NationStates Jolt Archive

Bushs Friends were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!"
He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html

As much as I would like to believe this, I can't really find it plausible.

Also, it's traditional to quote the article, in whole or in part, in the OP.

Bushs Friends were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!"

Hmm...

-Monkey face
-Monkey Intellect
-Monkey Stubbornness

Doesn't surprise me too much.

He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html

OK, now he's just being retarded. Everyone wants out, so we'll get out, no matter the wishes of a C-average oil-rich redneck from Texas.

As much as I would like to believe this, I can't really find it plausible.

Uh, why not?

What's inplausible about the chest-thumping? He's a texas frat boy. Saying I'm the President? Well, he IS. There's nothing at all inplausible about the "our country's destiny" thing - most of his admin is PNAC and that's basically the mission statement. Destiny to rule the fucking world.

It's the extra dash of crazy that makes him special.

Uh, why not?

What's inplausible about the chest-thumping? He's a texas frat boy. Saying I'm the President? Well, he IS. There's nothing at all inplausible about the "our country's destiny" thing - most of his admin is PNAC and that's basically the mission statement. Destiny to rule the fucking world.

PNAC?

As much as I would like to believe this, I can't really find it plausible.

Also, it's traditional to quote the article, in whole or in part, in the OP.

Oh I didnt know the tradition but I dont know why its so unbelieveable when its in a mainstream conservative paper thats usually pro-Bush

PNAC?

Partnership for a New American Century I think is what it stands for--the people who lied to get us trapped in Iraq were the signatories of it

Partnership for a New American Century I think is what it stands for--the people who lied to get us trapped in Iraq were the signatories of it

Project for the New American Century it's a neo-conservative think tank

PNAC?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

"we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

Project for the New American Century it's a neo-conservative think tank

and they(PNAC) work for the Zionists at Illuminati International, you know the guys that brought you 9-11 and the war on isl....terror. -puts on tin- foil hat-*





* I don't actually believe that shiite.

and they(PNAC) work for the Zionists at Illuminati International, you know the guys that brought you 9-11 and the war on isl....terror. -puts on tin- foil hat-*





* I don't actually believe that shiite.

well its the only explanation that connects all the dots--plus the PNAC website itself was very forthcoming about what its goals were and pretty much admitted it was true

PNAC?

The boogey-man. Watch out! :D

Everyone wants out, so we'll get out, no matter the wishes of a C-average oil-rich redneck from Texas.

He's from New Haven, Connecticut, one of the wealthiest and most 'sophisticated' states in the union. He also has a Bachelor degree in History (of all things) from Yale, and an MBA from Harvard.

Sometimes I wonder if he only acts like an idiot, considering his privileged upbringing and higher education. He, in reality, is not (or should not be) a dunderheaded redneck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Childhood_to_mid-life

He's from New Haven, Connecticut, one of the wealthiest and most 'sophisticated' states in the union. He also has a Bachelor degree in History (of all things) from Yale, and an MBA from Harvard.

Sometimes I wonder if he only acts like an idiot, considering his privileged upbringing and higher education. He, in reality, is not (or should not be) a dunderheaded redneck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Childhood_to_mid-life

his educational background was far from earned it just shows what money can buy when your a legacy quota--Im not sure if his idiocy is an act or real either but one thing I am convinced of is that hes a sociopath

See, this is why you always want to have a video camera running! So that when shit like this happen, you can plaster it all over YouTube, Google Video, AOL Video and any other video websites!

See, this is why you always want to have a video camera running! So that when shit like this happen, you can plaster it all over YouTube, Google Video, AOL Video and any other video websites!

just dont let anyone see you filming it

just dont let anyone see you filming it

They do make cameras small enough to hide on sunglasses or even regular glasses.

Oh I didnt know the tradition but I dont know why its so unbelieveable when its in a mainstream conservative paper thats usually pro-Bush

It's not a tradition. That's what the link if for, we can follow the link and read the article. For the most part you quote the part of the article you feel is relivent and then provide the link. Though you should put the part you want to put up in quote tags so it's easily seperated from your own commentary, which is what you should include. Threads that are just to pass on articles you've read are frowned upon (after a while, people have made a practice of it.) What's usually required is some commentary of your own, your beginning of the discussion.

