Do you think Bush honestly wants people to die, or do you think he is honestly trying to save lives? Occam's razor tells me he is trying to save lives, even if history may show he went about it the wrong way.
A. That's a false dichotomy. There are more than the 2 choices you supplied.
B. Therefore, Occam's razor certainly doesn't apply.
Personally, I think all the available evidence points to Bush being a sociopath. Therefore he certainly doesn't give a shit about saving lives because he does not even posess the ability to feel. Now, find some actual evidence to refute that. Obviously anything that he has said is worthless, sociopaths are great at gaming people.
Can you name even one action he has taken that would support your belief?
Who is to say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't avert a similar future tragedy? Who is to say what will happen in the future if we didn't start applying similar pressure to Iran and North Korea?
And who is to say the opposite is true? Who is to say that the truth couldn't be anything?
That's right. It's pure speculation any way you look at it.
We do know that Afghanistan is somewhat safe in one major city and basically run by warlords over the rest of the country.
We do know that the blatant lies that were our sole justification for the invasion of Iraq have given legitimacy to our critics. We also know that most of the admiration and respect we had built up in the world was pissed away in the rush to invade a country that we knew full well had nothing to do with the attack on us. That action, quite rightly, demonstrated to the world that integrity, honor, truth and justice are *not* qualities that America respects.
Dude, you make some good points, but then you just piss it all away with this idiotic jingoistic crap:
oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.
Hot tip. We are under no threat as a nation. There is no dictator plotting to conquer America. All of our worst threats are internal.
They consist of the following: 1. Politicians who are loyal to their parties over their country. 2. Corporate executives who care more about profit than they do about their country or even their species. 3. These 2 groups getting together and joining their power structures.
Sorry, but Iraq is no threat and never was. The military there is not defending us from shit. Among other things they are just being used as a diversionary tactic while our enemies at home consolidate their power.
You don't seriously believe that ignorant jingoistic Captain America bullshit that you're spouting do you?
If you do, try actually constructing some possible way that it could be true. When you see how far from rationality that you have to go to do that, hopefully that will wake you up.
Apparently the readers here cannot separate service to the Constitution from support for the current administration.
And you seem to be unable to separate service to your country from serving the whims of whichever of 2 scumbags won a popularity contest funded by people who make a lot of money by sending US soldiers to die for their own personal profit.
True that, but the point that I was making was that in order to preserve those freedoms, every American should do their part. It is one thing to find fault and point fingers, it's another thing entirely to DO SOMETHING about it. Never point out a problem without providing a solution.
Sure, but it has literally been decades since our military has been tasked with defending us. It is far more patriotic to *not* join the military than it is to join up and serve the aims of self-serving politicians who's interests are, for the most part, diametrically opposed to my interests, your interests, or the interests of this country as a whole. That was the lesson we damn well should have learned from Vietnam. The question is why did you fail to learn that lesson?
This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest political thinkers the world has ever know. (I know... slave owner, blah blah.) One could argue that this is what the Bush Administration is doing...
One could make a feeble attempt to make such an argument, but it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
When McDonalds first started running adds referring to themselves as "Mickey-dees", I was galled at what a blatant and rediculous attempt it was to gain "street cred". Surely this will never work, said I.
2 months later, and millions in advertising, I start hearing people say "lets go to Mickey-Dees".
I'm sorry dude, but if you really think that the advertising is why people call it Mickey Ds then you're really out of touch.
That's been the standard name for it among most people I know for at least ten years before they ever put it in a commercial. Keep in mind I've lived in SoCal, The pacific northwest and the midwest during these years so it's not even the case of it being a regional thing.
They weren't trying to gain "street cred". If anything they were merely demonstrating how slow they are to pick up on ordinary i.e. not "street" slang which is in extremely widespread use.
And the left wonders why they don't have the hearts and minds of Americans.
And neither does the right. Keep in mind the last election was damn near 50/50. That's just of the people who voted. It looks like neither party is in tune with anywhere near the majority.
You really don't fit in well with the rest of your Democrat buddies when you start saying things like "so you expect the government to step in and adjust those forces to benefit yourself at the expense of the free market rather than actually making yourself useful doing some job which actually benefits people enough so that they will be willing to pay you to do it." That's actually not characteristic of Republicans.
I'm not a Democrat. All it takes to hate the Republicans is a little bit of integrity though. No partisan hackery is necessary.
In fact, if you did a search on "Corporate Welfare" you would see that it is completely characteristic of the Republicans. How it applies to the Democrats doesn't change that fact at all. The fact that you are incapable of defending your position at all and have to resort to attacking the other party in a feeble attempt to distract from the issue is also typical of right wing hate machine politics.
