NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, maybe they don't exactly LOVE him, but they didn't throw dog shit on him or anything.

Jan. 31, 2007 - On Tuesday, President Bush popped in for a surprise visit to the Sterling Family Restaurant, a homey diner in Peoria, Ill. It’s a scene that has been played out many times before by this White House and others: a president mingling among regular Americans, who, no matter what they might think of his policies, are usually humbled and shocked to see the leader of the free world standing 10 feet in front of them.

But on Tuesday, the surprise was on Bush. In town to deliver remarks on the economy, the president walked into the diner, where he was greeted with what can only be described as a sedate reception. No one rushed to shake his hand. There were no audible gasps or yelps of excitement that usually accompany visits like this. Last summer, a woman nearly fainted when Bush made an unscheduled visit for some donut holes at the legendary Lou Mitchell’s Restaurant in Chicago. In Peoria this week, many patrons found their pancakes more interesting. Except for the click of news cameras and the clang of a dish from the kitchen, the quiet was deafening.

“Sorry to interrupt you,” Bush said to a group of women, who were sitting in a booth with their young kids. “How’s the service?” As Bush signed a few autographs and shook hands, a man sitting at the counter lit a cigarette and asked for more coffee. Another woman, eyeing Bush and his entourage, sighed heavily and went back to her paper. She was reading the obituaries. “Sorry to interrupt your breakfast,” a White House aide told her. “No problem,” she huffed, in a not-so-friendly way. “Life goes on, I guess.”

It’s hard to predict if Tuesday is a preview of what is to come for Bush in his final two years in office. While the calendar shows that he still has more than 700 days at the White House, Bush is struggling for relevancy in the same way many other second-term presidents have. But Bush’s burden seems much harder than other presidents in recent memory. He is weighed down by an increasingly unpopular war, and his efforts to stay atop the news cycle have been overshadowed by the battle over who will replace him in 2009. While the 24-hour cable-news networks used to carry most of Bush’s speeches live, that’s no longer the norm. On Wednesday, Bush went to Wall Street to deliver remarks on the economy. CNN and MSNBC carried portions of the speech live, but Fox News Channel, a network that has been viewed as sympathetic to this White House, did not, opting instead to air reports on immigration and the 2008 presidential race. At least Bush got a raucous reception from traders (typically a GOP-friendly crowd) when he paid a surprise visit to the New York Stock Exchange trading floor.

More... (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16908975/site/newsweek/?nav=slate)

Well with a 30% approval rating what's he expect? Zombie Nixon is more popular than him.

tee-hee, i have some funny images in my head now.

Well with a 30% approval rating what's he expect? Zombie Nixon is more popular than him.

Dubya's come this far, why not go the whole nine yards and become the most unpopular president, ever, and prevent future presidents from taking the title by getting a zero percent approval rating! ;)

Dubya's come this far, why not go the whole nine yards and become the most unpopular president, ever,

Not positive, be he may have already accomplished that. :)

Good for the diners at - where was it? Right, at the Sterling Family Restaurant in Peoria, Illinios. Good for them.

Well with a 30% approval rating what's he expect? Zombie Nixon is more popular than him.

What's your point? Did you read anything about the people throwing their food at him or farting in his general direction? If people didn't like him they'd leave bags of flaming poop on the Whitehouse porch.

leader of the free world

Lolz.

That's what happens when you interrupt breakfast. If he came during brunch or supper, then he might get a response. But you don't interrupt breakfast, its the most important meal of the day!

Pancakes or Bush?

I choose pancakes, thank you very much. :)

Not positive, be he may have already accomplished that. :)

after katrina his approval rating among the african american population dropped to below the margin of error for the poll - there was a decent possibility that as yet unborn black people hated his guts.

What's your point? Did you read anything about the people throwing their food at him or farting in his general direction? If people didn't like him they'd leave bags of flaming poop on the Whitehouse porch.

Who do you really think is in Gitmo? Terrorists? Hell no, it's people who've left flaming poo on his porch.

I'd have chucked the fucker out on his arse.

Who do you really think is in Gitmo? Terrorists? Hell no, it's people who've left flaming poo on his porch.

Oh, shit. Hide me. http://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_exclaim.gif

Dubya's come this far, why not go the whole nine yards and become the most unpopular president, ever, and prevent future presidents from taking the title by getting a zero percent approval rating! ;)

He wants a legacy, after all. ;)

after katrina his approval rating among the african american population dropped to below the margin of error for the poll - there was a decent possibility that as yet unborn black people hated his guts.

:D

We're talking about a president whose vice got SS people to arrest a guy for disagreeing openly with him in a mall. Ignoring him is the best they can do.

We're talking about a president whose vice got SS people to arrest a guy for disagreeing openly with him in a mall.

hell, even being his friend isn't enough to stop him from shooting you in the face.

Okay, maybe they don't exactly LOVE him, but they didn't throw dog shit on him or anything.

No, but they should have. I would have. :)

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

hey look, a 28 percenter - fascinating

hey look, a 28 percenter - fascinating

Collectors item there. Bag 'em quick.

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

Wait, you're pro Bush (Viva Bush) or against Bush (Bush is incompetent and will cause/allow another terrorist attack)?

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

What are you going to do when no nuclear weapons go off in any of our major (or minor) cities, and it becomes apparent that some other president who extricated us from the mess that Bush caused in Iraq was the reason for peace?

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

Yeah. The damage he's done to the Middle East and how dangerous a place he's made it will certainly be the cornerstone of his legacy. His ineptitude and straight up stupidity have been displayed in every aspect of his presidency from his handling of the federal budget - $8 trillion debt - to his handling of a national crisis - you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie - to his handling of healthcare - the biggest entitlement program in the history of the US and basically a giveaway to the drug companies, but no more poignantly than in his bumbling, retarded handling of the Iraq war and Middle Eastern policy. The damage he has done to our country in that regard will take decades to repair if it can be at all. This is definately, as you point out, a disaster that will follow us home.

Yeah. The damage he's done to the Middle East and how dangerous a place he's made it will certainly be the cornerstone of his legacy. His ineptitude and straight up stupidity have been displayed in every aspect of his presidency from his handling of the federal budget - $8 trillion debt - to his handling of a national crisis - you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie - to his handling of healthcare - the biggest entitlement program in the history of the US and basically a giveaway to the drug companies, but no more poignantly than in his bumbling, retarded handling of the Iraq war and Middle Eastern policy. The damage he has done to our country in that regard will take decades to repair if it can be at all. This is definately, as you point out, a disaster that will follow us home.

That was beautiful.

That was beautiful.

I have my moments. :)

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

Says a lot about you if you'd actually gloat after a city got destroyed by a nuclear bomb.

I personally believe that President Bush's legacy will be defined by what the Middle East looks like in 50 years. When a nuclear weapon goes off in one of our major cities, I'll be joining the military and telling you "I told you so." Viva Bush.

In 50 years you'll be joining the military? Sweet zombie Jesus, how old can you be these days? I know they can't get recruits but damn!

I too expect Bush's failed policies to bring nuclear doom to us all.

MAN! That's only an hour away from here...too bad i didn't know about this...oh well.