But you do not need to or should put the whole article here. That's what the link is for. Unless it's a small ass article, and even then most would prefer just the part that you want to discuss. Not that everyone follows links and reads the article, but thats what makes page 4 and 5 so interesting...

I'm not sure if he's loosing sanity, but man, I would if I had that job. I cringe to think that people spend millions to get the world's most stressful and underpaying job. Really, Presidents don't make that much for their work.

I'm not sure if he's loosing sanity, but man, I would if I had that job. I cringe to think that people spend millions to get the world's most stressful and underpaying job. Really, Presidents don't make that much for their work.

It's not about the money. It's about the power, and the privilege. Not to mention the vast quantities of money they can amass from a successful lecture circuit after they leave office.

It's not about the money. It's about the power, and the privilege. Not to mention the vast quantities of money they can amass from a successful lecture circuit after they leave office.

I know. I still wonder how these presidents do it. Especially ones that steered the nation through national crises, like FDR or even Bush. Like him or not, he was dealt a shitty hand as president.

Closest Friends fear Bushs loss of Sanity
Took 'em bloody long enough.

Took 'em bloody long enough.

You win the thread.

Bushs Friends were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!"
He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html

"I am the president." Can't argue with that kind of logic. But creepy.

"I am the president." Can't argue with that kind of logic. But creepy.

I'm waiting for him to slip up and refer to the Iraq War as "The Great Cause" or something similar.

I'm waiting for him to slip up and refer to the Iraq War as "The Great Cause" or something similar.

Lolz.

Like him or not, he was dealt a shitty hand as president.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Past president have only had to get used to ignoring poverty, under-education and rampant violent crime upon entering office. He had to learn to ignore Bin Laden.

It's not a tradition. That's what the link if for, we can follow the link and read the article. For the most part you quote the part of the article you feel is relivent and then provide the link. Though you should put the part you want to put up in quote tags so it's easily seperated from your own commentary, which is what you should include. Threads that are just to pass on articles you've read are frowned upon (after a while, people have made a practice of it.) What's usually required is some commentary of your own, your beginning of the discussion.

But you do not need to or should put the whole article here. That's what the link is for. Unless it's a small ass article, and even then most would prefer just the part that you want to discuss. Not that everyone follows links and reads the article, but thats what makes page 4 and 5 so interesting...

ok from now on ill post short articles

I know. I still wonder how these presidents do it. Especially ones that steered the nation through national crises, like FDR or even Bush. Like him or not, he was dealt a shitty hand as president.

Bush CAUSES the national/international crisis he doesnt steer anything:D

I'm not sure if he's loosing sanity, but man, I would if I had that job. I cringe to think that people spend millions to get the world's most stressful and underpaying job. Really, Presidents don't make that much for their work.

they do if they start wars to loot foreign countrys for profit

Yeah, I know what you mean. Past president have only had to get used to ignoring poverty, under-education and rampant violent crime upon entering office. He had to learn to ignore Bin Laden.

:D thats great:D

ok from now on ill post short articles

Not exactly the take away that was hoped for...

Also, it's traditional to quote the article, in whole or in part, in the OP.

Actually, the OP did. Or at least, the OP was a snippit of the article.

Here's the snippit, properly formated:
Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

However, one ought to note that it's an Op-Ed peice, and not a proper news article. And the main thrust has little to do with it.

* I don't actually believe that shiite.

Colour me unsurprised.

As much as I would like to believe this, I can't really find it plausible.

Also, it's traditional to quote the article, in whole or in part, in the OP.

Considering the things I've heard him say publicly (and one thing I saw when he didn't know he was being recorded), I find this VERY plausible.

Incidentally he does seem to have let his Presidency go to his head - he was filmed at a press conference where someone said "Sir" and asked a question, and Bush launched an attack on the reporter for not calling him "Mr. President"

As noted, it's an OPINION article. Not news. Which one might discover, if one was paying attention while reading it. Were one motivated enough to read it before posting comments.