When Reagan came to be president they attacked him over foolish things like the Iran contra, they do the same thing right now with our current administration, trying to somehow blame acts of torture, genocide, whatever. It seems to ring in the heads of liberals everywhere, like a war horn or something. The fact that you're so inflamed by the rhetoric is truly frightening. It's frightening that people can be mislead by such senseless arguments.
Wow, your delusions are truly staggering. So torture and murder is perfectly fine with you? Pissing on the constitution is fine with you. Well, if your house ever gets robbed, if you get murdered or beaten then I'm sure you'll have the integrity to dismiss it as some silly thing. Oh that's right, bad things only matter if they happen to you. That, my little troll is hypocracy.
when your current president, George W. Bush, cut your taxes. I actually got a check in the mail, CASH! A lot of Democrats were opposed to any sort of tax cut.
Democrats, being the fiscally responsible party (odd but true. It's certainly not the first time that the parties have switched roles) as well as anybody with any basic knowledge of economics have a big problem with cutting revenue while jacking government spending through the roof. According to your reasoning, if your salary was cut in half you would go out and put a shitload of crap you don't need on your credit card. That's a pretty retarded attitude.
Speak for yourself not others.
That is all I've been doing. You keep going with your script that you got from the right wing hate squad even though it in no way applies to my position. This is the brainless idiocy which the right wing hate squad was created to promote.
The fact that you are defending Nixon's attempt to subvert the democratic process in this country is certainly telling about your ethics and your morality. Rather your complete lack of any.
Maybe you should vote R.
I don't vote major parties. I certainly wouldn't vote Republican because, as I said before, integrity is important to me. This current crop of Republicans have declared all out war on integrity.
Actually, you're all over the map.
In fact, my position is entirely consistent. The fact that you are spouting nonsense catch phrases barfed up by the right wing hate squads and not actually addressing the arguments is why you see it that way. What you're saying is that your small minded rants don't apply to what I'm saying. That's certainly true. You would actually have to recognise that issues aren't simple enough to be boiled down to a n idiotic catch phrase. You blindly defend one party that is made up of a bunch of people ignorantly pushing a moronic agenda that they don't really support just because the other party is pretty much the same in that respect.
I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but putting any faith in a political party is idiotic.
I think people tend to vote Republican because they don't want to see the co
Well, I'm kind of bored so why not feed the troll one more time.
You stated in your previous email that you feel Democrats make "everybody" richer, while conservatives just make rich people richer.
Well, first of all this isn't an email. I know it's a big thing for you to finally get on the internet while your parents are out so you're a little excited, so that's ok. I didn't talk about anything I was "feeling" I stated a simple fact. It's not really "everybody" who gets richer. Some people manage to screw themselves over no matter how well the economy is going. Also, some people really have no interest in working so they aren't going to get ahead either regardless of how the economy goes. In general though, as the economy grows so does the wealth of most people who are working in it. In Republican administrations, policies are enacted that will strip wealth away from productive members of society and give it to a few leeches at the top of the wealth scale. This is actually in some sense a form of return on investment although since the investment was to the campaign funds of the politicians in power, this isn't a legal investment. It's actually treasonous on both parts.
You're whining about conservatives because they aren't making you richer.
Sure I am. Point out anything I said that could be in any way construed as such. Oh, that's right. You can't because you're just a little troll who isn't too bright. Nobody except myself can make me richer short of handing me a pile of cash. That would be kind of neat, but I don't really forsee that happenning. Given that, I have embarked upon a mystical journey I like to call working for a living. This involves me providing various services unsurprisingly (given the nature of this forum) of a technical nature to other people who pay me to do so. Sometimes they exchange other goods and/or services for my services upon our mutual agreement, but more often than not, they choose to compensate me for my time with money.
My issue with Republican administrations is that they like to change the rules to take away a bigger chunk of the fruits of my labor (the aforementioned money) and give it to their friends who have done nothing to earn it. The fact that they have far far more than I (or you for that matter) do isn't a cause for envy. It does point out their criminal nature though. Were they poor, at least there would be some albeit feeble excuse for their actions. But since thay are not, it shows that they have a sense of entitlement to what is mine based solely on their elitist image of themselves, rather than any need or, heaven forbid, merit.
you want to claim that the Carter administration made your life better, well I'll tell you when he made all those defense spending cuts, a lot of my friends lost their jobs. That really happened to me. Now explain to me what the Iran Contra did to piss you off so bad...
Oh, that clears it all up. I see exactly where you are coming from now, and it totally explains why you support Republicans. You were a victim of market forces, so you expect the government to step in and adjust those forces to benefit yourself at the expense of the free market rather than actually making yourself useful doing some job which actually benefits people enough so that they will be willing to pay you to do it. It's typical Republican nanny state mentality:
"Oh poor me, my industry is being left behind by progress and I am too afraid to face change and step up to challenges like a man."
