I'm smarter than Bush.

And Nixon was absolutely brilliant, and Reagan definitely wasn't, especially after his mind started slipping.

'Smart' has everything to do with intelligence, being a quick thinker, etc and not merely knowledge Kieran which is what you're describing.

I have yet to see anything from Bush to indicate he is "a hell of a lot smarter" than the rest of us....and no that is not a claim that he is an idiot.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

To the first comment: Then can I be on your future presidential staff to offer an opposing view to your other staffers? You know, just so you can get all points of views? Of course, then you would have to hire a conservative too. I think Joren is available.

To the second: No, Nixon wasn't. He abused the powers of the CIA and expected not to be caught, recorded his private conversations when he was doing these shady things with the CIA and others things(did you know he was a huge anti-semite?), and tried to cover up for his staff when he could have just fired the people responsible for certain illegal acts and look like a non-partisan hero. Instead, he chooses a course that lead down to multiple lies, the firing of several attorney generals because they didn't do what he wanted(drop the charges against those that broke into watergate and covered it up), and added on top of this his broken promises of getting out of Vietnam(and started some minor crap with Cambodia). He came out looking like a power-hungry, paranoid, crooked liar. But I think it's probably more along the lines of him being very short-sighted, unable to see the bigger picture, and being totally out of touch with his contituents. Then again, that's just my speculation. Also, yes, Reagan slipped. But that was largely after his terms(though he did some shady stuff too. wasn't stupid, but it was shady as hell).

------------------
"What I find especially funny are the neo-Celtic religions based on accounts made by the Romans. It's like learning about Judaism from Nazi lore." --stat

No, it wasn't. Not even in the slightest. Just because our culture labels a leader of another culture a dictator (a) doesn't mean it's so by that culture's standard and (b) still is not justification to go to war.

Incidentally:
http://www.ericblumrich.com/liberation.html

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

[This message has been edited by CaptBewil (edited February 10, 2004).]

"Ya... that would explain why he got where he is, as leader of one of the most powerful nation on earth... mhmmmmm that makes sense. You can blame him on Iraq all you want, but the war was justified wmd or not."

Jesus christ! Have you noticed that George W Bush just happened to have a father who was also PRESIDENT!?! Do you think that perhaps had anything to do with him becoming President himself? No...couldn't be!

And I don't see anyone "blaming him on Iraq" whatever the hell that means, but may I ask what your reasons are for justifying the war WMD or not? Preferably in more then one line of rhetoric?

i like this one

http://www.bushin30seconds.com/view/03_large.shtml

------------------
Drugs & Stupidity, Tons of it.

Why do all the super liberals think it was some super conspiracy that got Bush elected. Yes, his father was president and of course it helped out. That's the way the game works.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

You answered your own question.

They are super-liberals.

What that means is intelligent, coherent thought does not apply to them. To them, intelligent, coherent thought means buying in to whatever the Democratic party tells you, not looking at the facts unbiasedly, and thinking for yourself on a decision.

Want proof? Simple - just disagree and present facts to any one of them who claims to have an open mind, and watch them go off on a holy fit. If they were so open-minded, one would think they would have considered what you put forth, no?

To be truthful, being super-anything, be it liberal or conservative, is detrimental, because it means you have allowed your political party to skew the issues.

Liberals just get picked on more because there are more of them. And the sad thing is, a super-anyone doesn't see themselves as such - they see themselves as normal. Thus, it only perpetuates the ignorance in a never-ending cycle.

It's quite a pathetic sight, really.

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Ironic, isn't it?

I agree. I am sick of this "vast right-wing conspiracy" all the liberals always complain about. Just because Bush's daddy was Prez, all the liberals immediately think it's a big conspiracy that Bush Jr got elected. How bout when John Adams was President? Did people complain when John Quincy Adams became president? Did they think it was all just a big conspiracy? No, that's just what happened. He got elected. End of story.

I'm also sick of you people complaining about how "Gore really won" and all this crap. It's been almost FOUR YEARS. Get over it. Whether or not you agree with it, Bush is indeed the President and it's been four years already, so can the **** and shut up. I've never seen such a display of sore-loserism in my life. If Kerry goes on to be the Democrat candidate and he beats Bush, I won't be happy. But will I ***** and complain and say the election was rigged? No. I'll deal with it and move on.

