Ohio recount complete, Bush beats Kerry by 118k+ votes

[Ruined]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=366128

Well, the Ohio recount is complete and all of the massive "Bush-only" fraud and voter machine conspiracy theories you read about in Ohio caused Bush to lose a whopping 300 votes. ;)

Final tally is Bush beating Kerry by 118,457 votes. (original count was 118,775)

[zionoverfire]

All the same I'm glad they did it. I really don't want another 4 years of the Florida syndrome.

By the way we lucky people in Washington are finishing up our latest round of recounts, I'm sure we'll have our new govenor by march.

[bignick]

OMG they must count again and again until Bush loses.

[Firebrand]

The voters wanted another 4 years of competent leadership.

"Don't be afraid to make a mistake. But make sure you don't make the same mistake twice." -Akio Morita

[RedvsBlue]

The voters wanted another 4 years of competent leadership.

"Don't be afraid to make a mistake. But make sure you don't make the same mistake twice." -Akio Morita

Wow how original. :roll: Attacking the intelligence of the people who voted for Bush and implying that they made a mistake.

By the way, I'm not sure who Akio Morita is but that quote is pretty broad, I mean any Tom, Dick, or Harry could have said the same thing without ever having heard of that person.

[zionoverfire]

The voters wanted another 4 years of competent leadership.

"Don't be afraid to make a mistake. But make sure you don't make the same mistake twice." -Akio Morita

Wow how original. :roll: Attacking the intelligence of the people who voted for Bush and implying that they made a mistake.

By the way, I'm not sure who Akio Morita is but that quote is pretty broad, I mean any Tom, Dick, or Harry could have said the same thing without ever having heard of that person.

Akio Morita is one of the founders of Sony and happens to be one of Time magazines 100 greatest people.

Oh and I didn't know who he was either but I bothered to dump 10 seconds into a google search.

[Scrubking]

Was there ever any doubt?

Only among whiny, liberal losers who can't stand that they and their usually wack views are in the minority so they have to try and demean the voters by calling them dumb or whatever.

[Firebrand]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

[Backlash]

Only among whiny, liberal losers who can't stand that they and their usually wack views are in the minority so they have to try and demean the voters by calling them dumb or whatever.

I like how you always complain about other people calling names, yet you do it as bad as anyone.

[usickenme]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=366128

Well, the Ohio recount is complete and all of the massive "Bush-only" fraud and voter machine conspiracy theories you read about in Ohio caused Bush to lose a whopping 300 votes. ;)



I think the "bush-only" fraud goes well beyond 300 votes but that is what is measurable.

The facts about not enough voting machines, a million to one incorrect exit polling, problems with Diebold machines, etc. still remain.

Just because people don't want think about it, doesn't mean it is just a "theory"

[Kaijufan]

All the same I'm glad they did it. I really don't want another 4 years of the Florida syndrome.

That is nice. I got tired of hearing about Florida.

[elprincipe]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.

[jmcc]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.

You'd think so, but here we are...

[Firebrand]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

[elprincipe]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

[Firebrand]

Most Americans, whether they realize it or not, are those things.

[camoor]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

Bush won on two things, Fundamentalist Christianity and Fear. He was able to market these two aspects of his campaign chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

IMO, his actions as President have not been truly Christian (IE living up to the ideals set forth by Jesus Christ himself).

I don't agree that most Americans share these 3 values (I think ignorance and blind loyalty to the Republican party are also factors that helped Bush win). However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

[The_Continental]

Camoor,

The more I read your posts, the more curious I am about what kind of person you are. You have this air of paranoid persecution as well as several "mind control" conspiracy theories that seem pretty farfetched.

I understand that posting personal info on boards is a bad idea, but can you give some quick bio or something?

No big deal if you're not comfortable with that.

oh, and btw - both parties are funded "chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans."


The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

Bush won on two things, Fundamentalist Christianity and Fear. He was able to market these two aspects of his campaign chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

IMO, his actions as President have not been truly Christian (IE living up to the ideals set forth by Jesus Christ himself).

I don't agree that most Americans share these 3 values (I think ignorance and blind loyalty to the Republican party are also factors that helped Bush win). However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

[The_Continental]

I love it when people talk about "large corporations" like they're some sort of vulgarity born of pure evil.

Were it not for these "evil large corporations," none of us CAGers would have any games to play.

[camoor]

Camoor,

The more I read your posts, the more curious I am about what kind of person you are. You have this air of paranoid persecution as well as several "mind control" conspiracy theories that seem pretty farfetched.

I understand that posting personal info on boards is a bad idea, but can you give some quick bio or something?

No big deal if you're not comfortable with that.

oh, and btw - both parties are funded "chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans."


The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

Bush won on two things, Fundamentalist Christianity and Fear. He was able to market these two aspects of his campaign chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

IMO, his actions as President have not been truly Christian (IE living up to the ideals set forth by Jesus Christ himself).

I don't agree that most Americans share these 3 values (I think ignorance and blind loyalty to the Republican party are also factors that helped Bush win). However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

LOL I'm paranoid. When Bush won because Cheney threatened America that Osama would get them if they voted for the other guy. That's a good one, dude.

[jmcc]

Paranoia is one thing, but given the Patriot Act, and such other legislation punched through after 9/11, I don't think it's really a bad thing to be wary of the government anymore.

[MrBadExample]

I love it when people talk about "large corporations" like they're some sort of vulgarity born of pure evil.

Were it not for these "evil large corporations," none of us CAGers would have any games to play.

There have to be some checks placed on businesses. If there weren't, we wouldn't have 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, OSHA & pollution standards, etc. Given no regulation, big business would only worry about profits at the expense of the workers and environment.

I'm not saying corporations are evil, but it's always wise to keep an eye on which candidate they support financially and what they get in return. It's kinda dropped off the public radar now, but we still don't know which companies met with Cheney to discuss energy policy. Maybe nothing shady happened, but it's very curious when the White House won't even release who was at the meeting.

[The_Continental]

Not this old point again dude. Cheney's quote was:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

For anyone that doesn't know how to read, he was saying that if Kerry had won, and if we got hit again, Kerry would treat it as a law enforcement issue, not an act of war.

Whether or not what Cheney said is in fact true is debatable. Who knows how Kerry would have acted? More importantly, who cares? - but let's not debate what he actually said.

So, no bio?

Camoor,

The more I read your posts, the more curious I am about what kind of person you are. You have this air of paranoid persecution as well as several "mind control" conspiracy theories that seem pretty farfetched.

I understand that posting personal info on boards is a bad idea, but can you give some quick bio or something?

No big deal if you're not comfortable with that.

oh, and btw - both parties are funded "chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans."


The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

Bush won on two things, Fundamentalist Christianity and Fear. He was able to market these two aspects of his campaign chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

IMO, his actions as President have not been truly Christian (IE living up to the ideals set forth by Jesus Christ himself).

I don't agree that most Americans share these 3 values (I think ignorance and blind loyalty to the Republican party are also factors that helped Bush win). However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

LOL I'm paranoid. When Bush won because Cheney threatened America that Osama would get them if they voted for the other guy. That's a good one, dude.

[The_Continental]

Agreed.

I would say though that the competitve nature of the free market should act as a corporate watchdog just as much as government entities should.

Again, different CAGers will have different opinions on the balance between corporate competition and corporate regulation. I lean more toward competition - I like paying my hard earned money for quality products, and a good deal of that quality should be ensured by that competitive marketplace I always praise on these boards.

I love it when people talk about "large corporations" like they're some sort of vulgarity born of pure evil.

Were it not for these "evil large corporations," none of us CAGers would have any games to play.

There have to be some checks placed on businesses. If there weren't, we wouldn't have 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, OSHA & pollution standards, etc. Given no regulation, big business would only worry about profits at the expense of the workers and environment.

I'm not saying corporations are evil, but it's always wise to keep an eye on which candidate they support financially and what they get in return. It's kinda dropped off the public radar now, but we still don't know which companies met with Cheney to discuss energy policy. Maybe nothing shady happened, but it's very curious when the White House won't even release who was at the meeting.

[The_Continental]

Camoor, just one more question.

Are you saying that 51+ % of the voting population are Fundamentalist Christians, greed mongers, cowards, and idiots?

just wondering.

[jmcc]

Camoor, just one more question.

Are you saying that 51+ % of the voting population are Fundamentalist Christians, greed mongers, cowards, and idiots?

just wondering.

Other than the fundie category I'd say those other ones go way beyond 51%.

[camoor]

Camoor, just one more question.

Are you saying that 51+ % of the voting population are Fundamentalist Christians, greed mongers, cowards, and idiots?

just wondering.

For someone who chastises others on how to read, you sure don't do a fine job of it yourself.

However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

IE they tipped the balance.

I think most Americans don't understand how the neocon foreign policy or destructive enviornmental policies will affect their lives and the lives of their children, however ignorance may be a word that is too harsh and inflammatory for this gap in their knowledge.

I don't think that greed motivated most of the Bush supporters, however I admit that I may be naive in holding this opinion.

As far as cowardice goes, this is probably the saddest part of the whole election for me. Here we have a chicken-hawk (defending the skies of Texas in Vietnam) scaring suburban soccer-moms into sending the poorest and bravest Americans over to the middle east to fight a useless war. Somehow "support the troops" gets equated to voting for Bush.

