click me for big pic :)
Printable View
Oh my... that is just... I don't even know.
*falls over laughing* :lol:
lmfao
You know what..I'm just gonna kill myself right now.
ahahaha, that's a great one.
-Kevin
<a href="http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.htm">Snopes</a>
They have the pic as well, however, they also have a pic of him in the same area with the caps off. They also have a pic of Clinton with caps on.
I think the reasonable conclusion here is what Snopes said, "they may have been handed capped binoculars which they briefly raised their eyes before realizing the caps were still in place while a photographer or two managed to snap pictures during those brief instances."
it's still funny :lol:
Ohh...boy.
Bush doing his best Boogerman impersonation:
http://ftp.die.net/mirror/humor/dubya/bushpick.mov
Bush drunk..
http://ftp.die.net/mirror/humor/dubya/tsg_bush.mov
:lol: Good one :lol:
Watch out. It's only a matter of time before Yoshi comes along, cries about how this isn't news, and moves it to FC.
And yeah, he was standing there like that for 30 seconds at the very least.
That's my new desktop wallpaper for the day.Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
Watch out. It's only a matter of time before Yoshi comes along, cries about how this isn't news, and moves it to FC.
And yeah, he was standing there like that for 30 seconds at the very least.
Ughh.
Are we sure their wasn't some sort of painting on the caps?
"Ahhh...pretty picture," quotes dopey president.
Grr - this stuff bothered me when it was about Clinton, too.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN IDIOT.
Doesn't matter whether he's a Republican or a Democrat, the guy we elect to be our president is not going to be an idiot. Shit, if he was an idiot, he'd still know enough to take the caps off.
It's irritating, it was irritating when the Republicans dreamed that Clinton was some sex-crazed Southern moron, and not an extremely effective, intelligent politician.
And I'm sure all of you will remember to not make yourselves look like idiots if you gain some form of public notoriety.
That drunk clip was pretty funny though.
Then what's that make Bush, yo?Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Shit, if he was an idiot, he'd still know enough to take the caps off.
In all seriousness however, we're just poking fun at the picture, not particularly at him (at least that's what I was doing).
I find it odd how some people get the impression that Bush was chosen to be some Poster Boy while everyone else does all the work. If thats the case why would they not pick someone more hansom or someone how did not act so human. JFK, thats a poster boy right there.
hahahaha holy shit thats great, that has made my day.:lol: :lol:
Handsome, my good man. Handsome.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
I find it odd how some people get the impression that Bush was chosen to be some Poster Boy while everyone else does all the work. If thats the case why would they not pick someone more <b>hansom</b> or someone how did not act so human. JFK, thats a poster boy right there.
i agree somewhat with stone - bush is not an idiot as he's made out to be - or more particularly - as his dsylexia makes him out to be (which when you think about it - making fun of someone's handicap is just wrong - Dubya or not) - but the picture was just too too good to pass up a laugh on.
:lol:
That is all.
Where the fuck have you been? I don't have any other word for someone who speaks that terribly.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN IDIOT.
He's mush-mouthed, which doesn't have anything to do with intelligence - I know as many brilliant people with a tendency to mangle a sentence fragment or two as I do clear-spoken morons.
I don't know if anybody told some of you guys, but Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Bush sr. and Alan Greenspan are actually the president. Dubya really is just a flesh puppet.
That is where you are wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by station82o (which when you think about it - making fun of someone's handicap is just wrong - Dubya or not)
Making fun of someones handicap is awsome!
heh, makes this one come to mind..."Fool me once shame on me.....(silence)."
:lol: :lol:
It's funny because he's an idiot. :lol:
It's not funny because the file name is true. :(
http://icyicy.com/megamix/guerre.gif
Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
That is where you are wrong.
Making fun of someones handicap is awsome!
I truly enjoy subtle humor. "Awsome" instead of "awesome"; errors in speech. We need more posts like this!
*checks pages of documents*
Nope, it says right here that the official stance of The Next Level is that George W. Bush is an idiot. So there.
Oh, come on. Lighten up. Every single President is made fun of. It's a bigger American pastime than baseball, that's for sure.
Yeah, but people usually feel compelled to tack two or three smilies on the end so they don't look bad. Fortunately, 88 already looks bad, which is why you came in to explain it was a joke. :) :p ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
I truly enjoy subtle humor. "Awsome" instead of "awesome"; errors in speech. We need more posts like this!
I think Americans are playing into a sort of vicious, dumb global stereotype of us being well, vicious and dumb, by placing those characteristics on our President.
Whether we like Clinton, or Bush, or Grover Cleveland, they either were or are our country's President, and as such leaders of the greatest country in the world.
I know at times it's all in good fun. Still, I dunno, I'd just be happier if the people in the office were treated with respect (I hate the elements of the Right Wing that were behind the way the party treated and attacked Clinton). Plus, on my campus, at least, calling Bush a moron is what passes for intelligent political discourse amongst a lot of these mindless liberals - it's annoying.
I can see your point, president bashing definitly doesn't give this country a good image - *but what ever did* - however, I'd also not want to see people blindly supporting a president out of respecting the position.
Ahh, I'm not suggesting that anyone ought necessarily support him, or any other president - just to simply give the office (and its current inhabitant) the respect it deserves.
I'm sorry, but I must have missed it when "Figurehead Puppet To The Oil Industry" became a thing of respect.
Yeah, and I missed it when "Chubby Chasing Perjurer", or "Out-Of-Touch WASP Preppy", or "Figurehead California Actor Posing as Politician", or "Dumb-as-shit Peanut Farmer", or "Ex-President Pardoner", or "Weird Texan Socialist", or "Goofy Indiana Lawyer", or so on became things to respect.
It's not like you were trying to make an intelligent comment or anything, and it's not like you know what you're talking about when you call him a "Figurehead Puppet to the Oil Industry" - however, even if you were/did, it wouldn't really matter. We've had good reasons to disrespect every single President that gets elected, yet we should, and still do respect them.
Your grammar essentially eliminates you from deciding what is and isn't an intelligent comment.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
It's not like you were trying to make an intelligent comment or anything, and it's not you know what you're talking about when you call him a "Figurehead Puppet to the Oil Industry" - however, even if you were/did, it wouldn't really matter.
And even if you were/did have good grammar, your point has amounted to nothing more than "I respect him 'cuz he's president!" That's not exactly a rock-solid, intelligent point itself, is it?
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!
Well, yes, I think that simply being our President merits some amount of respect, and yes, that is rock-solid.Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
Your grammar essentially eliminates you from deciding what is and isn't an intelligent comment.
And even if you were/did have good grammar, your point has amounted to nothing more than "I respect him 'cuz he's president!" That's not exactly a rock-solid, intelligent point itself, is it?
I dropped a "like" in the midst of a sentence. And, bitch, please, I can write circles around you.
(It's not like you were trying to make an intelligent comment or anything, and it's not [like] you know what you're talking about when you call him a "Figurehead Puppet to the Oil Industry" - however, even if you were[trying to make an intelligent comment]/did [know what you were talking about], it wouldn't really matter. We've had good reasons to disrespect every single President that gets elected, yet we should, and still do respect them.)
Oh, and really, about the practice of criticizing other people's writing while online:
"when "Figurehead Puppet To The Oil Industry" became a thing of respect."
Hahah, well, this: http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/s...threadid=11606, and this: http://www.411mania.com/games/column...columns_id=151.
("You might as well kiss your life goodbye right now. Call your friends, your family, and your girlfriend, assuming anyone can bear to sleep with your nerdy ass, and tell them that you’re going away for a while. A long while." Simply breathtaking writing, you really ought to be proud.)
"I think that instead of that"
And this: "since the usual 4 readers won't justify the amount of time I spent on it", and I could keep going.
William F Buckley is about the only person alive that ought to feel safe when criticizing the writing of others while online.