Hey! The Aquabats are a republican propaganda machine:

That's Benji, from peoria, you drink the water, I implore ya

See! Drink the Water! THE WATER HAS MIND CONTROL CHEMICALS IN IT!!!

Bumphizzle.

the leader of the free world

Pfft! :rolleyes:

Not positive, be he may have already accomplished that. :)

Nah. My dad still supports him. And he is one of the most intelligent people I know.

Nah. My dad still supports him. And he is one of the most intelligent people I know.

That doesn't say much.

Nah. My dad still supports him. And he is one of the most intelligent people I know.

My condolences.

The thing is Bush would probably get re-elected even now, just because I don't approve of his job performance doesen't mean I'm going to vote for the pinko, feminist or any other variety of douchebag the Democrats are composed of these days.

the leader of the free world

Pfft! :rolleyes:

Haha Sweden, how long before your muslim immigrants outbreed you and your socialist economy implodes? 20, maybe 30 years max?

Pancakes or Bush?

I choose pancakes, thank you very much. :)

:fluffle:

Haha Sweden, how long before your muslim immigrants outbreed you and your socialist economy implodes? 20, maybe 30 years max?

For non sequiturs, yours was one particularly void.

The thing is Bush would probably get re-elected even now, just because I don't approve of his job performance doesen't mean I'm going to vote for the pinko, feminist or any other variety of douchebag the Democrats are composed of these days.

Because you'd rather keep American troops dying than offering women equal rights.

Such a patriot you are.

On a side note: You're NOT like most Americans. Stop pretending you are.

The thing is Bush would probably get re-elected even now, just because I don't approve of his job performance doesen't mean I'm going to vote for the pinko, feminist or any other variety of douchebag the Democrats are composed of these days.

That's why more people should vote Independent. :)

No one's going to comment on The Aquabat!'s right-wing propagnda to get us to drink the mind-control water.

That's why more people should vote Independent. :)

If only it were that easy, most of the country are partisan idiots anyway, and its pretty much a guarantee of our "great" 2 party system that one of them will get the presidency, senator seat etc.

In such a system, its wise to vote for the lesser evil, and I'll take a Republican over most Democrats, with a few exceptions.

And yes I'm a patriot, because right now this country has a commitment to the people of Iraq, and if America still has any value in its word I would make damn sure we keep that commitment, instead of being say, and absolute retard like yourself and using leftist talking points fed into my brain rather than my own judgement. Grow up hippie.

Ah, ad hominem attacks and yelling about "hippies" while not offering any real argument. The right-wing standby.

Ah, ad hominem attacks and yelling about "hippies" while not offering any real argument. The right-wing standby.

And it works every time because its true, and its not the sole property of right, they're not the only ones who don't like the liberal left.

The thing is Bush would probably get re-elected even now, just because I don't approve of his job performance doesen't mean I'm going to vote for the pinko, feminist or any other variety of douchebag the Democrats are composed of these days.

Seriously, put down the glass dick and back away. Bush wouldn't even win the Republican primary at this point. His approval rating among Republicans is hovering in the 40-45% range right now, and his overall rating is around 30%. If Bush were able to run for a third term and somehow got the nomination, he'd be crushed by whoever he ran against--it wouldn't even be close. He'd lose 40 states, maybe more.

And it works every time because its true, and its not the sole property of right, they're not the only ones who don't like the liberal left.

Look at this flag carefully, because it's going to flying over your house when the Democrats are elected into the WH.:p (http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/ussr.gif)

and if America still has any value in its word I would make damn sure we keep that commitment, instead of being say, and absolute retard like yourself and using leftist talking points fed into my brain rather than my own judgement.

Uh huh. Value in it's word eh? Like selling a war based on lies and outright fabrications? Using 'maybes' as 'for sure'. Saying things like "Osama is enemy #1 and we won't stop till we get him" and then going "I don't know where Osama is, and I don't care."

Suuuuure, value in it's word. About as much value as oh, used toilet paper.

Who's puppet are you?

Uh huh. Value in it's word eh? Like selling a war based on lies and outright fabrications? Using 'maybes' as 'for sure'. Saying things like "Osama is enemy #1 and we won't stop till we get him" and then going "I don't know where Osama is, and I don't care."

Suuuuure, value in it's word. About as much value as oh, used toilet paper.

Who's puppet are you?

MeansToAnEnd possibly.

Look at this flag carefully, because it's going to flying over your house when the Democrats are elected into the WH.:p (http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/ussr.gif)

Damn straight. And by the same token, if a republican gets elected, we'll fly this one:

http://www.classicfirearms.co.uk/NAZI%20FLAG%20CAPTURED%20HAMBURG%201945.jpg

Strawman is made of fail, mmmkay?

MeansToAnEnd possibly.

Wasn't MTAE himself a puppet?

Look at this flag carefully, because it's going to flying over your house when the Democrats are elected into the WH.:p (http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/ussr.gif)

No no no. There's no rainbow or a gay married illegal alien couple performing an abortion on an underaged Christian while burning the Bible and hugging Osama Bin Laden.

Wasn't MTAE himself a puppet?

That was never quite explained.



Can you get banned for having a puppet?

That was never quite explained.



Can you get banned for having a puppet?
No. You can be banned for using a puppet to post around a forum ban, however. And the mods certainly frown on using a puppet to argue with yourself, which some have done in the past--it's a pathetic sort of schizophrenia.

If I'm not mistaken, using the puppet to repeatedly post malicious or inflammatory stuff can also get you a ban.

No. You can be banned for using a puppet to post around a forum ban, however. And the mods certainly frown on using a puppet to argue with yourself, which some have done in the past--it's a pathetic sort of schizophrenia.

Sorry to go off-topic, but when exactly did he get banned?

Yeah because MOST AMERICANS don't vote for Bush and are really hip leftist pseudo-intellectuals like yourself right? Who's the president again?

Women already have equal rights, feminists only represent feminists, not women, and are just another derivative of socialist.

Of course I guess we could have the best of both worlds and send the feminists to die in Iraq, I'd support that.

And yes I'm a patriot, because right now this country has a commitment to the people of Iraq, and if America still has any value in its word I would make damn sure we keep that commitment, instead of being say, and absolute retard like yourself and using leftist talking points fed into my brain rather than my own judgement. Grow up hippie.

If you look at the current shape of both houses, you will see that most Americans already came to their senses.

No, you're not a patriot. You attack the very things your country stands for, like freedom of expression and checks and balances. You put your soldiers in the line for a fake war, knowingly. And you wish death upon those that disagree with you. Go ahead and call your own forefathers liberal "bleeding hearts" if you will, won't change the fact that I, a Brazilian, am more in tune with the ideology of America than you are. That I, a Brazilian, am more of a true American than you are.

And I'm an actual intellectual, QED the fact that I'm beating you in this argument with lots of ease.

I hate that all people with leftist political ideologies are denounced as elitist intellectuals, I mean my uni education was free, and paid by the government (not sure about the US though), so the criticism is rather void.

I hate that all people with leftist political ideologies are denounced as elitist intellectuals, I mean my uni education was free, and paid by the government (not sure about the US though), so the criticism is rather void.

