Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68148] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 17:09   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
First and foremost, sorry about the Reagan thing, it was actually NIxon who was president in 1972. Now THERE'S an actual scandal, unlike all the crap Republicans threw at Clinton that wasn't even true.
| Crimson |
What other maniac in Iraq were you talking about?? If you are going to tell me that Clinton wanted to leave Hussein alone you're going to have to pull some proof because I think UN documents will probably SHOW that Clinton wanted to strike them. And I think you'll also find that we DID send some missiles towards Iraq during Clinton's 8 year stay.
If I'm not mistaken, we did do a little military action in Afghanistan too... wait, I remember now, we fucking liberated the country from Taliban hold! And we still have troops there to this day.
|
If Bush had used Clinton's plan, we would probably have Osama right now without having a big military presence in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be near termination, and September 11th would have never happened.
| Crimson |
Interesting that all these scandals Clinton had his hand in do nothing to damage his credibility. WHEE double standards EVERYWHERE!
I'm also trying to figure out how Reagan was Commander in Chief before 1980. If you can't remember who was president in 1972, then how can I trust anything else you say?
|
What scandals are you talking about? All the incorrect ones on your little "poster"? The only real scandal Clinton was involved in was the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, which is not a plural, therefore does not constitute multiple scandals. Again, sorry 'bout that Reagan/Nixon thing.
| Crimson |
Classic case of ad hominem... if you can't refute what the person says, try to discredit them with personal insults. Sorry, that sort of un-intellectual garbage won't fly here.
|
It sure as hell flies with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, etc. etc.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68160] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 17:55 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
The chart above is based on information obtained from news reports and other sources as well as the book, "Fortunate Son" by J.H. Hatfield.
|
And so the supposed amount of AWOL time changes again...That chart of yours shows 6 months, and you said 2 years only a few posts ago...really now, which one is it? It's beginning to look like nobody really knows what they're talking about on this issue. Keep in mind that only the little blue section represents the time he was missing for- the other sections that aren't under that slice represent time which was given to him as leave (AWOL meaning Absent WithOut Leave).
| Quote: |
All these papers that keep coming out show that Bush has been out for long amounts of time.
|
Again, the National Guard is a PART TIME JOB. You do not have to be there every day, nor even every week. Not knowing everything about it myself, I'd go so far as to say you probably wouldn't even have to report in every month, let alone every day for 6 years. The amount of "ANG"(Air National Guard) time shown is consistent with the required amount of service, period. Remember, also, that the time spent in training is service as well.
| Quote: |
The Bush administration is fighting such a lost cause that now they're starting to pull dental records out to show that he got a dental check sometime.
|
I have been waiting for someone to bring that up, I really have...Those dental records are part of a more complete physical, which Bush had done when he was supposedly AWOL. There's one problem with that- He could not have possibly been AWOL if he had a physical; he could not have been absent at all- you have to be on the base to get a physical; you can't just go to your family doctor for it. That means that he did report in during that time.
| Quote: |
According to Hatfield, G.W. Bush did community service at Professionals United for Leadership League (PULL) from around June 1972 until August 1972. Hatfield presents arguments that this was mandated service - a result of a drug offense that has since been wiped from the record.
|
OK, so Bush did drugs at some point in his life. That hardly makes any difference, since Clinton admitted to doing exactly that on live television, and that wasn't an issue in either of his two terms- and he never did community service for his offense, now did he?
| Quote: |
The war did start heating up in '72. Early in '72, Nixon announced the biggest bombing campaign ever, among other things.
|
I think you're referring to Operation Linebacker II, right? I thought that came earlier in the war, but I could have been mistaken. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes about dates. And I even corrected your presidential blunder for you in the quote.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68169] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 18:38 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
And so the supposed amount of AWOL time changes again...That chart of yours shows 6 months, and you said 2 years only a few posts ago...really now, which one is it? It's beginning to look like nobody really knows what they're talking about on this issue. Keep in mind that only the little blue section represents the time he was missing for- the other sections that aren't under that slice represent time which was given to him as leave (AWOL meaning Absent WithOut Leave).
|
I didn't say two years. I said between '72 and '73.
| NukeIt15 |
I have been waiting for someone to bring that up, I really have...Those dental records are part of a more complete physical, which Bush had done when he was supposedly AWOL. There's one problem with that- He could not have possibly been AWOL if he had a physical; he could not have been absent at all- you have to be on the base to get a physical; you can't just go to your family doctor for it. That means that he did report in during that time.
|
So, if Bush was present for 1-2 days, that OBVIOUSLY proves that he was there for whenever you say he was.
| NukeIt15 |
OK, so Bush did drugs at some point in his life. That hardly makes any difference, since Clinton admitted to doing exactly that on live television, and that wasn't an issue in either of his two terms- and he never did community service for his offense, now did he?
