|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2004 08:22:25 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by drgsoell:
Originally posted by AmiYuy:
I wasn't ticked, just annoyed that you were blaming Bush for something which wasn't really his decision. The security decides that with the school administration...don't they? |
I was not blaming Bush, IT WAS A JOKE. And actually, the security is not up to the school administration. The Secret Service decides what is needed for security. I am not begrudging them their due. But the school could have handled the parent notification better. |
I know it was a joke, hence why I said I WAS annoyed...
Anyway...
Originally posted by drgsoell:
HEY!! Come on. This thread was started as just a bit of humor to lighten up the overly sensitive political discussions (tirades?) going on in these forums.
Rather than highjacking this thread to do your Kerry/Bush bashing, start your own thread and leave this one what it originally was, Humor.
drg |
I agree...Or better yet, take it offsite to another forum! -_-
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 08:44:30 PM · #52 |
I read the article and am not sure what true evil that you are referring to. Bush hob nobs with the best of the rich and he, and his party, get far more funding (5 or 6 times more money from big business and special interests and PACs than Kerry or the dems) from the rich. That article doesn't really say much except that Bush is the man to fight the terrorists. Ha, that's a joke. They want him a lot more because it gives them a reason to fight. Anyway, what has Bush done to really make us any safer? If anything, terrorism is on the rise all around the globe and it's because of his policies and pre-emptive wars. They know what the real reasons for the US being in Iraq are: oil, geopolitical strategic gain, to divide the Middle East so to break up the nation states there for easier control, and finally, to help make money for those companies that gave him a lot of money in 2000 in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Kerry is not ideal, and I have never stated he is, but he's a lot better than Bush. I don't think he's going to dismantle the Constitution the way that Bush will. I don't think there will be as much secrecy as in the Bush admin. I don't think he will abide by the Project for a New American Century's dogma of pre-emptive wars, which has proven wrong and disasterous beyond belief. He will make a lot better judgements and choices than the current president has.
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is a matter of picking the lesser of the two evils. |
Then please consider this Democratic/Labour view on what the true evil is, and who is the better choice: I'm a Democrat for Bush. |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:04:03 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I read the article and am not sure what true evil that you are referring to. |
Uh, terrorism. Maybe you've heard of it? The number one issue of the campaign? The reason she and David Zucker and millions of other normally liberal voters are choosing Bush? I thought it was kind of obvious. Sorry for presuming...
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Bush hob nobs with the best of the rich and he, and his party, get far more funding (5 or 6 times more money from big business and special interests and PACs than Kerry or the dems) from the rich. That article doesn't really say much except that Bush is the man to fight the terrorists. Ha, that's a joke. They want him a lot more because it gives them a reason to fight. Anyway, what has Bush done to really make us any safer? If anything, terrorism is on the rise all around the globe and it's because of his policies and pre-emptive wars. They know what the real reasons for the US being in Iraq are: oil, geopolitical strategic gain, to divide the Middle East so to break up the nation states there for easier control, and finally, to help make money for those companies that gave him a lot of money in 2000 in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Kerry is not ideal, and I have never stated he is, but he's a lot better than Bush. I don't think he's going to dismantle the Constitution the way that Bush will. I don't think there will be as much secrecy as in the Bush admin. I don't think he will abide by the Project for a New American Century's dogma of pre-emptive wars, which has proven wrong and disasterous beyond belief. He will make a lot better judgements and choices than the current president has.
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
This is a matter of picking the lesser of the two evils. |
Then please consider this Democratic/Labour view on what the true evil is, and who is the better choice: I'm a Democrat for Bush. |
|
Blah, blah, blah.... I won't spend any time responding 1) out of deference to drgsoell's wish that this not be a kerry/bush bashing thread, and 2) because it's just becoming soooooooooo boringly laborious to deal with this tripe over and over and over and...
(The one benefit I can see from a Kerry victory is not having to listen to this whiney crap for four more years. Though somehow I'm sure you'd all find some way...) |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:13:36 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Yeah but we don't want to learn from history, or literature. Don't wanna read no Orwell when I got some ass-kicking to do. We just want to make the mistakes all by ourselves. Ignorance is a positive feedback system.
Originally posted by Gordon:
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.
The citizen [...] is not allowed to know anything of the tenets of the other two philosphies, but he is taught to execrate them as barbarous outrages upon morality and common sense. Actually, the three philosophies are barely distinguishableâ€Â¦
Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for 'Science.' The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc.
a nation of warriors and fanatics, marching forward in perfect unity, all thinking the same thoughts and shouting the same slogans, perpetually working, fighting, triumphing, persecuting - three hundred million people all with the same face.
the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
What can you do [...] against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?"
|
|
Who is 'we'? |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:16:54 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by frychikn:
Who is 'we'? |
Asking who 'are' we, may take us a lil further.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:31:03 PM · #56 |
Aren't you getting tired of the blah blah blah from the Bush administration about how Iraq had WMDs and that they were in kahoots with al Qaeda, or that Iraq was starting up it's nuclear weapons program, even though none of that panned out to be true? I don't see you complaining about that repetativeness on their part. I certainly am tired of horsehay.