Old prejudices against gays and misunderstandings about medical science are dressed up in the clothes of religious fundamentalism and trotted out by the administration in an effort to cull votes from self-rightous bigots and weak thinkers.

I admit that I don't understand why the military still supports Bush, but I suspect that the fact he is effectively their boss, and that most of them are actually good Christians who buy into Bush's constant Jesus marketing, has alot to do with it.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :wink:

[The_Continental]

How will they again?


I think most Americans don't understand how the neocon foreign policy or destructive enviornmental policies will affect their lives and the lives of their children....

2 questions

1. Do America's mothers fit into your "idiot" category, or the "coward" one?

2. Do you not understand that America's armed forces are run on a volunteer basis? Bush doesn't send anyone that hasn't already volunteered to go. Or is it part of his amazing "mind control" power you mentioned yesterday?


As far as cowardice goes, this is probably the saddest part of the whole election for me. Here we have a chicken-hawk (defending the skies of Texas in Vietnam) scaring suburban soccer-moms into sending the poorest and bravest Americans over to the middle east to fight a useless war. Somehow "support the troops" gets equated to voting for Bush.


I thought we cleared this up yesterday. Christianity and opposition to gay marriage are not mutually inclusive. Do we need to go through it again?

Are you saying that religious fundamentalists are "self-rightous bigots and weak thinkers?"


Old prejudices against gays and misunderstandings about medical science are dressed up in the clothes of religious fundamentalism and trotted out by the administration in an effort to cull votes from self-rightous bigots and weak thinkers.


Yeah, you're right - seems there are quite a few things you don't understand.


I admit that I don't understand why the military still supports Bush, but I suspect that the fact he is effectively their boss, and that most of them are actually good Christians who buy into Bush's constant Jesus marketing, has alot to do with it.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :wink:

Still no bio?

[camoor]

Not this old point again dude. Cheney's quote was:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

For anyone that doesn't know how to read, he was saying that if Kerry had won, and if we got hit again, Kerry would treat it as a law enforcement issue, not an act of war.

Whether or not what Cheney said is in fact true is debatable. Who knows how Kerry would have acted? More importantly, who cares? - but let's not debate what he actually said.


I don't read it like that at all.

If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again <pause>

Cheney knew exactly what he was doing here, a nice crisp sound bite for the press that he could later deny was part of a long, rambling, esoteric comment about whether or not prosecutors should be forced to use criminal law when they suspect defendants of being terrorists that perhaps 3% of America is going to pick up on. It's the classic hit-and-run style of politicing that is a trademark of any Karl Rove campaign.

[jmcc]

How will it again?


I think most Americans don't understand how the neocon foreign policy or destructive enviornmental policies will affect their lives and the lives of their children....

2 questions

1. Do America's mothers fit into your "idiot" category, or the "coward" one?

2. Do you not understand that America's armed forces are run on a volunteer basis? Bush doesn't send anyone that hasn't already volunteered to go. Or is it part of his amazing "mind control" power you mentioned yesterday?

1. Clearly they do. Have you seen some of the initiatives mothers have got behind here?

2. For how long? If we're dedicated to Iraq's stability (we're not, so this is all hypothetical) it's going to require long term occupation on our part. Do you expect people to keep signing up to go there or re-enlisting to stay?


As far as cowardice goes, this is probably the saddest part of the whole election for me. Here we have a chicken-hawk (defending the skies of Texas in Vietnam) scaring suburban soccer-moms into sending the poorest and bravest Americans over to the middle east to fight a useless war. Somehow "support the troops" gets equated to voting for Bush.


I thought we cleared this up yesterday. Christianity and opposition to gay marriage are not mutually inclusive. Do we need to go through it again?

Are you saying that religious fundamentalists are "self-rightous bigots and weak thinkers?"

Following a 2000 year old book rather than common sense and reason smacks of weak thinking and bigotry, wouldn't you say?


Old prejudices against gays and misunderstandings about medical science are dressed up in the clothes of religious fundamentalism and trotted out by the administration in an effort to cull votes from self-rightous bigots and weak thinkers.


Yeah, you're right - seems there are quite a few things you don't understand.

An ad hominem attack?


I admit that I don't understand why the military still supports Bush, but I suspect that the fact he is effectively their boss, and that most of them are actually good Christians who buy into Bush's constant Jesus marketing, has alot to do with it.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :wink:

Still no bio?

Isn't that about the 3rd time you've asked for a bio? It's not really important to the issue if you're going to stick to facts, is it?

[The_Continental]

Oh, I get what you're saying, Cheney went out of his way to put unnatural "pauses" in his sentence so as to give media outlets a sound bite making him sound like an asshole and to give elitists like you a reason to accuse him of being a fear monger.

That makes sense.

Not this old point again dude. Cheney's quote was:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

For anyone that doesn't know how to read, he was saying that if Kerry had won, and if we got hit again, Kerry would treat it as a law enforcement issue, not an act of war.

Whether or not what Cheney said is in fact true is debatable. Who knows how Kerry would have acted? More importantly, who cares? - but let's not debate what he actually said.


I don't read it like that at all.

If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again <pause>

Cheney knew exactly what he was doing here, a nice crisp sound bite for the press that he could later deny was part of a long, rambling, esoteric comment about whether or not prosecutors should be forced to use criminal law when they suspect defendants of being terrorists that perhaps 3% of America is going to pick up on. It's the classic hit-and-run style of politicing that is a trademark of any Karl Rove campaign.

[The_Continental]

jmcc,

you're right, the bio isn't relevant to the facts - just to satisfy my curiosity.

My guess is that Camoor is a mid to upper class white guy - maybe in college, or just recently out of college - perhaps majored in one of the social "sciences."

I see that he lives in Arlington, so he must have a fair amount of money - or at least his dad does.

My guess is that he's never once faced social, political, religious, or economic strife in his life.

I just want to know if I'm right.

and to answer your two questions:

1. Heh

2. Yes - Bush's victory demonstrates that.

[camoor]

Oh, I get what you're saying, Cheney went out of his way to put unnatural "pauses" in his sentence so as to give media outlets a sound bite making him sound like an asshole and to give elitists like you a reason to accuse him of being a fear monger.

That makes sense.


He did it that one time to scare people into voting for Bush. And I bet it worked.

Just like swift boat, fliiiip-floooooper and "support the troops". All were over-simplifications or lies based on half-truths, the kind of stuff that Fox news loves to hammer 24/7.

[The_Continental]

Man, you've got all the talking points memorized! Impressive!

So what your saying is that Cheney went out of his way to put unnatural "pauses" in his sentence so as to give media outlets a sound bite making him sound like an asshole and to give elitists like you a reason to accuse him of being a fear monger - so that he could "scare people into voting for Bush."

That make even more sense.

Oh, and if you honestly believe what you're saying (which I'm not sure you do) - you wouldn't have to "bet that it worked," unless of course you're not totally sure of the validity of your own words.

Still no bio, eh?

Oh, I get what you're saying, Cheney went out of his way to put unnatural "pauses" in his sentence so as to give media outlets a sound bite making him sound like an asshole and to give elitists like you a reason to accuse him of being a fear monger.

That makes sense.


He did it that one time to scare people into voting for Bush. And I bet it worked.

Just like swift boat, fliiiip-floooooper and "support the troops". All were over-simplifications or lies based on half-truths, the kind of stuff that Fox news loves to hammer 24/7.

[camoor]

Oh, and if you honestly believe what you're saying (which I'm not sure you do) - you wouldn't have to "bet that it worked," unless of course you're not totally sure of the validity of your own words.


I have an educated guess as to his comment's effect, but it's not a 100% provable fact. That doesn't mean that I'm not confident in my opinion.

[camoor]

Still no bio, eh?

When attempting to answer questions about justice and public policy, I like to employ what philosopher John Rawls called "The Veil of Ignorance". Here's a good description:


"Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other."

Thus, the key is that people make decisions based on what is good for their community as a whole, and without regard to their own self-interest (since they operate behind a veil of ignorance and don't know enough about what would benefit them).

http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/stories/2002/07/18/theVeilOfIgnorance.html

I realize that it may be idealist, but I think that the concept of the veil is a very useful one when discussing issues about politics and fairness.
If you think about it, the internet affords each of us the ability to use the veil and get to the heart of social and political issues. I intend to use it.

[gamefreak]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

Bush won on two things, Fundamentalist Christianity and Fear. He was able to market these two aspects of his campaign chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

IMO, his actions as President have not been truly Christian (IE living up to the ideals set forth by Jesus Christ himself).

I don't agree that most Americans share these 3 values (I think ignorance and blind loyalty to the Republican party are also factors that helped Bush win). However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

Fear? Here's what Micheal Moore had to say about fear.
"I don’t know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than die from an act of terror." - Before the Airing of BBC's Question Time on September 11, 2002

Yeah, I don't know why we're making such a big deal about the ~3,000 people that died in a terrorist attack on our country. Maybe they just had it coming eh? :roll:

And so what if Bush is Christian? Would you rather deny Christians the right to vote? The people choose him for who he was and he happens to be a devout Christian person. Even the President has the right to religious freedom.

[Firebrand]

Even the President has the right to religious freedom.
...and the right to selectively choose nations to attack in a war against terror, a war which cannot be won using terror itself (if it can be won at all). Atrocities are being committed elsewhere in the world. Why start with Iraq? Opportunism.

