Right, Robertson is a crackpot. Twain's "War Prayer" comes to mind. But I notice that you still ask God to make the justices see things your way. Yours is a request for domination and ideological ascendancy. What makes your personal ideas on abortion automatically correct? I think a little humility is called for. The world has enough arrogant Christians as it is.
Any intellectually honest person wants access to the opposition's viewpoint. My faith in humanity has not dwindled to the point where I think we should stop trying altogether.
Obviously, the campaign website is not the only source of information about Bush. But if you accept that there are people outside the US who are interested in learning about Bush, why make it any more difficult for them?
Calling Bush: Hitler, UN Hater, isolationalist is HATE speech
'Isolationist' isn't politically correct? Let's see... what's a good euphemism... how about 'xenophobe'. No? How about 'unilateralist'. Still too offensive? Then how about we abandon this obsession with political correctness, and just say what we mean.
Also, I suggest you look up the definiton of 'hate speech'. Why, when someone disagrees with Bush's policies, do Republicans have to cast it as some kind of bigotry? Saying that "Mr. Bush has continually demonstrated apathy toward world opinion toward the US" is NOT hate speech. Saying that we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of Nazi Germany is NOT hate speech.
And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason.
This is just a wild guess, but maybe they want to learn more about Bush's policies?
You don't need to be a Bush-worshipper to want to look at his website. In fact, those who believe that Bush is God have very little need to do any research at all. But those who have an open mind tend to want to make decisions for themselves.
The questions are not clear, the 'right' answers are ambiguous, some 'right answers' are actually wrong, and conclusions drawn are subjective nonsense.
A majority of people in the world do not support Bush's reelection. If that simple fact is 'ambiguous' or 'wrong' to you then there is a problem with your perception of reality.
Using the first definition presented: The words literally mean that it's just a game and no one is insulting women in reality. What the words end up expressing is that misogynistic language exists in modern colloquial discourse. Hence the irony.
Now, whether or not you believe that the term 'chick' counts as misogyny is another issue altogether.
No, you are confused. Germany, Japan, and Italy were the axis powers of the time and most likely inspired today's "axis of evil" label.
Actually, the "Axis" of WWII was, in fact, working in concert. Bush's "Axis of Evil" is an arbitrary assignment created by Bush to rally people (like you?) behind his agenda. Do you know that Iraq and Iran were enemies? Of course you do, so stop pursuing this ridiculous analogy.
Sadaam supported these [terrorist] groups in various ways, he also provided safe havens for some of their members on the run.
That's why over 1000 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis are dead? Death is not something I take lightly. There would have to have been an imminent threat to justify something like that.
Clean up your own playpen before you start bitching about the other side
Couldn't agree more, my ironic friend, couldn't agree more.
By the way, I really appreciate your use of the term 'Democraps', but shouldn't it be 'Dummycraps'? If you can't argue a single point without resorting to name-calling then I would hope that you could at least be a little more clever.
If you assume that Bush is unable to form an opinion of his own, then you are correct. On the other hand, many Americans expect him to have a backbone and dissent from the party line when it's the right thing to do. (John Kerry and Bill Clinton both have done this many times, in case you were thinking of somehow blaming them.)
That doesn't even make sense. If Kerry and Nader went head-to-head in an election, Kerry would win in a landslide. I'm not convinced that a one-eyed Chihuahua would defeat Nader (it might be close). There is absolutely no danger of Kerry losing to Nader, but if Nader intends to hand the election to Bush then the Democrats have a legitimate reason to criticize.
If the Democrats *and* the Republicans disappeared in a puff of smoke, Nader still wouldn't win. He just doesn't have the support, and would be unable to fill the power vacuum.
When an election is very close (and the 2000 election was *extremely* close) you can always ask what would have happened if, say, voters weren't improperly purged from the rolls. There are a million ways in which things didn't turn out as maybe they should have.
So please don't ignore the obvious problems of the 2000 election. Pretending that Bush was the obvious winner shows both ignorace and disrespect for democratic values.
Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc.
They also blame Bush for this Iraq quagmire that Clinton got us into, and for Clinton's support for outsourcing. What next, it's Bush's fault that Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton? But I agree with you, the biggest problem that Clinton left us with was that HUGE budget deficit in 2000.
What you (and others) are forgetting is that Bush's "moral" policy is based almost entirely on the Old Testament. Therefore, it is fair to ask how far he's willing to take his faith in that portion of the Bible.
