so you go with whatever plan has the least amount of flaws. So you keep looking for Utopia, pissing and moaning the whole way.

(... radio, TV, newspapers; all controlled by conservatives...)

Just how many times do you plan to try and take your statements to absolutes and put them forth as facts? It's not flying because it's bull.

Genesis 1.0
07-15-2005, 01:46 AM
(Too true; so many liberals are just the "I-hate-the-world" types. But this is a many, not a most, and certainly not an all)

It is a most, take a look at the Universities and High Schools of America and see your new crop of liberal/hippies.

(And now we take this to an absolute; well done generalizing, stereotyping, and overall making a fool of yourself.)

I hope you were talking to Churchhill because that wasn't my quote. For the record, this is my thread, and if you can't make a point without throwing in a barb then your statement isn't worth reading. So should you attempt to throw in another, I'll request your post to be deleted. So let's see if you can carry on a debate without this elementary school BS.

[b]There are two main reason I dislike Bush.

-Stubborn, extremist; just one example, he defends Iraq on the same basis on which he justified Iraq originally. In fact, one cannot judge which is better between the choices of left or right. There is moderate and extremist. Bush is an extremist. While extremists act quickly and are expedients to good actions, they are more often than not expedients to terrible failures.

For the third time, read the reply to this statement 2 posts previous. On the flip side of that comment, others move so slowly that it takes a tragedy, the loss of thousands of lives (9/11) just to kick them into 2nd gear. I'd prefer having someone willing to take action instead of yack on and on. Those who lost their lives wouldn't want their killers to be debated over I'm sure.

-Not really a conservative; while fiscally conservative, he is not socially conservative. In fact, he is all for government intervention in social issues; see Patriot Act, views on homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, etc. In fact, this goes for many modern Republicans (and the Republicans who don't believe in such oppression will inevitably vote on party lines because of the monstrosities we have that we call political parties).

His political values and his religous beliefs are one in the same, he's not some cosmetic President where he keeps his charecter in private, where you don't see a real person, just a figure head. Bush is a REAL person and the public always have problems with real people, case in point, Clinton.

Bashaamo
07-15-2005, 02:25 AM
Don't worry Genesis your not alone in your worries.

Liberals well...will be liberals and we just have to put up with it. It seems like you can't go buy a day without some idiots disrespecting W. And more and more people turn away from Bush because of the situtation in Iraq. Because libs don't realize that people are actually get killed in wars. The funny thing is they were for the war, but now that their buddy Johnny K lost the election it is suddenly an unjust war that president Bush started for no reason.

And the media isn't helpful either. I would say about 70% of the media are libs and about 10-15% are stupid libs (Land Whale (aka Michael Moore) Dixie Chicks, Al Franken). They control the media and try to use their influnce to get libs elected. That's just sick. This "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" they make so if your not voting for Democrats then your not a fan of their music. This is a democray damn it! Not a "Gee you play good music let me vote for your candidate!"

And what a bunch of hypocrites! All the stars turned out for Live 8 because they want to help out the poor Africans, but what about the poor Iraqis who lived under a dictator like Sadaam. Didn't they deserve aid as well?

And the news media has problems too. For example do you know that the BBC won't call the 7/7 terrorists "terrorists!" And you know why? Because calling them terrorists doesn't lead to "understanding!" Understanding, these people killed dozens of innocent working class folks and we are supposed to understand them? F*** the BBC!

Also this board, if anything, is flooded with libs, crazy libs, and moderates, and a small minority of conservatives (and at least one regressive). And I've found that most young people (at least in my area) are conservative. Liberalism seems to run rampant in schools, universities, and other places where young people gather. But as people grow up they realise that "liberalism is a mental disorder" and that no matter how much they try we won't switch to Marxism.

All and all I am pleased with the Bush administration and satisfied with our president. Thank GOD we don't have that zombie Kerry as our president who would probably take away our soldiers guns and give them candies and flowers to give to the insurgents in Iraq to help with the "understanding" process. I will continue to support W as long as he puts some nice conservative(s) on the Supreme court. He has one, maybe two chances to better America.