|
A lot of political figures have admitted to doing drugs while they were younger.
| NukeIt15 |
I think you're referring to Operation Linebacker II, right? I thought that came earlier in the war, but I could have been mistaken. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes about dates. And I even corrected your presidential blunder for you in the quote.
|
Thank you.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68191] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 20:28 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Retard Man IQ-of-1 |
wanna know something that will depress you?
about 73% people in the US learned all they know about viet nam from forrest gump. it was a pretty good movie though . . . 
|
Where'd you pull that statistic from, your ass?
| Retard Man IQ-of-1 |
i still dont understtand this whole liberating thing, "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" i ust dont see how we have the nerve to say we are liberating them when we are dropping bombs on them.
|
With that statement, you prove how ignorant you really are on the subject. You have no idea how far we went to prevent civilian casualties. There was one instant where a few of Saddam's troops were holed up in a hostpital using the patients as human shields. U.S. troops went in and checked each room one by one for the troops to prevent any civilian losses. Now, had we not cared, we would have just bombed that entire hospital to hell, with both the innocent patients inside and Saddam's troops. But we didn't. U.S. soldiers put themselves in harm's way to try to save the lives of innocent Iraqi patients. If I remember correctly, not one patient or soldier was lost and Saddam's troops were killed.
Of all the civilians that had died during the major fighting, only a very small percentage were killed by U.S. fire. Most of the civilians were killed by Saddam's troops, not U.S. soldiers.
| Retard Man IQ-of-1 |
it would sem we care more about iraq than our own country . . . which is strange for republicans . . . once again oil comes into play . . . hmmmmm?????
|
In securing Iraq, we take away one more country for terrorists to hide in and one more source of weapons of mass destruction. Oil had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go to war. If Bush was going to go to war for oil, like some hippies say, he would have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, because Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the world.
| Retard Man IQ-of-1 |
SADDAM NEEDED TO BE STOPPED
|
That's the first intelligent thing you have said this whole time.
| Retard Man IQ-of-1 |
ok that should stop any statement sounding like this "blah blah blah blah stupid democrat liar blah blah blah saddam blah blah balh 9-11 9-11 blah blah blah"
|
Where did you ever hear a statement even remotely close to this?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
So, if Bush was present for 1-2 days, that OBVIOUSLY proves that he was there for whenever you say he was.
|
I guess now you're going to say Bush was AWOL at two seperate times :rolleyes:.
Bush was on the base getting a physical during the time people say he was AWOL. He had to have reported in to get the physical in the first place. So, there is no possible way Bush was AWOL during the time you say he was. There is irrefutable evidence supporting this fact.
Now, it's a non-issue that's just used by Democrats as a distractor from the real issues. But then people will say, "It's a credibility issue! How can you trust a man who lied thirty years ago?" like SuperFlyingEngi said in this quote:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I don't suppose it would happen to be a credibility issue, since Bush said he was in the national guard the whole time?
|
No, it wouldn't because it happened THIRTY YEARS AGO! The same thing goes for Clinton's addiction to pot. It happened thirty years ago and means nothing to ANY issue we face right now. IT'S A NON-ISSUE!
| SuperFlyingEngi |
A lot of political figures have admitted to doing drugs while they were younger.
|
So I guess that means we can trust no political figure because it's a credibility issue :rolleyes:.
| Quote: |
What Bill Clinton would have done and what Bush did are not the same thing. Clinton talked about putting special forces on the ground in Afghanistan, among other things, not steamrolling over an entirely different country. NOT THE EXACT SAME THING! Oh, and earlier I misspoke. I wasn't talking about Hussein and put that in there by accident.
|
The special forces played one of the biggest, if not the biggest, role in the Afghanistan war. They made thousands of surgical strikes on locations where Taliban officials were thought to have been hiding, and often resulted in a few dead or captured Taliban officials. Very few civilian casualties were caused by U.S. forces. Most were killed by the Taliban themselves to make the U.S. look bad.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
If Bush had used Clinton's plan, we would probably have Osama right now without having a big military presence in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be near termination, and September 11th would have never happened.
|
"If Bush would have used Bill Clinton's plan! If Bush would have used Bill Clinton's plan!" Tell me, what exactly was "Bill Clinton's plan" that would have solved all of the problems with terrorists and Saddam Hussein, and how is what Bush did so different from "Bill Clinton's plan?"