You see, the difference is that I never tried to question your intelligence. I never claimed to be a perfect writer, I just know I'm in no position to try and tell someone else whether or not they have a valid, intelligent statement in broken sentences. I think that when you question someone's intelligence, how you say it should at least reflect that you're in a position to make that call, and your post didn't. You can find whatever you want that I've written, it's not as if it's hidden away somewhere in a locked box, but it won't change that you questioned my intelligence when you were in no position to do so. So go on, dig up all you want. If you want to waste your time disproving a claim I never made, that's your right, and if you want to be a better writer than I am, go ahead. It's really not that tough to do. I never claimed to be technically excellent, only entertaining, and I will rest uneasily in the knowledge that soon you will be the greatest, most highly paid writer in the world, and that I shall always be second best. I suppose that I don't see any material only because it's much too good for this world to yet accept?
By the way, talking about how no one should be criticizing someone's writing online, and then doing it yourself is a bad idea. You should at least stand by your own points.
Yay!Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Grr - this stuff bothered me when it was about Clinton, too.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN IDIOT.
Doesn't matter whether he's a Republican or a Democrat, the guy we elect to be our president is not going to be an idiot. Shit, if he was an idiot, he'd still know enough to take the caps off.
It's irritating, it was irritating when the Republicans dreamed that Clinton was some sex-crazed Southern moron, and not an extremely effective, intelligent politician.
Personally, I really liked Clinton and I liked the way he handled things. If he's trying to get nookie on the side what kind of American am I to stop him? But, if that makes me a hypocrite for laughing everytime Bush loses track of what hes saying, then I embrace my new label.
keeping within the theme of the thread. good going Clash.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
If thats the case why would they not pick someone more hansom or someone how did not act so human.
"Your grammar essentially eliminates you from deciding what is and isn't an intelligent comment," seems to question my intelligence (suggesting that I didn't know that a "like" belonged in that sentence) as much if not more than "it's not like you were trying to make an intelligent comment or anything" - I felt I was overacting with my response. You had simply tossed off a shot at Bush, one that really didn't have anything to do with the thrust of the statements I had made earlier in the thread (anyone who is President deserves a modicum of respect if only because of the value of the office itself).Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
You see, the difference is that I never tried to question your intelligence.
I was merely attempting to illustrate the point: pick a cliche, don't throw bricks when you live in a glass house, so on and so forth.Quote:
By the way, talking about how no one should be criticizing someone's writing online, and then doing it yourself is a bad idea. You should at least stand by your own points.
I should have proofread that first post, good point.
I don't write video game reviews, but I've got a number of lit-related essays on hand, if you're really interested.
Frankly, who cares whether or not he is labeled an idiot? If people have to resort solely to these kind of ad hominum attacks based only on his seeming inability to speak well in public without mistakes instead of examining his policies or underlying worldview and stating factual opinions about them, who really cares about their opinion?
As for the office of the president, Bush clearly respects it unlike the president who went before him. Clinton degraded the office through his actions and should have been impeached for his felonious actions. I will leave comments about his foreign policy of appeasement as well as all of his other policy mistakes for another day however.
Now, I don't care about the opinions of the jackasses who make these attacks, but I do care about what effect I think their opinions might have on the world's view of Bush. The French, the Germans, the rest of those useless UN countries, as a general rule seem to think that Bush is a warmongering idiot - characteristics many of them like to assign to almost every American.Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
Frankly, who cares whether or not he is labeled an idiot? If people have to resort solely to these kind of ad hominum attacks based only on his seeming inability to speak well in public without mistakes instead of examining his policies or underlying worldview and stating factual opinions about them, who really cares about their opinion?
As for the office of the president, Bush clearly respects it unlike the president who went before him. Clinton degraded the office through his actions and should have been impeached for his felonious actions. I will leave comments about his foreign policy of appeasement as well as all of his other policy mistakes for another day however.
When they see that other Americans are following in their stupid communist footprints, it just reinforces their own view - "hey, even those dumb Americans know that Bush is stupid", and it creates problems for us.
Really, you can't change most of these peoples' opinions - if you could, those people wouldn't be the ones making the attacks in the first place. Still, I think it's worth bringing up, in order to look at the value of civility in politics.
Sadly, I think the Republicans were complicit in Clinton's degrading of the office - they could've handled the situation in a much more appropriate, much more characteristic fashion.
What kind of problems would their assumptions about our president cause for us that wouldn't occur if there was a decreased output of anti-bush rhetoric and propaganda? Those criticisms and assumptions about our president are based on ideological foundations which most of the people who repeat the rhetoric don't seem to understand or want to acknowledge. IMHO the solution to the problem lies not with trying to encourage civility, but to have a strong republican and conservative factual response to the comments. But that would take a strong republican leadership in this country, something that just isn't there now. We have politicians who are willing to compromise their underlying beliefs, if they still have them, for political gains. We need leaders who understand the concept of government as our forefathers envisioned and who believe as our forefathers did in the inherent flawed nature of man and who are unwilling to compromise these positions no matter what the short term gain is. Term limits would only help stave off the problems that are created when you have professional politicians.
How exactly were the Republicans complicit?
Yeah, he and I.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
William F. Buckley is about the only person alive that ought to feel safe when criticizing the writing of others while online.
By the way, I put in that period for you, after the "F." ;)
Ok ok, I'm the idiot for skipping the letter "D" when typing. Or maybe I am the idiot for not reading what I just typed.Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
keeping within the theme of the thread. good going Clash.
But you just took the EXACT quote that Jimmy already took and pointed out a page ago, and made it as your own.
So keeping with the theme of the thread, good going MrKasualUltra2000.
Heheh... I die a little inside every time someone corrects my punctuation, sentence structure, whatever. Really needs to stop. :)
I think the only way to make this thread happy is to get a hold of some of Bush's School papers and see how well he wrote.
One thing that's certainly "rock-solid" is Stone's argument.
Gah! This is what's wrong with America.Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
Personally, I really liked Clinton and I liked the way he handled things. If he's trying to get nookie on the side what kind of American am I to stop him?
As for how he handled the whole "nookie" affair, he lied about it. He lied to you about it... and you love him for it. This I'll never understand.
Gon
Agreed, I don't like it when Presidents lie, get caught, and then admit they lied in a Lame televised Sad lil' Puppy Dog speach.
George W. Bush is obviously the smartest, most dynamic politician in America, and he deserves to be president because he got there on merit alone.
I suppose your comment would be funny if anyone here was actually arguing that.
Gon
People are arguing that becoming president is reason enough to respect the man's ability. But what does being president mean, if he's not what I stated above? My suggestion is that the title of president doesn't necessarily indicate what it should.
Even if it's doctored, still funny as hell :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
Where the fuck have you been? I don't have any other word for someone who speaks that terribly.
I just put his pic up as wallpaper to help me remember that! :DQuote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
George W. Bush is obviously the smartest, most dynamic politician in America
The funny thing is that most of us here are more then likely not nearly as smart as Dubya.
I dunno.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Grr - this stuff bothered me when it was about Clinton, too.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT AN IDIOT.
Doesn't matter whether he's a Republican or a Democrat, the guy we elect to be our president is not going to be an idiot. Shit, if he was an idiot, he'd still know enough to take the caps off.
It's irritating, it was irritating when the Republicans dreamed that Clinton was some sex-crazed Southern moron, and not an extremely effective, intelligent politician.
I think Clinton was an effective, intelligent politician, and I still think that W is an idiot. It's possible that he isn't, but the fact that this country may have elected him certainly doesn't prove that he isn't.
That's really all we have to go on. Where's the evidence of W's brilliance?Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
He's mush-mouthed, which doesn't have anything to do with intelligence - I know as many brilliant people with a tendency to mangle a sentence fragment or two as I do clear-spoken morons.
Add in Ashcroft and I agree with you.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
I don't know if anybody told some of you guys, but Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Bush sr. and Alan Greenspan are actually the president. Dubya really is just a flesh puppet.