As far as Iran-Contra, The CIA involved itself in the cocaine trade, set up torture and terrorism schools in central America, and sold weapons illegally to a major terrorist nation against the express orders of Congress. These are all illegal acts. They are unconstitutional, and they are treasonous. Looking around the wrold right now, the effects of these policies are evident. Nixon wasn't brought down by a "silly scandal", he was brought down after he was caught red handed
Your English is infinitely better than my German, but so as to make it even better: extremely platform existence
Dude, now your just going to confuse the poor guy. He's sitting there scratching his head going WTF does "extremely platform existence" mean.
Oh, and totally offtopic, but my wife just sent me a link to the coolest dog that ever lived. So we're too amazed here to be getting any work done for a few minutes.
Nope sorry, they are allowed to postpone notice as long as a court believes it is reasonable.
Sorry, but if there is no absolute limit, then that is a meaningless restriction. For a similar thing in a totally different area, just look at the continual extension of copyright which was defined in the constitution to have a similarly "limited" extent.
Why is it that we only see bi-partisian cooperation on the bad bills?
No shit. Anybody have examples of a bill that didn't give more power to corporations or government against the citizenry in recent years that had major support from both parties?
A lot of people might argue that's because law-enforcement is able to do more with their new powers.
No, I don't think so. Nobody has yet to argue this. That would involve providing facts, and reasoning. I agree that plenty of people say that it's true. There isn't one success to point to based on this legislation and many cases where it has been used against regular citizens with no connection to terrorists whatsoever. Curiously enough this is exactly what I and many many other people said would happen. It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to recognise these things in their infancy. All it takes is a little knowledge of history and of human nature.
I think the whole point of PATRIOT is to stop future terrorist acts.
Well, think again. It was sold as such, but it does nothing in that direction.
I have full confidence in our government to restore our constitution to its former glory, but we can't do that by making hair-triggered decisions like the Patriot Act, or its repeal.
I am really curious as to what gives you this confidence.
I mean, how would doing that benefit them personally? Alternatively how would that help increase profits for their major campaign donors?
See, you abviously listen to Rush, Hannity and all that other crap because you're following their standard BS argument line, but you fail to realise that You have to wait for me to say the certain keywords before you spout your moronic little rejoinders.
I'm not doing that, so you just sound like a fool. I have no desire whatsoever to take what belongs to other people, hence no sense of entitlement.
Everybody gets richer? You are a fucking fool. You have no fucking clue about economics.
So you're saying that economics is a zero sum game? I think you just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding.
Your comments about the country always doing better under Democrats is complete nonsense. You just don't know anything do you? You would have to be pretty stupid to make a generalization like that.
No, it's a simple statement of fact based upon job growth, income, gdp etc. How about you go find some numbers to back yourself up. I'll give you a hint though; there aren't any.
You probably weren't even alive when Jimmy Carter was president, he was perhaps the worst president we ever had.
So Carter was worse than Reagan who was brain dead and presided over the Iran Contra scam, the CIA dealing cocaine and Central American death squads. He was worse than Nixon who committed treason in the sole interest of subverting our democratic process? Wow, what a bizarre and twisted set of priorities you have, little troll.
Two guys are getting rich right now for starting up a company called Google. They're probably worth 8 or 9 billion dollars each.
Wow, cool. Why would I have any sort of a problem with that? I certainly never said anything that could possibly make anybody think that. Look little troll, you should just go back to sucking off Rush and leave the conversation to the adults.
My entire point in the very first post I wrote in the thread poked fun at the people who carry signs equating Bush with Hitler. If you don't take issue with that, why are you even replying?
I was responding to one aspect of what you said with a very specific point. For whatever reason it took this long to get you to even acknowledge that point.
All I'm arguing for is a little PERSPECTIVE.
Fair enough, but I think you are totally missing the point of the people who are making that comparison. Nobody is saying Bush gasses Jews or murders 6 million people or anything like that. What they are generally saying is that Bush's tactics are taken straight out of the Nazi playbook as far as propaganda, lies, pushing for wars against the will of the people etc. etc. etc. I mean, I'm sure you've seen a number of the quotes here and other places from various high ranking Nazi officials which *exactly* parallel the tactics used by the Bush administration. So you seem to be saying that until Bush starts gassing Jews that any such comparison is crazy and moronic whereas I am saying I don't think you even understand the comparison that is being made.
As for it not being about security, how many of those sign wielding morons do you think would like to take a shot at Bush?
I seriously doubt that anybody who was a real threat would advertise it like that. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that those people have a right to be there. What I think it is based on his statements, action, and general contempt for any contrary opinion is that he just likes to maintain his delusion that he has a mandate contrary to all the facts. But that's just my opinion yada yada yada.
even today there are many, many countries that oppress their citizens much, much more than just by making them go protest in a fenced in area.