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68198] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 21:00 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
First and foremost, sorry about the Reagan thing, it was actually NIxon who was president in 1972. Now THERE'S an actual scandal, unlike all the crap Republicans threw at Clinton that wasn't even true.
|
1) not talking about Nixon
2) Who said they weren't true? Just because he wasn't convicted does NOT mean he didn't do any of those things. You're basing that on faith.
| Quote: |
If Bush had used Clinton's plan, we would probably have Osama right now without having a big military presence in Afghanistan, al Qaeda would be near termination, and September 11th would have never happened.
|
"probably"... there's more faith in nothing.
| Quote: |
What scandals are you talking about? All the incorrect ones on your little "poster"? The only real scandal Clinton was involved in was the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, which is not a plural, therefore does not constitute multiple scandals. Again, sorry 'bout that Reagan/Nixon thing.
|
Once again, not incorrect. You can't prove them false any more than I can prove them true. Remember that the poster is a course of conduct. When you put together every little scandal or potential scandal he was involved in before and during his presidency, everything he's said, everything he's written, that Hillary's written... he just doesn't come together as a man I would have trusted with our great nation.
| Quote: |
It sure as hell flies with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, etc. etc.
|
Wait, we're talking about those people? Which of them is running for president? They are all commentators, they have a very large podium to post their opinions. I fail to see how any of this is relevant. The Democrats are calling the president all sorts of names and attacking him, too... how is that any different.?
--
But on the subject of wars, Clinton accomplished absolutely not a damn thing against terrorism when he was president. Hell, he couldn't even finish his attack on Microsoft, for fuck's sake. But here's Bush... in less than 4 years he has liberated two nations full of citizens with no rights or freedoms, afraid to cross their "government". And we've captured Saddam Hussein. You can say all day long that we didn't Osama yet, but Clinton didn't either. AND he didn't get Saddam!
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68208] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 22:13 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Let's talk about the timing of George W. Bush. America gets involved in a bitter war in Viet Nam. The war heats up in 1972. George Bush blows off the last two years of his term of service in the National Guard.
|
| Quote: |
I didn't say two years. I said between '72 and '73.
|
Didn't say what? At least be consistent with your own posts, will you? It takes away from your credibility to not pay attention to your past comments when making new ones.
| Quote: |
So, if Bush was present for 1-2 days, that OBVIOUSLY proves that he was there for whenever you say he was.
|
This isn't like cutting class- if you walk off a base when you're not supposed to, SOMEONE is going stop you. I don't know how secure things were during Vietnam, but unless you're a relatively high-ranking officer(in which case all they do is look at a sticker on the bumper representing your pay grade), you get checked going in and out. One way of confirming his presence would be to find out if there are any records of who went into or out of that particular post during that time period, and when. If that record doesn't exist, then both arguments are sort of screwed, aren't they?
| Quote: |
A lot of political figures have admitted to doing drugs while they were younger.
|
Exactly. So it proves nothing to bash a candidate based on past drug use, when so many of our current politicians did drugs as well. If credibility is determined by whether or not someone did drugs, then there's an awful lot of people who you can't trust.
You're Welcome.
To Llama:
| Quote: |
i still dont understtand this whole liberating thing, "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" i ust dont see how we have the nerve to say we are liberating them when we are dropping bombs on them.
|
I don't see how any liberation would be possible without removing the opressive regime that was in power- parts of which are still there, and very determined to not be defeated. For the last fucking time, the US is not targeting the Iraqi citizens, we are targeting the terrorist cells that operate within the country. If a building is destroyed, it is because intel told the military there was enemy activity inside it. If someone gets shot by a US soldier, it is a certainty that that person represented a threat to that soldier or one of his fellow servicemen.
| Quote: |
it would sem we care more about iraq than our own country . . .
|
At the moment, we have to. The US is stable; it is not going to collapse. Mass anarchy will not result from putting a little more effort into ensuring stability in Iraq, which WOULD collapse if we were not there supporting it right now.
| Quote: |
which is strange for republicans . . . once again oil comes into play . . . hmmmmm?????
|
No...no, it doesn't. The USA has more oil in it now than Iraq ever has had, or ever will. If Bush wanted oil, he could have gone drilling up in Alaska like he wanted; bypassing the EPA is a lot less costly than starting a war. Since oil would be about profit, it's quite obvious that starting a war over a reserve which is smaller than our own untapped resources would be pure stupidity. Only you or your fellow oil ranters would even consider such an idiotic possibility.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68218] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 23:42 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
| Quote: |
it would sem we care more about iraq than our own country . . .
|
At the moment, we have to. The US is stable; it is not going to collapse. Mass anarchy will not result from putting a little more effort into ensuring stability in Iraq, which WOULD collapse if we were not there supporting it right now.
|
We don't necessarily care more about Iraq than we do our own country, because in removing Saddam's regime from Iraq, we are ensuring our own security by taking out one more country that aides and harbors known terrorists. Other than that, I would agree with your post.
| NukeIt15 |
| Quote: |
which is strange for republicans . . . once again oil comes into play . . . hmmmmm?????
|
No...no, it doesn't. The USA has more oil in it now than Iraq ever has had, or ever will. If Bush wanted oil, he could have gone drilling up in Alaska like he wanted; bypassing the EPA is a lot less costly than starting a war. Since oil would be about profit, it's quite obvious that starting a war over a reserve which is smaller than our own untapped resources would be pure stupidity. Only you or your fellow oil ranters would even consider such an idiotic possibility.
|
I usually agree with what you say most of the time, but here I must disagree.