Bushs Friends were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!""


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-geyer_31edi.ART.State.Edition1.4370227.html

Right. Where and when did this happen?
Ah, I see, it's an opinion piece. I dislike Bush and his policies but I have to say it really lacks any kind of credibility. It seems like hyperbole tio me -- or there would have been some indication of where this took place and it should have been all over the news.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Past president have only had to get used to ignoring poverty, under-education and rampant violent crime upon entering office. He had to learn to ignore Bin Laden.

Past presidents have SO had to learn to ignore Bin Laden. His stories are really boring, so people, like, for example, Reagan, had to just tune him out.

Right. Where and when did this happen?
Ah, I see, it's an opinion piece. I dislike Bush and his policies but I have to say it really lacks any kind of credibility. It seems like hyperbole tio me -- or there would have been some indication of where this took place and it should have been all over the news.

oh sorry I didnt know you were a Moderator--I make it a point not to debate with Moderators since it represents a conflict of interest

except for the fact that the american news media is totally subverted and monopolized by the very same corporate maggots that Bush serves exclusively
conservative media bias?:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

the reason why I find the article so plausible ist because it captures Bushs true face so perfectly theres no way it can be false--its too authentic to be made up

do you know Bush personally?

conservative media bias?:p:p:p:p:p:p:p



do you know Bush personally?

in america like 5 people own the entire media--yes conservative media bias and yes living under the misrule of the Tyrant for 7 years I feel I do know him personally as I tend to study the ways of me enemys

in america like 5 people own the entire media--yes conservative media bias and yes living under the misrule of the Tyrant for 7 years I feel I do know him personally as I tend to study the ways of me enemys

have you seen a doctor for this?

have you seen a doctor for this?

I would but sadly theres no cure for the Truth

I would but sadly theres no cure for the Truth

you view GW as your enemy and feel you know him personally? you don't see that as some sort of problem?

you view GW as your enemy and feel you know him personally? you don't see that as some sort of problem?

I call it being aware of my surroundings--Apathy kills

Apathy kills

Meh. I don't care

you view GW as your enemy and feel you know him personally? you don't see that as some sort of problem?

*thinks*




*thinks*


*thinks*


Erotomania!

Meh. I don't care

me either

*dies*

Meh. I don't care

Siggable!

Meh. I don't care

you prefer dying without even a thought to keep you company?

*thinks*




*thinks*


*thinks*


Erotomania!

I can feel the erotomania in every bone of my being

I can feel the erotomania in every bone of my being

That's not a good thing.......

Much as I'd love for this story to be true, there's no way it could be. If it were, every news outlet on the planet would have picked up on it, and there would be nothing else on TV for the next six months.

Much as I'd love for this story to be true, there's no way it could be. If it were, every news outlet on the planet would have picked up on it, and there would be nothing else on TV for the next six months.

yes and it wouldve been too back in the days when the American Media wasnt controlled and monopolized the way it is now--theres ALOT of stories the media could use to bury Bush if they wanted to--but its pretty obvious to everyone by now that they dont want to

yes and it wouldve been too back in the days when the American Media wasnt controlled and monopolized the way it is now--theres ALOT of stories the media could use to bury Bush if they wanted to--but its pretty obvious to everyone by now that they dont want to

http://seoblackhat.com/upimage/tinfoilhat.jpg

yes put on your tin foil hat and read all the thousands of studies from all the media researchers that confirm this is what happened as a result of deliberate policies of Media Consolidation in America

Siggable!

YAY :D

yes put on your tin foil hat and read all the thousands of studies from all the media researchers that confirm this is what happened as a result of deliberate policies of Media Consolidation in America

I can cite one authoritative study proving that despite crazy "consolidation" conspiracy theories, the media is extravagantly liberal.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

I can cite one authoritative study proving that despite crazy "consolidation" conspiracy theories, the media is extravagantly liberal.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

:rolleyes:

Much as I'd love for this story to be true, there's no way it could be. If it were, every news outlet on the planet would have picked up on it, and there would be nothing else on TV for the next six months.