And about the war in Iraq. I agree with the fact that Bush made a mistake by guaranteeing Saddam had WMD when we went in. However, it was the only way to get anyone to agree with the war. If he wouldn't said, "Saddam has killed 500,000 people and is a brutal dictator," no one would've cared, because it doesn't directly effect them. However, I don't care about the WMD anymore. All I care about is that Iraq is on its way to democracy and out of the hands of a dictator. You can ***** all you want about the current situation in Iraq now, but you CANNOT argue that they were better off with Saddam. There is no argument you can make that says a country is better off with a dictator that murders people just because they are of a different ethnicity or because they speak against him. Saddam is in the same class as Hitler. Both of those guys are racist, murdering sons of *****es that needed to go, and they did.

------------------
Kids must be shot by Monday.

Honesty tests for workers can't be trusted, report says.

Psychopaths are unpredictable.

Jay Leno's Headlines > Everything

On the topic of intelligence that was briefly brought up. Wisdom and Intelligence are two VERY different things. A wise man would seem intelligent because of his understandings. The flip-side is that a genious can seem like an incredible idiot for making poor decisions. I know the latter part very well. Mom has even dubbed me as the "absent-minded professor." I believe her. I've said/done some foolish things.

No, Bush is not smarter than the lot of us. I say he's wiser though. He's lived a lot more years on Earth more than you all.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

The only thing ironic is that quote coming from you.

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

There is a difference between being stupid and not thinking well on your feet. (And yes, the expression still applies when you are sitting down.)

Actually, there are more people who identify themselves with the conservatives than the liberals. Mainly due to the conservative teenager trend.

Also, Joren, you do realize the pretty much everything you said in that post could be used against you by someone else, right?

And don't forget Rush Limbaughs theories on the "liberal conspiracy". God I hate that guy.

And that's besides the fact that the popular vote means nothing and the electoral college is everything. Hopefully we will get a voting system that is a mix of the two.

actually, yeah there is. It has to do with safety, order, and some such. I'm not saying it would be the best stance to take, but it's a valid stance.

No, I think it would be the other way around. Bush is more intelligent then us, but maybe not as wise. btw, I know you got the Intelligence and Wisdom thing form D&D. It's still valid though.

------------------
"What I find especially funny are the neo-Celtic religions based on accounts made by the Romans. It's like learning about Judaism from Nazi lore." --stat

I will have to get the numbers from my political science book, but roughly, out of 100% that vote, 45% are listed as democrat, 30% listed as republican, and 25% as undecided. It's the undecided that end up making the elections.



Yes, I realize that. The old "well, so are you!" argument. They can try to use it, but it won't work. I have and will concede to good points when they are made, and will extend myself to honestly look at both sides of the issue. The fact is, I rarely just blow my lid and go off on someone, or result to just insults, when confronted with a point. I may stick a jab in here or there, but I present what I believe to be the facts, and present links to why I believe them to be so.

Let's face it. There are people who cannot tolerate even being the slightest degree wrong. I realize someone might point to me, but I have conceded to good points when they are made, and have realigned my thinking when they are brought up. That is not the mark of someone who needs to be right. On the other hand, there are a lot of people here, where all they do is attack attack attack, but the minute you put them on the defensive, they get all indignant.

Those are the people I am refering to. And quite honestly, I would expect a response from those people to be something along the creative lines of "Nyah, so are you!"

*Shrugs* But hey, there is no talking to those people, because they just want to fight and be considered right - they don't care whether or not they actually are right...

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

Since you ignored my last post, Joren, maybe you'll take the time to read this one and perhaps you'll stop blaming the CIA. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3533304

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

erm Joren, I haven't really seen you give in to any points. It might be because I've seen you the most on the religious forums and I know you have deep religious conviction. I just don't think your as unbiased as you think you are. Yes, you insult far less them most people. Yes, you are a cocky *** wipe less than most people(I find being a cocky *** wipe to be a trend among those that actually don't really know what they are talking about so they have to compensate).

Hmmm...interesting. I went to my government book.

There is a graph in here about ideolgical self-placement.
2% said Extremely Liberal
10% said Liberal
14% said Slightly Liberal
30% said Moderate
20% said Slightly Conservative
21% said Conservative
4% said Extremely Conservative

but there is another graph(this one a line graph) about college student ideological self-placement.