I don't know where you got the idea the U.S. has more oil than Iraq. It is a known fact Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Last I checked, an estimated 300 billion gallons of oil had yet to be touched by humans, compared to the approx. 50 billion gallons in Alaska.
But you raise a valid point. If it was for oil, then why didn't Bush go for the 50 billion gallons in Alaska? And you are right when you say it is less costly to bypass the EPA than it is to wage a war.
To emphasize Nuke's point, if it's oil Bush wants, why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia, since it has the largest oil reserves in the world? Bush could have made a pretty decent case against Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, and how the government has for years ignored terrorist activities within their own borders. But you know what? He didn't. You know why? Because the war is not about oil.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68320] |
Mon, 23 February 2004 14:28 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
On the war in Iraq
Read this:
http://bushwatch.org/bush6.htm
And read the whole article before you say it's biased. Anything that goes against Bush is supposedly "biased" these days.
Moving on...
| hydra1945 |
Now, it's a non-issue that's just used by Democrats as a distractor from the real issues. But then people will say, "It's a credibility issue! How can you trust a man who lied thirty years ago?" like SuperFlyingEngi said in this quote:
|
I never said Bush lied thirty years ago. He's been lieing about the National Guard thing for [rough estimate] his whole term. If a president lies while he is in office and it has nothing to do with anything, then i guess everything concerning Monica Lewinsky is null and void.
| hydra1945 |
So I guess that means we can trust no political figure because it's a credibility issue .
|
No, I'm saying it's kind of silly to accuse someone of doing pot when they SAID THEY DID AND WEREN'T LIEING ABOUT IT [from what you said earlier]
| hydra1945 |
The special forces played one of the biggest, if not the biggest, role in the Afghanistan war. They made thousands of surgical strikes on locations where Taliban officials were thought to have been hiding, and often resulted in a few dead or captured Taliban officials. Very few civilian casualties were caused by U.S. forces. Most were killed by the Taliban themselves to make the U.S. look bad.
|
Well of course special forces did a lot of work in Afghanistan, but that doesn't make up for the fact that we had an army there as well.
| hydra1945 |
"If Bush would have used Bill Clinton's plan! If Bush would have used Bill Clinton's plan!" Tell me, what exactly was "Bill Clinton's plan" that would have solved all of the problems with terrorists and Saddam Hussein, and how is what Bush did so different from "Bill Clinton's plan?"
|
READ THE THREAD! About a page ago I said what Clinton's plan was.
| Crimson |
1) not talking about Nixon
2) Who said they weren't true? Just because he wasn't convicted does NOT mean he didn't do any of those things. You're basing that on faith.
|
1) Yes, I know we weren't talking about Nixon, but I felt like throwing that in there.
2) Well, if your poster is any suggestion, then I said they weren't true. Also, if you more than glanced at what these people are talking about, then you will see so much stupid in there that YOU would realize they weren't true.
| Crimson |
Once again, not incorrect. You can't prove them false any more than I can prove them true. Remember that the poster is a course of conduct. When you put together every little scandal or potential scandal he was involved in before and during his presidency, everything he's said, everything he's written, that Hillary's written... he just doesn't come together as a man I would have trusted with our great nation.
|
I DID prove them false. Call your poster what you will, but I exposed all that crap for what it was, and yet you still deny it. So, the more bad things you say about someone, the more true it gets? That's how Hitler's propaganda minister got Germans to hate Jews.
| Crimson |
Wait, we're talking about those people? Which of them is running for president? They are all commentators, they have a very large podium to post their opinions. I fail to see how any of this is relevant. The Democrats are calling the president all sorts of names and attacking him, too... how is that any different.?
|
Ahh, I KNOW we weren't talking about these people. It's not like I ignored the topic and went right on to this. Oh, the only way Democrat attacks and Republican attacks [in general] between these two groups are that the Democrat's reasons are often founded in truth, wherease Rush Limbaugh is always blathering on about "Liberals hate america..."
| Crimson |
But on the subject of wars, Clinton accomplished absolutely not a damn thing against terrorism when he was president. Hell, he couldn't even finish his attack on Microsoft, for fuck's sake. But here's Bush... in less than 4 years he has liberated two nations full of citizens with no rights or freedoms, afraid to cross their "government". And we've captured Saddam Hussein. You can say all day long that we didn't Osama yet, but Clinton didn't either. AND he didn't get Saddam!