[camoor]

And so what if Bush is Christian?

So what indeed. I really don't care what Bush believes, he just needs to stop exploiting the name of Jesus every 30 seconds and he's got to get off this quest to put Christian biblical law into the Constitution and Federal law.

I don't know if you realize this, but I also voted for a Christian in the last election.

[jmcc]

I don't care that he's Christian, nor that he uses the fact to manipulate people into voting for him. It's when he starts trying to mix religion into his policies that's bad. Get votes however you want, I say, but obey the constitution if you get the job.

[camoor]

Yeah, I don't know why we're making such a big deal about the ~3,000 people that died in a terrorist attack on our country. Maybe they just had it coming eh? :roll:

Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda (the guys who attacked the trade towers) were stationed in Afganistan.

Almost all Americans, including myself, supported the war in Afganistan.

WMDs, not terrorism, was the reason given to the American people for starting a war in Iraq. Turned out not to be true.

So you can get an idea of what's going on, in the map below Afganistan is the purple nation all the way to the right. Iraq is the pink nation in the center.

http://us.aminet.net/pix/map/MiddleEast.jpg

[bmulligan]

Camoor, you need to take off your veil. The people have decided what's in the best interest of the 'common good' and voted for Bush. The onerous task is now upon your shoulders to accept this and stop acting in your own self-interest.

[camoor]

Camoor, you need to take off your veil. The people have decided what's in the best interest of the 'common good' and voted for Bush. The onerous task is now upon your shoulders to accept this and stop acting in your own self-interest.

The majority is not always right. History has proved this fact again and again.

I'll think for myself, thanks all the same.

[bmulligan]

But you're not supposed to think for yourself, you're supposed to think for the good of everyone

[Firebrand]

Camoor, you need to take off your veil. The people have decided what's in the best interest of the 'common good' and voted for Bush. The onerous task is now upon your shoulders to accept this and stop acting in your own self-interest.
In order to be credible, you must be truthful to yourself and others.

George W. Bush is a lie. He isn't really president. Truth be told, he has never really done anything.

[camoor]

But you're not supposed to think for yourself, you're supposed to think for the good of everyone

I can't tell if you're mocking social philosophy or being serious.

Anyway, I do think about what would be just for everyone, but remember, people don't necessarily have to like what they justly deserve.

After all, I don't expect Scott Peterson to enjoy his trip to the electric chair.

[jmcc]

But you're not supposed to think for yourself, you're supposed to think for the good of everyone

Unless you're Yakov Smirnoff, you'd better quit stealing his bit.

[helava]

Oh, man. It's been a while since I've bothered to read this board, and it's nice to see the right wing doucebags are still right wing douchebags.

And re: "America's Mothers" - nice rhetoric, but "America's Mothers" don't vote in a block. Some mothers are complete f**king morons, some are intelligent.

I just think it's hilarious that you guys are still behind this chump. It's like you've made the choice to drive in a particular direction, and even though you *see* the cliff there, you're just gonna keep driving, 'cause well, you're totally, totally unable to deal with reality. Anyway - it's really goddamn funny.

Thanks!
seppo

[gamefreak]

In order to be credible, you must be truthful to yourself and others.

George W. Bush is a lie. He isn't really president. Truth be told, he has never really done anything.

Electorial Votes:
Bush: 286
Kerry: 251


286>251 and as you only need a simple majority to win, Bush is the president.

What's the big deal about him trying to get Christian votes? No one round here complains when people try to get minority votes...

[Firebrand]

In order to be credible, you must be truthful to yourself and others.

George W. Bush is a lie. He isn't really president. Truth be told, he has never really done anything.

Electorial Votes:
Bush: 286
Kerry: 251


286>251 and as you only need a simple majority to win, Bush is the president.

What's the big deal about him trying to get Christian votes? No one round here complains when people try to get minority votes...
He's president of the United States, but we know he couldn't conjure an original thought or write a policy if his life depended on it. The man quite simply is a mockery.

[elprincipe]

Most Americans, whether they realize it or not, are those things.

Do you live in the U.S.? If so, you need to get out more and meet more people, not to mention be an eensie bit less pessimistic. If not, you obviously know jack about our country.

[elprincipe]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Only a fool would believe that most Americans don't share a good deal of common values.
Hypocrisy, greediness and cowardice.

Yes, most Americans don't like those things.

Bush won on two things, Fundamentalist Christianity and Fear. He was able to market these two aspects of his campaign chiefly through donations from huge corporations and the wealthiest of Americans.

IMO, his actions as President have not been truly Christian (IE living up to the ideals set forth by Jesus Christ himself).

I don't agree that most Americans share these 3 values (I think ignorance and blind loyalty to the Republican party are also factors that helped Bush win). However I do think that voters who acted on feelings of greediness, cowardice, and a false sense that Bush was a great Christian gave the Bush campaign the edge it needed to win the election.

You're contradicting yourself. You say that Americans are hypocritical, greedy and cowardly, yet you also say more voted for Bush because he was more of a fundamentalist Christian. You realize that these are mutually exclusive, don't you? If you're a devout Christian surely you believe in strong moral values and charity, things that are virtual opposites of hypocrisy, greed and cowardice.

[elprincipe]

Paranoia is one thing, but given the Patriot Act, and such other legislation punched through after 9/11, I don't think it's really a bad thing to be wary of the government anymore.

Good. Everyone should be very wary of government all the time, not just when the "other party" is in power (for your Dem/Rep partisans).

[Drocket]

If you're a devout Christian surely you believe in strong moral values and charity, things that are virtual opposites of hypocrisy, greed and cowardice.
A lot of people may believe in them, but not many people practice them. That's where the hypocrisy comes in.

[elprincipe]

He's president of the United States, but we know he couldn't conjure an original thought or write a policy if his life depended on it. The man quite simply is a mockery.

I bet you don't know one thing about him other than what you've seen on TV or read in a newspaper or magazine. However, with your amazing ESP powers, you can deduce that he "couldn't conjure an original thought." How brave and logical of you. :roll:

EDIT: damn, now you've gone so far that you have ME defending Bush! :?

[elprincipe]

If you're a devout Christian surely you believe in strong moral values and charity, things that are virtual opposites of hypocrisy, greed and cowardice.
A lot of people may believe in them, but not many people practice them. That's where the hypocrisy comes in.

You all sure are a pessimistic bunch. You need to meet some new people and get a better outlook on life.

[Firebrand]

He's president of the United States, but we know he couldn't conjure an original thought or write a policy if his life depended on it. The man quite simply is a mockery.

I bet you don't know one thing about him other than what you've seen on TV or read in a newspaper or magazine. However, with your amazing ESP powers, you can deduce that he "couldn't conjure an original thought." How brave and logical of you. :roll:

EDIT: damn, now you've gone so far that you have ME defending Bush! :?
One needn't look further than the list of his personal accomplishments.

"The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper." -Thomas Jefferson

[elprincipe]

He's president of the United States, but we know he couldn't conjure an original thought or write a policy if his life depended on it. The man quite simply is a mockery.

I bet you don't know one thing about him other than what you've seen on TV or read in a newspaper or magazine. However, with your amazing ESP powers, you can deduce that he "couldn't conjure an original thought." How brave and logical of you. :roll:

EDIT: damn, now you've gone so far that you have ME defending Bush! :?
One needn't look further than the list of his personal accomplishments.

"The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper." -Thomas Jefferson

You mean like he graduated from Yale?

[Firebrand]

He's president of the United States, but we know he couldn't conjure an original thought or write a policy if his life depended on it. The man quite simply is a mockery.

I bet you don't know one thing about him other than what you've seen on TV or read in a newspaper or magazine. However, with your amazing ESP powers, you can deduce that he "couldn't conjure an original thought." How brave and logical of you. :roll:

EDIT: damn, now you've gone so far that you have ME defending Bush! :?
One needn't look further than the list of his personal accomplishments.

"The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper." -Thomas Jefferson

You mean like he graduated from Yale?
Due to personal diligence no doubt.

[JSweeney]

So Firebrand, how would you stand up if people came in and overanalyzed every facet of your personal life?

[Firebrand]

So Firebrand, how would you stand up if people came in and overanalyzed every facet of your personal life?
A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

[zionoverfire]

So Firebrand, how would you stand up if people came in and overanalyzed every facet of your personal life?
A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

Most of our presidents have been Fortunate sons, now granted they were fortunate mentally as well as socially.

[Firebrand]

So Firebrand, how would you stand up if people came in and overanalyzed every facet of your personal life?
A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

Most of our presidents have been Fortunate sons, now granted they were fortunate mentally as well as socially.
And that is my point.

[JSweeney]

A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

Care to lace into Regan for being an actor?
Perhaps Kennedy for being a "fortunate son"?

[Firebrand]

A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

Care to lace into Regan for being an actor?
Perhaps Kennedy for being a "fortunate son"?
There are exceptions, certainly, but this latest exception takes things a bit too far, wouldn't you say? Competence should be requisite.

[jmcc]

Care to lace into Regan for being an actor?
Perhaps Kennedy for being a "fortunate son"?

Reagan can be laced into for LOTS of other stuff besides being an actor. His economic policies and anti-drug stance, among others. And to compare Kennedy, with his pro-civil rights agenda and pro-science (space program), to Bush and his movements against homosexuals, Muslims and stem cells, is insulting, to say the least.