Agreed there. This story, if it were confirmable, which it isn't, would dominate the news for quite a while.

theres ALOT of stories the media could use to bury Bush if they wanted to--but its pretty obvious to everyone by now that they dont want to

It's not that they don't want to. It's that nobody cares when the big ones come out. For example, the Downing Street Memo basically confirmed a bunch of suspicions about the war, but it was back when more than 30% liked GBu. If that came out now, you bet your arse it would be everywhere, because people are starting to get pissed.

But like I said above, this can't be confirmed, and won't be confirmed, so it will go nowhere.


I must admit Mr. Bush is starting to scare me a little. When I sit down and think about it, he's off the deep end, and he ain't gonna listen to nobody never. But 30% will listen to him. And I don't like to think how far that 30% would go for him. And I thank FDR for winning the Presidency so many times, because without that, we wouldn't have the amendment limiting terms, and I do not even want to think about 3rd term Bush.

:rolleyes:

What's that? Your precious "science" has demolished a notion which you once held dear? Well, the knife cuts both ways. If you accept that evolution and global warming exist, you must also be willing to stipulate that the media is biased, lest you be a hypocrite.

Few media critics have been afforded an intimate, on-the-job view of the outlets they criticize, but FAIR founder Jeff Cohen spent years in and out of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN. In his new book, Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, Cohen takes the reader inside TV news and probes the conservative biases, timidity and tabloidism that dominate it. Today, in a special extended CounterSpin interview, we talk to Jeff Cohen about his adventures and the book that, it's safe to say, will end any hope he has for a future in cable punditry.


http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2963

What's that? Your precious "science" has demolished a notion which you once held dear? Well, the knife cuts both ways. If you accept that evolution and global warming exist, you must also be willing to stipulate that the media is biased, lest you be a hypocrite.

What have evolution and climate change to do with media bias? The bias in media isn't left, it isn't right, the bias is toward whatever sensationalized story will sell.

Agreed there. This story, if it were confirmable, which it isn't, would dominate the news for quite a while.



It's not that they don't want to. It's that nobody cares when the big ones come out. For example, the Downing Street Memo basically confirmed a bunch of suspicions about the war, but it was back when more than 30% liked GBu. If that came out now, you bet your arse it would be everywhere, because people are starting to get pissed.

But like I said above, this can't be confirmed, and won't be confirmed, so it will go nowhere.


I must admit Mr. Bush is starting to scare me a little. When I sit down and think about it, he's off the deep end, and he ain't gonna listen to nobody never. But 30% will listen to him. And I don't like to think how far that 30% would go for him. And I thank FDR for winning the Presidency so many times, because without that, we wouldn't have the amendment limiting terms, and I do not even want to think about 3rd term Bush.

I agree pretty much with what you say but this story was confirmed enought to somehow make it to the op ed pages of a major Newspaper and in Red State Texas no less...and it does fit in entirely with Bushs persona so I see no reason to think its implausible

Trust me if Bill Clinton acted this way this would be hyped for weeks all over Foxnews but since Neocons control the Tabloid media on TV its not gonna happen against Bush

I can cite one authoritative study proving that despite crazy "consolidation" conspiracy theories, the media is extravagantly liberal.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Yes, life does have a pesky liberal bias.
yes put on your tin foil hat and read all the thousands of studies from all the media researchers that confirm this is what happened as a result of deliberate policies of Media Consolidation in America
Proof?
What's that? Your precious "science" has demolished a notion which you once held dear? Well, the knife cuts both ways. If you accept that evolution and global warming exist, you must also be willing to stipulate that the media is biased, lest you be a hypocrite.
First off, political science is a soft science at best. Secondly, everyone knows that the media is biased. It pretty much always has been. And before you try and say it, I don't mean a liberal bias, or a conservative bias, because "The Media" is not a homogeneous group.

What's that? Your precious "science" has demolished a notion which you once held dear? Well, the knife cuts both ways. If you accept that evolution and global warming exist, you must also be willing to stipulate that the media is biased, lest you be a hypocrite.

I believe in Media Bias but I disbelieve it has the kind of bias your study claims it has

What have evolution and climate change to do with media bias? The bias in media isn't left, it isn't right, the bias is toward whatever sensationalized story will sell.