|
Clinton tripled the FBI's counterterrorism budget, among other things. Go back and read my posts, which I have already shown what Clinton did aganst terrorism. AHHH AHH WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MICROSOFT!!!! Clinton wasn't after Saddam Hussein, because Saddam Hussein isn't a terrorist, just a cranky old dictator. How hard is it for Bush to tell the army to go to a country and tell the soldiers to shoot at anyone who shoots at them?
| NukeIt15 |
Exactly. So it proves nothing to bash a candidate based on past drug use, when so many of our current politicians did drugs as well. If credibility is determined by whether or not someone did drugs, then there's an awful lot of people who you can't trust.
|
Exactly.
| hydra1945 |
We don't necessarily care more about Iraq than we do our own country, because in removing Saddam's regime from Iraq, we are ensuring our own security by taking out one more country that aides and harbors known terrorists. Other than that, I would agree with your post.
|
If a way to prevent terrorism in the U.S. is to invade countries that have small terrorist connections, why don't we go on a campaign to invade all the countries in the middle east? And while we're at it, why don't we wipe North Korea from the map?
| hydra1945 |
To emphasize Nuke's point, if it's oil Bush wants, why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia, since it has the largest oil reserves in the world?
|
Because Saudi Arabia doesn't aready have a bad rep.
| hydra1945 |
Bush could have made a pretty decent case against Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis
|
I bet a lot of suicide bombers in Israel come from Palestine. Let's go blow up Palestine.
| hydra1945 |
Because the war is not about oil.
|
Im sure it's a nice bonus, though.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68343] |
Mon, 23 February 2004 16:19 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
hey crimson, remember when we were arguing about how crappy your dads poster was about last page, i believe you said you posted not even 10% of the facts on it. well, when you orignally posted it you said there were at least fifty facts on it . . . you typed 19 facts (i think) now that is 190+ facts on it if you didnt even type ten percent. either you dont know how to count or you are REALLY REALLY bad at estimating.
you can say war isnt about oil, but look now we are spreading all over the middle east, going to syria, and i believe liberia (i think i hear or read that somewhere)
why didnt bush go to alaska? maybe he grew a brain for a few seconds and realized that his enviornmental plan was already a complete faliure at best. basically he said in ordedr to prevent forest fires, cut down all the trees!
and, no, i didnt pull that fact out of my ass about viet nam and its not like i was aiming it at you hydra, i think you have serious emotional problems
(and dont tell me i have some too, i already know that) 
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68365] |
Mon, 23 February 2004 17:34 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I never said Bush lied thirty years ago. He's been lieing about the National Guard thing for [rough estimate] his whole term. If a president lies while he is in office and it has nothing to do with anything, then i guess everything concerning Monica Lewinsky is null and void.
|
There's an informal survey on Vote.com with over 15,000 respondents, and 75% of them say that Bush releasing proof of his National Guard service is good enough proof that he served his time correctly. So why can't YOU drop it too?
| Quote: |
2) Well, if your poster is any suggestion, then I said they weren't true. Also, if you more than glanced at what these people are talking about, then you will see so much stupid in there that YOU would realize they weren't true.
|
What about the poster suggests that they weren't true? Unless you have proof that he was not involved, I will still think that he was involved... looking at his entire course of conduct I draw my conclusions about his guilt or innocence, and you can draw yours. All that's required for him to be innocent is to cast reasonable doubt in the judge or jury's mind. That's pretty easy when you can use your tongue prettier than a French whore to dance your way around questions like you're Michael Flatley, Lord of the Dance.
| Quote: |
I DID prove them false.
|
Really? I don't think you did. Saying that the courts found him not guilty is as convincing as the president's annual Turkey pardoning on Thanksgiving. Means nothing. And if he WERE such a great guy I doubt Arkansas would have disbarred him, eh?
| Quote: |
Call your poster what you will, but I exposed all that crap for what it was, and yet you still deny it.
|
No, you really didn't... just because the word "allegedly" appears doesn't mean that it's false information. The media uses that word ALL the time unless they are talking about something that DID happen, like "Blacks staged a rally in Central Park..." But "Michael Smith allegedly murdered Kathy Johnson" after he was arrested today.
| Quote: |
So, the more bad things you say about someone, the more true it gets?
|
Well, I'm sure I couldn't find you so closely involved with so many scandals and following such a horrid course of conduct.
| Quote: |
That's how Hitler's propaganda minister got Germans to hate Jews.
|
Uh oh, he mashed the Hitler button again. :rolleyes:
| Quote: |
the Democrat's reasons are often founded in truth
|
No, they are founded in opinion. Just because you believe what you say does NOT make them truth. The easiest example, find me an inter-office memo that shows we attacked Iraq for oil. If you can't, then it's not truth and you are basing your "war for oil" argument on an opinion or a supposition.
| Quote: |
wherease Rush Limbaugh is always blathering on about "Liberals hate america..."
|
Obviously you haven't read his stuff. There's a little more meat to it than that. Though, yet again, I merely read his stuff to see his viewpoint. I do not in any way agree with all of it.