Secondly, can you substantiate that millions of liberal voters are going to be voting for Bush? What gives you that idea. I do know, however, that there are republicans voting for Kerry. Here's one of the web sites, from one of the many groups I found on why they are voting Kerry:
"We are ordinary Republicans from across the political spectrum -- moderate, conservative, and progressive -- who believe in the sanctity of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This unites us in our desire to return our country and our party to the traditional values that have been abandoned by the present extremist administration and their exclusionary allies in Congress. We have taken the unusual step of supporting a Democrat, John Kerry, because we believe he more honestly represents these values so vital to the health and well-being of our democracy. On the important issues of foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, tax policy, energy, the environment, media consolidation, civil liberties and trust, history has shown us all too clearly that John Kerry will be a far better steward than the present administration. We believe that all Americans should heed George Washington's wisdom and put country before party." [May 31, 2004]
YOu can access their web site at:
Republicans for Kerry
Also, I think the link you posted on David Zucker is for TimesOnline, and if I"m not mistaken, that's a Washington Times newspaper in the UK. They are owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon of cult Moonie fame. If that's true, then I very much doubt that story I read.
Originally posted by ScottK:
Blah, blah, blah.... I won't spend any time responding 1) out of deference to drgsoell's wish that this not be a kerry/bush bashing thread, and 2) because it's just becoming soooooooooo boringly laborious to deal with this tripe over and over and over and...
(The one benefit I can see from a Kerry victory is not having to listen to this whiney crap for four more years. Though somehow I'm sure you'd all find some way...) |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:44:27 PM · #57 |
Drgsoell,
Sorry that this thread was hijacked into something serious. We certainly need some humor and to lighten things up. However, I doubt very much if the parents of military personnel who died, or who have been maimed in Iraq would be laughing. Nor do I think the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, or their families, who have been detained for years without being charged with any crimes, or without legal recourse, would be laughing much either. In fact, I doubt that any of the families of 9/11 would be laughing. Nor would any of the innocent families in Iraq be laughing. Maybe the only ones laughing, along with Bush, would be the rich who've gotten tax breaks, and the corporations and special interests who have paid for the Bush presidency.
I apologize for this very sober lecture, but for me, and many others, these are critical times. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Originally posted by drgsoell:
HEY!! Come on. This thread was started as just a bit of humor to lighten up the overly sensitive political discussions (tirades?) going on in these forums.
Rather than highjacking this thread to do your Kerry/Bush bashing, start your own thread and leave this one what it originally was, Humor.
drg |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:44:59 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Aren't you getting tired of the blah blah blah from the Bush administration about how Iraq had WMDs and that they were in kahoots with al Qaeda, or that Iraq was starting up it's nuclear weapons program, even though none of that panned out to be true? I don't see you complaining about that repetativeness on their part. I certainly am tired of horsehay. |
No, not really. What I am tired of is the blah blah blah from, well, you.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Secondly, can you substantiate that millions of liberal voters are going to be voting for Bush? What gives you that idea. I do know, however, that there are republicans voting for Kerry. Here's one of the web sites, from one of the many groups I found on why they are voting Kerry:
"Tripe tripe tripe, I registered republican because everyone told me I should but I went to college and now I'm all peace and taxes." [May 31, 2004]
|
Apologies for the truncation, I wanted to make it shorter but still have the same meaning. But I digress. My point is that "What gives you that idea." is not grammatically sound. How do you expect me to take you seriously if you phrase a question as a sentence? There are simpler ways to imply a rhetorical factor, but please, don't step outside the boundaries of the English language. I am doing you a great act of grace by examine your other points, even though you have carried through with this treasonous injustice of the literate. Feel lucky, young teague.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, I think the link you posted on David Zucker is for TimesOnline, and if I"m not mistaken, that's a Washington Times newspaper in the UK. They are owned by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon of cult Moonie fame. If that's true, then I very much doubt that story I read. |
And right about here is where I retract my previous statement on considering your points. Let me show you how this sounds to me: "OMG dude i herd taht wuz a newspaepr pwnd by taht moonie guy LOL im not gunna reed it" I don't see reason to further express my points. You've carried on with your travesties long enough. Is there a shroud of dignity left in you, urging to resign from your vigil of slanted facts and pre-pubescent accusations? I would certainly hope so.