Worse yet when "intellectual" is used as an insult. Is ignorance something to be proud of now? To quote the Dilbert book title, when did ignorance become a point of view?

If you look at the current shape of both houses, you will see that most Americans already came to their senses.

No, you're not a patriot. You attack the very things your country stands for, like freedom of expression and checks and balances. You put your soldiers in the line for a fake war, knowingly. And you wish death upon those that disagree with you. Go ahead and call your own forefathers liberal "bleeding hearts" if you will, won't change the fact that I, a Brazilian, am more in tune with the ideology of America than you are. That I, a Brazilian, am more of a true American than you are.

And I'm an actual intellectual, QED the fact that I'm beating you in this argument with lots of ease.

I'm sorry but I am going to have to point out that just because Heikoku's beliefs are seen as the norm for stupid blind followers does not make Heikoku stupid of ignorant. Also there is no way to actually win an argument without convincing your opponent without a doubt that your way is the proper way.

Worse yet when "intellectual" is used as an insult. Is ignorance something to be proud of now? To quote the Dilbert book title, when did ignorance become a point of view?

"Intellectual" became an insult in this country during the '52 and '56 elections when Stevenson was dubbed that by the Eisnhower campaign. It was being used at that time as code for "Communist".

"Intellectual" became an insult in this country during the '52 and '56 elections when Stevenson was dubbed that by the Eisnhower campaign. It was being used at that time as code for "Communist".

Ah.

Well, there was the "egghead" thing too, right?

Wow, what was his campaign line, 'Uneducated and proud!'?

The real world's a bit less "love/hate" than the internet, it seems. In reality, a few people hate the president, a few are huge fans, and the majority are lukewarm, like usual. So maybe his approval rating is in the low 40's, but his odds of being heckled at any given location are kinda low, provided he doesn't walk into some march or something. :p

pwnd

Damn straight. And by the same token, if a republican gets elected, we'll fly this one:

http://www.classicfirearms.co.uk/NAZI%20FLAG%20CAPTURED%20HAMBURG%201945.jpg

Strawman is made of fail, mmmkay?

This is a much cooler flag. Seriously, how cool is it to have an AK-47 on your flag?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Mozambique.svg

Look at this flag carefully, because it's going to flying over your house when the Democrats are elected into the WH.:p (http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/ussr.gif)

Just like last time eh?

Oh wait ..

Uh huh. Value in it's word eh? Like selling a war based on lies and outright fabrications? Using 'maybes' as 'for sure'. Saying things like "Osama is enemy #1 and we won't stop till we get him" and then going "I don't know where Osama is, and I don't care."

Suuuuure, value in it's word. About as much value as oh, used toilet paper.

Who's puppet are you?

Value in America's word is more than value in Bush's word, even at that you took his comments out of context on purpose.

I was personally against Iraq from day one, that doesen't mean I'm going to support "pulling out" and pretend its a humanitarian position, this is way beyond Osama and Bush here. We deposed a tyrant, lets make sure he isn't replaced with another one.

And don't even start pretending you give a shit about our troops in Iraq or elsewhere, the left hates the military and vice versa, because if you talk to most of the troops, they want to stay until the job is done.

Value in America's word is more than value in Bush's word, even at that you took his comments out of context on purpose.

I was personally against Iraq from day one, that doesen't mean I'm going to support "pulling out" and pretend its a humanitarian position, this is way beyond Osama and Bush here. We deposed a tyrant, lets make sure he isn't replaced with another one.

And don't even start pretending you give a shit about our troops in Iraq or elsewhere, the left hates the military and vice versa, because if you talk to most of the troops, they want to stay until the job is done.

So...

We hate the troops because we don't want them being shot at.

You love the troops because you want them being shot at.

What's the opposite word to "logic"? Because this thought of yours has it.

"Intellectual" became an insult in this country during the '52 and '56 elections when Stevenson was dubbed that by the Eisnhower campaign. It was being used at that time as code for "Communist".

And interestingly enough, Mao took that the term "intellectual" a step further. And started his Great Step Backwards...oops, Forwards. Isn't it interesting to see all these so called "patriots" espousing the tactics of communist dictators?

So...

We hate the troops because we don't want them being shot at.

You love the troops because you want them being shot at.

What's the opposite word to "logic"? Because this thought of yours has it.

No you hate the troops because you don't listen to the troops, and when you hear the troops talking about how they want to stay in Iraq to finish the job, they tickle your angry leftist response. Dead troops are good for the left because they let you affirm your incorrect and twisted perceptions of global politics.

I (notice the wording) support the troops because I hear what they the troops want and I support that line, of course you don't want dead troops, but this is conflict, and in conflict people tend to shoot back.

Value in America's word is more than value in Bush's word,

Bush, like it or not, is the president of America at the moment, and as such, his word is the word of America as a nation.


even at that you took his comments out of context on purpose.


Out of context? How out of context can it be? First he announces that he'll do everything to have Osama captured and when that obviously fails, he later says he doesn't care where he is when asked if he knows where he is.

The excuse "out of context" only works if it is based on enough other material to be considered context. There isn't here.


We deposed a tyrant, lets make sure he isn't replaced with another one.


In case you hadn't noticed, the US installed him in the first place. And how do you propose to make sure another one isn't put in place hmmm? Even if the insurgency vanished today, you can bet your last penny that the administration will put a nice dictator with puppet strings attached. Why? Because then they wouldn't have to worry about him doing anything like, oh, giving the rights to the oil fields to other non-US companies.

Have you seen the latest amendments they are trying to push through the Iraqi parliament? Some of them practically give US carte blanche to Iraqi oil fields.


And don't even start pretending you give a shit about our troops in Iraq or elsewhere

No more than you do I suspect. Otherwise, you would be rather upset about things like reduced retirement packages, cuts in medical support for cripples after returning from service and other related issues.


because if you talk to most of the troops

And you have? I don't count news bites as "talk to most of the troops"

I see alot of mixed positions, what senses are those?

The fact that the Americans voted for the Democrats in the mid-terms.

What does that mean junior? America stands for freedom with morality, not for the socialist hogwash and feminist bullshit you consider to be "freedom" - businesses shouldn't have to hire women simply because they are women, and paychecks are for workers.

For a guy that claims to have a degree in economics, you sure seem unable to grasp what "socialism" actually means. Cute strawman, by the way, when are you gonna start actually arguing?

"I" put those soldiers there? If it were up to me those soldiers would not be there, but now that they are there it seems logical that they accomplish their purpose.

And here was I thinking that their "purpose" - whatever that was - has by now been made unattainable, and it would SAVE their lives not to leave them in that country to get shot at. Silly me.

My forefathers were not "bleeding hearts," as they certainly had enough of a backbone to fight a war, nor were they "liberals" since they believed people were entitled to their earnings and religious beliefs free of scrutiny.

Republicans favor church dominating the state. Your forefathers fought a war for something other than lies. And your forefathers would not wish death on people that dared disagree with them.

Brazil is a poverty ridden hole, mostly because of your socialistic economy and corrupt government. You have absolutely no conception of what freedom means, give your support for feminism.