Sure, but I've never really given much credence to the idea that something is ok since it's worse other places. The telling point for me on this is that it's been a long time since anything that oppressive has happened here. The general trend in our history has been to greater freedom. A lot of people fought very hard to pull us this far ahead, and it seems like a real kick to their teeth to allow one single administration to drag us so far back without fighting back. I mean isn't that what patriotism is? That's what I was always taught growing up, and I come from a long time military family.
I define it as "cutting their fucking tongues out". That isn't happening, and if it ever does, you can bet I'll be taking up arms against the government.
I would argue that by that point it would be way too late for that. I think that if somebody sees it as a necessity to pull his tactics directly from the fascist playbook (on controlling the population, not genocide just to be sparkling clear) rather than by taking a position and supporting it with facts and reasoned arguments then that is the time to get rid of them, because they have established that they disagree completely with the principles that this country claims to believe in. But what do I know. I just have read a lot of history and I hold integrity to be a very high ideal.
You aren't, by chance, one of those college students who read one book by Chomsky and thinks that everything he says is the revealed truth, are you?,
No, I graduated some time ago and have only a vague idea of who Chomsky is. Isn't he a linguist or something? My remark was based on what seemed like your inability to recognize the whole cage thing as a bad thing, thanks for clearing that up.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
Every human live has an atom of plutonium in their body due to a failed launch. But for the life of me, I can't remember the name.
I call mine Bob. HTH
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
In theory, I suppose you could make a LOX/Aluminum hybrid rocket, but what you'd use for binder is beyond me,
See, you were doing so well up to here. Does it really matter whether they use a peechee, trapper keeper or good old 3 ring?
I have had much better success in the stock market and nobody has siphoned off my money.
Right. That's now. That doesn't take into account artificially inflating the market by a significant percentage without adding any real value. The whole point of privitizing social security is to siphon that wealth away from the majority.
The reason the rich always get richer when Republicans are in power is because they have to redo the disasterous policies of the Democrats.
Wow. If the policies are so disasterous, then why is it that everybody gets richer? The only way in which these policies are "disasterous" is that there are less poor people, more middle class people and the rich *also* get richer. The difference is that the gap closes a bit making things better for everybody. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Since WW2 at least, the country has *always* done better under Democrats. This is in terms of wealth and job creation. Try and find some actual numbers to dispute this. Good luck.
Quit bitching about rich people, holy shit. You're a fucking ingrate. Go make some fucking money, it's there, waiting for you to get off your fucking ass and work for it.
Ahh.. Typical rabid frothing nutjob response. I do quite well, thanks. I have no problem with people getting rich. I do have a problem with the extremely rich gaming the system to increase their wealth at the expense of the poor which is standard Republican policy. It has happened every single time the Republicans have been in power since WW2 at least. No exceptions.
You are incorrect. People don't know this stuff. Go work at an ISP for a while and you'll see what I mean.
Now go reread what I said. Either these people do not take an interest in their children, or they do not really care about bad things on the internet. If they did, then they would take the personal responsibility to inform themselves about it. Oh, or of course choice 3. They'll petition the government to make itself even bigger the whole time clinging to the delusion that they believe in small government and personal responsibility.
You want to talk about state rights, explain why the federal government has to intervene on this one? I am not even going to get in to it with you about gays. Nobody cares about gays, or the purported "discrimination" against them.
Which one is this? The main topic is an issue in one state. I think the foam from your rabid frothing is getting in the way of your vision. As far as the gay issue, that's the point of my sig which you brought up. It certainly seems that a lot of nutjobs do care, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. It's the supposedly State's rights Repubs who are trying to make it a federal issue contrary to everything that they fraudulently claim to believe in.
You really need to take a chill pill. On second thought, don't bother. Maybe you'll give yourself an embolism and keel over. No real loss if this is any example of your thought process.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think Bush honestly wants people to die, or do you think he is honestly trying to save lives? Occam's razor tells me he is trying to save lives, even if history may show he went about it the wrong way.
A. That's a false dichotomy. There are more than the 2 choices you supplied.
B. Therefore, Occam's razor certainly doesn't apply.
Personally, I think all the available evidence points to Bush being a sociopath. Therefore he certainly doesn't give a shit about saving lives because he does not even posess the ability to feel.
Now, find some actual evidence to refute that. Obviously anything that he has said is worthless, sociopaths are great at gaming people.
Can you name even one action he has taken that would support your belief?
Who is to say the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't avert a similar future tragedy? Who is to say what will happen in the future if we didn't start applying similar pressure to Iran and North Korea?
And who is to say the opposite is true? Who is to say that the truth couldn't be anything?
That's right. It's pure speculation any way you look at it.