-Bashaamo

MOST RETARDED HATEFUL STUPID THING A LIB EVER SAID

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" -Land Whale

Incongruity
07-15-2005, 03:04 AM
Choosing to believe has nothing to do with the facts, bro

Again, if that's what you choose to believe

We've talked about this before, you have to give the general public an excuse that they can feel secure in order to get something like this done. The American public wants to hear whatever allows them to get a decent sleep at night, thinking that they're doing something for the good of others and themselves. Perfect example, the Civil War "Free the Slaves", it wasn't the real reason but it damn sure motivated an entire alliance of states in righteous fury and won them the war, and all for reasons the general public never knew and many still don't today. "Liberate Iraq" is the same thing. Is it morally correct? No, but if everything that happened was rich in moral value, we wouldn't be the superpower we are today.

Meh, I suppose propaganda is necessary.

Not true, I've seen many who are not extremist, simply partisan stating their opinons, contrary to what you seem to think not everyone is an extremist.

By extremist, I mean always agreeing with one thing, without even concerning other ideas. For example, the "ruling" party is usually fascist; always willing to defend anything, even when it is wrong. The "opposition" party is usually anarachist; always willing to oppose anything, even when it is correct. I'll explain why moderates are better than both later on

And you can't use it to say he's bad either, please don't try to bend your opinon into solid fact while trying to exclude your opposition. "We can't use this to say he's good, but he's bad because I said so." Pfft.

You're criticizing me on an argument which I'm not using, yet this is the argument you're using?

Presidents set trends, whatever they do makes waves across the country, so why wouldn't he promote his own religon? He's the President, not God, just because he promotes his Christian beliefs dosen't mean anyone has to follow. And to date, he hasn't said anything that can't be found in the Bible, so that makes him religously correct as well, which earns him more respect for that portion of our country.

This statement assumes that the Bible is correct. Now, promoting something that is correct is fine, but there's so much saying it is false (but that's for another debate, so let's leave religion in the "debatable" category). However, wouldn't this go against the ideals of the Constitution? (not necessarily the actual ammendments, but the ideals?

Oh spare me that generic garbage. Just because the Republic party supports actually WORKING to get social status and the Democrats would hand feed success to those unwilling to get off their asses does not mean they're against equal opportunity.

Working to get social status is fine, but when equal opportunity is not provided, then the entire concept goes down the drain. Wtg? The wealthy are more likely to succeed in life than a downtrodden hobo on the streets? :rolleyes:

Wow, we agreed on something.

I support what is right and I oppose what is wrong.

Take a look at the statistics, there's a decidingly larger portion in the Democartic party.

hmmm. Yes, I see this now. But then this is just as bad as saying the Republican party is a haven for every stereotype that is made against them.

Unions demmand rights and pay that ruin whatever industry they work in, gaining benefits that others that do the same job, do not get. And when one of them do something against the company rules, the Union pretty much boycotts the entire company and economically blackmails the company in question until they get what they want. Bringing entire industries to a standstill for a raise, no wonder they populate the Democratic party.

The federal unions that are not allowed to strike or boycott?

Take a look at your Democartic front runners, almost every argument goes against the Constitutional rights of Americans. The Constitution was written by men that created it based on 'working for what you get', no wonder the Democrats hate it so much.

Equal opportunity is non-existent. Equal opportunity would be good. Both parties (in theory) should support it, because that is the only problem with a capitalist society. But more often than not, neo-conservative Republicans attempt to create legislation that is more for the purpose of enriching themselves, and a nice side effect would be lowering the poverty rate.

I think we all know that conservatives want to stay out of public business, and liberals want to move in. Well, a balance must be made. In a utopian society, a policy of laissez fairre would work, because everyone would have equal chances to rise up. But then, liberals wish to create that balance in our society that is (cleary) not utopian. These policies often fall flat on their face, because that balance can't be achieved so easily.

And it's obvious equal opportunity does not exist. If it did, children would not be in poverty (what exactly have they done wrong to deserve being there?).

There's a thin line between protests and inciting riots, and undermining the administration that runs your country.

... what? So by disagreeing with what the administration's faults, one undermines it? I believe the faults should be pointed out and fixed. But of course, your fascist ideals will blindly support Dubya, whether right or wrong.

98% of debates are speculation, what was the purpose of saying 'speculatory', because if it was to demean my statement, it fell flat on it's face

Because one cannot judge a president being "good or bad" because it would be speculation. But this should also mean that one cannot judge what the Democrats would potentially do, because it is speculation (and a rather long stretch at that).

It is a most, take a look at the Universities and High Schools of America and see your new crop of liberal/hippies.