I know what freedom means, and it is to be able to speak one's mind without being attacked as unpatriotic. You make no sense at all, it's no surprise that you hate intellectuals so much. You, again, have no idea what socialism means. And come talk to me about corruption when your president HASN'T given all the reconstruction budget to Halliburton all the while starting a WAR on false pretenses.

No, you're not, since you clearly have no conception of the fields of history, political science and economics.

You have tossed the word "socialism" around and showed yourself as someone that has no grasp what it means. What field of history, political science OR economics do you want me to teach you about?

You're not beating anyone, all you've done is demonstrate you're an idiot, like suggesting that companies being forced to hire women is "freedom" or leaving Iraq in the hands of sectarians is "freedom" ..

Now I have a masters degree in economics and political science, as such I've seen quite a few intellectuals in my university years - believe me son, you're not one of them.

I'm able to discuss a matter without strawmen. That alone would suffice to be able to win a discussion against you. You do NOT have any such degree, as you've just shown yourself unable to grasp what socialism IS, something 6th grade kids can. I'm not your son and I'm thankful for it. And yes, I am an intellectual - which is why you hate me with this much passion.

No you hate the troops because you don't listen to the troops, and when you hear the troops talking about how they want to stay in Iraq to finish the job, they tickle your angry leftist response. Dead troops are good for the left because they let you affirm your incorrect and twisted perceptions of global politics.

I (notice the wording) support the troops because I hear what they the troops want and I support that line, of course you don't want dead troops, but this is conflict, and in conflict people tend to shoot back.

My "angry leftist response"? Who is the one that's covering me with insults here because he can't articulate a thought without anger?

And you just proved YOU don't give a shit about the troops with the "but this is conflict" dismissal. But that's what freedom - this word you tout so much - is, your freedom to say "let them die so I can claim to support them".

Bush, like it or not, is the president of America at the moment, and as such, his word is the word of America as a nation.

No the word of the nation is our composite word, not the word of the president, we have ambassadors, senators etc. We also have the average man on the street, which is where that silly "freedom of speech" thing comes in.

Out of context? How out of context can it be? First he announces that he'll do everything to have Osama captured and when that obviously fails, he later says he doesn't care where he is when asked if he knows where he is.

The excuse "out of context" only works if it is based on enough other material to be considered context. There isn't here.

Watch that particular interview in full before you start saying things that are clearly not true.

In case you hadn't noticed, the US installed him in the first place.

In case you haven't read a scrap of history, Saddam installed himself, with support mainly from the USSR. The Baa'th party was an institution upon itself, the same way Saddam was a dictator upon himself.

And how do you propose to make sure another one isn't put in place hmmm?

Elections are usually a good start.

Even if the insurgency vanished today, you can bet your last penny that the administration will put a nice dictator with puppet strings attached. Why? Because then they wouldn't have to worry about him doing anything like, oh, giving the rights to the oil fields to other non-US companies.

No US company has ever owned an Iraqi oilfield, the state of Iraq has always had that ownership. Oil was cheaper to purchase from Saddam, this war had nothing to do with oil.

Have you seen the latest amendments they are trying to push through the Iraqi parliament? Some of them practically give US carte blanche to Iraqi oil fields.

Perhaps you would care to present evidence.

No more than you do I suspect. Otherwise, you would be rather upset about things like reduced retirement packages, cuts in medical support for cripples after returning from service and other related issues.

Again care to present some evidence?

Last time I checked the wage of the average GI was going up faster than any other point in history.

And you have? I don't count news bites as "talk to most of the troops"

I've talked to a fair few, yes.

No you hate the troops because you don't listen to the troops

This is a fault more in tune with the Bush administration than anything else. How many generals has he replaced until they started telling him what he wanted hmmm?

Perhaps Bush is a 'leftist' mmm?

I've talked to a fair few, yes.

Wow. So, how many out of the, I don't know, 20 (Out of a measly 137,000) guys you talked to said they wanted to stay?

You're a delusional moron, at what point in history have soldiers in any war not incurred casualties?

Never said there's a war without deaths. I DID point out your willingness to let them die so you can claim your support, which you sidestepped by insulting me in the hopes of getting a heated response.

Never said there's a war without deaths. I DID point out your willingness to let them die so you can claim your support, which you sidestepped by insulting me in the hopes of getting a heated response.

We do everything to protect the troops, as judged by the lowest casualty-time count in military history.

Deaths in war are unaviodable. By sending troops to a conflict doesen't mean that you want them to die, however accepting that they all come back alive is fantasy.

Wow. So, how many out of the, I don't know, 20 (Out of a measly 137,000) guys you talked to said they wanted to stay?

I've talked to a little more than that, which I must say is more statistically significant than your total of 0.

We do everything to protect the troops, as judged by the lowest casualty-time count in military history.

Deaths in war are unaviodable. By sending troops to a conflict doesen't mean that you want them to die, however accepting that they all come back alive is fantasy.

I never said you want them to die, I said you're willing to SEE them die so you can claim your support.

I've talked to a little more than that, which I must say is more statistically significant than your total of 0.
:rolleyes: Because no leftie EVER talks to troops or has friends or family members in the military, right?

:rolleyes: Because no leftie EVER talks to troops or has friends or family members in the military, right?

Well, I AM Brazilian, so...

I still know lots of American military people in the Net. I'll be sure to ask, for Ex's benefit, what they think of their tour.

But let's not let the facts cloud Ex's... unique worldview.

No the word of the nation is our composite word, not the word of the president, we have ambassadors, senators etc. We also have the average man on the street, which is where that silly "freedom of speech" thing comes in.

Nope. There may be the general populace and your ambassadors, senators, etc, etc, but ultimately, it's the word of the leader that makes the final say as a whole. In your case, it's the President.


Watch that particular interview in full before you start saying things that are clearly not true.

Oh? Like what hmm?


In case you haven't read a scrap of history, Saddam installed himself, with support mainly from the USSR. The Baa'th party was an institution upon itself, the same way Saddam was a dictator upon himself.

Oh, and the CIA didn't provide training to Saddam, nor did it provide him with the material support needed to overcome all other contenders for power hmmm? And who can forget dear old Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam, Was it before or after the US supplied him with chemical weapons?


Elections are usually a good start.


uh huh. Saddam style elections? Vote for me or you die? Because the way things are, that's how it is.


No US company has ever owned an Iraqi oilfield, the state of Iraq has always had that ownership. Oil was cheaper to purchase from Saddam, this war had nothing to do with oil.

Uh huh, and can you explain that niggling little legislature they're pushing through that effectively gives those oil fields to the US? The Iraqi's certainly didn't come up with that themselves.


Perhaps you would care to present evidence.


Here's the report.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

It will take a while to dig up the specific legislation.
Again care to present some evidence?


Last time I checked the wage of the average GI was going up faster than any other point in history.

Last time you checked, you obviously failed to look at the points raised and leaped to a different one. Any future attempts at this will be summarily classed as "failed defense"


I've talked to a fair few, yes.