[JSweeney]

Care to lace into Regan for being an actor?
Perhaps Kennedy for being a "fortunate son"?

Reagan can be laced into for LOTS of other stuff besides being an actor. His economic policies and anti-drug stance, among others. And to compare Kennedy, with his pro-civil rights agenda and pro-science (space program), to Bush and his movements against homosexuals, Muslims and stem cells, is insulting, to say the least.

Of course. But in this last little period, it's not been Bush's policies Firebrand's been talking about. Any reasonable person could debate those faults quite well and put up a con point of view for everything Bush has done.

Those are much more compelling than arguing about this somewhat imaginary image of Bush being an incompetent moron who only got the office by riding Daddy's coattails. He may not be the most eloquent president ever, and I wouldn't doubt that many other presidents were more intellegent.

Attack what he's done, his beliefs, whatever. But really, most of what Firebrand is doing is hardly a step above juvenile namecalling.

[zionoverfire]

Care to lace into Regan for being an actor?
Perhaps Kennedy for being a "fortunate son"?

Reagan can be laced into for LOTS of other stuff besides being an actor. His economic policies and anti-drug stance, among others. And to compare Kennedy, with his pro-civil rights agenda and pro-science (space program), to Bush and his movements against homosexuals, Muslims and stem cells, is insulting, to say the least.

Of course. But in this last little period, it's not been Bush's policies Firebrand's been talking about. Any reasonable person could debate those faults quite well and put up a con point of view for everything Bush has done.

Those are much more compelling than arguing about this somewhat imaginary image of Bush being an incompetent moron who only got the office by riding Daddy's coattails. He may not be the most eloquent president ever, and I wouldn't doubt that many other presidents were more intellegent.

Attack what he's done, his beliefs, whatever. But really, most of what Firebrand is doing is hardly a step above juvenile namecalling.

Your forgetting to consider the president as a figure head, after all he represents the country not only in his actions but also his appearance. When he gives a speech and uses non-existant words he portrays an image of us for the rest of the world that we have been trying since before the revolutionary war to remove. While images can be overcome its not the best idea to have Europe thinking your leader is incompetent when you want to drag them into a war, that is strongly opposed.

[JSweeney]

Your forgetting to consider the president as a figure head, after all he represents the country not only in his actions but also his appearance.

Attacking his appearance would be preferable.
In my mind, there is a difference between "Bush looks/conducts himself like an idiot" to "Bush is an idiot".


When he gives a speech and uses non-existant words he portrays an image of us for the rest of the world that we have been trying since before the revolutionary war to remove.

That would be attacking his actions, which is much more preferable.
Perhaps it's just me, but I find a vast difference between
"Bush looked like an idiot because he used non-existant words" to
"Bush is an idiot".


While images can be overcome its not the best idea to have Europe thinking your leader is incompetent when you want to drag them into a war, that is strongly opposed.

I'd agree. But attacking what is the real issue is much more useful that petty namecalling.
"Bush's recent actions made him look like an idiot", or "That speech made Bush look like an idiot" are valid complaints.
"Bush is an idiot" is just about useless, and adds little but derisiveness to a converation.

[Firebrand]

I'd agree. But attacking what is the real issue is much more useful that petty namecalling.
"Bush's recent actions made him look like an idiot", or "That speech made Bush look like an idiot" are valid complaints.
"Bush is an idiot" is just about useless, and adds little but derisiveness to a converation.
You want specific examples? We are all aware of the constant bumbles and idiocies. To humor you would be a pointless exercise.

Ponder this for a moment. If all of these public blunders of his can be explained by a simple fear of public speaking, then a question must be posed: Should such a person be president of the United States? Open to the worlds scrutiny, a poor speaker/thinker will be torn to shreds. The chief representative of the world's foremost nation shouldn't be a woeful simpleton.

[JSweeney]

You want specific examples? We are all aware of the constant bumbles and idiocies. To humor you would be a pointless exercise.

You don't seem to be getting the point.
Calling someone an idiot is much different that saying they act like, or appear to be an idiot. One can be back up with examples. The other is just petty name calling and serves no purpose. Many of the things you were stating were more of the former than the later.


Ponder this for a moment. If all of these public blunders of his can be explained by a simple fear of public speaking, then a question must be posed: Should such a person be president of the United States? Open to the worlds scrutiny, a poor speaker/thinker will be torn to shreds.

This is a valid critique...

The chief representative of the world's foremost nation shouldn't be a woeful simpleton.
and then you go and ruin it with namecalling.

[CaseyRyback]

I will chime in and say that just because you are incredibly smart and a great person, it does not mean you will be a great president. If it did, the peanut farmer from Georgia would have won a second term.

This can be cited again with Bush Sr. Probably the most qualified man to ever be president

[gamefreak]

So Firebrand, how would you stand up if people came in and overanalyzed every facet of your personal life?
A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

He was able to get 62 million people to vote for him. That's a pretty impressive feat isn't it? If I recall correctly, no where in the Constitution does it say you must be a war hero or a scholar. The way some liberals talk I'd think they'd perfer an average American as opposed to someone who has money.

[Firebrand]

So Firebrand, how would you stand up if people came in and overanalyzed every facet of your personal life?
A president should be an exceptional individual. Let's not set the bar too low. American presidents have been scholars, inventors, war heroes, etc. Fortunate sons? America deserves better.

He was able to get 62 million people to vote for him. That's a pretty impressive feat isn't it? If I recall correctly, no where in the Constitution does it say you must be a war hero or a scholar. The way some liberals talk I'd think they'd perfer an average American as opposed to someone who has money.
Does the end justify the means?

[Drocket]

He was able to get 62 million people to vote for him. That's a pretty impressive feat isn't it?
In theory, yes. In reality, it just proves that there's a whole lot of stupid Americans. Even if you do give Bush some credit for it, it really isn't Bush who should get the credit but Carl Rove.

If I recall correctly, no where in the Constitution does it say you must be a war hero or a scholar.
I think they just assumed that most Americans would vote for qualified canidates. They were far too optimistic. Well, except Washington, who predicted that political parties would destroy the country. He had a pretty good grasp of reality.

The way some liberals talk I'd think they'd perfer an average American as opposed to someone who has money.
You mean someone with intelligence, skill and discipline, who worked hard their entire life to climb to the top, overcoming obsticles and learning hard life lessons, as opposed to someone who was born at the top and had money dumped on him by rich oil barons hoping to curry favor with his father, the president? Sounds good to me.

[spoo]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.
*Sigh* Why are we divided? I am sick of hearing presidential debates two moths after an election. If we are divided it is because of people like you that won’t let bygones be bygones. As an American I Believe we police our selves well, if a President gets out of hand we will deal with it. Bush has yet to do that (and don''t give me some Fahrenheit 911 Bullshit!)

Edit: My First "CAG's vs. mode: Politics and Other Such Controversies" Post

[Firebrand]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.
*Sigh* Why are we divided? I am sick of hearing presidential debates two moths after an election. If we are divided it is because of people like you that won’t let bygones be bygones. As an American I Believe we police our selves well, if a President gets out of hand we will deal with it. Bush has yet to do that (and don''t give me some Fahrenheit 911 Bullshit!)

Edit: My First "CAG's vs. mode: Politics and Other Such Controversies" Post
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it." -Niccolo Machiavelli

[spoo]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.
*Sigh* Why are we divided? I am sick of hearing presidential debates two moths after an election. If we are divided it is because of people like you that won’t let bygones be bygones. As an American I Believe we police our selves well, if a President gets out of hand we will deal with it. Bush has yet to do that (and don''t give me some Fahrenheit 911 Bullshit!)

Edit: My First "CAG's vs. mode: Politics and Other Such Controversies" Post
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it." -Niccolo Machiavelli
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill

[gamefreak]

Firebrand who is that a picture of in your avatar? Am I seeing things right?

Welcome spoo!

[Firebrand]

Firebrand who is that a picture of in your avatar? Am I seeing things right?

Welcome spoo!
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Dictators.

Bush is a tactless fool as evidenced by the following quotes.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." -George W. Bush

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," -George W. Bush

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," -George W. Bush

[gamefreak]

Firebrand who is that a picture of in your avatar? Am I seeing things right?

Welcome spoo!
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler. Dictators.

Bush is a tactless fool as evidenced by the following quotes.

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." -George W. Bush

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," -George W. Bush

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it," -George W. Bush

And what is the context and sources of those quotes? On the internet it's not that hard to slap stuff around some quotes and voila, someone looks bad.

[Drocket]

Just out of curiosity, in what context would those quotes look good?

[zionoverfire]

Just out of curiosity, in what context would those quotes look good?

Actually they really don't look that bad, infact I'd say those are some of his better moments. They show a decent comprehension of the benefits of a dictatorship while also demonstrating its faults.

[gamefreak]

He could be referring to leaving Saddam as a dictator being easier than removing him.

[Firebrand]

He could be referring to leaving Saddam as a dictator being easier than removing him.
Not quite.

"He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. But it's not, and he's glad it's a democracy." -Joshua B. Bolten, Director of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

[elprincipe]

The United States is divided. Only a fool would think otherwise.
*Sigh* Why are we divided? I am sick of hearing presidential debates two moths after an election. If we are divided it is because of people like you that won’t let bygones be bygones. As an American I Believe we police our selves well, if a President gets out of hand we will deal with it. Bush has yet to do that (and don''t give me some Fahrenheit 911 Bullshit!)