We do know that Afghanistan is somewhat safe in one major city and basically run by warlords over the rest of the country.
We do know that the blatant lies that were our sole justification for the invasion of Iraq have given legitimacy to our critics. We also know that most of the admiration and respect we had built up in the world was pissed away in the rush to invade a country that we knew full well had nothing to do with the attack on us. That action, quite rightly, demonstrated to the world that integrity, honor, truth and justice are *not* qualities that America respects.
Dude, you make some good points, but then you just piss it all away with this idiotic jingoistic crap:
oh yeah, there is also that little added benefit of a trained military force being the only thing between you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator.
Hot tip. We are under no threat as a nation. There is no dictator plotting to conquer America.
All of our worst threats are internal.
They consist of the following:
1. Politicians who are loyal to their parties over their country.
2. Corporate executives who care more about profit than they do about their country or even their species.
3. These 2 groups getting together and joining their power structures.
Sorry, but Iraq is no threat and never was. The military there is not defending us from shit. Among other things they are just being used as a diversionary tactic while our enemies at home consolidate their power.
You don't seriously believe that ignorant jingoistic Captain America bullshit that you're spouting do you?
If you do, try actually constructing some possible way that it could be true. When you see how far from rationality that you have to go to do that, hopefully that will wake you up.
Apparently the readers here cannot separate service to the Constitution from support for the current administration.
And you seem to be unable to separate service to your country from serving the whims of whichever of 2 scumbags won a popularity contest funded by people who make a lot of money by sending US soldiers to die for their own personal profit.
True that, but the point that I was making was that in order to preserve those freedoms, every American should do their part. It is one thing to find fault and point fingers, it's another thing entirely to DO SOMETHING about it. Never point out a problem without providing a solution.
Sure, but it has literally been decades since our military has been tasked with defending us.
It is far more patriotic to *not* join the military than it is to join up and serve the aims of self-serving politicians who's interests are, for the most part, diametrically opposed to my interests, your interests, or the interests of this country as a whole.
That was the lesson we damn well should have learned from Vietnam. The question is why did you fail to learn that lesson?
This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest political thinkers the world has ever know. (I know... slave owner, blah blah.) One could argue that this is what the Bush Administration is doing...
One could make a feeble attempt to make such an argument, but it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny.
We do want patriotic people in the armed forces.
The OP was describing jingoistic people rather than patriots.
Jingoism is more or less the opposite of patriotism, so I think you and he are more or less in agreement.
Yes, but is the Royal Navy full of cannibals?
Ummmmm.... Yes. Yes it is.
Sorry to any Royal Navy people out there. I'm just curious where you're going with this one.
In my local bowling alley (Star City, Birmingham) they have TV screens that you actually piss on.
That's awesome. Hopefully they'll have beer commercials with scantily clad hotties in them for you to piss on.
Hey wait, does R Kelly own that advertising company?
When McDonalds first started running adds referring to themselves as "Mickey-dees", I was galled at what a blatant and rediculous attempt it was to gain "street cred". Surely this will never work, said I.
2 months later, and millions in advertising, I start hearing people say "lets go to Mickey-Dees".
I'm sorry dude, but if you really think that the advertising is why people call it Mickey Ds then you're really out of touch.
That's been the standard name for it among most people I know for at least ten years before they ever put it in a commercial. Keep in mind I've lived in SoCal, The pacific northwest and the midwest during these years so it's not even the case of it being a regional thing.
They weren't trying to gain "street cred". If anything they were merely demonstrating how slow they are to pick up on ordinary i.e. not "street" slang which is in extremely widespread use.
But they can't see it or hear it ... am I to assume that they can't control it either?
Not at all.
They can soooo totally still control it.
Well can you see it to tell them it's going the wrong way?
And the left wonders why they don't have the hearts and minds of Americans.
And neither does the right.
Keep in mind the last election was damn near 50/50.
That's just of the people who voted.
It looks like neither party is in tune with anywhere near the majority.
You really don't fit in well with the rest of your Democrat buddies when you start saying things like "so you expect the government to step in and adjust those forces to benefit yourself at the expense of the free market rather than actually making yourself useful doing some job which actually benefits people enough so that they will be willing to pay you to do it." That's actually not characteristic of Republicans.
I'm not a Democrat. All it takes to hate the Republicans is a little bit of integrity though. No partisan hackery is necessary.
In fact, if you did a search on "Corporate Welfare" you would see that it is completely characteristic of the Republicans. How it applies to the Democrats doesn't change that fact at all. The fact that you are incapable of defending your position at all and have to resort to attacking the other party in a feeble attempt to distract from the issue is also typical of right wing hate machine politics.