No. Didn't you know the media are liberal, conspiratorial cads to a man? How naive....:D

What have evolution and climate change to do with media bias? The bias in media isn't left, it isn't right, the bias is toward whatever sensationalized story will sell.

TV and radio are heavily biased to the Right

Yes, life does have a pesky liberal bias.

Proof?

Fair.org--mediamatters etc theres tons of media research out there proving an indisputable republican bias in favor of the medias corporate masters

and the Rightwing American Media conglomerate is spreading its posionous tentacles to the UK in the form of Skyy News a Foxnews Affiliate

Bias is entirely subjective. For example, to me Fox News is a far-right biased propaganda network. But 1/3 of the nation thinks it's spot on.

If you are off to the right, things will look biased to the left. Think of the world as a flagpole (the facts) in front of a building (bias). If you stand a ways back, and move to the left, the flagpole looks like it's too the right of the building, or a right-wing bais. To the right, and it looks like its to the left of the building, or a left-wing bias.


Most news outlets do not bias the news (not opinion sections, news) for political reasons. They do it for the ratings. A story about a drug user winning the lottery, quitting drugs, and donating money to charity does not have the same appeal from a conservative viewpoint as a liberal one. A story about a drug user who wins the lottery and starts handing out free drugs to schoolchildren doesn't have the same appeal from a liberal viewpoint as a conservative one.

Bias is entirely subjective. For example, to me Fox News is a far-right biased propaganda network. But 1/3 of the nation thinks it's spot on.

If you are off to the right, things will look biased to the left. Think of the world as a flagpole (the facts) in front of a building (bias). If you stand a ways back, and move to the left, the flagpole looks like it's too the right of the building, or a right-wing bais. To the right, and it looks like its to the left of the building, or a left-wing bias.

yeah but the 1/3 of the nation that thinks its spot-on is only exposed to Rightwing opinions in the media--theyre not hearing a diversity of opinions to begin with so they have nothing to compare Foxs bias against

Fair.org--mediamatters

Ah, so two far-left organizations which seek to catalogue every perceived defect they can possibly find with centrist news outlets while unconditionally praising the far-left broadcasters. The basis which those two propaganda institutions have in fact is tenuous at best.

What have evolution and climate change to do with media bias?

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

Ah, so two far-left organizations which seek to catalogue every perceived defect they can possibly find with centrist news outlets while unconditionally praising the far-left broadcasters. The basis which those two propaganda institutions have in fact is tenuous at best.

5 people in America monopolize the entire media and speak with one corporate voice--a voice that overwhelming favours republicans since republicans pander to corporate special interests exclusively

for example if somehow the Unions monopolized the entire media the way corporations do you dont think theyd have a Pro-Democrat bias?

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

Do you, therefore, accept that evolution and climate change are real?

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

Science has said that eggs are good for you.

Science has said that eggs are bad for you.

:)

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

the first 2 are correct but no science has ever proven the "Liberal Media" Mythology

the Myth of a Liberal Media was invented by Rightys as a rationalization to hijack the media for their own ends

Science has said that eggs are good for you.

Science has said that eggs are bad for you.

:)

Schroedinger's Eggs *nods*

Schroedinger's Eggs *nods*

You win the thread. :D

Do you, therefore, accept that evolution and climate change are real?

No, I believe that science is dominated by nefarious individuals with a personal axe to grind; often, the truth is distorted or wholly covered up by those with vested interests. Thus, I believe that the following statement is true: "if science says it, that does not mean that it is true." However, the converse does not logically apply ("if it is true, that means science has not said it). Therefore, I do believe that science has correctly identified a liberal bias in the media but has reached erroneous conclusions regarding evolution and global warming.

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

Political science is a soft science.

You win the thread. :D

I'd like to thank Jesus, the academy, my agent, you rock Phil!

No, I believe that science is dominated by nefarious individuals with a personal axe to grind; often, the truth is distorted or wholly covered up by those with vested interests. Thus, I believe that the following statement is true: "if science says it, that does not mean that it is true." However, the converse does not logically apply ("if it is true, that means science has not said it). Therefore, I do believe that science has correctly identified a liberal bias in the media but has reached erroneous conclusions regarding evolution and global warming.