See your new crop of fascists juxtaposed with those hippies

I hope you were talking to Churchhill because that wasn't my quote. For the record, this is my thread, and if you can't make a point without throwing in a barb then your statement isn't worth reading. So should you attempt to throw in another, I'll request your post to be deleted. So let's see if you can carry on a debate without this elementary school BS.

Yet you quote Churchill? Since it's a generalization and a stereotype, why would you use that at all?

For the third time, read the reply to this statement 2 posts previous. On the flip side of that comment, others move so slowly that it takes a tragedy, the loss of thousands of lives (9/11) just to kick them into 2nd gear. I'd prefer having someone willing to take action instead of yack on and on. Those who lost their lives wouldn't want their killers to be debated over I'm sure.

Others? Who do you mean? Oh, let's just assume you mean Clinton, because he's so hated by Republicans. By slowly, I assume you mean when he attacked a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan with cruise missiles 3 years before 9/11, but he was pressured out of it by the conservatives.

Btw, hose who lost their lives would NOT want the government to be yelling out 9/11 9/11 as a form of public propaganda.

His political values and his religous beliefs are one in the same, he's not some cosmetic President where he keeps his charecter in private, where you don't see a real person, just a figure head. Bush is a REAL person and the public always have problems with real people, case in point, Clinton.

He might be a real person, but you yourself admitted he lied. Clinton lied too, I suppose, but he also did a bunch of good things (like managing to get something done, and fixing up the failures of his predecessor; and he didn't even control all three branches of the government)

So now you blame men in talk radio for being in a party that agrees with their lifestyle and social station? If there were more Democartic talk show hosts that were willing to stick with it and were plausible enough to back up their party, they could change that, but it's obviously not that much of an issue since nothing's changed for years.

Well you blamed the liberals for controlling the world in the media... I'm just showing you the massive conservative bias in society..

Alot of the profesors and teachers fit into the Democratic cookie cutter image, and they push their dispositon to their students. Again, look at the Universities across America and take a good guess how many of the instructors fit into the middle class image typical of Democrats. You'd be a fool to think that they don't pass that on to their students.

By saying this, you ignore the professors and teachers that fit into the Republican cookie cutter image, and push their disposition to their students.

Funny, you try to generalize that with 'always' funny that they don't control radio talk shows, televison aired debates and anti Republican comedy on almost any television show, and most Democratic rallies that are nothing more than trash sessions for the government in general.

What? Just before you were criticizing the liberal media, and now you're justifying the conservative majority in the media. Oh, and we have a thing called the FCC, the police, etc.

As I recollect, we were actually attacked by terrorist, so that's plausible. Defending human rights? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

We were attacked by a terrorist, and we attacked back to something completely unrelated.

In fact, the main reason people immigrated to the United States was for the freedom, wasn't it? So defending those rights is plausible as well.

We agree again.

Of course, environmentalists simply attempt to restrict our potential intelligence

Incongruity
07-15-2005, 03:04 AM
Again you blame entrepreneurs who show the initiative to defend their party while the Democrats sit on their asses and complain. Fox news, news in general, blogs, and newspapers are NOT all conservative so you can trying to make it seem as if that's the case. Maybe the Democrats could try something new to them: "Get out and do something about it."

Wait a second.. Didn't you just blame the liberal media? But... then you say that the conservative-biased media is there for a reason. So doesn't that mean there's a conservative media? Wait another second. Didn't you just blame the liberal professors for pushing their disposition, yet... You now respond to my comment on the teachers about how there are some "who show the initiative to defend their party"

Again, you make it seem as if EVERYTHING is conservative, and that's total bull. Since out governement was established it's been a see saw battle between the two, you say Democrat and nobody really cares. But say you're a Republican and you have a riot on your hands, the Liberal media has molded the public into thinking that the Democratic is one for the 'people' and Republicans are nothing but money grubbing, power hungry white men that want to censor everyone. It's bull and you continue to prepetuate it.

It's been a see-saw battle? But didn't you just say it was a liberal media? Make up your mind.

And the conservative media has molded a just as terrible image of the Democratic party; an image you're clearly blinded by.

'Moderate'? They have no set of social expectations, they have no set of political values and are liable to sway either way the wind blows. They don't want what's best for the country, they're based solely on personal gain, what fits them best. Pfft.

Moderates are good because they support what is good and oppose what is bad instead of blindly following a single dogma.