About 55% say Moderate
About 37% say Liberal
About 19% say Conservative

Then there is another box graph(which is similar to the one at www.politicalcompass.org. The site doesn't exist anymore though).
22% Liberals
20% Libertarians
29% Communitarians
30% Conservatives

Now, I come to the graph I was thinking earlier.
First, it is of parties, not ideologies as I had thought. Democrats look to be narrowly ahead of the Republicans. Though it does say that the Democrats' majority has shrunk over the years and the Independents have gotten much larger.

Anyway, what happened with Joren's Love? You two break up or something? Or did she get sick of us?

------------------
"What I find especially funny are the neo-Celtic religions based on accounts made by the Romans. It's like learning about Judaism from Nazi lore." --stat

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited February 11, 2004).]

I thought this was the funniest / most thought-provoking: http://www.bushin30seconds.com/view/2802_small.shtml

I thought this was the most well-done (I can't believe it didn't win): http://www.bushin30seconds.com/view/08_small.shtml

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

Heh, I was actually thinking about that while writing that post. D&D only made what I've known for the foremost of my life into nice, neat, numerical attribute modifiers

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

I honestly can not believe you're the one calling others ignorant. Thanks for turning this thread to crap with your pointless, provocative insults.

You're - I - You -

Could you just go off on everybody again and get banned?

------------------
Shut up. I'm GOING to do this whether you like it or not.

Let us see here. I seem to recall a younger Senator Kerry stating in 1998 (sometime back then) that saddam was a dictator and needed to be ousted. Now let us look at the present day Kerry, hypocritical and saying the war was unjust and unnecessary. Saddam WAS a terrible dictator, who tourtured his own people. Now you say "how so?". Well could the mass graves discovered, and tourture chambers have anything to do with that? Should a leader that does things like that to his own people be allowed to stay in power? I think not, unless of course you are just as cold hearted as saddam was.

Kerry was tlaking along those same lines early last year. Funny that he changes his tune now, don't you think?

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Tracer: It's only a matter of time. And then it's only a matter of time after that until he comes crawling back. I guess it must be hard to quit after pretending to win so many arguments.





So says the person who continues to ignore Roach's point (and supporting evidence) that the CIA is not itself to blame in the Bush administration's political fumblings over the past term.

[/b]

So says the person that many people would agree is the most closed-minded and arrogant on the religious discussion forum. Holy fit, indeed Joren.



As ashamed as I am at my own 'You, too!' remark, Joren has to regress into his childhood and post "I know you are but what am I?"



Don't hate yourself too much, Joren.



----------

Regarding the ideology line of conversation: Generally, yes, Americans are a lot more conservative than someone from a Commonwealth nation. (Always remember this before you Americans start commnenting on our politics! )

However, at this point Bush is anything but a conservative. He's been spending a lot of money pointlessly, and expanding the government to outrageous extents, and trying to implement some fairly silly progressive social programs. This is in addition to the pre-existing (although usually less predominant) conservative nationalist trends and the lowered priority placed on civil rights vs government power.

IMO, it's as though the Bush administration embodies the absolute worst policies of both American parties.

Yeah, and he spent quite a few of those drinking and partying. Not that the past matters so much, but if you are going to bring up the argument that "more years equals more wisdom," then you might want to take into consideration what was going on during those years.

------------------
"I am downright amazed at what I can destroy with just a hammer."
-Atom and His Package

I don't believe Bush is a gibbering idiot, but the day I think that man is a hell of a lot more intelligent than everyone here is the day I stop putting off that frontal lobotomy.

------------------
Hahaha, clownsuit.

Um, I'm a Republican. It's simply that I'm unbiased and realize the problems in our own government, regardless of party affiliation. Moral of the story? Just because someone is against the Republican Presidential Administration, it doesn't make them Libieral. What you have just committed is a reasoning fallacy. This is just as bad as when Hillary said the whole thing over Clinton was "...a vast Right-Wing Conspiracy." There was no conspiracy, what Clinton was doing was wrong. Same applies in this situation.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

Agreed, I can't think of a single administration that brought the U.S. so close to a police state than Bush and friends.