Edit: My First "CAG's vs. mode: Politics and Other Such Controversies" Post
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it." -Niccolo Machiavelli

"I'm for leaving the status quo behind." -- Geoff Tate

Wow, I agree with you on something...but thinking about it more, I'm not sure I do when considering what you want to replace the status quo.

[elprincipe]

He could be referring to leaving Saddam as a dictator being easier than removing him.
Not quite.

"He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship. But it's not, and he's glad it's a democracy." -Joshua B. Bolten, Director of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget)

From that it sounds like you are intentionally misconstruing what he really meant. Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing. Go seek out some rumors on the Internets.

[camoor]

...Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing.

Sounds like someone finally saw the light.

This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
- George W. Bush

Please don't kill me!
-- George W. Bush, sadistically mocking condemned killer Karla Faye Tucker, complete with whimpering voice, in an interview with Talk Magazine's Tucker Carlson

I don't think that witchcraft is a religion.
-- George W. Bush (Damned enviornmental enthusiasts. Burn 'em at the stake, Georgy!)

After all, religion has been around a lot longer than Darwinism.
-- George W. Bush (Hey Bushy, Paganism has been around alot longer then the magic carpenter :twisted: )

I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed.
Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof,
In official recognition whereof,
I hereby affix my signature this
17th day of April, 2000.
-- George W. Bush (save me jebus!)

You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.
-- George W. Bush (Bush fail English? That's unpossible!)

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.
-- George W. Bush

You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.
-- George W. Bush

[elprincipe]

...Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing.

Sounds like someone finally saw the light.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Any honest person will tell you that Bush has said some pretty stupid things, and you have listed some of them already. However, I do agree with some of his policies and I think people saying "Bush is an idiot" are dweebs.

If you meant by "seeing the light" that somehow now I don't like Bush and before I did, that is not an accurate statement. I don't really have a positive or negative opinion of him personally, but I have very mixed opinions on what he's done as president and overall I think he's done a pretty poor job, especially on budgetary matters.

[camoor]

...Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing.

Sounds like someone finally saw the light.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Any honest person will tell you that Bush has said some pretty stupid things, and you have listed some of them already. However, I do agree with some of his policies and I think people saying "Bush is an idiot" are dweebs.

If you meant by "seeing the light" that somehow now I don't like Bush and before I did, that is not an accurate statement. I don't really have a positive or negative opinion of him personally, but I have very mixed opinions on what he's done as president and overall I think he's done a pretty poor job, especially on budgetary matters.

Cool, I guess we're on the same side of the fence when judging Bush, however my judgement is harsher.

I have a hard time thinking of anything Bush has done which could not have been done better.

The man is just not intelligent. There is something to be said for the effects of a person's enviornment, had Bush been born in the inner city or a trailer-home, he would be filling my gas at the local Exxon.

[JSweeney]

I have a hard time thinking of anything Bush has done which could not have been done better.
Nah, Zell Miller did A MUCH, MUCH better job making a fool of himself at the RNC than Bush ever did.

[helava]

You mean like he graduated from Yale?

I don't know whether you were being sarcastic or not, but because I've seen this type of argument posted before, I'll bite:

Do you know what it takes to graduate from Yale when your dad's a prestigious alum?

Nothing.

They won't kick you out, no matter how badly you're doing. You won't get a grade below a C-, even if you never take a test, and never show up to a class.

Bush graduating from Yale is as impressive as me taking a piss in the morning. Same with his tenure at Harvard. A C- grade Ivy League student is barely doing anything. A C- grade Ivy League student who's the son of a prestigious alum probably hasn't been doing anything school related at all.

And believe me, if you think otherwise, you have no goddamn clue about how the Ivy League system works.

seppo

[elprincipe]

...Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing.

Sounds like someone finally saw the light.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Any honest person will tell you that Bush has said some pretty stupid things, and you have listed some of them already. However, I do agree with some of his policies and I think people saying "Bush is an idiot" are dweebs.

If you meant by "seeing the light" that somehow now I don't like Bush and before I did, that is not an accurate statement. I don't really have a positive or negative opinion of him personally, but I have very mixed opinions on what he's done as president and overall I think he's done a pretty poor job, especially on budgetary matters.

Cool, I guess we're on the same side of the fence when judging Bush, however my judgement is harsher.

I have a hard time thinking of anything Bush has done which could not have been done better.

The man is just not intelligent. There is something to be said for the effects of a person's enviornment, had Bush been born in the inner city or a trailer-home, he would be filling my gas at the local Exxon.

Just about everything anybody does could be done better. Based on previous life decisions like DUI and arrest for drunk & disorderly conduct, I'd say there is some strong evidence for at least saying Bush wasn't a very mature and intelligent young man. However, people can change and you have to respect that he had the willpower to overcome a drinking problem and quit and also that he has upheld his marriage vows. I think none of us know him personally so it's kind of hard to say whether he's a nice person or not.

[camoor]

...Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing.

Sounds like someone finally saw the light.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Any honest person will tell you that Bush has said some pretty stupid things, and you have listed some of them already. However, I do agree with some of his policies and I think people saying "Bush is an idiot" are dweebs.

If you meant by "seeing the light" that somehow now I don't like Bush and before I did, that is not an accurate statement. I don't really have a positive or negative opinion of him personally, but I have very mixed opinions on what he's done as president and overall I think he's done a pretty poor job, especially on budgetary matters.

Cool, I guess we're on the same side of the fence when judging Bush, however my judgement is harsher.

I have a hard time thinking of anything Bush has done which could not have been done better.

The man is just not intelligent. There is something to be said for the effects of a person's enviornment, had Bush been born in the inner city or a trailer-home, he would be filling my gas at the local Exxon.

Just about everything anybody does could be done better. Based on previous life decisions like DUI and arrest for drunk & disorderly conduct, I'd say there is some strong evidence for at least saying Bush wasn't a very mature and intelligent young man. However, people can change and you have to respect that he had the willpower to overcome a drinking problem and quit and also that he has upheld his marriage vows. I think none of us know him personally so it's kind of hard to say whether he's a nice person or not.

I do respect the fact that he quit drinking and has upheld his marriage vows. I really don't care whether he is a friendly guy, as long as he is a competent president.

Sobriety and marital fidelity are not the only qualifications for being a sucessful US President (In fact, marital fidelity has very little to do with running a country effectively)

[elprincipe]

...Come on Firebrand, this is Bush we're talking about. Surely you can come up with something more embarassing.

Sounds like someone finally saw the light.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Any honest person will tell you that Bush has said some pretty stupid things, and you have listed some of them already. However, I do agree with some of his policies and I think people saying "Bush is an idiot" are dweebs.

If you meant by "seeing the light" that somehow now I don't like Bush and before I did, that is not an accurate statement. I don't really have a positive or negative opinion of him personally, but I have very mixed opinions on what he's done as president and overall I think he's done a pretty poor job, especially on budgetary matters.

Cool, I guess we're on the same side of the fence when judging Bush, however my judgement is harsher.

I have a hard time thinking of anything Bush has done which could not have been done better.

The man is just not intelligent. There is something to be said for the effects of a person's enviornment, had Bush been born in the inner city or a trailer-home, he would be filling my gas at the local Exxon.

Just about everything anybody does could be done better. Based on previous life decisions like DUI and arrest for drunk & disorderly conduct, I'd say there is some strong evidence for at least saying Bush wasn't a very mature and intelligent young man. However, people can change and you have to respect that he had the willpower to overcome a drinking problem and quit and also that he has upheld his marriage vows. I think none of us know him personally so it's kind of hard to say whether he's a nice person or not.

I do respect the fact that he quit drinking and has upheld his marriage vows. I really don't care whether he is a friendly guy, as long as he is a competent president.

Sobriety and marital fidelity are not the only qualifications for being a sucessful US President (In fact, marital fidelity has very little to do with running a country effectively)

Obviously that is true, even though lack of such can bring disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president as well as the individual, as we saw with Clinton. Of course, this was only brought up in response to people making personal attacks against someone they don't know personally, so as to provide some facts on the subject even while conceding that no one here really knows that much about it.

[helava]

Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo

[Scrubking]

Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:

[ZarathosNY]

Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:

When it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.....yes

[The_Continental]

I guess the law only applies in respect to the "matter at hand"...

I should have figured. :-s

Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:

When it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.....yes

[MrBadExample]

I will take a President who lies about a blowjob over one who lies about reasons to go to war.

[ZarathosNY]

I guess the law only applies in respect to the "matter at hand"...

I should have figured. :-s

Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:

When it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.....yes

That is the definition of law.

[JSweeney]

No, this is the definition of law.

law
noun

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

2.
a.The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b.The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.

3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.

4. A piece of enacted legislation.

5.
a.The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law.
b.Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law.
c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law.

6.
a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law... stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody).
b. Informal. A police officer. Often used with the.

7.
a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence.
b. Knowledge of law.
c. The profession of an attorney.

8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law.

9.Law
a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible.
b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature.

11.
a.A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship.
b.A way of life: the law of the jungle.

12.
a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.
13. Mathematics. A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.
14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.

intr.v. lawed, law·ing, laws
To go to law; litigate.