Wrong. Kerry plans to pull the troops out of Iraq in his first term.
This is a presidential election, people! Take the time to do a little research on the candidates. A vote cast in ignorance is not a vote for democracy.
In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty
Remember, Bush opposes nation-building and supports the (late) assault weapons ban. What Bush claims to support has had little bearing on what Bush does. I think it's pretty certain that, if granted another four years, Bush will do absolutely nothing to address the problem of global warming. Can anyone say that they honestly believe otherwise?
Very true. I wish more people would realize that this is a problem that will affect all of us. We need to be figuring out what to do about it, even if it isn't caused by humans.
Well, if it meant so little to you, why didn't you send it back?
We need it to help pay off the huge debt that Bush has racked up in our name.
And don't tell me that giving it back would encourage Bush to be fiscally responsible. The only solution to a spendthrift is to take away his credit card.
That this sort of bigotry is considered "insightful" is just pathetic.
Yeah, darn those bigots who criticize Bush's policies. Now let's go propose a constitutional amendment that takes rights away from gays because we hate them.
You really believe the dribble from Michael Moore, don't you?
Michael Moore does not spew 'dribble'. That is totally not true. No way. You see, Michael Moore spews drivel. And no, I don't really believe it.
I'm sorry, fiction does not make truth.
Ah... I am in the company of a philosopher!
But seriously, I didn't mean it in that way. There is a perfectly logical and undramatic explanation for the US strategy that has nothing to do with dark conspiracies or selfless heroism on the part of Bush. It's called Politics.
The only way to remove the threat is to extinguish it. And that is why we are in Iraq. The people of Iraq are happy that we've removed Sadaam. Why aren't you?
Let me put it this way. There are two people who have personally profited from both 9/11 and the Iraq war. These people are George Bush and Osama bin Laden. Analyze the effectiveness of the US strategy in this context.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, Robertson is a crackpot. Twain's "War Prayer" comes to mind. But I notice that you still ask God to make the justices see things your way. Yours is a request for domination and ideological ascendancy. What makes your personal ideas on abortion automatically correct? I think a little humility is called for. The world has enough arrogant Christians as it is.
Any intellectually honest person wants access to the opposition's viewpoint. My faith in humanity has not dwindled to the point where I think we should stop trying altogether.
Obviously, the campaign website is not the only source of information about Bush. But if you accept that there are people outside the US who are interested in learning about Bush, why make it any more difficult for them?
Calling Bush: Hitler, UN Hater, isolationalist is HATE speech
'Isolationist' isn't politically correct? Let's see... what's a good euphemism... how about 'xenophobe'. No? How about 'unilateralist'. Still too offensive? Then how about we abandon this obsession with political correctness, and just say what we mean.
Also, I suggest you look up the definiton of 'hate speech'. Why, when someone disagrees with Bush's policies, do Republicans have to cast it as some kind of bigotry? Saying that "Mr. Bush has continually demonstrated apathy toward world opinion toward the US" is NOT hate speech. Saying that we are in danger of repeating the mistakes of Nazi Germany is NOT hate speech.
And why should anyone outside the U.S. care for the same reason.
This is just a wild guess, but maybe they want to learn more about Bush's policies?
You don't need to be a Bush-worshipper to want to look at his website. In fact, those who believe that Bush is God have very little need to do any research at all. But those who have an open mind tend to want to make decisions for themselves.
The questions are not clear, the 'right' answers are ambiguous, some 'right answers' are actually wrong, and conclusions drawn are subjective nonsense.
A majority of people in the world do not support Bush's reelection. If that simple fact is 'ambiguous' or 'wrong' to you then there is a problem with your perception of reality.
please explain
I'll explain it if no one else is going to.
Using the first definition presented: The words literally mean that it's just a game and no one is insulting women in reality. What the words end up expressing is that misogynistic language exists in modern colloquial discourse. Hence the irony.
Now, whether or not you believe that the term 'chick' counts as misogyny is another issue altogether.
No, you are confused. Germany, Japan, and Italy were the axis powers of the time and most likely inspired today's "axis of evil" label.
Actually, the "Axis" of WWII was, in fact, working in concert. Bush's "Axis of Evil" is an arbitrary assignment created by Bush to rally people (like you?) behind his agenda. Do you know that Iraq and Iran were enemies? Of course you do, so stop pursuing this ridiculous analogy.