Doesn't intelligent politcial discourse require some sort of controversy? :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Plus, on my campus, at least, calling Bush a moron is what passes for intelligent political discourse amongst a lot of these mindless liberals - it's annoying.
You really missed the boat on that whole scandal, didn't you?Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
How exactly were the Republicans complicit?
He didn't lie to me about it, because I wasn't asking. Last I checked, I didn't ask the Office of the Independent Prosecutor - that now-forgotten fourth branch of government - to pore through Clinton's love life.Quote:
Originally posted by Gondolin
As for how he handled the whole "nookie" affair, he lied about it. He lied to you about it... and you love him for it. This I'll never understand.
I guarantee I can outscore him on any standardized intelligence test.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
The funny thing is that most of us here are more then likely not nearly as smart as Dubya.
I really hate to get into this, but whether the president is an idiot (which they are hardly ever) is fairly immaterial. What is important is the quality of the people around them. Bush is smart enough to request a cabinet of very smart individuals. His advisors know what is going on. Some of our smartest presidents ever have made huge mistakes because they believed they were the smartest and didn't need assistance so they surrounded themselves with people less smart then they.
The "the president is dumb" jokes are not only disrespectful, but in most cases unwarranted.
PS: Its still a funny pic.
PPS: I guess I was beaten to my point. Oh well.
i don't understand how stone can say that bashing bush is giving america a bad image. the man does this by himself. he makes up words ("embetterment"), destroys cliches ("fool me once.... shame on..."), and he can only speak in catch-phrases. i was once told that if you can't get across an idea well, the idea was never that good in the first place. this seems to apply to bush.
as for clinton, sure he's not the poster boy for moral education, but he did a lot for the country (like being responsible for a prosperous economy). bush hasn't done anything, except try to start a war for greed and revenge, all the while justifying it as a moral crusade.
Other then the Economy what did Clinton do that was so great? Try and start a war with Iraq to cover up his Blow Job (I find it funny how many people forget about that), and then take a few long range missle pot shots at Afganistan and then call it a day after they Suicidebombed that Navel vessel. There are other issues then Economy people.
arent we a tad touchy???Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
Ok ok, I'm the idiot for skipping the letter "D" when typing. Or maybe I am the idiot for not reading what I just typed.
But you just took the EXACT quote that Jimmy already took and pointed out a page ago, and made it as your own.
So keeping with the theme of the thread, good going MrKasualUltra2000.
Huh??? We are discussing Bush's intelligence, correct?Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
Other then the Economy what did Clinton do that was so great? Try and start a war with Iraq to cover up his Blow Job (I find it funny how many people forget about that), and then take a few long range missle pot shots at Afganistan and then call it a day after they Suicidebombed that Navel vessel.
the man is not intelligent by a long shot, simple and plain.
NO. Everything is directly linked to the economy. Kid.Quote:
There are other issues then Economy people.
Wow - this has turned into some level-headed discussion. What's the weather in Hell like right now? ^^
As far as I'm concerned, being in California and all pretty much demands you to swing left or be labeled a dirty animal who's political views aren't worth putting up with. So its pretty much a mandatory brainwash to hate on Bush, not intelligence or enlightment in the slightest.
And Master has a point - even if you think he's an idiot or a puppet, can you say the same about his cabinet? If you can't, you also have to remember he's the one who appointed those people, so Bush must have some degree of intelligence in him.
Oh, and if you want to throw around PhotoShoped Bush pics around (or ones orchestrated in real life to make him look like the dirt of the Earth), I have some funny Clinton pics I could dig up...
So then you're a Republican...?Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
NO. Everything is directly linked to the economy. Kid.
not if you live in anaheim or marin county.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
As far as I'm concerned, being in California and all pretty much demands you to swing left or be labeled a dirty animal who's political views aren't worth putting up with.
Well, yeah... =p
But aren't the Bay and LA all that matter? ^_^
Stone... you da man!
Gimme a break. Do some research and come back to the table. Basically Bush Sr's oil racketeering posse was brought back into office by powers beyond Dubya's control. And yes, Aschcroft and Kenneth Lay...i mean....Cheney are indeed intelligent but they are also selfish crooks who I wouldnt leave my children with.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
And Master has a point - even if you think he's an idiot or a puppet, can you say the same about his cabinet? If you can't, you also have to remember he's the one who appointed those people, so Bush must have some degree of intelligence in him.
hell yeah, I got a picture of Clinton on a yacht with woodage.Quote:
Oh, and if you want to throw around PhotoShoped Bush pics around (or ones orchestrated in real life to make him look like the dirt of the Earth), I have some funny Clinton pics I could dig up....
No, I dont adhere to labels. I think the two party system is in place solely to give the citizens a false illusion of democracy...Quote:
So then you're a Republican...?
Eveything crime, moral issues, even abortion is related to the economy...doesnt make me a Republican.
I'm one of the few that really didn't give a damn that he lied. I'll lie to you about something that's none of your business, too.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
Agreed, I don't like it when Presidents lie, get caught, and then admit they lied in a Lame televised Sad lil' Puppy Dog speach.
I wouldn't lie under oath, especially if it means perjury over something that's 'no big deal' to the public eye.
StriderKyo:
Nobody's saying that George W. is the perfect ideal (which is where your sarcasm falls short), but his position does deserve a certain amount of support and respect from the American people.
And I challenge you to name all of the presidents who were "...obviously the smartest, most dynamic politician in America [of their time], and...deserve[d] to be president because [they] got there on merit alone."
He didn't lie to you?Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
He didn't lie to me about it, because I wasn't asking. Last I checked, I didn't ask the Office of the Independent Prosecutor - that now-forgotten fourth branch of government - to pore through Clinton's love life.
"...but I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anyone to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
Are you an American citizen, because if you are then he was indeed addressing you. Whether you feel that his "love life" was his own business is beside the point.
Don't make claims that you can't prove.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
I guarantee I can outscore him on any standardized intelligence test.
Bullshit. I suffer from an inability to effectively express my ideas, especially verbally (almost embarassingly-so at times). I also tend to mangle sentences, stutter occasionally, and there are many times where I'll have to pause, mid-sentence, to gather my thoughts and think of what I'm trying to say. Sometimes I even have to give up on what I'm trying to say altogether, because I'm at a loss as to how to express it.Quote:
Originally posted by Nash
i was once told that if you can't get across an idea well, the idea was never that good in the first place.
Now I ask you; do you think, because of these problems I have, that I'm a bumbling idiot whose ideas are all worthless? Granted, you don't know me, but that's pretty fucking bold of you if you do.
Actually, I'm curious to know if Clinton's administration was actually responsible for our economy being as prosperous as it was.Quote:
Originally posted by Nash
as for clinton, sure he's not the poster boy for moral education, but he did a lot for the country (like being responsible for a prosperous economy). bush hasn't done anything, except try to start a war for greed and revenge, all the while justifying it as a moral crusade.
An example for Stone's argument.Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
Huh??? We are discussing Bush's intelligence, correct?
the man is not intelligent by a long shot, simple and plain.
Btw, did you receive my PM?
Sadly, you're one of the many. I wish I had the power to stop people like you from voting.Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
I'm one of the few that really didn't give a damn that he lied. I'll lie to you about something that's none of your business, too.
Gon
Yeah, and I wish I had the power to have made all that bullshit about the President's BJ dissapear so I wouldn't have to deal with the same lame jokes on Saturday Night Live that were only on when the news shut up about the incident for one small hour and I didn't have to hear guys like you preach this crap to me day in and day out for months at a time. Welcome to America.Quote:
I wish I had the power to stop people like you from voting.
That's not cool, Gondolin. Respecting every American citzen's right to a vote is, to me, far more important than respecting the President (although that is, of course, important). The idea of wanting to take away a person's vote is really negative on a number of levels - you have to try to change the climate, by doing things like discussing the value of the office in threads like this. I'm really happy with this thread, anyways, the discussion in it.Quote:
Originally posted by Gondolin
I wish I had the power to stop people like you from voting.