When Reagan came to be president they attacked him over foolish things like the Iran contra, they do the same thing right now with our current administration, trying to somehow blame acts of torture, genocide, whatever. It seems to ring in the heads of liberals everywhere, like a war horn or something. The fact that you're so inflamed by the rhetoric is truly frightening. It's frightening that people can be mislead by such senseless arguments.
Wow, your delusions are truly staggering. So torture and murder is perfectly fine with you? Pissing on the constitution is fine with you. Well, if your house ever gets robbed, if you get murdered or beaten then I'm sure you'll have the integrity to dismiss it as some silly thing. Oh that's right, bad things only matter if they happen to you. That, my little troll is hypocracy.
when your current president, George W. Bush, cut your taxes. I actually got a check in the mail, CASH! A lot of Democrats were opposed to any sort of tax cut.
Democrats, being the fiscally responsible party (odd but true. It's certainly not the first time that the parties have switched roles) as well as anybody with any basic knowledge of economics have a big problem with cutting revenue while jacking government spending through the roof.
According to your reasoning, if your salary was cut in half you would go out and put a shitload of crap you don't need on your credit card. That's a pretty retarded attitude.
Speak for yourself not others.
That is all I've been doing. You keep going with your script that you got from the right wing hate squad even though it in no way applies to my position. This is the brainless idiocy which the right wing hate squad was created to promote.
The fact that you are defending Nixon's attempt to subvert the democratic process in this country is certainly telling about your ethics and your morality. Rather your complete lack of any.
Maybe you should vote R.
I don't vote major parties. I certainly wouldn't vote Republican because, as I said before, integrity is important to me. This current crop of Republicans have declared all out war on integrity.
Actually, you're all over the map.
In fact, my position is entirely consistent. The fact that you are spouting nonsense catch phrases barfed up by the right wing hate squads and not actually addressing the arguments is why you see it that way.
What you're saying is that your small minded rants don't apply to what I'm saying. That's certainly true. You would actually have to recognise that issues aren't simple enough to be boiled down to a n idiotic catch phrase. You blindly defend one party that is made up of a bunch of people ignorantly pushing a moronic agenda that they don't really support just because the other party is pretty much the same in that respect.
I hate to break it to you, Sparky, but putting any faith in a political party is idiotic.
I think people tend to vote Republican because they don't want to see the co
Well, I'm kind of bored so why not feed the troll one more time.
You stated in your previous email that you feel Democrats make "everybody" richer, while conservatives just make rich people richer.
Well, first of all this isn't an email. I know it's a big thing for you to finally get on the internet while your parents are out so you're a little excited, so that's ok.
I didn't talk about anything I was "feeling" I stated a simple fact. It's not really "everybody" who gets richer. Some people manage to screw themselves over no matter how well the economy is going. Also, some people really have no interest in working so they aren't going to get ahead either regardless of how the economy goes. In general though, as the economy grows so does the wealth of most people who are working in it. In Republican administrations, policies are enacted that will strip wealth away from productive members of society and give it to a few leeches at the top of the wealth scale. This is actually in some sense a form of return on investment although since the investment was to the campaign funds of the politicians in power, this isn't a legal investment. It's actually treasonous on both parts.
You're whining about conservatives because they aren't making you richer.
Sure I am. Point out anything I said that could be in any way construed as such. Oh, that's right. You can't because you're just a little troll who isn't too bright.
Nobody except myself can make me richer short of handing me a pile of cash. That would be kind of neat, but I don't really forsee that happenning. Given that, I have embarked upon a mystical journey I like to call working for a living. This involves me providing various services unsurprisingly (given the nature of this forum) of a technical nature to other people who pay me to do so. Sometimes they exchange other goods and/or services for my services upon our mutual agreement, but more often than not, they choose to compensate me for my time with money.
My issue with Republican administrations is that they like to change the rules to take away a bigger chunk of the fruits of my labor (the aforementioned money) and give it to their friends who have done nothing to earn it. The fact that they have far far more than I (or you for that matter) do isn't a cause for envy. It does point out their criminal nature though. Were they poor, at least there would be some albeit feeble excuse for their actions. But since thay are not, it shows that they have a sense of entitlement to what is mine based solely on their elitist image of themselves, rather than any need or, heaven forbid, merit.
you want to claim that the Carter administration made your life better, well I'll tell you when he made all those defense spending cuts, a lot of my friends lost their jobs. That really happened to me. Now explain to me what the Iran Contra did to piss you off so bad...
Oh, that clears it all up. I see exactly where you are coming from now, and it totally explains why you support Republicans. You were a victim of market forces, so you expect the government to step in and adjust those forces to benefit yourself at the expense of the free market rather than actually making yourself useful doing some job which actually benefits people enough so that they will be willing to pay you to do it.
It's typical Republican nanny state mentality:
"Oh poor me, my industry is being left behind by progress and I am too afraid to face change and step up to challenges like a man."