------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Hmm... Wuss, you bring up something I should not have forgotten. I had a conversation with my track coach and I had about wisdom and aging once. Age and wisdom do not go hand-in-hand. I know that. There are those of Bush's age that still drink and party and...do worse things. But..Bush turned his back to the days of excessive partying and drinking. He grew up. He saw that that life was destructive. That's wisdom from experience. So I guess that can be an example of "wisdom through the years.."


------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

Actually, he's not. I scored higher on my SAT.


------------------
please

I'd like to see examples of the United States being "so close" to a police state. And what is this "police state" ? Is it at the whim of a command the troops will be marching through our streets and martial law be declared?

Personally I think the liberal social programs that Congress and/or state governments want or have passed that put people on government dependency is what is eroding away at freedoms.


------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

So... what you're saying is that Presidents that abuse the power of the CIA are... not good...? ...Do you read what other people post?

------------------
please

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Eleven! Eleven examples! Ah! Ah! Ah! [/The Count]

[edit-grr...ubb code...]

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

[This message has been edited by Roach (edited February 12, 2004).]

FDR during WWII? What about McCartyism?

Roach:
1.) Joint task forces = police state? Anything but. It goes two ways, or did you even read that? Local forces can request the use of government agent and vice versa. Cooperation between national, state and local law enforcement is not new.

2.) No kidding. You think Bush is the only president that puts postitive spin an anything? Get real.

3.) Holding international prisoners has no affect on your rights as an American citizen.

4, 5.) Patriot Act - don't disagree. I tink it sucks.

6.) Again, all politicians spin everything to make themselves look good or to make the peopel feel happy.

7.) Um, if you're going to complain about the government getting your personal information via the mail service, I should let you know about the IRS, the Selective Service, the DMV, the court system that send you those annoying jury duty notices, public school systems, the Census and such. You give your personal information to all these government agencies without a thought.

8.) There are things that shouldn't be made public for the very reason that making them public would be stupid.

9.) Been going on for years, through many different presidents.

10.) see 5,6

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

1.) The CIA was forbidden from acting within the U.S. for a reason...
2.) The Bush admin has quite possibly hidden more from the public than any administration.
3.) There are people there who are possibly U.S. citizens being held for unknown charges against them.
4.) The Patriot Act is the first of its kind.
5.) 4.
6.) 2.
7.) The difference is you know you are giving up information, these stamps would make it impossible for anyone to send anything annonymously.
8.) 2.
9.) That's funny, the article says it's a recent developement...
10.) 4.


------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Our culture? ... Our culture? How many people from other countries, Iraq included, have to call the man a dictator, in order for you to realize that just maybe he was? There are plenty of valid reasons to have opposed the war, and a poor attempt at sophistry isn't one of them. You can't snap your fingers and redefine a word.

And you claim to be unbiased while posting an oh-so-witty link that puts quotation marks around Bush's title? And quotes some Iraqis and anti-US slogans while completely ignoring support in other areas? Hell, even Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Mr Resistance himself, would say that's stupid. His plan to foment civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias (outlined in an intercepted letter to Qaeda leadership) was borne partially out of the realization that most of the Iraqi public does not support the resistance.

You're about as unbiased as Brit Hume and the rest of FOX's newscast.

1.) With regards to the CIA, the line gets blurred when dealing a possible terrorist attack from outside the country. That puts some responsibility on the CIA and some on the local authorities. If it means the CIA can call another agency and give them some information, that's fine by me. The mandates of agencies can change.

2.) Find me a President that hasn't.

3.) Possibly? Need to do better than that

4.) I don't disagree with you on the Patriot Act, or did you even read that part?

7.) Tell me how this affects one's privacy again. It's not like they are going through the mail or anything. Furthermore, tons or your personal info gets sold everytime you get a credit card or subscribe to a magazine. You know all those annoying telemarketers? Where do you think they get your phone number?

8.) You're assuming Bush is willfully lying to the public.

9.) Recent seeing as we have been invovled in an armed conflict/war/whatever you want to call it. If you think it hasn't happened before, you are just a little naive. Vietnam, the Cold War, WWII. It happened then too.

10.) Just want to get one thing straight: I don't disagree with you on the Patriot Act

If we were living in a police state, there would be curfews, armed soldiers on the street, all the time. Massive numbers of US citizens would be locked up. The press would be completely censored. Etc. Etc.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

How do you know it isn't? Just out of curiosity. Do you think they'd put up billboards that say "We're censoring everything now!" or something?