| Quote: |
Clinton tripled the FBI's counterterrorism budget, among other things.
|
Considering I proved that he cut our armed forces by at least 36% over his term, I'm going to have to ask that you prove this. It's all public information. Your source must be government-hosted information, not some article on a web site. If the person who wrote the article found it, you can too.
| Quote: |
Go back and read my posts, which I have already shown what Clinton did aganst terrorism. AHHH AHH WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MICROSOFT!!!!
|
No, we're not talking about Microsoft, however, seeing how much he spent fighting them compared to how much he spent fighting terror, you can see that his priority did not lie in protecting us from terrorist attack.
| Quote: |
Clinton wasn't after Saddam Hussein,
|
Really? So he wasn't trying to get UN support to attack Saddam? Oh, but he was, my friend. And he was supported by the same Democrats who are now against Bush for doing the same thing. Including Kerry!
| Quote: |
because Saddam Hussein isn't a terrorist, just a cranky old dictator. How hard is it for Bush to tell the army to go to a country and tell the soldiers to shoot at anyone who shoots at them?
|
Ohhh... so from what I can tell, it's OK for Saddam to run a country, but it's not OK for Bush to? VOTE SADDAM 2004!!!
| Quote: |
| hydra1945 |
We don't necessarily care more about Iraq than we do our own country, because in removing Saddam's regime from Iraq, we are ensuring our own security by taking out one more country that aides and harbors known terrorists. Other than that, I would agree with your post.
|
If a way to prevent terrorism in the U.S. is to invade countries that have small terrorist connections, why don't we go on a campaign to invade all the countries in the middle east? And while we're at it, why don't we wipe North Korea from the map?
|
DUHHHHHHHHH You start with the largest threats first and work your way down. We are not attacking North Korea because they already have nukes and it's too late to deal with them militarily. They are being dealt with diplomatically.
| Quote: |
| hydra1945 |
Because the war is not about oil.
|
Im sure it's a nice bonus, though.
|
Oh, so now you are conceding that the war isn't about oil. THANK YOU!
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68367] |
Mon, 23 February 2004 17:35 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
hey crimson, remember when we were arguing about how crappy your dads poster was about last page, i believe you said you posted not even 10% of the facts on it. well, when you orignally posted it you said there were at least fifty facts on it . . . you typed 19 facts (i think) now that is 190+ facts on it if you didnt even type ten percent. either you dont know how to count or you are REALLY REALLY bad at estimating.
|
Hmm... so my alleged bad estimate means Clinton was a good president and we can all go home now? What a waste of typing. Seriously, learn how to debate better. Why don't you argue points that actually are NOT a waste of time and ARE in fact relevant to this discussion??
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68445] |
Mon, 23 February 2004 23:17 |
 |
exnyte
Messages: 746
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
why didnt bush go to alaska? maybe he grew a brain for a few seconds and realized that his enviornmental plan was already a complete faliure at best. basically he said in ordedr to prevent forest fires, cut down all the trees!
|
Maybe Bush didn't goto Alaska because he knew it is the 49th state? Would be rather stupid to attack it for it's oil, since it's been a part of the United States since 1959... And where did that environmental plan stuff come from? It didn't have anything to do with what anyone else was currently talking about, nor did it coincide with what you were even talking about. You may want to take Crimson's advice.
American Cancer Society | Donate
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68679] |
Tue, 24 February 2004 19:01 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
oh crimson, it seems like you are getting a little mad because you contradicted yourself.
see democrats may be known for "basing all of our ideas on opinions" but republicans are known for exaggerating horribly and then trying to back down from it and change the topic to 9-11.
you still have not commentd on what i actually said and it seems you are getting a little pissed......... hee hee hee in fact your entire post was completely irrelevant and didnt make any sense whatsoever!!!
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68727] |
Wed, 25 February 2004 01:28 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I contradicted myself??
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68803] |
Wed, 25 February 2004 15:00 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| hareman |
KILL THIS THREAD BEFORE IT MULTIPLIES
|
NO! Politics is a very important topic, and should not just be removed from public viewing. Just because you [apparently] don't know anything about politics doesn't mean it should be banned. Go back to posting more spam in the General Discussion area of the forums.
| Crimson |
There's an informal survey on Vote.com with over 15,000 respondents, and 75% of them say that Bush releasing proof of his National Guard service is good enough proof that he served his time correctly. So why can't YOU drop it too?
|
It's not perhaps possible that, rushlimbaugh.com or somewhere directed people to this poll to vote on what they thought? Because in that case, it's pretty obvious what the outcome would be.
| Crimson |
What about the poster suggests that they weren't true? Unless you have proof that he was not involved, I will still think that he was involved... looking at his entire course of conduct I draw my conclusions about his guilt or innocence, and you can draw yours. All that's required for him to be innocent is to cast reasonable doubt in the judge or jury's mind. That's pretty easy when you can use your tongue prettier than a French whore to dance your way around questions like you're Michael Flatley, Lord of the Dance.