No, it shows that certain liberals are simply more vocal and willing to trash our government in the public eye, it's not a show of numbers, just a show.

Oh please, the outspoken conservative majority is all too willing to support bush at any chance they receive

Yet another blockbuster agreement.

I support what is good and oppose what is bad. In this case, I support what's obvious and oppose what's hopeless.

Refer to the top of the debate for this reply to 'a facde of lies.'

Propaganda is a necessary evil, I guess I agree.

Sad to you, really biased there. Fact of the matter remains that every nation and Empire on Earth is based on religon or series of spiritual beliefs. People love to try and rebel against that, not even realizing that they can't escape the fact, especially in America. Our Constituion, hell, our preception of right and wrong are based on the religous standard that our ancestors built this nation on, as is true around the world. It may be sad to you, but the fact of the matter is that it's a fundamental part of this planet and always will be.

But while the Constitution was based on our rights to choose our own religion, the concept of Christianity forbids any worship of a figure other than that one god; in fact, it restricts any worship of a figure in any way that is even close to that which one would expect for worship of a deity.

And btw, our Constitution is not based on religious standard (it describes the process through which our laws should be made, and the legal rights guaranteed to everyone, obviously with exceptions); if anything, it is based on the secular morals of religious doctrines (yes, believe it or not, atheists don't go on murderous rampages; if anything, they go on fewer)

What's 'correct' always varies with each person, so what may be correct to you may be incorrect to me. The above statement is totally subjective.

By that comment I meant that although one may lead the people well, they may not be just. I explained this in another thread with Hitler. He was action-oriented, a religious fanatic, against Pacifists, and able to unite his people; this is everything you used to show Bush was a good leader. You hail Bush; I can justly assume you hail Hitler.

Incorrect again, Moore is about ripping this governement and it's leader in front of the rest of the world, an extermist conservative is about the betterment of this nation and the elevation of the ideals of striving for social status, again a fundamemtal ideal.

An extremist conservative is for defending the government's faults, wrongs, and misguided actions. The extremist conservative knows that if equal opportunity was to be reached, the upper classes would not have the unfair advantage they had previously been able to use. The extremist conservative will do whatever it takes to maintain his own high status, for if another person gains power, it means that he loses power.

Actually, it is.

But... you just justified the existence of the conservative media, which I explained existed.. so... umm.. what?

Better that he continues with his original motive than to change in mid-stride, show America what they didn't want to see and leave the country half-ass into the war, leaving it's people to rebuild on their own after we've invaded.

So you wish to take any action to its end, even if the action was ill-conceived? While this is better, it only attempts to clean up the spill. Wouldn't it have been better to avoid the spill in the first place? Or better yet, admit that the spill exists?

Ah, so because your family can't afford it you'd presecute an entire national policy for that reason alone? How selfish. Nothing is perfect so you go with whatever plan has the least amount of flaws. So you keep looking for Utopia, pissing and moaning the whole way.

Nah, just that 'reforms' aren't necessarily working. Apparently, the percentage of Americans with health insurance has been dropping too (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html)

Just how many times do you plan to try and take your statements to absolutes and put them forth as facts? It's not flying because it's bull.

What? This is what you are doing when describing liberals, the "liberal" media, and the education system

Incongruity
07-15-2005, 03:05 AM
Don't worry Genesis your not alone in your worries.

Well, if we're to use this debate as an example, we've got a conservative majority.

Liberals well...will be liberals and we just have to put up with it. It seems like you can't go buy a day without some idiots disrespecting W. And more and more people turn away from Bush because of the situtation in Iraq. Because libs don't realize that people are actually get killed in wars. The funny thing is they were for the war, but now that their buddy Johnny K lost the election it is suddenly an unjust war that president Bush started for no reason.

What, you're saying that you can't go buy a day without some morons hailing W? And no, many people were against the war from the beginning. We went in before the inspectors found anything at all (btw, we didn't find anything either =/). So umm... Yeah.

And the media isn't helpful either. I would say about 70% of the media are libs and about 10-15% are stupid libs (Land Whale (aka Michael Moore) Dixie Chicks, Al Franken). They control the media and try to use their influnce to get libs elected. That's just sick. This "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" they make so if your not voting for Democrats then your not a fan of their music. This is a democray damn it! Not a "Gee you play good music let me vote for your candidate!"