Does a few classify as most? Not even half does it? You fail to defend this point adequately. No using "you haven't talked to any so you don't count" arguments either. You stated most, now you must prove "most". Anything less, and you will be classed as a liar.

Does a few classify as most? Not even half does it? You fail to defend this point adequately. No using "you haven't talked to any so you don't count" arguments either. You stated most, now you must prove "most". Anything less, and you will be classed as a liar.

Too late for that. He claims to have a degree in economics and political science, yet he defines socialism loosely as whatever he disagrees with.

Too late for that. He claims to have a degree in economics and political science, yet he defines socialism loosely as whatever he disagrees with.

Well then, that's what the ignore button is for. I can imagine fewer things more bruising to an internet ego than being completely ignored.

Well then, that's what the ignore button is for. I can imagine fewer things more bruising to an internet ego than being completely ignored.

Nah, it's fun. It's like watching a furious bee trying to attack you by trying to go through the glass of a window.

The fact that the Americans voted for the Democrats in the mid-terms.

Heh, the Democrats don't even have a united position on Iraq, or on anything else for that matter.

For a guy that claims to have a degree in economics, you sure seem unable to grasp what "socialism" actually means. Cute strawman, by the way, when are you gonna start actually arguing?

Socialism means a massive welfare state, punitive taxation, the discarding of the individual for the collective and hundreds of other things that make no sense in the neo-classical synthesis, or any other proven form of economic theory.

When am I going to start arguing? I already have, you're just a little slow.

And here was I thinking that their "purpose" - whatever that was - has by now been made unattainable, and it would SAVE their lives not to leave them in that country to get shot at. Silly me.

Their purpose is easily attainable, just not quickly, people like you make it a little harder though.

Republicans favor church dominating the state. Your forefathers fought a war for something other than lies. And your forefathers would not wish death on people that dared disagree with them.

And my forefathers didn't make a bunch of empty, baseless statements with no hope of backing them up, like the ones you're making.

Which church do the republicans exactly want to dominate the state? And why haven't they done in in the past 100 years? idiot.

I know what freedom means, and it is to be able to speak one's mind without being attacked as unpatriotic. You make no sense at all, it's no surprise that you hate intellectuals so much. You, again, have no idea what socialism means. And come talk to me about corruption when your president HASN'T given all the reconstruction budget to Halliburton all the while starting a WAR on false pretenses.

Stop spitting leftist talking points, you sound like you're foaming at the mouth, no intelligent person could relate to your brand on "intellectualism" ..

I suppose you think socialism is the greatest and most intellectual political system on the planet don't you.

I don't hate intellectuals, only people who think they are, people like you.

And yes opposing ones own country is generally definable as un-patriotic.

You have tossed the word "socialism" around and showed yourself as someone that has no grasp what it means. What field of history, political science OR economics do you want me to teach you about?

No I want YOU to learn something about those things before talking to ME.

You could start with the Prague spring, the great leap forward, Stalinst Russia and any other case study where socialist ideas were applied.

For economics your homework is to learn about basic supply and demand, Pareto-efficiency, state based macroeconomic theory, the CF model (IGX/STM), the Keynes AD/AS growth model, game theory in business strategy, and perhaps some introductory econometric concepts - which is something you clearly have no grasp of given your support for "socialism"

I'm able to discuss a matter without strawmen. That alone would suffice to be able to win a discussion against you. You do NOT have any such degree, as you've just shown yourself unable to grasp what socialism IS, something 6th grade kids can. I'm not your son and I'm thankful for it. And yes, I am an intellectual - which is why you hate me with this much passion.

No, you're a retard, pure and simple, with no degree, and no understanding of what socialism is, otherwise you would not be promoting a system that has killed 100+ million people over the past 80 or so years.

Heh, the Democrats don't even have a united position on Iraq, or on anything else for that matter.



Socialism means a massive welfare state, punitive taxation, the discarding of the individual for the collective and hundreds of other things that make no sense in the neo-classical synthesis, or any other proven form of economic theory.

When am I going to start arguing? I already have, you're just a little slow.



Their purpose is easily attainable, just not quickly, people like you make it a little harder though.



And my forefathers didn't make a bunch of empty, baseless statements with no hope of backing them up, like the ones you're making.

Which church do the republicans exactly want to dominate the state? And why haven't they done in in the past 100 years? idiot.



Stop spitting leftist talking points, you sound like you're foaming at the mouth, no intelligent person could relate to your brand on "intellectualism" ..

I suppose you think socialism is the greatest and most intellectual political system on the planet don't you.

I don't hate intellectuals, only people who think they are, people like you.

And yes opposing ones own country is generally definable as un-patriotic.



No I want YOU to learn something about those things before talking to ME.

You could start with the Prague spring, the great leap forward, Stalinst Russia and any other case study where socialist ideas were applied.

For economics your homework is to learn about basic supply and demand, Pareto-efficiency, state based macroeconomic theory, the CF model (IGX/STM), the Keynes AD/AS growth model, game theory in business strategy, and perhaps some introductory econometric concepts - which is something you clearly have no grasp of given your support for "socialism"



No, you're a retard, pure and simple, with no degree, and no understanding of what socialism is, otherwise you would not be promoting a system that has killed 100+ million people over the past 80 or so years.

Considering for a moment that I never EVER promoted anything remotely similar to socialism, I STILL maintain that you have no idea what socialism IS. Thanks for proving my point though.

If the Democrats don't have an "united position", why did they beat the crap out of the Republicans in the mid-terms?

When you believe your country to be in the wrong direction, it's your patriotic DUTY to oppose it.

And no, you are not arguing. You have so far been verbally insulting while I attempt to teach you something.

I have a degree, in linguistics and literature. And there are so many holes in your points that it's not even funny.

Bush claimed God talks to him, and wants to legislate religious values. For starters.

You have so far called me a moron, retard, and so on, and I am "frothing at the mouth"?

I am an intelectual, which is why I'm trying so hard to teach you something. Which may be the core reason for your dislike of intellectuals.

Nope. There may be the general populace and your ambassadors, senators, etc, etc, but ultimately, it's the word of the leader that makes the final say as a whole. In your case, it's the President.

No thats called dictatorship, which is why we have things called safeguards, such as congress and the right to bear arms.

Oh? Like what hmm?

Like the actual interview?

Oh, and the CIA didn't provide training to Saddam, nor did it provide him with the material support needed to overcome all other contenders for power hmmm?

No they didn't ..

And who can forget dear old Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam, Was it before or after the US supplied him with chemical weapons?

Not sure, but the US supplied Saddam was very little, nothing compared to what he got from the USSR and France.

uh huh. Saddam style elections? Vote for me or you die? Because the way things are, that's how it is.

Saddam never had elections. Hence his label.

Here's the report.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

It will take a while to dig up the specific legislation.
Again care to present some evidence?

On what? The burden of proof is on you.

Also an internationalist website cant be considered a legitimate source.

Last time you checked, you obviously failed to look at the points raised and leaped to a different one. Any future attempts at this will be summarily classed as "failed defense"

Last time I checked no evidence was provided for the point, thus the point was null until that changed.