Idioms:
a law unto (oneself)
A totally independent operator: An executive who is a law unto herself.

take the law into (one's) own hands
To mete out justice as one sees fit without due recourse to law enforcement agencies or the courts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Old English lagu, from Old Norse *lagu, variant of lag, that which is laid down. See legh- in Indo-European Roots.]

[The_Continental]

From The American Heritage Dictionary - where is the "matter at hand" part?

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. 2a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior. 3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law. 4. A piece of enacted legislation. 5a. The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law. b. Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law. c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law. 6a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law . . . stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody). b. Informal A police officer. Often used with the. 7a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence. b. Knowledge of law. c. The profession of an attorney. 8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law. 9. Law a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible. b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature. 11a. A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship. b. A way of life: the law of the jungle. 12a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand. 13. Mathematics A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions. 14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.

[The_Continental]

Dang - sweeney beat me to it.

[jmcc]

From The American Heritage Dictionary - where is the "matter at hand" part?

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. 2a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law. b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior. 3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law. 4. A piece of enacted legislation. 5a. The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law. b. Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law. c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law. 6a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: “The law . . . stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo” (Sid Moody). b. Informal A police officer. Often used with the. 7a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence. b. Knowledge of law. c. The profession of an attorney. 8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law. 9. Law a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible. b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. 10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature. 11a. A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship. b. A way of life: the law of the jungle. 12a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity. b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand. 13. Mathematics A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions. 14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.

[Frank Booth]American Heritage?! F.uck that shit! Oxford English![/Frank Booth]

[Firebrand]

To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.

[elprincipe]

To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb thing to say.

[Firebrand]

To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb thing to say.
It was a natural thing to say. Life is an opportunity.

[The_Continental]

This makes me wonder whether your avatar is meant to be ironic...

To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.

[The_Continental]

Actually, so does this.

To pay so much attention to a single transgression is to admit that there was very little to complain about in the first place.

I'm sorry, but that's just a dumb thing to say.
It was a natural thing to say. Life is an opportunity.

[Firebrand]

Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.

[JSweeney]

Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.

Few give a rat's ass about the infidelity issue.
It's the lying under oath that pissed people off.

[The_Continental]

Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.

Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.

Few give a rat's ass about the infidelity issue.
It's the lying under oath that pissed people off.

[camoor]

Before you get ahead of yourself, I ask you to consider context. It was written in response to the Clinton posts, particularly the ones which focused on the infidelity issue.

Few give a rat's ass about the infidelity issue.
It's the lying under oath that pissed people off.

How do you think people would react if a scandal erupted in which Bush was having a sexual affair on the side?

I agree that it was illegal and immoral for Clinton to lie under oath, but I have to think that at least half of America was more outraged over the nature of the lie (IE his extra-maritial sex).

[Drocket]

Actually, my estimate of the breakdown is more along the lines of:

60% - couldn't care less about the lying under oath stuff (and in fact often didn't know about it or understand it), but was titillated by the whole presidential blowjob thing
30% - couldn't care less about the lying under oath stuff (and in fact often didn't know about it or understand it) OR the blowjob thing
10% - hated Clinton and would take any excuse they could come up with to attack him. STILL mostly didn't know or understand the 'lying under oath' stuff.

Seriously, if you took a poll of America, I guarantee you 75%+ of the population have no clue about the lying under oath beyond some Jay Leno joke about the definition of the word 'is'.

[ZarathosNY]

I guess the law only applies in respect to the "matter at hand"...

I should have figured. :-s

Oh, come on. The *only* reason that Clinton's infidelity brought "disgrace and discredit upon the office of the president" is because the right wing freakshow saw the opportunity to drag him through the mud over something totally meaningless and trivial, and in the process wasted millions upon millions of dollars and hundreds of hours of the President's time doing so.

seppo

So lying under oath is trivial??

:roll:

When it has nothing to do with the matter at hand.....yes


Actually, what I was replying to was that it was trivial. Whether or not he had sex with Monica had nothing to do with Paula Jones. Now if he had sex with Paula Jones and lied about it under oath, that would be perjury, since that would be related to the case.

[helava]

I love it. So, lying under oath about getting some side-nookie is worse than lying about going to war? Sure, you can say that Bush wasn't under oath, and you can say that Bush didn't *technically* lie (though you'd actually be completely, provably *wrong* if you said the latter), but give me a fucking break. That's like saying that jaywalking is worse than triple homicide.

Morons.
seppo

[JSweeney]

I love it. So, lying under oath about getting some side-nookie is worse than lying about going to war?

United States Constitution Article I, section 8, Clause 11: The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

You can lay a lot of blame on Bush for the situation and the escalation leading to it, but you can't blame all of it on him.
The president cannot declare war... that's Congress' duty.


Sure, you can say that Bush wasn't under oath, and you can say that Bush didn't *technically* lie (though you'd actually be completely, provably *wrong* if you said the latter), but give me a shaq-fuing break. That's like saying that jaywalking is worse than triple homicide.

I really don't care about the degrees, and whether or not one act is worse than the other. Wrong is wrong, especially when your misdeed brings dishonor and disrespect upon the lofty office of the President of the United States. Complaining about something like that is a fruitless endeavor.

[helava]

re: responsibility: I lay a *lot* of blame at Congress' feet. They abdicated their responsibility to make the decision to go to war. I think that that's one of the worst things Congress has done in recent history, and every single person who voted for the authorization for use of force *without* the further approval of Congress should be forced to resign.

re: you not caring about the "degrees": Bullshit. That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard. If you really believe that, you're a complete fucking idiot.

seppo

[Firebrand]

Having George W. Bush as president

...brings dishonor and disrespect upon the lofty office of the President of the United States.
Run a search. You'll eventually come to the same conclusion.

[bmulligan]

re: you not caring about the "degrees": Bullshit. That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard. If you really believe that, you're a complete shaq-fuing idiot.

seppo

The point is that lying to a grand jury is against the law in ANY case, trivial or not. The law doesn't care about 'degrees', nor should it. If it did then it would cease to be objective and could not be applied equally, eliminating the principle of justice altogether.

[Drocket]

The law doesn't care about 'degrees', nor should it. If it did then it would cease to be objective and could not be applied equally, eliminating the principle of justice altogether.

Of course the law cares about degrees. For any crime you care you name, there's more legal versions of it than eskimos have words for snow. First degree murder, second degree murder (hell, 'degree' is right in the name), assorted versions of manslaughter, homicide, and so on, just for the crime of killing someone. Realistically, the only thing that seperates them is how sever the prosecutor and jury thinks your crime is.

[bmulligan]

But murder is murder whether it's 1st degree, or second degree, or whatever. What you implied was that a lie about sex is not as bad as a lie about war. To the grand jury, it's identical. That's like saying murdering a homeless person isn't as bad as murdering the president. The crime is the same in the eyes of the law.

[Drocket]

The crime is the same in the eyes of the law.
If it was, it would carry the same punishment, but it doesn't. So it isn't. So there. :P

[bmulligan]

good point.

[JSweeney]

re: you not caring about the "degrees": Bullshit. That's the dumbest goddamn thing I've ever heard. If you really believe that, you're a complete shaq-fuing idiot.

Considering that neither of them are going to have any further actions or sanctions against them for those actions, wrong and "more wrong" is a meaningless distinction. All it serves as is pointless fodder for people to argue even further.

[JSweeney]

Of course the law cares about degrees. For any crime you care you name, there's more legal versions of it than eskimos have words for snow. First degree murder, second degree murder (hell, 'degree' is right in the name), assorted versions of manslaughter, homicide, and so on, just for the crime of killing someone. Realistically, the only thing that seperates them is how sever the prosecutor and jury thinks your crime is.

Of course the law cares about the circumstances and various degrees of wrong-doing. But, since neither will get sanctions or reprocussions for thier actions, arguing whether Bush's lie or Clinton's lie is worse is pointless. They are completely different scenarios, and there is no apt comparision that could be made between them.

[jmcc]

Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.

[JSweeney]

Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.

You can, but what good does it do?
If you are completely dead set against war, and hate the idea of it, I could understand.

Unfortunately, most of this argument is fueled by partisan BS, and people are rallying to it because they hate Bush/Clinton.
I could care less. I have no great love nor great hatred for either of these two...I have a feeling that is something few others could say.

[jmcc]

Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.

You can, but what good does it do?

Do you mean, what purpose does it serve or literally what "good" does it do? It serves to further strife by giving ammo for more arguing. I wouldn't say that's doing any "good," but it is doing something.

[JSweeney]

Sure you can argue which lie is worse. Simply look at which one's results were more or less harmful.

You can, but what good does it do?

Do you mean, what purpose does it serve or literally what "good" does it do? It serves to further strife by giving ammo for more arguing. I wouldn't say that's doing any "good," but it is doing something.

Well, at least it has a purpose, right? :)

[MrBadExample]

Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.

[jmcc]

Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.

Vince Foster...

[The_Continental]

Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.

Vince Foster...

Dan Casolaro...

[MrBadExample]

Indeed - it was Clinton's belief that he was "above the law" that angered so many.

Ahem... Bush has acted far more "above the law" than Clinton ever did:

1. Invading Iraq when they had not attacked us.
2. Initially blocking investigations into the 9/11 attacks.
3. Not fulfilling his National Guard service without any repercussions.

Etc., etc.

Clinton's lies never got anyone killed. Bush's have.

Vince Foster...

Dan Casolaro...