|
Did you read what I said later on about your poster? The part where I SHOWED why all that stuff was wrong?
| Crimson |
Really? I don't think you did. Saying that the courts found him not guilty is as convincing as the president's annual Turkey pardoning on Thanksgiving. Means nothing. And if he WERE such a great guy I doubt Arkansas would have disbarred him, eh?
|
Again, you apparently didn't read the post I made where I 0wned up on your poster.
| Crimson |
No, you really didn't... just because the word "allegedly" appears doesn't mean that it's false information. The media uses that word ALL the time unless they are talking about something that DID happen, like "Blacks staged a rally in Central Park..." But "Michael Smith allegedlymurdered Kathy Johnson" after he was arrested today.
|
See above.
| Crimson |
Well, I'm sure I couldn't find you so closely involved with so many scandals and following such a horrid course of conduct.
|
Because I'm not a great Democrat president. What happened was crazy Republicans had nothing to attack Clinton with, so they started making up these insane scandals to try and make the public hate him. And it obviously worked on you. I bet you never once thought that it might possibly be crazy Republicans making up random lies or horribly bending the truth when you read about all these scandal things in the newspapers. Such a horrid course of conduct in that people accused him of random things?
| Crimson |
Uh oh, he mashed the Hitler button again.
|
At least I showed that I have an understanding of history. Besides, Hitler and Hitler's Propaganda Minister weren't the same person. And it also directly relates to today? How, you ask? Read my posts.
| Crimson |
No, they are founded in opinion. Just because you believe what you say does NOT make them truth. The easiest example, find me an inter-office memo that shows we attacked Iraq for oil. If you can't, then it's not truth and you are basing your "war for oil" argument on an opinion or a supposition.
|
I bet you didn't proofread your whole post again before you submitted it. These huge posts can get kind of annoying, can't they?
| Crimson |
Obviously you haven't read his stuff. There's a little more meat to it than that. Though, yet again, I merely read his stuff to see his viewpoint. I do not in any way agree with all of it.
|
I have read his stuff. When you pointed out that table thing, i took the time to read all the articles on the front page. They made me sad. Also, when you showed those IRS statistics then directed people to Limbaugh's site, you said he added everything up. He didn't. He took one number from the lower right of the IRS spreadsheet and made a graph out of it.
| Crimson |
Considering I proved that he cut our armed forces by at least 36% over his term, I'm going to have to ask that you prove this. It's all public information. Your source must be government-hosted information, not some article on a web site. If the person who wrote the article found it, you can too.
|
"Between 1996 and 2001, federal spending on counterterrorism increased dramatically to more than $12 billion annually. The FBI's counterterrorism budget rose even more sharply, from $78 million in 1996 to $609 million in 2000, tripling the number of agents assigned to such activities and creating a new counterterrorism center at the bureau's Washington headquarters." - Salon.com
Oh, and the whole cutting the military thing is kind of silly because
A) The Soviet Union, the last real superpower in the world collapsed.
B) The U.S. spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined.
| Crimson |
No, we're not talking about Microsoft, however, seeing how much he spent fighting them compared to how much he spent fighting terror, you can see that his priority did not lie in protecting us from terrorist attack.
|
How much did Clinton spend hunting Microsoft?
| Crimson |
Really? So he wasn't trying to get UN support to attack Saddam? Oh, but he was, my friend. And he was supported by the same Democrats who are now against Bush for doing the same thing. Including Kerry!
|
He wasn't after Saddam for being a terrorist, which is what I meant. He went after Saddam for being mean and invading Kuwait, I believe. He wasn't trying to go in under false pretexts like WMDs.
| Crimson |
Ohhh... so from what I can tell, it's OK for Saddam to run a country, but it's not OK for Bush to? VOTE SADDAM 2004!!!
|
What in the world are you talking about? I hate Saddam. I wish he would go away. What I don't like about Bush is swarming Iraq with soldiers and decieving America in to following him.
| Crimson |
DUHHHHHHHHH You start with the largest threats first and work your way down. We are not attacking North Korea because they already have nukes and it's too late to deal with them militarily. They are being dealt with diplomatically.
|
Yes, but was Iraq really the largest threat?