Does a few classify as most? Not even half does it? You fail to defend this point adequately. No using "you haven't talked to any so you don't count" arguments either. You stated most, now you must prove "most". Anything less, and you will be classed as a liar.

20 consistant observations are more than enough for the field of statistical inference, as the chances of me not talking to an anti-war soldier in a random sample would be extremely low if opinion was normally distributed.

The thing is Bush would probably get re-elected even now, just because I don't approve of his job performance doesen't mean I'm going to vote for the pinko, feminist or any other variety of douchebag the Democrats are composed of these days.

I'll give this one three weeks before he's banned....:p

20 consistant observations are more than enough for the field of statistical inference, as the chances of me not talking to an anti-war soldier in a random sample would be extremely low if opinion was normally distributed.
And you claim to hold a master's? Where from, University of Phonix? Go back and retake stats.

I'll give this one three weeks before he's banned....:p

Did you count in the "calling me a retard, moron and so on" many, many times?

I'll give this one three weeks before he's banned....:p
He got warned due to his very first post and is STILL going on with the same. I think three weeks is giving him too much credit.

And you claim to hold a master's? Where from, University of Phonix? Go back and retake stats.

Not only that: A master's degree in ECONOMICS and POLITICAL SCIENCES, both while claiming that, basically, socialism is anything he disagrees with. Also, does economics have statistics?

Not only that: A master's degree in ECONOMICS and POLITICAL SCIENCES, both while claiming that, basically, socialism is anything he disagrees with. Also, does economics have statistics?
Unless he went and got an MBA (also known as a 'I wish I was a real master degree') he should have had it, given how graduate degrees are to prepare someone to further research. Research methods and stats are a very important part of that.

Unless he went and got an MBA (also known as a 'I wish I was a real master degree') he should have had it, given how graduate degrees are to prepare someone to further research. Research methods and stats are a very important part of that.

Well, in that case he knows JACK about... all the fields he claims he has a master's degree at.

Considering for a moment that I never EVER promoted anything remotely similar to socialism, I STILL maintain that you have no idea what socialism IS. Thanks for proving my point though.

You very clearly promoted feminism, which is a form of socialism.

If the Democrats don't have an "united position", why did they beat the crap out of the Republicans in the mid-terms?

Because Iraq isn't the only thing on the agenda in the US. There are pro-war Dems and anti-war Repubs.

When you believe your country to be in the wrong direction, it's your patriotic DUTY to oppose it.

No, your belief must first be supported by reason, if not, and you simply persue to impose your own beliefs on others, thats tyranny.

And no, you are not arguing. You have so far been verbally insulting while I attempt to teach you something.

You teaching anything to anyone seems laughable, sorry.

I have a degree, in linguistics and literature. And there are so many holes in your points that it's not even funny.

Yes, two majors which mean absolutely nothing for your ability to interpret economic or political reality.

There are no holes in my argument, only in your ability not to completely understand it.

I'm not pro Bush nor a supporter of the Neo-conservative IR outlook, I am a realist, more specifically a structural-realist, perhaps you could look that up.

That said, all you've been doing is saying how wrong I am and how many holes my argument has, YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ADRESSED ONE PROPER POINT.

If this were a university debate, you would have failed.

Bush claimed God talks to him, and wants to legislate religious values. For starters.

You're using rumors instead of fact, wheres the proof that Bush ever said "god talks to me"

You have so far called me a moron, retard, and so on, and I am "frothing at the mouth"?

Yes since the best refute you have "so many holes in that argument" .. whilst you actually cant show what those holes are ..

I am an intelectual, which is why I'm trying so hard to teach you something. Which may be the core reason for your dislike of intellectuals.

You wouldn't even get through a first year political science or economics class without failing it ...

For a final time, you are not an intellectual, you are a J.O.K.E, intellectuals don't talk about argument without inference or reference, and most importantly, intellectuals are intellectuals at something, not just on its own.

And you claim to hold a master's? Where from, University of Phonix? Go back and retake stats.

VA, and its Phoenix, and the correct suggestion would be that I retake Micro and Macro, not stats, FAIL.

Not only that: A master's degree in ECONOMICS and POLITICAL SCIENCES, both while claiming that, basically, socialism is anything he disagrees with. Also, does economics have statistics?

Yes, mainly in the form of Binomial, Poisson and Normal distributions. Further on Chi-Squares, Hypothesis testing and most importantly, Regression analysis.

Its actually called Econometrics, but sometimes treated as core economic knowledge.

Unless he went and got an MBA (also known as a 'I wish I was a real master degree') he should have had it, given how graduate degrees are to prepare someone to further research. Research methods and stats are a very important part of that.

To be technical its a Master of Arts (Politics), my economics is only at Bachelor (hons) level.

You very clearly promoted feminism, which is a form of socialism.



Because Iraq isn't the only thing on the agenda in the US. There are pro-war Dems and anti-war Repubs.



No, your belief must first be supported by reason, if not, and you simply persue to impose your own beliefs on others, thats tyranny.



You teaching anything to anyone seems laughable, sorry.



Yes, two majors which mean absolutely nothing for your ability to interpret economic or political reality.

There are no holes in my argument, only in your ability not to completely understand it.

I'm not pro Bush nor a supporter of the Neo-conservative IR outlook, I am a realist, more specifically a structural-realist, perhaps you could look that up.

That said, all you've been doing is saying how wrong I am and how many holes my argument has, YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY ADRESSED ONE PROPER POINT.

If this were a university debate, you would have failed.



You're using rumors instead of fact, wheres the proof that Bush ever said "god talks to me"



Yes since the best refute you have "so many holes in that argument" .. whilst you actually cant show what those holes are ..



You wouldn't even get through a first year political science or economics class without failing it ...

For a final time, you are not an intellectual, you are a J.O.K.E, intellectuals don't talk about argument without inference or reference, and most importantly, intellectuals are intellectuals at something, not just on its own.

If this were an university debate you'd have lost it simply due to being unable to say two words without one of them being an insult.

I never defended feminism, which ISN'T a form of socialism, either.

Bush's "faith-based" initiatives? Gay marriage ban?

I've been showing the holes in your argument ever since you got here.

Yeah, I, too, am finding it laughable that I can teach you anything. You're unwilling to learn, after all.

You so far have shown no evidence to back up your claims; your lines of thought are based on faulty premises and follow faulty logic. This debate is mine. I never claimed my degree granted me knowledge of economics or politics, but YOU are claiming to HAVE such a degree without actually having said knowledge.

Let me get one thing straight: Opposing your country due to a personal belief is "hating" it and wanting to be a "tyrant"? Wow, I guess WHOEVER disagrees with the current leadership is a potential tyrant, eh? You have no idea what your forefathers stood for.

To be technical its a Master of Arts (Politics), my economics is only at Bachelor (hons) level.

Quite impressive for someone that doesn't know the first thing about what one of the world's most influential (for better or for worse, but influential) political and economic systems is.

Your unwilligness to address an argument point by point but rather simply state that you have been "shooting my argument up" pretty much sums you up as joke.

Quite impressive for someone that doesn't know the first thing about what one of the world's most influential (for better or for worse, but influential) political and economic systems is.