As far as Iran-Contra, The CIA involved itself in the cocaine trade, set up torture and terrorism schools in central America, and sold weapons illegally to a major terrorist nation against the express orders of Congress.
These are all illegal acts. They are unconstitutional, and they are treasonous. Looking around the wrold right now, the effects of these policies are evident.
Nixon wasn't brought down by a "silly scandal", he was brought down after he was caught red handed
Your English is infinitely better than my German, but so as to make it even better: extremely platform existence
Dude, now your just going to confuse the poor guy.
He's sitting there scratching his head going WTF does "extremely platform existence" mean.
Oh, and totally offtopic, but my wife just sent me a link to the coolest dog that ever lived. So we're too amazed here to be getting any work done for a few minutes.
Nesting ?: syntax makes baby Jesus cry.
Not really, he just kind of squints at it funny for a second, shrugs and moves on.
Nope sorry, they are allowed to postpone notice as long as a court believes it is reasonable.
Sorry, but if there is no absolute limit, then that is a meaningless restriction. For a similar thing in a totally different area, just look at the continual extension of copyright which was defined in the constitution to have a similarly "limited" extent.
Why is it that we only see bi-partisian cooperation on the bad bills?
No shit. Anybody have examples of a bill that didn't give more power to corporations or government against the citizenry in recent years that had major support from both parties?
A lot of people might argue that's because law-enforcement is able to do more with their new powers.
No, I don't think so. Nobody has yet to argue this. That would involve providing facts, and reasoning. I agree that plenty of people say that it's true.
There isn't one success to point to based on this legislation and many cases where it has been used against regular citizens with no connection to terrorists whatsoever.
Curiously enough this is exactly what I and many many other people said would happen.
It doesn't take a tinfoil hat to recognise these things in their infancy. All it takes is a little knowledge of history and of human nature.
I think the whole point of PATRIOT is to stop future terrorist acts.
Well, think again. It was sold as such, but it does nothing in that direction.
1) they are required to get a judge to approve "secret" search warrents.
True, but they are *never* required to let you know that there ever was a search or a warrant.
That makes your first point meaningless.
I have full confidence in our government to restore our constitution to its former glory, but we can't do that by making hair-triggered decisions like the Patriot Act, or its repeal.
I am really curious as to what gives you this confidence.
I mean, how would doing that benefit them personally? Alternatively how would that help increase profits for their major campaign donors?
See you have got this entitlement mentality.
See, you abviously listen to Rush, Hannity and all that other crap because you're following their standard BS argument line, but you fail to realise that You have to wait for me to say the certain keywords before you spout your moronic little rejoinders.
I'm not doing that, so you just sound like a fool.
I have no desire whatsoever to take what belongs to other people, hence no sense of entitlement.
Everybody gets richer? You are a fucking fool. You have no fucking clue about economics.
So you're saying that economics is a zero sum game? I think you just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding.
Your comments about the country always doing better under Democrats is complete nonsense. You just don't know anything do you? You would have to be pretty stupid to make a generalization like that.
No, it's a simple statement of fact based upon job growth, income, gdp etc. How about you go find some numbers to back yourself up. I'll give you a hint though; there aren't any.
You probably weren't even alive when Jimmy Carter was president, he was perhaps the worst president we ever had.
So Carter was worse than Reagan who was brain dead and presided over the Iran Contra scam, the CIA dealing cocaine and Central American death squads.
He was worse than Nixon who committed treason in the sole interest of subverting our democratic process? Wow, what a bizarre and twisted set of priorities you have, little troll.
Two guys are getting rich right now for starting up a company called Google. They're probably worth 8 or 9 billion dollars each.
Wow, cool. Why would I have any sort of a problem with that? I certainly never said anything that could possibly make anybody think that.
Look little troll, you should just go back to sucking off Rush and leave the conversation to the adults.
ummmm....hmmmmmm.. ok.
Well, I'd like to thank the academy....
Wait this is crap man.
Before we get to the winners, here's the funniest response to my crooked politicians troll, thanks to darby for saying
So I didn't really make it. I merely got a mention before proceeding to the main event.
Well, ummmm... thanks for the mention in your little troll thing or whatever.
My entire point in the very first post I wrote in the thread poked fun at the people who carry signs equating Bush with Hitler. If you don't take issue with that, why are you even replying?
I was responding to one aspect of what you said with a very specific point. For whatever reason it took this long to get you to even acknowledge that point.
All I'm arguing for is a little PERSPECTIVE.
Fair enough, but I think you are totally missing the point of the people who are making that comparison. Nobody is saying Bush gasses Jews or murders 6 million people or anything like that.