Did you read that link I posted in my last..erhm...post?
| Crimson |
Hmm... so my alleged bad estimate means Clinton was a good president and we can all go home now?
|
No, but it perhaps suggests that you were being a little shady with the actual poster.
| Crimson |
Maybe Bush didn't goto Alaska because he knew it is the 49th state? Would be rather stupid to attack it for it's oil, since it's been a part of the United States since 1959... And where did that environmental plan stuff come from? It didn't have anything to do with what anyone else was currently talking about, nor did it coincide with what you were even talking about. You may want to take Crimson's advice.
|
majikent, you don't necessarily have to attack an area to get oil from it. And Bush's forest plan does involve chopping down the largest trees so as to reduce the risk of forest fires. Even though you would be hard-pressed to find a scientist who believes in this crazy talk. First, big trees keep the forest moist and actually PREVENT forest fires. Second, the low-lying plants are what actually cause fires. And, all this time we have been talking about Bush. It's not a crime to point out something bad about someone else, even though Bush would like to have you think that it's unpatriotic.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68814] |
Wed, 25 February 2004 15:42 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I bet you didn't proofread your whole post again before you submitted it. These huge posts can get kind of annoying, can't they?
|
Yes they can, which is why I'll be responding to the rest of your post at a later time (got a math project due tomorro that I haven't even started  ) but first, I MUST respond to this post of idiocy...
Look at these two posts:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
At least I showed that I have an understanding of history. Besides, Hitler and Hitler's Propaganda Minister weren't the same person. And it also directly relates to today? How, you ask? Read my posts.
|
An understanding of history, huh? Then why did you post this...
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Crimson |
Really? So he wasn't trying to get UN support to attack Saddam? Oh, but he was, my friend. And he was supported by the same Democrats who are now against Bush for doing the same thing. Including Kerry!
|
He wasn't after Saddam for being a terrorist, which is what I meant. He went after Saddam for being mean and invading Kuwait, I believe. He wasn't trying to go in under false pretexts like WMDs.
|
:rolleyes:
Does this even merit a response?
Let's see, you're either talking about George H. W. Bush, or you're making up the history you have such a thorough understanding of :rolleyes:.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #69521] |
Sun, 29 February 2004 15:28 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
^^^ aparently this math project has taken you about two days or else you would have posted you BS by now!!!!r
in response to your signature:
what do all republicans have in common? they are lying backstabbing control freaks who'll do anything to make a buck!!!
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #69540] |
Sun, 29 February 2004 16:32 |
 |
U927
Messages: 709
Registered: February 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Good god, even the most hardcore Democrats in here will be ashamed of what you say.
Please shut up. If you have nothing productive to say to anybody, don't bother saying anything at all.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit. - Aristotle
8-Bit Theatre. The power of evil compels you!
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #69632] |
Mon, 01 March 2004 10:44 |
pimp boy joe
Messages: 12
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Ho, i ain't ashamed of what llama man be saying, so go suck dick Umbral_DelaFlare you pansy ass bitch fuck off fuck you UNC Rules fuck you suck michael jackson's balls  you sukka bleebadee you crack whore mother fucker. Go talk to alejandro at the corner of fifth and broad if you want answers. NOOOWWWW!!!!!!!!! MOTHERRR FFUUCCKKEERR!!!!!!!! :twisted:
Catholics = racist stuck in the past child child molestors
Republicans = mother fucking retards that are ignorant.
Duke fans = duesh bags
Since all duke fans are republican, and allrepublicans are catholic:
You republicans are racist stuck in the past child molesting ignorant mother fucking retard duesh bags
Fuck yeah you guys suck
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #69658] |
Mon, 01 March 2004 13:38 |
hareman
Messages: 340
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Quote: |
hareman wrote:
KILL THIS THREAD BEFORE IT MULTIPLIES
NO! Politics is a very important topic, and should not just be removed from public viewing. Just because you [apparently] don't know anything about politics doesn't mean it should be banned. Go back to posting more spam in the General Discussion area of the forums.
|
Sorry Crimson but this little shit got my Ire up
Number One: FuckHead You know me from the shit that oozes from your keyboard. You are one of those candy ass whimers who has never Been There OR Done That. I participate in the POLITICAL process everyday.
Numero Du: How you ask? Becasue I am a Political Appointee To the Department of Homeland Security. I influence (on an everyday basis) what happens and how some of our politicians become educated on the positions that they take. I have written papers on terrorism. violent criminal apprenhension, drug interdiction, and hostage rescue. I have been serving MY COUNTRY FOR OVER 20 YEARS SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT ASSININE THING YOU CALL AN OPINION, What the FUCK have you ever done beside enjoy the freedom I HELPED TO PROVIDE FOR YOUR IGNORANT ASS
Nombre Trois Obviously you are to ignorant AND uneducated to see much less understand your own entrapment in the two party system. I am educated enough to decide for myself what is right and wrong anf to judge the issues on their merits not the party affiliation of someone who is repeating what others have already decided.
SO HERE IS THE END ALL
Go play with your Barbies until you are ready to join the rest of us who actually do something to make the world a better place, quit critizing those that who do. You are so typical of Americans today and a great reason why the rest of the world looks on us with suspicion and distrust.
GROW UP
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Nov 17 13:17:35 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02055 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