Democracy, the Republic and classical economic theory (Smith etc.) have been far more influential than socialism, a failed social experiment.

Democracy, the Republic and classical economic theory (Smith etc.) have been far more influential than socialism, a failed social experiment.

I never claimed otherwise, but socialism still was influential. Wouldn't excuse your lack of knowledge on it if it wasn't though.

Your unwilligness to address an argument point by point but rather simply state that you have been "shooting my argument up" pretty much sums you up as joke.

I have so far addressed your arguments point by point in every post, to which you retorted by going "socialism" and "moron" at me. I never claimed to be shooting your argument up; your argument was BORN with the holes.

VA, and its Phoenix, and the correct suggestion would be that I retake Micro and Macro, not stats, FAIL.
VA? VA what? University of Virgina? Virgina State University? Very Advanced University?

And we're talking about your attempt to say that a N of 20 is representative of a population. That's statistics Bub, not mico or macro economics. Saying I talked to 20 random people does not mean you suddenly have a good grip on how or what they want. Did you ask them the same question? How long were they in Iraq, if at all? What was your control? So on and so forth.

Jesh, I have seen undergrads claim better.

If this were an university debate you'd have lost it simply due to being unable to say two words without one of them being an insult.

At least my is complimented by actual points, and I would love to not call you names, but you're just too much of self-obsessed ignorant, your are a joke.

Yours consists of "your argument sux" without any actual reference to my argument, good going champ.

I never defended feminism, which ISN'T a form of socialism, either.

Depends on how you choose to define, theres no right or wrong, but generally anything that erodes the individual in favor of a greater grouping can be considered socialistic.

Bush's "faith-based" initiatives? Gay marriage ban?

What about them? Would you feel better if there were Atheist based initiatives?

As far as the gay marriage ban, thats just putting common law into words. At this rate all the states are going to ban it on their own anyway.

I've been showing the holes in your argument ever since you got here.

You haven't shown one, if you have quote yourself.

Yeah, I, too, am finding it laughable that I can teach you anything. You're unwilling to learn, after all.

Thats because you can't teach me anything. You have a LINGUISTICS degree.

You so far have shown no evidence to back up your claims; your lines of thought are based on faulty premises and follow faulty logic. This debate is mine. I never claimed my degree granted me knowledge of economics or politics, but YOU are claiming to HAVE such a degree without actually having said knowledge.

Whatever you say champ, me, or anyone else with an education know that you are a joke.

Let me get one thing straight: Opposing your country due to a personal belief is "hating" it and wanting to be a "tyrant"? Wow, I guess WHOEVER disagrees with the current leadership is a potential tyrant, eh? You have no idea what your forefathers stood for.

Belief must be backed up with knowledge.

VA? VA what? University of Virgina? Virgina State University? Very Advanced University?

And we're talking about your attempt to say that a N of 20 is representative of a population. That's statistics Bub, not mico or macro economics. Saying I talked to 20 random people does not mean you suddenly have a good grip on how or what they want. Did you ask them the same question? How long were they in Iraq, if at all? What was your control? So on and so forth.

Jesh, I have seen undergrads claim better.

Statistics is always taught to undergrad economics majors ..

Also there is only one University of Virginia ... state is abbrv. to VSU.

I never claimed otherwise, but socialism still was influential. Wouldn't excuse your lack of knowledge on it if it wasn't though.

Perhaps in a heterodox sense only, no need to attend to failed social sciences ..

Statistics is always taught to undergrad economics majors ..

Also there is only one University of Virginia ... state is abbrv. to VSU.
And it's also taught to graduate students. Along with research design.

I should know.

At least my is complimented by actual points, and I would love to not call you names, but you're just too much of self-obsessed ignorant, your are a joke.

Yours consists of "your argument sux" without any actual reference to my argument, good going champ.



Depends on how you choose to define, theres no right or wrong, but generally anything that erodes the individual in favor of a greater grouping can be considered socialistic.



What about them? Would you feel better if there were Atheist based initiatives?

As far as the gay marriage ban, thats just putting common law into words. At this rate all the states are going to ban it on their own anyway.



You haven't shown one, if you have quote yourself.



Thats because you can't teach me anything. You have a LINGUISTICS degree.



Whatever you say champ, me, or anyone else with an education know that you are a joke.



Belief must be backed up with knowledge.

So you're claiming I'm a socialist due to a belief I never had being SUPPOSEDLY POSSIBLE to see as "socialism"? Wow.

"With an education"? You don't even know the most basic notions of the field you claim to DOMINATE!

The gay marriage ban is pandering to the Christian Right. You know it, I know it, the world knows it.

"I just can't help myself, I HAVE to call you names!" - Wow. I didn't know your self-control was this low.

I've pointed out the flaws in your claims and why is it that you have no argument. You have, so far, made silly assumptions and insulted me.

I have a LINGUISTICS degree, which means it's somewhat humiliating to yourself, a person that CLAIMS to have degrees in economics and politics, that I'm letting the world know that you have no knowledge whatsoever of either field.

No thats called dictatorship, which is why we have things called safeguards, such as congress and the right to bear arms.


Congress which appears to be ignored nowadays by the executive cause it no longer rubber stamps what he wants. As for bearing arms, we all know that's laughable as a defense against tyranny.


Like the actual interview?


Oh no. You said out of context. It's your job to prove it. The prosecution doesn't get the defense to do it's work.


No they didn't ..


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

Oh look. They did.


Not sure, but the US supplied Saddam was very little, nothing compared to what he got from the USSR and France.

That does not excuse US actions. If it does, maybe I could put a bullet in your head and get away with claiming at least I didn't slaughter 5000 people.

Would you agree to that?


Saddam never had elections. Hence his label.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm

Oh look. He did. A farce of an election, but one nevertheless. You lose.


On what? The burden of proof is on you.


Error in quoting. I've already proven my point.


Also an internationalist website cant be considered a legitimate source.


How about this then hmm?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301534.html?nav=rss_email/components

Note however, that the provisions outlined by my earlier sources back this up. So your argument of "can't be legitimate" fly out the window. Along with all your rhetoric.


Last time I checked no evidence was provided for the point, thus the point was null until that changed.

Defense failure. Type: Evasion. You lose.


20 consistant observations are more than enough for the field of statistical inference, as the chances of me not talking to an anti-war soldier in a random sample would be extremely low if opinion was normally distributed.

20 people out of some +130,000. You fail at statistics. You fail at basic math. And now you are branded as a liar. Your earlier statements of "most" have now proven to be false by your own words.

Once again, you are a liar.

Do not expect a response until you stop lying.

Perhaps in a heterodox sense only, no need to attend to failed social sciences ..

Which means you'd not learn in History about Napoleon's campaign in Russia because "it didn't work"? Anyone that claims to have a degree in economics and political science should know what socialism is and how it works or fails to work!

I'm sorry but I am going to have to point out that just because Heikoku's beliefs are seen as the norm for stupid blind followers does not make Heikoku stupid of ignorant.

Uhm, I'm currently agreeing with 70% of the American population and 90% of the world. And 95% of all academics and intelectuals. And I already disagreed with the bloodshed before it was "cool", having taken, indeed, much heat for it. So, "follower" I am not.