Gon
Just, simply, respect the President a little bit, at least, simply because you respect the office. Respect other voters simply because they have the right to vote, so on. This sort of stuff is lost when you simplify Clinton to the point where you call him an unprincipled pervert, or consider Bush a stupid warmonger, or Republicans as evil poor-hating money-lovers, or whatever.
That's my boss! :)
I agree, Clinton was an effective and intelligent politician, that has nothing to do with his ability or worth as a leader though. And of course your opinion of Bush is just that, your opinion, based on nothing more than assumptions that you want to be true instead of factual evidence.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
I think Clinton was an effective, intelligent politician, and I still think that W is an idiot.
You really missed the boat on that whole scandal, didn't you?
He didn't lie to me about it, because I wasn't asking. Last I checked, I didn't ask the Office of the Independent Prosecutor - that now-forgotten fourth branch of government - to pore through Clinton's love life.
Actually I didn't miss the scandal, I merely asked Stone how he thought the Republicans were complicit, him being the person specifically being responded to.
Fourth branch of the government? More rhetoric of course, you seem to have forgotten to mention that it was created in 1978 and used up until 1999, this was hardly created as just a "republican trick" to get clinton. Clinton "willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements", "obstructed, and he "prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony" and he suborned perjury. Maybe you should read up on the scandal, try starting with the Four Impeachment Articles or "Sellout" by David P. Schippers who was the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee and also just happened to be a loyal Democrat. He commited crimes that if made by any other person they would recieve hard time for them, he in no way respected the office or should have remained in it. Again, the fault lies with republican politicians who failed to do their honorable duty to impeach clinton and instead capitulated to the democrats and the media pressure.
Please list exactly what policies Clinton created and supported that were good for our country. And please explain how he was directly responsible for a properous economy. Of course I expect no factual reply to both of these statements seeing as how it can't be done. Clinton wasn't responsible for our economy or for programs and actions that were good for our country, almost all of the legislation was created by a republican leadership, and as for the economy Clinton created or supported NO legislation that had anything to do with our economy prospering and in fact the current downturn in our economy started during his adminstration.Quote:
Originally posted by Nash
as for clinton, sure he's not the poster boy for moral education, but he did a lot for the country (like being responsible for a prosperous economy). bush hasn't done anything, except try to start a war for greed and revenge, all the while justifying it as a moral crusade.
......
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20020808.shtml
Bush hasn't done anything? Can you even list what he has done? Try doing that and then list what clinton did and compare them and their effects side by side...
Research eh? I would really like to see some of your unbiased source material for your statements about his so called "oil racketeering posse". Because your statement contained absolutely no facts or factual statements, only rhetoric and propaganda.Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
Gimme a break. Do some research and come back to the table. Basically Bush Sr's oil racketeering posse was brought back into office by powers beyond Dubya's control. And yes, Aschcroft and Kenneth Lay...i mean....Cheney are indeed intelligent but they are also selfish crooks who I wouldnt leave my children with.
It's funny that so many people think Bush is borderline retarded, you can't be an idiot and become the president of the United States. He's not the best orator in the world, who gives a fuck he's a good President and he has the balls to stand up to the rest of the world and all the stupid liberals that think killing Saddam Hussein is in some way a bad thing. Insane dictator developing biological/nuclear weapons that passes out "America is evil" fliers when he's not killing his own people for fun. Oh yeah and he's also a huge threat to one of our biggest allies. But suddenly we should turn into france because someone found a stupid pic of the president that might or might not be legit? Or because Will Ferrell was funny pretending the president was a retard? What the fuck, wake up
Way to turn a funny picture into a shitty cock measuring contest.
Good job guys.
I dunno, I had better than a C average in school. And even I could have made a winner out of the Rangers with a payroll and batting order like that.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
The funny thing is that most of us here are more then likely not nearly as smart as Dubya.
I dunno, he's the guy they make stand up in front of the media to deliver all their heavy-handed, civil rights eroding policies. I think he's still doing his time in the trenches.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Add in Ashcroft and I agree with you.
100% true. In fact, most of the behind-the-scenes stuff I've read about the US political process has flat-out said that quality advisors don't want to work with a candidate who does too much thinking for themselves. Makes things awkward, diminishes the amount of power they themselves wield, and makes staying in line with party policy tough. I have no problem with Bush's advisors - aka dad (who at least knows the score) and Colin Powell, who's probably the best politician the US has. Besides, the Secretary of State has actually weilded the most power, if not power of executive decision, since James Baker.Quote:
Originally posted by Master
I really hate to get into this, but whether the president is an idiot (which they are hardly ever) is fairly immaterial. What is important is the quality of the people around them. Bush is smart enough to request a cabinet of very smart individuals. His advisors know what is going on. Some of our smartest presidents ever have made huge mistakes because they believed they were the smartest and didn't need assistance so they surrounded themselves with people less smart then they.
But it was no big deal. What on Earth did getting a blow job have to do with running the government, in any way, shape, or form? Politicians lie to you all the time. And W lies to you about things that actually matter, like saying "the Kyoto accord is bad for America" or "I was unaware of any wrongdoing at Enron".Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
I wouldn't lie under oath, especially if it means perjury over something that's 'no big deal' to the public eye.
That would require WAY too much research on my part, but a couple of highlights have been: Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.Quote:
Originally posted by Gondolin
And I challenge you to name all of the presidents who were "...obviously the smartest, most dynamic politician in America [of their time], and...deserve[d] to be president because [they] got there on merit alone."
Really? You think the US coming in and taking out two middle eastern countries in the space of a year has NO chance of sparking off World War 3? And if you think W wanting to take out Hussein has anything to do with Hussein being "evil" and "killing his own people", why isn't he going after China, Congo, Rwanda, Myanmar, or any one of the dozens of mass-murdering governmnets around the globe who either have no oil, or too big an army for it to be politically convenient?Quote:
Originally posted by SpoDaddy
It's funny that so many people think Bush is borderline retarded, you can't be an idiot and become the president of the United States. He's not the best orator in the world, who gives a fuck he's a good President and he has the balls to stand up to the rest of the world and all the stupid liberals that think killing Saddam Hussein is in some way a bad thing.
Saddam's a jerk, and yes the world would be better off without him. But be careful how much propaganda you absorb.
I'll give you that, as long as I can keep you from breeding.Quote:
Originally posted by Gondolin
StriderKyo:
Sadly, you're one of the many. I wish I had the power to stop people like you from voting.
Gon
Is this is what you call owning a poster?Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
Way to turn a funny picture into a shitty cock measuring contest.
Good job guys.
Way to turn a good discussion into a good discussion that you made a shitty comment about. The writing-related stuff between Masters and me was stupid, but the rest of the thread has seen some fairly valid points made by people on both ends of the should-we-respect-the-President spectrum.
The posts have been interesting, people have been expressing their interest - if this is the best you can add on to discussion of a topic like this, then you ought to just keep your mouth shut. Stick to 'owning' people in video game threads.
Or, just try harder next time.
I didn't say I would - I said I could. And I still guarantee it.Quote:
Don't make claims that you can't prove.
---
I'm quite aware of the circumstances behind the OIP's founding. I'm just saying it was a wholly unconstitutional breach of separation of powers from day one.
I'll be back later, I'll knock your socks off. :)Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
Research eh? I would really like to see some of your unbiased source material for your statements about his so called "oil racketeering posse". Because your statement contained absolutely no facts or factual statements, only rhetoric and propaganda.
BTW: I can tell your a shmuck just by reading your posts.
Many fail to understand the extent of the Bush's power and prestige.Quote:
Originally posted by SpoDaddy
It's funny that so many people think Bush is borderline retarded, you can't be an idiot and become the president of the United States.
They are in many ways the royalty of the states.
"That depends on what your definition of IS, is."Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Is this is what you call owning a poster?