I'm trying to find references to examples of military censorship in Iraq - such as reporters not being allowed to talk to soldiers unless accompanied by a special officer, press pools, and reporter arrests/friendly fire, but Google isn't being very cooperative. Maybe someone else can do it.

You are wrong about me not presenting facts, Kieran. Here comes a double dose:

For Roach:

A) The article in the NZ Herald was written by California media, which is notoriously very left wing.

B) The director/producer of the documentary in question, Robert Greenwald, not only is anti-war, but a contributor to the democratic party. Proof?
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=Greenwald%2C+Robert&NumOfThou=0&txt2004=Y&submit=Go%21

All 3 are him - he has 2 addresses. OpenSecrets tracks where the money goes in campaign contrabutions. I smell a Michael Moore style documentary - you know, one where they lie, splice together film from different times and represent it as cohesive, and lie about all sorts of things in order to make people believe their point?

So of course, these things now would have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the upcoming election, or the political affiliation of the writer of the article nor the director/producer. /sarcasm

One more thing - read your own article again. Aside from a baseless accusation that Bush was aware of the goings on early on, the article continues to detail the CIA blunders. So I can't believe you are telling me to not blame the CIA when YOUR OWN ARTICLE details how they screwed up. Take off the damn blinders man.

2)Kieran -

This is from The National Election Study surveys, for the 2000 election, the last time we had a presidential election:

2000
--------------------
Strong Democrats: 19%
Weak Democrats: 15%
Leaning Democrat: 15%
Independant: 12%
Leaning Republican: 13%
Weak Republican: 12%
Strong Republican: 12%
Apolitical: 1%
----------------------------------
*Does not sum to 100% due to rounding.


By that information, and simple addition, you can see that 49% of voters identify with Democrats, while only 37% identify with the Republicans.

If you need the book I got this from, it is Politics, Parties, and Elections in America, by John F. Bibby, and the information is on page 321, Table 8.5

Enough facts for you Kieran?
Choke on it.

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*

The odd thing is, by that statement, you are the one acting with bias, essentially telling me that you don't think I can be very unbiased due to my faith.

I will fully admit that my beliefs determine how I vote. But how is that different from anyone else? Be it because they believe in a religion, a political party, or certain issues, everyone votes on their beliefs - the question is, how misguided are those beliefs.

You should also know from the religious forums that I argue when incorrect facts are brought up. I was not there to convert people, or make them believe anything. I was only there to present the best informed case I could for whatever was discussed. If they choose to believe it or not, that's up to them. Also, you should know I gave as much hell to some of the "christians" for not living up to what they are called to be (kind, compassionate, and forgiving) as much as I did to the athiests who were there simply to troll and argue. It's just that ignorance on any level gets to me, be it political, religious, or personal.

My faith is my own. I expect no one to believe what I do unless they want to, nor am I called to make them believe. I am called to give them the best information I possibly can, and leave it for them to decide.

And in everything, that is all I am doing. Taking the fight to ignorance, and trying to inform people, and get them to see things from the other side. You think I haven't thought about the possibility of the whole "War for Oil" or "Finishing Daddy's Business" line of thinking? I have, but there isn't much fact to substantiate it; only bitter accusations and reaches of logic to make a point.

All in all, I will admit I am not unbiased. But no one is. It is impossible to be unbiased. But, I always try for that anyway, to remove as much bias from me as possible. I am a man who lives by logic, and seeing people ignorant in the face of logic, or even common sense, does get my ire up.

So yes, I tend to get passionate when I argue. But not so much that it becomes about proving I am right - it always is about trying to get people to see the other side, and take an honest look at things, from all angles, rather than grab one biased thing that says "Here look at me, I am right! I won! Nyah Nyah!".

But hey, that's me. My plusses and faults all out there. Just understand I argue with passion to make people open their minds, not necessarily agree with me. If someone can provide a decent argument, I will always consider it. Its just that few people can piece one together here.

Lol, times like this I miss the old days on the SWG boards with Screamfeeder - there was a guy who could put together a real argument. The world needs more people like him - people who challenge, not to be right, but to make others take the blinders off and look at the whole picture.

------------------
*Joren, Legend, Alleged Egomaniac, Thread-Killer, 2-time Ban Recipient, and 6th Grade Spelling Champ*