Also there is no way to actually win an argument without convincing your opponent without a doubt that your way is the proper way.

Actually an argument is won in the eyes of those that are watching it. You win an argument by proving yourself right, and the other wrong, to the world around them. Noble as it would be if an argument was about "bringing the other to a compromise", it pains me to say that it really isn't.

That doesn't say much.

Fass, for your average American who votes for Bush, he's fucking hyper-intelligent. He went through the Indian school system, and got here through med school. You have to be smart to be a doctor. Especially one as good as my dad.

(Kicks Fass in the nads)

Fass, for your average American who votes for Bush, he's fucking hyper-intelligent.

:p

We do everything to protect the troops, as judged by the lowest casualty-time count in military history.


Bullshit. Iraq Mk. 2 isn't the lowest. The first Gulf War was lower. There have been several wars in which a total of ZERO casualities were suffered.

Well with a 30% approval rating what's he expect? Zombie Nixon is more popular than him.

President: 30%
Congress 25%

President: 30%
Congress 25%

Of course! Look what Congress has done for the last six years!

You very clearly promoted feminism, which is a form of socialism.


So, equality of the sexes is a form of economic theory? Say what?

So, equality of the sexes is a form of economic theory? Say what?

Apparently, that's what he learned when graduating in economics and political science. :rolleyes:

Apparently, that's what he learned when graduating in economics and political science. :rolleyes:

I bet he went to Patriot University.

I bet he went to Patriot University.

I was guessing Bob Jones.

You very clearly promoted feminism, which is a form of socialism.

... And that's wrong because...?

I was guessing Bob Jones.

Bob Jones has standards. Bad ones, but standards nonetheless.

Fass, for your average American who votes for Bush, he's fucking hyper-intelligent.

Yet, he votes for Bush...

He went through the Indian school system, and got here through med school. You have to be smart to be a doctor. Especially one as good as my dad.

... which brings us to this attempt at some appeal to authority even when the authority (medicine) has nothing to do with politics or smartness.

(Kicks Fass in the nads)

I'd like to see you try, kid. Your father's MD or the fact that he's the smartest person you know do say very little indeed.

Okay, in order to avoid the heat getting to me somehow, I want to make it very clear that I pick no side in the issue between Fass and Johnny, and, thus, should not be targeted by disciplinary action should they keep on flaming each other. Please, mods, if you DO ban either one, take note of what I said here.

Okay, in order to avoid the heat getting to me somehow, I want to make it very clear that I pick no side in the issue between Fass and Johnny, and, thus, should not be targeted by disciplinary action should they keep on flaming each other. Please, mods, if you DO ban either one, take note of what I said here.

I'd also like to point out that Fass was flamebaiting, in defense of Johnny.

Also, you can't spell "Fassigen" without "ass". But really, this is not a flame. It's a joke. Drop the pitchforks.

Yet, he votes for Bush...



... which brings us to this attempt at some appeal to authority even when the authority (medicine) has nothing to do with politics or smartness.



I'd like to see you try, kid. Your father's MD or the fact that he's the smartest person you know do say very little indeed.

(Kills Fass)

In my own defense, he had it coming.

I'd also like to point out that Fass was flamebaiting, in defense of Johnny.

Also, you can't spell "Fassigen" without "ass". But really, this is not a flame. It's a joke. Drop the pitchforks.

My action is more towards "hiding before the bullets hit me" than "pitchfork" really.

... And that's wrong because...?

Exactly, what is a socialist but someone who cares about social issues, and issues of societal progression.

Exactly, what is a socialist but someone who cares about social issues, and issues of societal progression.

That's not socialism. That's not even close.

What's your point? Did you read anything about the people throwing their food at him or farting in his general direction? If people didn't like him they'd leave bags of flaming poop on the Whitehouse porch.

They certainly would. I'm sure the fact that they could be shot on sight for attempting such a stunt has nothing to do with the fact that they're not doing that. I'm sure it's because they actually respect and admire him.

They certainly would. I'm sure the fact that they could be shot on sight for attempting such a stunt has nothing to do with the fact that they're not doing that. I'm sure it's because they actually respect and admire him.

*Counsellor Troi mode*

I sense... sarcasm.

Of course! Look what Congress has done for the last six years!

Actually those numbers reflected how the public felt about the democratic agenda that the they are now forcing on the country. The Patriot Act is going to look very very modest now that the Dems are going to impose a total ban on free speech.

Actually those numbers reflected how the public felt about the democratic agenda that the they are now forcing on the country. The Patriot Act is going to look very very modest now that the Dems are going to impose a total ban on free speech.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

If only it were that easy, most of the country are partisan idiots anyway, and its pretty much a guarantee of our "great" 2 party system that one of them will get the presidency, senator seat etc.

In such a system, its wise to vote for the lesser evil, and I'll take a Republican over most Democrats, with a few exceptions.

Well the Party is good at brainwashing, so perhaps that's why it's only a two-party system.

And I don't know which is the lesser evil- Reps because they are now insnaely desperate, or Dems because they're so happy they won and beat the Reps.

Actually those numbers reflected how the public felt about the democratic agenda that the they are now forcing on the country. The Patriot Act is going to look very very modest now that the Dems are going to impose a total ban on free speech.

So, let me get this straight.

The public is unsatisfied with the Democrats, so they ELECT them.

And the Democrats are unsatisfied with the Republican leadership and interested in changing it through, for instance, free speech, so they will ban it totally.

Do the words "reality" and "logic" mean anything to you?

Actually those numbers reflected how the public felt about the democratic agenda that the they are now forcing on the country. The Patriot Act is going to look very very modest now that the Dems are going to impose a total ban on free speech.

1) What are you smoking?

2) Can I have some?

So, let me get this straight.

The public is unsatisfied with the Democrats, so they ELECT them.

And the Democrats are unsatisfied with the Republican leadership and interested in changing it through, for instance, free speech, so they will ban it totally.

Do the words "reality" and "logic" mean anything to you?

Hush now, it's best not to disturb him..

Trilby63;12288038']Hush now, it's best not to disturb him..

But I wanna!

Look at this flag carefully, because it's going to flying over your house when the Democrats are elected into the WH.:p (http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/ussr.gif)

*snerk* That flag doesn't fly anywhere in the world anymore. And I'll remind youi it was Democrats who stood up to communist aggression in Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. When Hungary tried to throw off the shackles of Soviet domination in 1956, begging for help over pirate radio stations, Eisenhower did nothing.

But I wanna!

Have you ever woken a sleep walker?

These people are like that but on crack.. except they're not asleep.. and they're properly dressed and not trying to mow the lawn or piss in the toaster..

Do you know what I'm saying?

Trilby63;12288139']Have you ever woken a sleep walker?

These people are like that but on crack.. except they're not asleep.. and they're properly dressed and not trying to mow the lawn or piss in the toaster..

Do you know what I'm saying?

42?

Trilby63;12288139']Do you know what I'm saying?

Not really, no. :p

Not really, no. :p

Well, have you ever pissed in a toaster?

And took pictures of yourself doing so?