Does anyone want to explain how a Clinton lie caused either of these deaths? And even if it did, how that compares to the thousands killed on both sides in the Iraqi invasion?

[The_Continental]

You first.

[jmcc]

Well, it wasn't so much the lies that killed Vince Foster as it was Clinton's goons.

[MrBadExample]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after the years and years of attacks and investigations of Clinton, if he ever looked at Vince Foster funny, conservatives would have charged him by now.

I appreciate a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't hold any water.

[The_Continental]

Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.

In order for a conspiracy to work - two things are necessary from those involved - competence and silence. Both of which I think are too much to ask for, esp of most politicians. I was just tryin' to have fun with you.

Sorry 'bout that.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that after the years and years of attacks and investigations of Clinton, if he ever looked at Vince Foster funny, conservatives would have charged him by now.

I appreciate a good conspiracy theory, but this one doesn't hold any water.

[The_Continental]

Speaking of which - I hate having to slap people when they try to tell me that a UFO crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago.

[jmcc]

Speaking of which - I hate having to slap people when they try to tell me that a UFO crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago.

As well you should. It didn't crash, it landed.

[The_Continental]

](*,)

Speaking of which - I hate having to slap people when they try to tell me that a UFO crashed in New Mexico 60 years ago.

As well you should. It didn't crash, it landed.

[Admiral Ackbar]

It's ironically stupid that not a single Democratic Senator would give his signature to allow members of the House to discuss the 2000 Election which was much mroe questionable.

But now in 2004, though it's a close election it is clear that President Bush legitimately won outright fair and square, they get a Senators signature to discuss it on the floor of the senate.

It boggles the mind.

[ZarathosNY]

The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.

[Ruined]

The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.

I assume you mean the ones by MoveOn.org using intimidation by sitting at the polls? Maybe there should be one for Wisconsin too where the 20 Republican voter vans had their tires slashed the morning of the election by Democrat activists?

It's also humorous how the head of the Democrat party was talking about how the election was fair and relatively-problem free on TV during election day when the exit polls were indicating Kerry was going to win by quite a bit. Of course, after he lost, it all becomes rigged! :lol:

[camoor]

Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.


You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:

[The_Continental]

Watergate was a conspiracy for about five minutes - until (like I said) silence and competence failed to work in unison. After that, it was really more of a scandal.

Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my point. :D


Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.


You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:

[Scrubking]

The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.

I assume you mean the ones by MoveOn.org using intimidation by sitting at the polls? Maybe there should be one for Wisconsin too where the 20 Republican voter vans had their tires slashed the morning of the election by Democrat activists?

It's also humorous how the head of the Democrat party was talking about how the election was fair and relatively-problem free on TV during election day when the exit polls were indicating Kerry was going to win by quite a bit. Of course, after he lost, it all becomes rigged! :lol:

LOL, Pwned!!11!

[camoor]

Watergate was a conspiracy for about five minutes - until (like I said) silence and competence failed to work in unison. After that, it was really more of a scandal.

Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my point. :D


Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.


You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:

Conspiracy - A combination of two or more persons to commit a criminal or unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means.

Since there was more then one person involved in Watergate (Nixon wasn't tiptoeing around the Watergate hotel with a mic and tape recorder), Watergate can be properly labeled as a conspiracy to this day.

Political conspiracies happen every day, it's only the stupid conspirators (like G Gordon Liddy) that expose the crime. A reasonable person can't possibly believe that Clinton was 100% innocent of all of the conspiracies he was accused of, or that all of the campaign money that Rove spent was 100% legitimate.

Oh yeah, and sorry about torpedoing your "point" :P

[The_Continental]

ehh - Sounds like a difference in semantics more than anything else. I'm talking the pop-culture use of the word "conspiracy" - the one that implies a top-secret cover up.

You're not employing that usage. No big deal, and not really a good point to discuss further.

You need to work on your "than" "then" usage.

Watergate was a conspiracy for about five minutes - until (like I said) silence and competence failed to work in unison. After that, it was really more of a scandal.

Thanks for providing an example to illustrate my point. :D


Yeah - y'know, for once I'm gonna have to agree with you. It's always been my contention that all conspiracy theories are bullshit. All of 'em - no matter who's supposedly involved.


You tell them Continental.

After all, the Watergate conspiracy was a pack of lies, right from the start. :wink:

Conspiracy - A combination of two or more persons to commit a criminal or unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means.

Since there was more then one person involved in Watergate (Nixon wasn't tiptoeing around the Watergate hotel with a mic and tape recorder), Watergate can be properly labeled as a conspiracy to this day.

Political conspiracies happen every day, it's only the stupid conspirators (like G Gordon Liddy) that expose the crime. A reasonable person can't possibly believe that Clinton was 100% innocent of all of the conspiracies he was accused of, or that all of the campaign money that Rove spent was 100% legitimate.

Oh yeah, and sorry about torpedoing your "point" :P

[The_Continental]

Day two of the Boxer Rebellion - I have yet to see one of these "highlights."

How long must I wait?

The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.

[The_Continental]

I saw a pack of moveon wolves when I went to vote. 18-22 year old overfed hippies trying to tell me how oppressed I was (they must have been trying to bank on my dark skin). They must have been pretty oppressed not to have to be at work or at school on a Tuesday afternoon.

The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.

I assume you mean the ones by MoveOn.org using intimidation by sitting at the polls? Maybe there should be one for Wisconsin too where the 20 Republican voter vans had their tires slashed the morning of the election by Democrat activists?

It's also humorous how the head of the Democrat party was talking about how the election was fair and relatively-problem free on TV during election day when the exit polls were indicating Kerry was going to win by quite a bit. Of course, after he lost, it all becomes rigged! :lol:

[MrBadExample]

ehh - Sounds like a difference in semantics more than anything else. I'm talking the pop-culture use of the word "conspiracy" - the one that implies a top-secret cover up.

You're not employing that usage. No big deal, and not really a good point to discuss further.

Are you actually implying that there was no government cover-up of the Watergate scandal? Really?!?

The cover-up was what caused all the trouble. Nixon erased the tapes. It's the government cover-up that all other cover-ups will be measured against.

[MrBadExample]

I saw a pack of moveon wolves when I went to vote. 18-22 year old overfed hippies trying to tell me how oppressed I was (they must have been trying to bank on my dark skin). They must have been pretty oppressed not to have to be at work or at school on a Tuesday afternoon.

The one thing that it will do is highlight the various acts of voting suppression and disenfranchisement that went on in Ohio.

I assume you mean the ones by MoveOn.org using intimidation by sitting at the polls? Maybe there should be one for Wisconsin too where the 20 Republican voter vans had their tires slashed the morning of the election by Democrat activists?

It's also humorous how the head of the Democrat party was talking about how the election was fair and relatively-problem free on TV during election day when the exit polls were indicating Kerry was going to win by quite a bit. Of course, after he lost, it all becomes rigged! :lol:

And don't forget it was MoveOn.org members that threw away the voter registration cards of Democrats in Nevada... no wait... that was Republicans.

What about the MoveOn-ers who intimidated black voters by telling them they needed photo ID and threatening them with voter fraud?... No, again, that was Republicans.

I know the MoveOn bastards stormed the Florida recount offices when they were counting hanging chads... Dammit, that was the GOP as well.

I bet the CEO of Diebold (maker of electronic voting machines) is a member of MoveOn because he promised to deliver Ohio's votes for Ker... oh, this is embarrassing. He promised the votes for Bush.

Maybe MoveOn's not the problem...

[elprincipe]

It's ironically stupid that not a single Democratic Senator would give his signature to allow members of the House to discuss the 2000 Election which was much mroe questionable.

But now in 2004, though it's a close election it is clear that President Bush legitimately won outright fair and square, they get a Senators signature to discuss it on the floor of the senate.

It boggles the mind.

I'm shocked no one on this board among the ultra-liberals has flamed you yet for that, even though they continue posting all the conspiracy theories available.

[Backlash]

Maybe MoveOn's not the problem...

I would say that ALL organizations that pulled shady stuff during the election, on BOTH sides, are the problem(s). This inlcudes the DNC and the GOP.

[MrBadExample]

Maybe MoveOn's not the problem...

I would say that ALL organizations that pulled shady stuff during the election, on BOTH sides, are the problem(s). This inlcudes the DNC and the GOP.

I agree with you. I just posted to make the point that for every one of the allegations about MoveOn there are several (and I would say, more serious) allegations against Republicans.

I believe any voter tampering is bad. But I also don't think you can equate tire slashing with trashing voter registration cards. The first is a nuisance and the second is a federal crime.

[The_Continental]

Nope, I'm not implying that at all. In fact, I'm not making any "implications" at all. I am saying very directly:

Most, if not all, conspiracy *theories* are bullshit because the harmonious coordination of silence and competence between tens, and sometimes hundreds of people is impossible to acheive.

That is why the watergate cover-up failed, Ted Kennedy is widely thought of as a murderer, and R. Kelly got caught peeing on a 14 year old.

Shall I explain it a third time?

ehh - Sounds like a difference in semantics more than anything else. I'm talking the pop-culture use of the word "conspiracy" - the one that implies a top-secret cover up.

You're not employing that usage. No big deal, and not really a good point to discuss further.

Are you actually implying that there was no government cover-up of the Watergate scandal? Really?!?