Heh heh.
Look, no matter who the president is people are going to get bash him for every little Human screw up they do. Or someone will dig into something from their past that happand like 20 years ago and act like it happand yesterday.
You HAVE to give the President respect, I don't see how you can't. People respect Sports figures more then they Respect Presidents for gods sake. Being a President is the highest honor one can get in this country, if you can't respect that, then what can you respect?
I have lots of Respect for Bush because he has guts! He is willing to call a spade a spade, and not pussy foot around the Dictators so he can look like the worlds greatest guy. Clinton did that kind of crap and it drove me nuts.
If you don't like him, don't vote for him next Election. But he won last time, so you have to deal with it. And if you did not vote your opinion means nothing and you should shut up.
I think Bush is a great president, but man he looks like a goon with those Caped Binocs on. Even if 2 seconds after that shot he uncapped them. He's got my Vote Next election.
How do you like Pat Buchanan's new magazine? :) I don't talk to a whole lot of conservatives, much less people who seem to be old-fashioned paleoconservatives.Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
We need leaders who understand the concept of government as our forefathers envisioned and who believe as our forefathers did in the inherent flawed nature of man and who are unwilling to compromise these positions no matter what the short term gain is. Term limits would only help stave off the problems that are created when you have professional politicians.
How exactly were the Republicans complicit?
As far as Republican complicity in the demeaning of the office goes, I'd point to things like Mellon Scaife funding the American Spectator, a magazine that essentially spent 7 years attacking Clinton. At times the Spectator did a good job, good investigative reporting that exposed some of the stuff Clinton was doing, yet, as often as not their news stories would have been better suited to a tabloid: there was some story, early on, about Clinton using state troopers in AK to procure sex, and the reporter who wrote it later said that he made the whole thing up, essentially. The reporter was David Brock, the guy who went liberal to get attention a year or two ago, which makes me doubt whether he was telling the truth about whether the story actually was false, but who knows?
You can look at how he sort of raw, vitriolic reaction so many Republicans had to Clinton made their valid criticisms seem less rational, or at the salacious way that the Starr Report was played up.
At times the Party seemed to be more interested in the fact that he lied about sex than in the fact that his lying about sex was just the first indicative layer of an enormous heap of lies about other, much more important things.
If anything, I think the public demonstrated that it felt the Republicans were complicit when, in the voting booth or polling place, it repeatedly refused to punish Clinton for his actions. Clinton was charismatic, so he got away with a lot of stuff, just like JFK, but I don't think that it was just charisma that was keeping his poll numbers up there - it was also a reaction to the actions of Republicans. It was a difficult situation, but the Party blew it with Clinton.
Well said.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Is this is what you call owning a poster?
Way to turn a good discussion into a good discussion that you made a shitty comment about. The writing-related stuff between Masters and me was stupid, but the rest of the thread has seen some fairly valid points made by people on both ends of the should-we-respect-the-President spectrum.
The posts have been interesting, people have been expressing their interest - if this is the best you can add on to discussion of a topic like this, then you ought to just keep your mouth shut. Stick to 'owning' people in video game threads.
Or, just try harder next time.
My internet penis is this big!Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
I guarantee I can outscore him on any standardized intelligence test.
We wouldn't argue about such a thing. You have the shittiest cock of them all, and we all know our place.Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
Way to turn a funny picture into a shitty cock measuring contest.
Good job guys.
Good job 88, and also whoever made your cock shitty.
The "digging into the past" thing is a little silly, I'll admit, and I'm glad nobody's brought up the fact that W was a coke-head. But criticizing the cheif executive is a crucial function of democracy, I believe, as long as the criticism is warranted.Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
Look, no matter who the president is people are going to get bash him for every little Human screw up they do. Or someone will dig into something from their past that happand like 20 years ago and act like it happand yesterday.
Guts? The leader of the world's most powerful military having the guts to stand up to Iraq - a country whose army was decimated then starved for 10 years - is like me, Bruce Lee and the '85 Bears having the guts to stand up to a classroom full of 3rd graders.Quote:
I have lots of Respect for Bush because he has guts! He is willing to call a spade a spade, and not pussy foot around the Dictators so he can look like the worlds greatest guy.
How can you criticize the guy for trying to iron out peace in the middle east? The Camp David Accord was probably (or at least, should have been) his greatest accomplishment.Quote:
Clinton did that kind of crap and it drove me nuts.
Most people didn't...Quote:
If you don't like him, don't vote for him next Election.
Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
But it was no big deal. What on Earth did getting a blow job have to do with running the government, in any way, shape, or form? Politicians lie to you all the time. And W lies to you about things that actually matter, like saying "the Kyoto accord is bad for America" or "I was unaware of any wrongdoing at Enron".
Really? You think the US coming in and taking out two middle eastern countries in the space of a year has NO chance of sparking off World War 3? And if you think W wanting to take out Hussein has anything to do with Hussein being "evil" and "killing his own people", why isn't he going after China, Congo, Rwanda, Myanmar, or any one of the dozens of mass-murdering governmnets around the globe who either have no oil, or too big an army for it to be politically convenient?
Saddam's a jerk, and yes the world would be better off without him. But be careful how much propaganda you absorb.
It was never about the sex, it was about his felonious actions, actions that would have brought jail time for anyone else who had done them. The Kyoto accord is bad for America, it would hurt our industries and give an undue advantage to other countries like China and India who have far worse pollution but who are excempt from many of the Kyoto measures. Not to mention there are many serious challenges to the underlying science behind the treaty. Please don't even try to push that Enron crap, there were as many democrats involved with companies that were using intentionally faulty or unusual accounting practices, and there never was any proof that Bush knew anything more than he stated. Notice how Enron wasn't even mentioned this passed election?...
World War 3? No I don't think going into afghanistan or iraq is going to cause WW3. Saying an assumptive thing like that is Ad Baculum. Saddam has refused to stop creating and researching WMD and to abide by the conditions of his surrender after the gulf war. He has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions that were designed to ensure that Iraq doesn't pose a threat to international peace and security. We should have taken him out after the Gulf War but didn't due to the actions and policies of Colin Powell and the state department. He was only 2 years away from creating a nuclear weapon at the start of the Gulf War and is at that same point today, we know this from all the defectors that are coming from Iraq including many of his top scientists and military officials. Clinton spent the entire term of his presidency ignoring the Iraqi situation and now we are having to deal with the effects today. There are so many reasons why we are and should go after Iraq, and yes the fact that he is evil and oppresses his own people is one of them. Don't forget the fact that much of the democrat leadership was all for action against Iraq in 1998 when clinton was in office and suddenly reversed positions when Bush is finally having to deal with him. Are any of those other countries you mentioned funding terrorists, creating WMD and have the history that Iraq does of attacking their neighbors and attempting to foment an arab-israeli war? I think not...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...iraqdecade.pdf
Nice ad hominum attack, care to point out all the evidence you have for my being a "shmuck"? Or for that matter even bother coming back with that unbiased evidence that I asked for?Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
I'll be back later, I'll knock your socks off. :)
BTW: I can tell your a shmuck just by reading your posts.
Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
How do you like Pat Buchanan's new magazine? :) I don't talk to a whole lot of conservatives, much less people who seem to be old-fashioned paleoconservatives.
As far as Republican complicity in the demeaning of the office goes, I'd point to things like Mellon Scaife funding the American Spectator, a magazine that essentially spent 7 years attacking Clinton. At times the Spectator did a good job, good investigative reporting that exposed some of the stuff Clinton was doing, yet, as often as not their news stories would have been better suited to a tabloid: there was some story, early on, about Clinton using state troopers in AK to procure sex, and the reporter who wrote it later said that he made the whole thing up, essentially. The reporter was David Brock, the guy who went liberal to get attention a year or two ago, which makes me doubt whether he was telling the truth about whether the story actually was false, but who knows?