Are you kidding me. Blogs are almost purely conservative, as is talk radio. TV is moderate if not conservative moderate.

Rock the Vote and Vote or Die didn't show bias from what I saw; if anything, W showed bias against the campaigns because he was never available to share his response.

And what a bunch of hypocrites! All the stars turned out for Live 8 because they want to help out the poor Africans, but what about the poor Iraqis who lived under a dictator like Sadaam. Didn't they deserve aid as well?

Like Genesis said, we can't have a Utopia. So if we're going to pick the "worst" place to live to help first, well, I'd say it is indeed Africa. Ravaged by slavery, then imperialism, then neo-colonialism, it's been in trouble for a while now. Poorest nations are in Africa.

And the news media has problems too. For example do you know that the BBC won't call the 7/7 terrorists "terrorists!" And you know why? Because calling them terrorists doesn't lead to "understanding!" Understanding, these people killed dozens of innocent working class folks and we are supposed to understand them? F*** the BBC!

Also this board, if anything, is flooded with libs, crazy libs, and moderates, and a small minority of conservatives (and at least one regressive). And I've found that most young people (at least in my area) are conservative. Liberalism seems to run rampant in schools, universities, and other places where young people gather. But as people grow up they realise that "liberalism is a mental disorder" and that no matter how much they try we won't switch to Marxism.

Conservatives: You (Bashaamo), Ryu Gaia, Marril, HKim, Neo Pikachu, Genesis, JohtoTrainer, Shroomish, Ygseto (IIRC), Matthew (Kronos), Twisted Treecko (b4 his bans), various kids

Moderates: Alakazam, Finglonger, Kenny_C.002, me

Liberals: ... *cricket*


To say (or so Genesis won't whine at me, support the idea that) liberalism is a mental disorder is just like saying conservatives are retards. It's groundless. Marxism does nothing but attempt to be an "equalizer". Admittedly, it takes this to a detrimental extreme, but our society wants to just let the poor (see: children, who never had a chance to "work their way up") die on the streets.

All and all I am pleased with the Bush administration and satisfied with our president. Thank GOD we don't have that zombie Kerry as our president who would probably take away our soldiers guns and give them candies and flowers to give to the insurgents in Iraq to help with the "understanding" process. I will continue to support W as long as he puts some nice conservative(s) on the Supreme court. He has one, maybe two chances to better America.

"Better America." As in an oligarchy that will never admit what it's done wrong, and highlight its very few successes?

If you're going to use the "better not to change mid-way, then you're just continuing on a wrong path. This means you're in effect creating spills to fix up, but not fixing the root of the problem, because the problem never occured.


MOST RETARDED HATEFUL STUPID THING A LIB EVER SAID

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" -Land Whale

Indeed it's retarded, but it's no more hateful than declaring 9/11 everywhere you go; especially if you were not actually part of the tragedy

Bashaamo
07-15-2005, 05:16 AM
What, you're saying that you can't go buy a day without some morons hailing W? And no, many people were against the war from the beginning. We went in before the inspectors found anything at all (btw, we didn't find anything either =/). So umm... Yeah.

Don't you see SSK Sadaam is not a stupid man. He got rid of his weapons. He knew that he could not win the war with his army. He knew that he could get back at the US by making them wage an unpopular war. Who knows which country has his weapons now.

Here are some qoutes from our buddies on the left:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore

I think you get the point. Here is another qoute from a great man who can explain why crazy libs hate the war:

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."-Alexander Hamilton

[quote]Are you kidding me. Blogs are almost purely conservative, as is talk radio. TV is moderate if not conservative moderate.

Check out this looney: www.dailykos.com

And here is a list of a bunch of 'em http://www.ringsurf.com/netring?ring=liberalblog;action=list

Athough prehaps a smaller group there are liberal talk show hosts; Al Franken, Alan Colmes, Howard Stern (and more but I don't listen to them so I wouldn't know)

Here is a list of Democratic celebs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democrat_celebrities

Rock the Vote and Vote or Die didn't show bias from what I saw; if anything, W showed bias against the campaigns because he was never available to share his response.

Anything MTV supported can be assumed liberal, trust me.

Like Genesis said, we can't have a Utopia. So if we're going to pick the "worst" place to live to help first, well, I'd say it is indeed Africa. Ravaged by slavery, then imperialism, then neo-colonialism, it's been in trouble for a while now. Poorest nations are in Africa.