What they are generally saying is that Bush's tactics are taken straight out of the Nazi playbook as far as propaganda, lies, pushing for wars against the will of the people etc. etc. etc.
I mean, I'm sure you've seen a number of the quotes here and other places from various high ranking Nazi officials which *exactly* parallel the tactics used by the Bush administration.
So you seem to be saying that until Bush starts gassing Jews that any such comparison is crazy and moronic whereas I am saying I don't think you even understand the comparison that is being made.
As for it not being about security, how many of those sign wielding morons do you think would like to take a shot at Bush?
I seriously doubt that anybody who was a real threat would advertise it like that.
Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that those people have a right to be there. What I think it is based on his statements, action, and general contempt for any contrary opinion is that he just likes to maintain his delusion that he has a mandate contrary to all the facts.
But that's just my opinion yada yada yada.
even today there are many, many countries that oppress their citizens much, much more than just by making them go protest in a fenced in area.
Sure, but I've never really given much credence to the idea that something is ok since it's worse other places. The telling point for me on this is that it's been a long time since anything that oppressive has happened here. The general trend in our history has been to greater freedom. A lot of people fought very hard to pull us this far ahead, and it seems like a real kick to their teeth to allow one single administration to drag us so far back without fighting back. I mean isn't that what patriotism is? That's what I was always taught growing up, and I come from a long time military family.
I define it as "cutting their fucking tongues out". That isn't happening, and if it ever does, you can bet I'll be taking up arms against the government.
I would argue that by that point it would be way too late for that. I think that if somebody sees it as a necessity to pull his tactics directly from the fascist playbook (on controlling the population, not genocide just to be sparkling clear) rather than by taking a position and supporting it with facts and reasoned arguments then that is the time to get rid of them, because they have established that they disagree completely with the principles that this country claims to believe in. But what do I know. I just have read a lot of history and I hold integrity to be a very high ideal.
You aren't, by chance, one of those college students who read one book by Chomsky and thinks that everything he says is the revealed truth, are you?,
No, I graduated some time ago and have only a vague idea of who Chomsky is. Isn't he a linguist or something? My remark was based on what seemed like your inability to recognize the whole cage thing as a bad thing, thanks for clearing that up.
Every human live has an atom of plutonium in their body due to a failed launch. But for the life of me, I can't remember the name.
I call mine Bob.
HTH
In theory, I suppose you could make a LOX/Aluminum hybrid rocket, but what you'd use for binder is beyond me,
See, you were doing so well up to here.
Does it really matter whether they use a peechee, trapper keeper or good old 3 ring?
I have had much better success in the stock market and nobody has siphoned off my money.
Right. That's now. That doesn't take into account artificially inflating the market by a significant percentage without adding any real value. The whole point of privitizing social security is to siphon that wealth away from the majority.
The reason the rich always get richer when Republicans are in power is because they have to redo the disasterous policies of the Democrats.
Wow. If the policies are so disasterous, then why is it that everybody gets richer? The only way in which these policies are "disasterous" is that there are less poor people, more middle class people and the rich *also* get richer. The difference is that the gap closes a bit making things better for everybody. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that. All you have to do is look at the numbers. Since WW2 at least, the country has *always* done better under Democrats. This is in terms of wealth and job creation. Try and find some actual numbers to dispute this. Good luck.
Quit bitching about rich people, holy shit. You're a fucking ingrate. Go make some fucking money, it's there, waiting for you to get off your fucking ass and work for it.
Ahh.. Typical rabid frothing nutjob response.
I do quite well, thanks. I have no problem with people getting rich. I do have a problem with the extremely rich gaming the system to increase their wealth at the expense of the poor which is standard Republican policy. It has happened every single time the Republicans have been in power since WW2 at least. No exceptions.
You are incorrect. People don't know this stuff. Go work at an ISP for a while and you'll see what I mean.
Now go reread what I said.
Either these people do not take an interest in their children, or they do not really care about bad things on the internet.
If they did, then they would take the personal responsibility to inform themselves about it.
Oh, or of course choice 3. They'll petition the government to make itself even bigger the whole time clinging to the delusion that they believe in small government and personal responsibility.
You want to talk about state rights, explain why the federal government has to intervene on this one? I am not even going to get in to it with you about gays. Nobody cares about gays, or the purported "discrimination" against them.
Which one is this? The main topic is an issue in one state. I think the foam from your rabid frothing is getting in the way of your vision.
As far as the gay issue, that's the point of my sig which you brought up.
It certainly seems that a lot of nutjobs do care, otherwise it wouldn't be an issue. It's the supposedly State's rights Repubs who are trying to make it a federal issue contrary to everything that they fraudulently claim to believe in.
You really need to take a chill pill. On second thought, don't bother. Maybe you'll give yourself an embolism and keel over. No real loss if this is any example of your thought process.