You can look at how he sort of raw, vitriolic reaction so many Republicans had to Clinton made their valid criticisms seem less rational, or at the salacious way that the Starr Report was played up.
At times the Party seemed to be more interested in the fact that he lied about sex than in the fact that his lying about sex was just the first indicative layer of an enormous heap of lies about other, much more important things.
If anything, I think the public demonstrated that it felt the Republicans were complicit when, in the voting booth or polling place, it repeatedly refused to punish Clinton for his actions. Clinton was charismatic, so he got away with a lot of stuff, just like JFK, but I don't think that it was just charisma that was keeping his poll numbers up there - it was also a reaction to the actions of Republicans. It was a difficult situation, but the Party blew it with Clinton.
heh, I'm not a fan of Buchanan, I don't agree with many of his positions and certainly lost any respect I had for him after that reform party run.
Ok, I agree with those points. Many in the Republican party used the scandals for political gain and frankly reveled in them. But "complicity" denotes a partnership in a crime or wrongdoing, I disagree with that view, or if you meant it another way I disagree with the use of that term to characterize the Republicans involvement in the scandals. Clintons Administration was the most unethical I know of, he demeaned the office all by himself. Again, the Republicans choose bow to political pressure and not go after him like they should have, for all of the serious crimes and actions that he was taking. There were those in the party who desired to pursue the truth but what could they do when the Republican leadership constantly undermined them, not to mention truely going after Clinton and holding him accountable for all of his actions means that they themselves would be held up to the same standards. I think that was the real reason why they showed such lackluster resolve in pursueing Clinton.
I think the elections in '94 showed an enormous public response against the Clinton Administration. And I think the re-election of Clinton was do entirely to the fact that the Republicans choose someone like Dole to represent them instead of someone who would have confronted Clinton on his policies and actions and had well reasoned and conservative positions himself.
I hope you don't mind me asking but, what exactly is your worldview or political affiliation? You certainly come off as a well reasoned individual, and if you are from a more left leaning persuasion you certainly have a higher than average knowledge of the opposing viewpoint. :)
I think of myself as a conservative, pretty much entirely. Eheh, I dunno if I should be insulted or pleased that you thought I might be leaning towards the left.
You've made some good points as well - I wasn't suggesting that the Republicans were involved with any of Clinton's crimes; I was trying to suggest that the Republicans were involved in the crime of demeaning the Office.
hehe, I didn't think of you as left leaning, I just seldom meet conservatives on the net, they don't tend to congregate on gaming sites. :)
"fact that W was a coke-head."? That isn't a fact, the book that originally made that claim was written by an felon and was refuted. Bush also refused to respond to those allegations, I'm sorry but where I come from that is hardly considered a "fact" or anything else but unfounded character assassination which was unwarranted especially when entirely based on "evidence" from a book by a felon.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
The "digging into the past" thing is a little silly, I'll admit, and I'm glad nobody's brought up the fact that W was a coke-head. But criticizing the cheif executive is a crucial function of democracy, I believe, as long as the criticism is warranted.
Guts? The leader of the world's most powerful military having the guts to stand up to Iraq - a country whose army was decimated then starved for 10 years - is like me, Bruce Lee and the '85 Bears having the guts to stand up to a classroom full of 3rd graders.
How can you criticize the guy for trying to iron out peace in the middle east? The Camp David Accord was probably (or at least, should have been) his greatest accomplishment.
Most people didn't...
Our last leader didn't have the guts to stand up to Iraq, and the one before that didn't have the guts to do something like removing Saddam even though it was completely warranted and needed.
So we are supposed to avoid making comments about someone merely because they have good intentions? The Camp David peace talks, not the Camp David Accord which was in 1978, were a failure becuase of the Palestinians refusal to accept the deal which at the end included 95 percent of their demands, including turning over parts of Jerusalem to their control. Clinton tried and succeeded in getting the Israelis to meet almost all of the demands made by the Palestinians, what good was that? Clinton did so at the expense of domestic issues at home all for some kind of legacy he could create for his frankly insipid and scandal ridden presidency. And the agreement even if it had been passed would hardly create peace in the region between the Palestinians and the Israelis, seeing as how the PLO's stated goal has been and is the complete destruction of Israel as a nation and culture. Try looking up the Fatah's constitution some time. "Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.".
Good thing we have something called an "electoral college" eh?...
My views on Clinton's infidelity aside, it's not about "the President's BJ," but his blatantly having lied to the American people once the subject had become unavoidable. The fact that you acknowledge that he did lie, and your response is apathy (even going so far as to say you'd do the same thing in his position), gives a rather negative impression of your character.Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
Yeah, and I wish I had the power to have made all that bullshit about the President's BJ dissapear so I wouldn't have to deal with the same lame jokes on Saturday Night Live that were only on when the news shut up about the incident for one small hour and I didn't have to hear guys like you preach this crap to me day in and day out for months at a time.
You should not represent America.Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
Welcome to America.
I suppose it is a negative view, but sometimes I feel that the power to vote shouldn't be for everyone... maybe even myself. It's just scary to me to think of all the people out there who vote with such (fucked up priorities, and) an askew view of the worldQuote:
Originally posted by Stone
That's not cool, Gondolin. Respecting every American citzen's right to a vote is, to me, far more important than respecting the President (although that is, of course, important). The idea of wanting to take away a person's vote is really negative on a number of levels - you have to try to change the climate, by doing things like discussing the value of the office in threads like this. I'm really happy with this thread, anyways, the discussion in it.
Just, simply, respect the President a little bit, at least, simply because you respect the office. Respect other voters simply because they have the right to vote, so on. This sort of stuff is lost when you simplify Clinton to the point where you call him an unprincipled pervert, or consider Bush a stupid warmonger, or Republicans as evil poor-hating money-lovers, or whatever.
You're right, though. And I definitely agree that the people are more important - hence, ultimately deserving more respect - than the body that governs them (its sole purpose being to serve the people).
So, Clinton's administration wasn't responsible for our swollen economy during his stay in office? I don't agree or disagree, but could you elaborate?Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
Please list exactly what policies Clinton created and supported that were good for our country. And please explain how he was directly responsible for a properous economy. Of course I expect no factual reply to both of these statements seeing as how it can't be done. Clinton wasn't responsible for our economy or for programs and actions that were good for our country, almost all of the legislation was created by a republican leadership, and as for the economy Clinton created or supported NO legislation that had anything to do with our economy prospering and in fact the current downturn in our economy started during his adminstration.
What, then, passes as intelligent discourse for you?Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
Way to turn a funny picture into a shitty cock measuring contest.
Good job guys.
Take Stone's advice.
Though some of whom you've listed are debatable, you've illustrated my point. Very few presidents have ever been what you consider worthy of their office. So, while I agree that ideally the president should be as you say, holding Bush to those perfect standards is unfair and unrealistic.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
That would require WAY too much research on my part, but a couple of highlights have been: Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.
Ouch. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
I'll give you that, as long as I can keep you from breeding.
You've had nothing to say. Moving on...
I know what you said, and of course you wouldn't, but you cannot be so certain. And you can't lay claim to something that you have no way of proving.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
I didn't say I would - I said I could. And I still guarantee it.
C'mon, now. Guess how much saying stuff like that helps your argument?Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
BTW: I can tell your a shmuck just by reading your posts.
And why no response to my PM?
I don't know about the Camp David peace talks, but... http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...12/16/clinton/Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
How can you criticize the guy for trying to iron out peace in the middle east? The Camp David Accord was probably (or at least, should have been) his greatest accomplishment.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
It was never about the sex, it was about his felonious actions, actions that would have brought jail time for anyone else who had done them.
Gon
Why can't we get this kind of action in FC?
Entertaining read guys, keep it up.
I think the fear of a thread like this turning into Fight Club fodder ("Let's Call Each Other Fags!") is what keeps people civil enough to enjoy and participate in the discussion.
I would say the same. That, and the fact that much of this discussion is beyond many people here, myself included. My knowledge of politics is quite poor.