Sadaam supported these [terrorist] groups in various ways, he also provided safe havens for some of their members on the run.
That's why over 1000 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis are dead? Death is not something I take lightly. There would have to have been an imminent threat to justify something like that.
Clean up your own playpen before you start bitching about the other side
Couldn't agree more, my ironic friend, couldn't agree more.
By the way, I really appreciate your use of the term 'Democraps', but shouldn't it be 'Dummycraps'? If you can't argue a single point without resorting to name-calling then I would hope that you could at least be a little more clever.
If you assume that Bush is unable to form an opinion of his own, then you are correct. On the other hand, many Americans expect him to have a backbone and dissent from the party line when it's the right thing to do. (John Kerry and Bill Clinton both have done this many times, in case you were thinking of somehow blaming them.)
Doing nothing? Not exactly.
It's sad that so many people still do not know the candidates' positions on the issues.
That doesn't even make sense. If Kerry and Nader went head-to-head in an election, Kerry would win in a landslide. I'm not convinced that a one-eyed Chihuahua would defeat Nader (it might be close). There is absolutely no danger of Kerry losing to Nader, but if Nader intends to hand the election to Bush then the Democrats have a legitimate reason to criticize.
If the Democrats *and* the Republicans disappeared in a puff of smoke, Nader still wouldn't win. He just doesn't have the support, and would be unable to fill the power vacuum.
Sigh... how soon we forget.
When an election is very close (and the 2000 election was *extremely* close) you can always ask what would have happened if, say, voters weren't improperly purged from the rolls. There are a million ways in which things didn't turn out as maybe they should have.
So please don't ignore the obvious problems of the 2000 election. Pretending that Bush was the obvious winner shows both ignorace and disrespect for democratic values.
You're getting your cause and effect mixed up. The article isn't anti-Democratic; the editorial commentary is.
I can't say that I blame either party for preparing ranks of lawyers; litigation is apparently how you win close elections is this country.
Blaming Bush for Clinton's budget and economic problems, etc.
They also blame Bush for this Iraq quagmire that Clinton got us into, and for Clinton's support for outsourcing. What next, it's Bush's fault that Clinton gave no-bid contracts to Halliburton? But I agree with you, the biggest problem that Clinton left us with was that HUGE budget deficit in 2000.
Bush is not a Jew, but a Christian
What you (and others) are forgetting is that Bush's "moral" policy is based almost entirely on the Old Testament. Therefore, it is fair to ask how far he's willing to take his faith in that portion of the Bible.
Wrong. Kerry plans to pull the troops out of Iraq in his first term.
This is a presidential election, people! Take the time to do a little research on the candidates. A vote cast in ignorance is not a vote for democracy.
In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty
Remember, Bush opposes nation-building and supports the (late) assault weapons ban. What Bush claims to support has had little bearing on what Bush does. I think it's pretty certain that, if granted another four years, Bush will do absolutely nothing to address the problem of global warming. Can anyone say that they honestly believe otherwise?
Very true. I wish more people would realize that this is a problem that will affect all of us. We need to be figuring out what to do about it, even if it isn't caused by humans.
Well, if it meant so little to you, why didn't you send it back?
We need it to help pay off the huge debt that Bush has racked up in our name.
And don't tell me that giving it back would encourage Bush to be fiscally responsible. The only solution to a spendthrift is to take away his credit card.
That this sort of bigotry is considered "insightful" is just pathetic.
Yeah, darn those bigots who criticize Bush's policies. Now let's go propose a constitutional amendment that takes rights away from gays because we hate them.
You really believe the dribble from Michael Moore, don't you?
Michael Moore does not spew 'dribble'. That is totally not true. No way. You see, Michael Moore spews drivel. And no, I don't really believe it.
I'm sorry, fiction does not make truth.
Ah... I am in the company of a philosopher!
But seriously, I didn't mean it in that way. There is a perfectly logical and undramatic explanation for the US strategy that has nothing to do with dark conspiracies or selfless heroism on the part of Bush. It's called Politics.
The only way to remove the threat is to extinguish it. And that is why we are in Iraq. The people of Iraq are happy that we've removed Sadaam. Why aren't you?
Let me put it this way. There are two people who have personally profited from both 9/11 and the Iraq war. These people are George Bush and Osama bin Laden. Analyze the effectiveness of the US strategy in this context.
And the parent post said that people who make such idiotic generalizations are themselves idiots and hypocrites. Think about it.