The cover-up was what caused all the trouble. Nixon erased the tapes. It's the government cover-up that all other cover-ups will be measured against.

[The_Continental]

And since we're talking about bullshit, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on allegations that agents of either the DNC or GOP engaged in any voter intimidation or fraud.

Voter intimidation and fraud are illegal, yet not one, NOT ONE arrest has ever been made of a DNC or GOP employee engaging in it.

Are we really to believe that hundreds of thousands of people were defrauded across the country yet law enforcement can't find a single party affiliated person who engaged in it?

Bullshit.

Yes, there were moveon volunteers at my precinct that were acting like pricks, but I'd hardly call that intimidation.

How about this, I'll purchase a DS for any CAGer who forwards information that leads to the arrest of a DNC or GOP member who engaged in voter fraud.

Get to work.

Also - people should have to produce ID to vote. That is really a no brainer.


Maybe MoveOn's not the problem...

I would say that ALL organizations that pulled shady stuff during the election, on BOTH sides, are the problem(s). This inlcudes the DNC and the GOP.

I agree with you. I just posted to make the point that for every one of the allegations about MoveOn there are several (and I would say, more serious) allegations against Republicans.

I believe any voter tampering is bad. But I also don't think you can equate tire slashing with trashing voter registration cards. The first is a nuisance and the second is a federal crime.

[MrBadExample]

And since we're talking about bullshit, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on allegations that agents of either the DNC or GOP engaged in any voter intimidation or fraud.

Voter intimidation and fraud are illegal, yet not one, NOT ONE arrest has ever been made of a DNC or GOP employee engaging in it.

Are we really to believe that hundreds of thousands of people were defrauded across the country yet law enforcement can't find a single party affiliated person who engaged in it?

Bullshit.

Yes, there were moveon volunteers at my precinct that were acting like pricks, but I'd hardly call that intimidation.

How about this, I'll purchase a DS for any CAGer who forwards information that leads to the arrest of a DNC or GOP member who engaged in voter fraud.

Get to work.

They don't have to be official members of either party to make voter fraud un-American.

Also - people should have to produce ID to vote. That is really a no brainer.

But the law currently does not require photo ID and to tell people that it does in order to turn them away is slimey at best.

[Backlash]

I never said the GOP and DNC participated in voter fraud (though I believe some private organizations did) - I said they pulled some shady stuff. Misleading politics, shady funding, tons of crap like that.

[The_Continental]

Alright then - produce information that leads to arrests of non-party affiliated members. If it's as rampant as you make it out to be, that shouldn't be too tough.

givin' a DS away on this one ...

I have yet to hear of a spicific case - just generalizations like "thousands of minorities were intimidated in Ohio" - by who? The Mysterious Intimidator that disappears into thin air?!

Bullshit!

Just because some moveon punks told me that voting for Bush was stupid because I have brown skin doesn't mean I was intimidated.
------------------------

Also - ID laws vary by state. Some require an ID, some do not. That needs to be made uniform. ID's should be required by all states.

And since we're talking about bullshit, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on allegations that agents of either the DNC or GOP engaged in any voter intimidation or fraud.

Voter intimidation and fraud are illegal, yet not one, NOT ONE arrest has ever been made of a DNC or GOP employee engaging in it.

Are we really to believe that hundreds of thousands of people were defrauded across the country yet law enforcement can't find a single party affiliated person who engaged in it?

Bullshit.

Yes, there were moveon volunteers at my precinct that were acting like pricks, but I'd hardly call that intimidation.

How about this, I'll purchase a DS for any CAGer who forwards information that leads to the arrest of a DNC or GOP member who engaged in voter fraud.

Get to work.

They don't have to be official members of either party to make voter fraud un-American.

Also - people should have to produce ID to vote. That is really a no brainer.

But the law currently does not require photo ID and to tell people that it does in order to turn them away is slimey at best.

[MrBadExample]

Alright then - produce information that leads to arrests of non-party affiliated members. If it's as rampant as you make it out to be, that shouldn't be too tough.

givin' a DS away on this one ...


Here's one for ya:

Former Bush Campaign Official Indicted

Wednesday December 1, 2004 9:16 PM

By ERIK STETSON
Associated Press Writer

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - President Bush's former New England campaign chairman was indicted Thursday on charges he took part in the jamming of the Democrats' get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day 2002.

James Tobin, 44, stepped down Oct. 15 after the Democrats accused him of involvement. At the time, he called the allegations ``without merit.''

In 2002, six phone lines run by the Democrats and the Manchester firefighters union were tied up for 1 hours by 800 computer-generated hang-up calls.

Federal prosecutors said Tobin and other Republicans hired a company to make the calls to disrupt the organizations' get-out-the-vote efforts.

Here's a link to that story and more. Most are still under investigation.
http://www.miamedia.com/news/archive.news.2004-12.html

[The_Continental]

Explain to me how a DoS is an example of voter intimidation...

Also, what election are we talking about here?

Alright then - produce information that leads to arrests of non-party affiliated members. If it's as rampant as you make it out to be, that shouldn't be too tough.

givin' a DS away on this one ...


Here's one for ya:

Former Bush Campaign Official Indicted

Wednesday December 1, 2004 9:16 PM

By ERIK STETSON
Associated Press Writer

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - President Bush's former New England campaign chairman was indicted Thursday on charges he took part in the jamming of the Democrats' get-out-the-vote phone lines on Election Day 2002.

James Tobin, 44, stepped down Oct. 15 after the Democrats accused him of involvement. At the time, he called the allegations ``without merit.''

In 2002, six phone lines run by the Democrats and the Manchester firefighters union were tied up for 1 hours by 800 computer-generated hang-up calls.

Federal prosecutors said Tobin and other Republicans hired a company to make the calls to disrupt the organizations' get-out-the-vote efforts.

Here's a link to that story and more. Most are still under investigation.
http://www.miamedia.com/news/archive.news.2004-12.html

[Backlash]

Well, someone slashed those Repubs' tires. Just because they didn't arrest anyone doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's bad mojo.

[MrBadExample]

Explain to me how a DoS is an example of voter intimidation...

I never said it was intimidation. It is slimey, underhanded, corrupt and illegal and it was committed by a GOP campaign chairman.

[The_Continental]

Actually, according to your article it was committed by an ex-campaign chairman.

Explain to me how a DoS is an example of voter intimidation...

I never said it was intimidation. It is slimey, underhanded, corrupt and illegal and it was committed by a GOP campaign chairman.

[The_Continental]

Again - people being pricks doesn't necessarily equal voter intimidation. Sure, those Repubs were probably annoyed at the dems "pie throwing" level of political discourse, but it's not like they were actually being frightened into not voting.

Well, someone slashed those Repubs' tires. Just because they didn't arrest anyone doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's bad mojo.

[Backlash]

I think the problem is you're trying to debate two people who said different things :)

I was never talking about intimidation - I was just talking about under-handed shennanigans (I don't use that word often enough).

PS: We want trivia!!

[Ruined]

What about the MoveOn-ers who intimidated black voters by telling them they needed photo ID and threatening them with voter fraud?... No, again, that was Republicans.

Now this is a classic contradiction. You are complaining about voting flaws/fraud yet you think it is too much to ask for a photo ID card when someone votes to make sure they are who they say there are? Need a photo ID to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, but to vote for the president and prove you are who you say you are? INTIMIDATION! :lol:

As for your other points, they are either unsubstantiated or taken out of context.

[MrBadExample]

What about the MoveOn-ers who intimidated black voters by telling them they needed photo ID and threatening them with voter fraud?... No, again, that was Republicans.

Now this is a classic contradiction. You are complaining about voting flaws/fraud yet you think it is too much to ask for a photo ID card when someone votes to make sure they are who they say there are? Need a photo ID to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, but to vote for the president and prove you are who you say you are? INTIMIDATION! :lol:

As for your other points, they are either unsubstantiated or taken out of context.

I never said a photo ID was too much to ask for. I said it is currently not required by law and to tell people otherwise is fraudulent.

[MrBadExample]

Actually, according to your article it was committed by an ex-campaign chairman.

Read carefully. The DoS attack happened in the 2002 election. He didn't step down as chairman until October of 2004 after the shit hit the fan.

[The_Continental]

I stand corrected.

Actually, according to your article it was committed by an ex-campaign chairman.

Read carefully. The DoS attack happened in the 2002 election. He didn't step down as chairman until October of 2004 after the shit hit the fan.

[David85]

I do think it's funny that many places where young people and minorities that 90% vote democratic had to wait in line. The old people aka Republicans don't have things to do, but I couldn't wait in a line for 7 hours to go vote, so I wouldn't have.

That seems to be VERY fishy to me.

[elprincipe]

I do think it's funny that many places where young people and minorities that 90% vote democratic had to wait in line. The old people aka Republicans don't have things to do, but I couldn't wait in a line for 7 hours to go vote, so I wouldn't have.

That seems to be VERY fishy to me.

Most of the places where minority voters had to wait in line were in big cities, big cities that have Democratic mayors and city councils. Why didn't these people buy more voting machines if there weren't enough? And why are they not blamed for the problem, but instead it's a big Republican conspiracy? It reminds me of the butterfly ballot, approved by a Democrat but blamed by conspiracy theorists on Republicans. Is there some law in Ohio passed and enforced by Republicans that prevented these Democratic politicians from buying more voting machines that I don't know of?