Ok here goes....THIS COUNTRY IS RUN BY CORPORATE SCUM WHO DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE AVERAGE WORKING AMERICAN, IF YOU CANNOT SEE THIS YOU ARE BLIND AND OR VERY RICH AND THUS RECEICVE ALL THE TAX BREAKS THAT WE DONT!!!! GET IT....THEY ARE DIGGING A DITCH NOT ONLY FOR US HERE IN THE GOOD OL' US WHICH I LOVE TO DEATH, BUT ALSO ABROAD...it is really a shame, the homicide rate in Oakland is double that off two years ago, this country especially the inner cities are currently reliving the Reagan era, trickle down economics do not always trickle my friends...where is the money for education, health care, social services, guess what, THERE IS NONE!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
Nice ad hominum attack, care to point out all the evidence you have for my being a "shmuck"? Or for that matter even bother coming back with that unbiased evidence that I asked for?
This is a far greater problem, it goes beyond the boundaries of Republican, Democrat, Bush, Clinton (why is his name always brought up when people attack Bush, "well Clinton did this," two wrongs dont make a right my friends, you sound like little school yard children, and you know what so do all those jack ass "journalists" on MSNBC...this country is slowly becoming a nation of idiots, and video games aint helping the cause, lemme tell ya!!!
Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago, but I will take some time out of my night to run over a quick couple of points, which are all true, no heresay, no conspiracy, no propaganda...I'll let you the poeple make the judgement call.
Internationally, we are alienating ourselves and digging a big fat ditch that George "the big pussy" Bush is going to leave up to our children and grand children to get out of. We are violating world law if we go into Iraq. Great, us versus the world....
How does sending 20 year old kids to fight an old man's war of greed in 20 million dollar killing machines, a display of balls, I will never know, what I do know is that Iraq is the second largest untapped oil resource in the world as of January 2002, and installing a puppet government there will give the US the strategic position it needs in the Middle East, we already secured Afghanistan and Israel(chuckle*chuckle), but I guarantee we will be paying more at the pump. This war on terror is the perfect vehicle for covert imperialism, aint it???
You think the world does not see what our government is currently trying to do???? Do you think they are happy??? I'm not talking about shit little shanty town filled countries like Iraq or the Phillipines, I'm talking about the big players, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, etc...this is where problems will arise.
Cheney
Did business with Saddam hussein while CEO of Halliburton Oil, as reported by the Washington Post in June 2001. Hypocritce.
Kenneth Lay
*Written before the Enron scandal hit the media*
Lay is the head of Enron the largest electricity trader in the US, and the TOP contributor to the Bush campaign. Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list of preferred candidates for key commisiion posts. thanks in part to the California energy crisis, Enron has quickly grown into a $100 billion company, Bush and Cheney rely on Lay for advice, some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.
Condolezza Rice
Served on the Chevron board of directors (proven to be the no. #1 offender of International Preservation Laws), for her services she had a 130,000 ton oil tanker named after her. She was also director at Charles Shcwab and Trans America.
Prescott Bush
In the 1930s and 1940s, George's great grand daddy, was one of the seven directors in the Union Banking Corporation, owned by Nazi industrialists. After filtering their money through a Dutch bank, they hid an estimated $3 million in Bush's bank. The government eventually seized the assets and the bank dissolved in 1951, after which Prescott and his father Sam Bush received a mere 1.5 million, and so today, the leader of the free world owes his status and position to Hitler, even if indirectly...kinda ironic, isnt it?;)
These are they type of people that are dictating our future, i might post some more in the future...God bless America.
and Gondo,,,,
I pmed you back my friend. :)
No it wasn't responsible. I would recomend books but that would be a bit of a stretch seeing as you most likely aren't _that_ interested in economics. Here are some decent articles, albeit from libertarians (hope they don't bore you too much).. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Gondolin
So, Clinton's administration wasn't responsible for our swollen economy during his stay in office? I don't agree or disagree, but could you elaborate?
Gon
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=572
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=303
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=46
And here I was actually thinking that threads like this were going on all the time in FC, that is why I requested access to it... :PQuote:
Originally posted by Stone
I think the fear of a thread like this turning into Fight Club fodder ("Let's Call Each Other Fags!") is what keeps people civil enough to enjoy and participate in the discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
Ok here goes....THIS COUNTRY IS RUN BY CORPORATE SCUM WHO DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE AVERAGE WORKING AMERICAN, IF YOU CANNOT SEE THIS YOU ARE BLIND AND OR VERY RICH AND THUS RECEICVE ALL THE TAX BREAKS THAT WE DONT!!!! GET IT....THEY ARE DIGGING A DITCH NOT ONLY FOR US HERE IN THE GOOD OL' US WHICH I LOVE TO DEATH, BUT ALSO ABROAD...it is really a shame, the homicide rate in Oakland is double that off two years ago, this country especially the inner cities are currently reliving the Reagan era, trickle down economics do not always trickle my friends...where is the money for education, health care, social services, guess what, THERE IS NONE!!!!
This is a far greater problem, it goes beyond the boundaries of Republican, Democrat, Bush, Clinton (why is his name always brought up when people attack Bush, "well Clinton did this," two wrongs dont make a right my friends, you sound like little school yard children, and you know what so do all those jack ass "journalists" on MSNBC...this country is slowly becoming a nation of idiots, and video games aint helping the cause, lemme tell ya!!!
Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago, but I will take some time out of my night to run over a quick couple of points, which are all true, no heresay, no conspiracy, no propaganda...I'll let you the poeple make the judgement call.
Internationally, we are alienating ourselves and digging a big fat ditch that George "the big pussy" Bush is going to leave up to our children and grand children to get out of. We are violating world law if we go into Iraq. Great, us versus the world....
How does sending 20 year old kids to fight an old man's war of greed in 20 million dollar killing machines, a display of balls, I will never know, what I do know is that Iraq is the second largest untapped oil resource in the world as of January 2002, and installing a puppet government there will give the US the strategic position it needs in the Middle East, we already secured Afghanistan and Israel(chuckle*chuckle), but I guarantee we will be paying more at the pump. This war on terror is the perfect vehicle for covert imperialism, aint it???
You think the world does not see what our government is currently trying to do???? Do you think they are happy??? I'm not talking about shit little shanty town filled countries like Iraq or the Phillipines, I'm talking about the big players, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, etc...this is where problems will arise.
Cheney
Did business with Saddam hussein while CEO of Halliburton Oil, as reported by the Washington Post in June 2001. Hypocritce.
Kenneth Lay
*Written before the Enron scandal hit the media*
Lay is the head of Enron the largest electricity trader in the US, and the TOP contributor to the Bush campaign. Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list of preferred candidates for key commisiion posts. thanks in part to the California energy crisis, Enron has quickly grown into a $100 billion company, Bush and Cheney rely on Lay for advice, some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.
Condolezza Rice
Served on the Chevron board of directors (proven to be the no. #1 offender of International Preservation Laws), for her services she had a 130,000 ton oil tanker named after her. She was also director at Charles Shcwab and Trans America.
Prescott Bush
In the 1930s and 1940s, George's great grand daddy, was one of the seven directors in the Union Banking Corporation, owned by Nazi industrialists. After filtering their money through a Dutch bank, they hid an estimated $3 million in Bush's bank. The government eventually seized the assets and the bank dissolved in 1951, after which Prescott and his father Sam Bush received a mere 1.5 million, and so today, the leader of the free world owes his status and position to Hitler, even if indirectly...kinda ironic, isnt it?;)
hmm, couldn't come up with any real factual basis for your ad hominum attack eh? Figures.. Love this though, you specifically told me that "I'll be back later, I'll knock your socks off." in response to my statement pointing out that "your statement contained absolutely no facts or factual statements, only rhetoric and propaganda." and me asking for unbiased source material. And now you say this "Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago,". Don't post remarks saying you will do something if you have no intention of doing so, especially after doing something unprovoked and inane like calling me a shmuck.