Lets be poor then. Give me poverty anyday over a crazy dictator who will use WMD's on his own people. We should not discriminate. The world needs aid, and not just in financial terms.

Conservatives: You (Bashaamo), Ryu Gaia, Marril, HKim, Neo Pikachu, Genesis, JohtoTrainer, Shroomish, Ygseto (IIRC), various kids

Moderates: Alakazam, Finglonger, Kenny_C.002, me

Liberals: ... *cricket*

Whatever...I won't argue with the facts. I always thought you were a liberal though. And I consider myself regressive (I believe in going back to property restrictions on voting, traditional roles for women, fortifying the borders, etc.).

To say (or so Genesis won't whine at me, support the idea that) liberalism is a mental disorder is just like saying conservatives are retards. It's groundless. Marxism does nothing but attempt to be an "equalizer".

Of course it does. Hollywood libs who preach communism would loose all power and influence under this system that they long for. And not to mention if we got rid of our military we would be so screwed. And once they remove all of our values and morals, their goes or civilization.

Marriage, Religion, Defense, Family, Tradition, Patriotism, Money, are all thing that have held humanity together for 1000s of years. Libs want to dismantle that and that is why I hate them.

Admittedly, it takes this to a detrimental extreme, but our society wants to just let the poor (see: children, who never had a chance to "work their way up") die on the streets.

Your right SSK, lets not let the children die in the streets, lets just kill 'em in the abortion factory! Much cleaner that way! :susp:

"Better America." As in an oligarchy that will never admit what it's done wrong, and highlight its very few successes?

Don't get me wrong, the SC isn't perfect. But lets get some good judges that will stabalize America rather then interpert the constitution to complete their liberal agendas.

Indeed it's retarded, but it's no more hateful than declaring 9/11 everywhere you go; especially if you were not actually part of the tragedy

Everyone who loves freedom was a victim of 9/11.

Bashaamo
07-15-2005, 05:19 AM
BTW SSK, nice sig :tongue:

I'm glad you think it is funny.

Oh well I'd rather see a leash on those "dogs" then see them on the news killing innocent civilians.

Incongruity
07-15-2005, 12:55 PM
Don't you see SSK Sadaam is not a stupid man. He got rid of his weapons. He knew that he could not win the war with his army. He knew that he could get back at the US by making them wage an unpopular war. Who knows which country has his weapons now.

Do you actually ahve any proof of that, or are you just making that up/

Here are some qoutes from our buddies on the left:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore

And they were wrong; do they continue to stand by a wrong decision and perpetuate the road to inevitable failure? No.

I think you get the point. Here is another qoute from a great man who can explain why crazy libs hate the war:

"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."-Alexander Hamilton



Check out this looney: www.dailykos.com

So if someone disagrees with you by not twisting the facts to your end of the spectrum, they are a loonie. Your Hamilton quote proves your immaturity

And here is a list of a bunch of 'em Neo-cons 4 stupidity (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=conservative+blogs&btnG=Google+Search)

Athough prehaps a smaller group there are liberal talk show hosts; Al Franken, Alan Colmes, Howard Stern (and more but I don't listen to them so I wouldn't know)

Ah-ha, so you admit that there is indeed a conservative media

Here is a list of Democratic celebs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democrat_celebrities

Dude, right next to that page is This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republican_celebrities)


Anything MTV supported can be assumed liberal, trust me.

... If by liberal you mean social awareness, tolerance, and peace, yeah maybe.

Lets be poor then. Give me poverty anyday over a crazy dictator who will use WMD's on his own people. We should not discriminate. The world needs aid, and not just in financial terms.

The WMD's we didn't find, because our crazy dictator was wrong. (it's not so much that he's wrong, but the problem lies in that he continues to say he was right...)

Whatever...I won't argue with the facts. I always thought you were a liberal though. And I consider myself regressive (I believe in going back to property restrictions on voting, traditional roles for women, fortifying the borders, etc.).

That's just neo-conservative extremist, bash.

Of course it does. Hollywood libs who preach communism would loose all power and influence under this system that they long for. And not to mention if we got rid of our military we would be so screwed. And once they remove all of our values and morals, their goes or civilization.

Hollywood conservatives run rampant. But perhaps, while extremist liberal utopia may be a communist one, it seems your utopia would be a fascist one in which the white-man is always correct. A 1984 scenario?