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 21:47:25.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:48:02 PM · #59 |
Actualy it turned out that there quest for nuclear weapons was MUCH further along than the Bush administration had thought or implied. If you read the latest reports from Iraq instead of what your choice of media feeds you, you might be able to speak with some intelligence.
But then again, I'm sure just out of habit, you would parse out anything that might shine good light on the other side.
Also: Last time I heard, the Texans for Truth and the Republicans for Kerry were pretty small groups of people. Any idiot can start a website and syphen content from someone else... I don't even know how to approach the rest of your comments. Your so completly one sided and close minded that it's basically pointless to even read your threads... |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:52:58 PM · #60 |
Who cares what YOU are tired of???
Originally posted by xtabintun:
No, not really. What I am tired of is the blah blah blah from, well, you. |
Attack the messenger when you have nothing better to say, and just because I forgot the question mark.
Originally posted by xtabintun:
Apologies for the truncation, I wanted to make it shorter but still have the same meaning. But I digress. My point is that "What gives you that idea." is not grammatically sound. How do you expect me to take you seriously if you phrase a question as a sentence? There are simpler ways to imply a rhetorical factor, but please, don't step outside the boundaries of the English language. I am doing you a great act of grace by examine your other points, even though you have carried through with this treasonous injustice of the literate. Feel lucky, young teague. |
Like I said, you have nothing to say.
Originally posted by xtabintun:
And right about here is where I retract my previous statement on considering your points. Let me show you how this sounds to me: "OMG dude i herd taht wuz a newspaepr pwnd by taht moonie guy LOL im not gunna reed it" I don't see reason to further express my points. You've carried on with your travesties long enough. Is there a shroud of dignity left in you, urging to resign from your vigil of slanted facts and pre-pubescent accusations? I would certainly hope so. |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 10:03:19 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Who cares what YOU are tired of??? |
Ah, the great irony. Don't you find it a tad belittling that no one asked for your opinion; however you jump on me like a viscious hound, using not one, not two, but a grand total of 3 question marks? (Perhaps this could be a compensation for the lack of one earlier, but I'm in great doubt).
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Attack the messenger when you have nothing better to say, and just because I forgot the question mark. |
My dear and noble teague, you have misjudged me. I was not attacking you. I was just granting you a caution. If you want to exude serity, you must act like you are educated in all the great arts: History, Politics, Nettiquete, Spelling.
I must now draw a correlation. If you will excuse my tangent, have you ever noticed how a cornered dog (or any great beast) acts? It starts going on the defensive, howling and barking, gnashing its teeth and flashing its claws. You, teague, have resorted to personal attacks on my self. Capitalizing whole words, throwing in extra question marks, excruciatingly painful run-ons, the whole vocabulary downfall has been bestowed upon you. If I were you, teague, I would calm myself and submit to my advice. All you are doing is making a complete buffoon of yourself.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Like I said, you have nothing to say. |
Likewise, my teague. Likewise.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 10:03:39 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Your so completly one sided and close minded that it's basically pointless to even read your threads... |
^^ |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 10:07:42 PM · #63 |
NOTE: Before I recieve any more painful personal attacks, or statements insulting my readiness for conversation, I must note that due to the nature of the first post, I have taken the topic of this thread and applied it to my sayings.
Is humor really something that is so hard to grasp? All I was implying was pantagruelism, but it appears that your are all too caught up in your rambling and link-posting to notice the buffooning humor of my statements.
Oh well, humor is wasted on the humorless. Or the politically correct.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 10:29:56 PM · #64 |
| Has the Bush administration solved any of the other terror attacks we've sustained besides 9/11? I'm talking about the anthrax mailings and the mailbox bombings that happened in the fall after 9/11. Did they ever do an investigation and what did it come up with? |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 08:41:54 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Has the Bush administration solved any of the other terror attacks we've sustained besides 9/11? I'm talking about the anthrax mailings... |
It was most likely someone from inside the US and not related to overseas terrorist groups. They have not found the actual person responsible for sending the letters, but they have found out where it [the anthrax] came from. Pre 9/11 security measures on these chemicals were not all that high. Several friends in the medical field have complained about many of the changes for security... In other words, it was very easy for someone IN THE MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION field to get access. Maybe from there it was sold to an extreme right wing group.
The targets were all wrong for it to be over seas terrorism as well. They would have been sending the letters to their biggest supporters...
I do like how you try and blame Bush for not finding the culprit(s) though, that̢۪s very good; pathetic, but very good...
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 05:25:06 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Aren't you getting tired of the blah blah blah from the Bush administration about how Iraq had WMDs and that they were in kahoots with al Qaeda, or that Iraq was starting up it's nuclear weapons program, even though none of that panned out to be true? |
No. I can't get tired of hearing something that doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 01:29:16 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 01:29:16 PM EDT.
|