I will deal first with the 6 sections before the comment about Cheney.
Wow, the entire 6 paragraphs are completely filled with rhetoric and propaganda, suprise suprise. The so called corporate scum you refer to are the ones that drive economic prosperity, provide jobs and further innovation. What, did you think that raising taxes or government interference helped the economy? The wealthy gain more from tax cuts because THEY PAY MORE, the rate cuts weren't higher for them. The Reagan era? During the 80's the rate of US manufacturing productivity growth tripled, manufacturing's share of the GNP rebound to 1960s levels, we had an export boom, 1988 BOL report shows that the percentage of new jobs in higher skill categories was much larger than in the 70s and larger than the growth in low-skilled jobs, the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, the inflation rate remained at 5 percent for most of the Reagan years down from Carter's levels of _12 percent_, those making a million or more paid 41 percent more in taxes in 1982 under the tax rate cuts than they did in 1981, the share of total tax revenues which was paid by those making $40,000 or more increased from 45.1 percent to 48 percent, the tax burden of those making less than $40,000 dropped by the equivilant percentage. We spend more on education than any other industrialized nation, and we have the worst scores. Health care needs serious reform and the elimination of all existing government controls not more money. The creation of the welfare state is the cause of many of our countries ills. These things don't need money thrown at them as some kind of "solution".
Who cares about what other countries think about us? Most of them don't believe in concepts like sovereignty of the state much less that of the individual, and they certainly don't believe in the form of government we are based on. Who needs them and their various forms of collectivism.. What world law would we be violating if we went into Iraq?
We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east, and if we were going in just to install a puppet regime, why didn't we do so after the gulf war? Saddam has already made it known that he would be willing to sell a whole lot more oil to the US if we dropped the sanctions and made no attempts at a regime change. Why would we go to war to boost oil production from three or so million barrels a day to 6 or so when it involves massive political and financial risks? It could easily cost the Republicans the white house if it went bad, foment instability in the region, ruin the oil fields, threaten our ally Israel and strain relations with our allies in the region. If all Bush wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion? Why did the American Petroleum Institute lobby for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks. Why do oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the prospects for peace improve?
None of these sections are source material.
Cheney: I cannot access washingtonpost.org for that date and neither can archive.com. The only info I can find that specifically mentions Cheney, Halliburton Oil and Iraq is from leftist sites from an article by Wayne Madsen, who doesn't provide source material or facts himself. Also, the Wayne Madsen article specifically states that they helped rebuild the Iraqi Petroleum infrastructure, not that he specifically did business with Saddam Hussein, it also doesn't list why the infrastructure was rebuilt, if indeed Halliburton was involved.
Kenneth Lay: I cannot find where this was written or back any of this up. "Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list", nowhere near proof of course but even if he had what of it? Large private energy concerns as well as other industries regularly are called upon to give info on their fields and they suggest people who they feel would support their positions. Welcome to Washington D.C.... "some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.", I would love to see the factual basis for this, it just cries out "bs".
Condolezza Rice: Who cares, nothing stated here smacks of any wrong doing. Every administration has people in it that come from the private sector...
Prescott Bush: Nice red herring and poisoning the well here, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good to see you putting your college education to good use though....
No. Just making an observation.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Is this is what you call owning a poster?
When I posted (without reading the entire thread) you and Masters were having your little tiff.
The rest of the thread has been pretty good.
And the signature is a joke... I would hope that you are sharp enough to realize that.
Unproveked and inane...hahahaha!!!! Get a load of this guy.Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
hmm, couldn't come up with any real factual basis for your ad hominum attack eh? Figures.. Love this though, you specifically told me that "I'll be back later, I'll knock your socks off." in response to my statement pointing out that "your statement contained absolutely no facts or factual statements, only rhetoric and propaganda." and me asking for unbiased source material. And now you say this "Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago,". Don't post remarks saying you will do something if you have no intention of doing so, especially after doing something unprovoked and inane like calling me a shmuck.
Elimination of governmental controls????Quote:
I will deal first with the 6 sections before the comment about Cheney.
Wow, the entire 6 paragraphs are completely filled with rhetoric and propaganda, suprise suprise. The so called corporate scum you refer to are the ones that drive economic prosperity, provide jobs and further innovation. What, did you think that raising taxes or government interference helped the economy? The wealthy gain more from tax cuts because THEY PAY MORE, the rate cuts weren't higher for them. The Reagan era? During the 80's the rate of US manufacturing productivity growth tripled, manufacturing's share of the GNP rebound to 1960s levels, we had an export boom, 1988 BOL report shows that the percentage of new jobs in higher skill categories was much larger than in the 70s and larger than the growth in low-skilled jobs, the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, the inflation rate remained at 5 percent for most of the Reagan years down from Carter's levels of _12 percent_, those making a million or more paid 41 percent more in taxes in 1982 under the tax rate cuts than they did in 1981, the share of total tax revenues which was paid by those making $40,000 or more increased from 45.1 percent to 48 percent, the tax burden of those making less than $40,000 dropped by the equivilant percentage. We spend more on education than any other industrialized nation, and we have the worst scores. Health care needs serious reform and the elimination of all existing government controls not more money. The creation of the welfare state is the cause of many of our countries ills. These things don't need money thrown at them as some kind of "solution".
What happened to Bush's whole less governmnet, more people, or whatever the hell is stupid catch phrase was??? Compassionate conservertory
This attitude needs to go. We will alienate every one of our allies if we keep thinking like this, fucking war monkeys.Quote:
Who cares about what other countries think about us? Most of them don't believe in concepts like sovereignty of the state much less that of the individual, and they certainly don't believe in the form of government we are based on. Who needs them and their various forms of collectivism..
[quote]We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east, and if we were going in just to install a puppet regime, why didn't we do so after the gulf war? Saddam has already made it known that he would be willing to sell a whole lot more oil to the US if we dropped the sanctions and made no attempts at a regime change. Why would we go to war to boost oil production from three or so million barrels a day to 6 or so when it involves massive political and financial risks? It could easily cost the Republicans the white house if it went bad, foment instability in the region, ruin the oil fields, threaten our ally Israel and strain relations with our allies in the region. If all Bush wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion? Why did the American Petroleum Institute lobby for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks.[/qoute]
Where are your facts sir??? How do I know that is not propaganda you are spewing???
[quote] Why do oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the prospects for peace improve?.[/qoute]
I wouldnt be suprised if this whole "war" was all a scam to drive up the prices in the first place.
Rhetoric and propaganda........prove me worng.....where are your sources????Quote:
Cheney: I cannot access washingtonpost.org for that date and neither can archive.com. The only info I can find that specifically mentions Cheney, Halliburton Oil and Iraq is from leftist sites from an article by Wayne Madsen, who doesn't provide source material or facts himself. Also, the Wayne Madsen article specifically states that they helped rebuild the Iraqi Petroleum infrastructure, not that he specifically did business with Saddam Hussein, it also doesn't list why the infrastructure was rebuilt, if indeed Halliburton was involved.
Kenneth Lay: I cannot find where this was written or back any of this up. "Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list", nowhere near proof of course but even if he had what of it? Large private energy concerns as well as other industries regularly are called upon to give info on their fields and they suggest people who they feel would support their positions. Welcome to Washington D.C.... "some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.", I would love to see the factual basis for this, it just cries out "bs".
Condolezza Rice: Who cares, nothing stated here smacks of any wrong doing. Every administration has people in it that come from the private sector...
Prescott Bush: Nice red herring and poisoning the well here, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good to see you putting your college education to good use though....
btw...Im too busy with work to be "putting my college education to work" on a vg message board...im one of the lucky ones who scored a job after graduating.
So...convince me that Bush is doing what is best for the country and is not a dumb ass...you still have not done that. And if your happy letting corporations run the country, so be it, I'm not going to change your mind.