Marriage, Religion, Defense, Family, Tradition, Patriotism, Money, are all thing that have held humanity together for 1000s of years. Libs want to dismantle that and that is why I hate them.

Marriage? How? If you mean by marriage between homosexuals, then the only real dispute there is what to call that marriage. To deny them the same rights, though, would be unjust. For example, what if gays ruled society and didn't let you marry a woman, simply because you were heterosexual? To have a law apply to a minority but not to a majority is to have an unjust law.

Religion? You assume that religion is correct. Have you ever considered it is not? Indeed, I stated this in another thread, sometimes religion is necessary in order to keep the less enlightened at bay. They need that neo-pavlovian training even after their childhood years.

Defense? How? We were all too willing to go to Afghanistan, where we were right.

Family? By abortion, you mean? Meh, I have no views on abortion, because to make a view would be to twist the moral grounds we have already laid down.

Tradition. Ah. Here is where you make massive assumptions. Why carry on an incorrect tradition?

Patriotism. Same with tradition. Why support the government even when it's wrong? Conservatives take Patriotism to a fascist extreme (Especially when it's their government in power)

Money? No; most intelligent liberals understand the effectiveness of capitalism. Unlike their conservative counter-parts, however, they know the one flaw of capitalism: lack of equal opportunity.

Your right SSK, lets not let the children die in the streets, lets just kill 'em in the abortion factory! Much cleaner that way! :susp:

You blame the families for letting down society, when it is society letting down the families. The entire goal of liberals is to create equal opportunity such that an abortion would not be necessary. If conservatives would finally agree that poverty exists! (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html) Liberals don't want to kill off the children, we want to let them have an equal chance; something conservatives don't want because that would mean less fascist hold of the government.

Not only that, you know very well my views on abortion; so why are you assuming that because I disagree with you I'm pro-abortion?

So basically, you're still not addressing the problem of unequal opportunity, and letting them be poor; true, some (actually MANY) democrats are "fake" anti-fascists, in that they pretend to help the downtrodden. These are the people who abuse the conditions of the poor, put up fake ideologies, and then use the minorities and poor as supports, when all they really want to expand is the poor. These "fake anti-fascists" are actually fascists themselves; see Communists, Nazis, every rebel-turned-dictator ever. However, many other democrats actually do care, and many liberals actually do want equality; unlike conservatives, who neither care or even pretend to care.

Don't get me wrong, the SC isn't perfect. But lets get some good judges that will stabalize America rather then interpert the constitution to complete their liberal agendas.

Oh please, you don't think conservatives will interpret the constitution to complete their conservative agendas? You're either being naive, purposely retarded, or are so blinded by your own extremist views that you cannot see the truth.

Everyone who loves freedom was a victim of 9/11.

So let us grieve, then! I'm not going to go tossing around the deaths of others as if they are a statistic! People died, let them rest in peace instead of constantly abusing their deaths. Let the people grieve, isntead of constantly abusing their emotional vulnerability. It's like yelling "Reichstag" mid-way between all of your speeches.

Bashaamo
07-16-2005, 04:50 AM
SSK= Bold



Do you actually ahve any proof of that, or are you just making that up/

Nope only theorizing. Sadaam had weapons we know that. Even if he didn't he would have made more. Long story short the world is better with him our of power.

So if someone disagrees with you by not twisting the facts to your end of the spectrum, they are a loonie. Your Hamilton quote proves your immaturity

If you read Kos you'd know he is far left and a liar. He thinks Republicans are just like Islamofacists! And it is funny that you think I'm immature when your the one going around changing my links to "neo-cons for stupidity." Another reson why the left is hypocritical.


Ah-ha, so you admit that there is indeed a conservative media

No way, and I never will. The media is dominated by liberal secualr humanists. So is the entertainment world. There may be some promenent talk show hosts that are conservative though.

... If by liberal you mean social awareness, tolerance, and peace, yeah maybe.

No by liberal I mean advocating sex (lots of it) drugs, violence, homosexuality, materialism, and disrespect for tradition. That is all MTV is.

The WMD's we didn't find, because our crazy dictator was wrong. (it's not so much that he's wrong, but the problem lies in that he continues to say he was right...)

Sadaam's chances of harming people again 0%. Thanks George! Tell all those people who got to vote for the first time in Iraq that you think they were better of with Sadaam in power, go ahead!

That's just neo-conservative extremist, bash.

No not really. Conservatives try to preserve the status-quo. But regressives and reactionaries long to bring our society back to days of stability and tradition.

Hollywood conservatives run rampant.

Hmmm...Like who? Mel Gibson? That's about it. Hollywood is dominated by libs.

But perhaps, while extremist liberal utopia may be a communist one, it seems your utopia would be a fascist one in which the white-man is always correct. A 1984 scenario?

Nahh. 1984 was stupid. They should of had the telescreens in the poor neighborhoods.

Marriage? How? If you mean by marriage between homosexuals, then the only real dispute there is what to call that marriage. To deny them the same rights, though, would be unjust. For example, what if gays ruled society and didn't let you marry a woman, simply because you were heterosexual? To have a law apply to a minority but not to a majority is to have an unjust law.

Marriage can't be between gays, then it wouldn't be marriage. Give them Civil Unions and rights, just not marriage. But marriage can only be between 1 man and 1 woman. It'd be like if I wanted to adopt a cat as a child. It defies all logic and tradition.

Religion? You assume that religion is correct. Have you ever considered it is not? Indeed, I stated this in another thread, sometimes religion is necessary in order to keep the less enlightened at bay. They need that neo-pavlovian training even after their childhood years.

I do question my faith from time to time. But I'll be damned if lefties will try to remove all traces of God from the government. The country was settled by people who worshiped God, Faught for by great diest thinkers, and led by great men who worship God. America is a land of people of differnet races and cultures. God seems to be the only thing that is a common bond. Real or not real we need God.

Defense? How? We were all too willing to go to Afghanistan, where we were right.

No, I mean like stricter immigration and border control laws to keep out terrorists. We need a 20 year ban on immigration or at least until the war on terror is over.

Family? By abortion, you mean? Meh, I have no views on abortion, because to make a view would be to twist the moral grounds we have already laid down.

I mean abortion to some extent but I was mainly talking about the breakdown of the traditional family. Our society is too open to gays and transgendered. And divorce rates are crazy, which I attribute to women voting/working outside the home. We need to teach in schools that traditional family is right.

Tradition. Ah. Here is where you make massive assumptions. Why carry on an incorrect tradition?

How can tradition be incorccet? It is what holds us together, shapes us, gives us our identity, until some nut from California gets offended by the words "under God."

Patriotism. Same with tradition. Why support the government even when it's wrong? Conservatives take Patriotism to a fascist extreme (Especially when it's their government in power)

Better facism then flagburning!

Money? No; most intelligent liberals understand the effectiveness of capitalism. Unlike their conservative counter-parts, however, they know the one flaw of capitalism: lack of equal opportunity.

We want equal opportunity too. Just not state-sponsered equal outcomes like with affirmative action. We like to call that communism.

You blame the families for letting down society, when it is society letting down the families. The entire goal of liberals is to create equal opportunity such that an abortion would not be necessary. If conservatives would finally agree that poverty exists! (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html) Liberals don't want to kill off the children, we want to let them have an equal chance; something conservatives don't want because that would mean less fascist hold of the government.

The goverment does not exist to give out money to people. We count on the charity of others do do that and don't forget it is the conservatives who are the "compassionate" ones. And how can you even say **** like that, G-8 just gave $25 Billion to Africa and cancelled $40 billion in owed debts. Poverty exists and W knows it.

Oh please, you don't think conservatives will interpret the constitution to complete their conservative agendas?

Of corse not. Conservaitves tend to be true to the text. As liberals like to strech the truth and make up things like the separation church and state.

You're either being naive, purposely retarded, or are so blinded by your own extremist views that you cannot see the truth.

I'm being well informed, truthful, and open minded.

So let us grieve, then! I'm not going to go tossing around the deaths of others as if they are a statistic! People died, let them rest in peace instead of constantly abusing their deaths. Let the people grieve, isntead of constantly abusing their emotional vulnerability. It's like yelling "Reichstag" mid-way between all of your speeches.

Ok SSK lets just instead cry all day and do nothing while the f****** that did this celebrate in their caves.

Lets avenge them!

Alakazam
07-20-2005, 02:34 PM
MOST RETARDED HATEFUL STUPID THING A LIB EVER SAID

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" -Land Whale

*sigh* Must I bust out the Ann Coulter quotes?


I'll post again later to reply to the rest of Genesis, Bash, and sk. I'm currently a bit short on time.