Congratulations, you have managed to both reveal yourself as a hypocrite and not make the slightest bit of sense in only one post.

Political science is a soft science.

What exactly do you mean by "soft"? Is it not science?

Congratulations, you have managed to both reveal yourself as a hypocrite and not make the slightest bit of sense in only one post.

Your reasoning capacity seems to be in need of a touch-up, but have no fear! I will clarify.

Science can be wrong, and it all too often is wrong. In the case of evolution and global warming, it is wrong. In the case of liberal bias, it is right.

Simple enough for you? As you can see, that is not hypocrisy, as I do not base many of my opinions on science, but rather what I deem to be true, what I have experienced, what the Bible says, intelligent individuals whom I trust, etc.

No, I believe that science is dominated by nefarious individuals with a personal axe to grind; often, the truth is distorted or wholly covered up by those with vested interests. Thus, I believe that the following statement is true: "if science says it, that does not mean that it is true." However, the converse does not logically apply ("if it is true, that means science has not said it). Therefore, I do believe that science has correctly identified a liberal bias in the media but has reached erroneous conclusions regarding evolution and global warming.
The bolded part is perhaps the only accurate statement in that post, and it's pseudo-science that's to blame for it. Global warming "skeptics" funded by big energy, young earth creationists, etc.

What exactly do you mean by "soft"? Is it not science?

He means that the Social Sciences rely much more on subjective opinion than do the Physical Sciences.

What exactly do you mean by "soft"? Is it not science?

Psychological and social sciences are generally referred to as "soft". To quote wiki: Soft science is a colloquial term, often used for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly "scientific" while its adherence to or rigor of scientific method is considered to be lacking, not based on reproducible experimental data, and/or a mathematical explanation of that data.

To quote wiki: Soft science is a colloquial term, often used for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly "scientific" while its adherence to or rigor of scientific method is considered to be lacking, not based on reproducible experimental data, and/or a mathematical explanation of that data.

Ah, but that definition does not apply to the study which I cited. The methodology was completely reproducible, given that the data compiled was simply taken from TV outlets; it was something completely in the public view. There is also a mathematical explanation of how the raw data was converted into a measure of bias.

Ah, but that definition does not apply to the study which I cited. The methodology was completely reproducible, given that the data compiled was simply taken from TV outlets; it was something completely in the public view. There is also a mathematical explanation of how the raw data was converted into a measure of bias.

The problem is with the subjective classification of liberal and conservative. You can't measure how liberal or conservative something is the way you can measure it's temperature.

And to quote that study:
In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three network television news shows.
They estimated scores, thus biasing the study based on their personal ideas about what is liberal and what is conservative.

That's not a good thing.......

Is that anything like nymphomania/satyrosis/hypersexuality? Because that's what it sounds like...

They estimated scores, thus biasing the study based on their personal ideas about what is liberal and what is conservative.

Do you accept the verdict that schizophrenia is a form of mental disease, or do you believe that the conclusion was simply reached because of bias in terms of what constitutes sanity?

I can cite one authoritative study proving that despite crazy "consolidation" conspiracy theories, the media is extravagantly liberal.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Umm...

1. How does one go about being "extravagantly" liberal? Do they buy copies of Al Franken books carved on 24 karat gold tablets, or what?

2. No. No it isn't.

Umm...

1. How does one go about being "extravagantly" liberal? Do they buy copies of Al Franken books carved on 24 karat gold tablets, or what?

2. No. No it isn't.

Honey, you don't carve on gold. You engrave.

Honey, you don't carve on gold. You ingrave.

Engrave, silly.

Do you accept the verdict that schizophrenia is a form of mental disease, or do you believe that the conclusion was simply reached because of bias in terms of what constitutes sanity?

There is a consensus within the psychiatric community as to what the symptoms of schizophenia are. To my knowledge, no such consensus exists on any objective definitions of liberal and conservative. Furthermore, by what objective tool does one measure bias? Bias is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

Engrave, silly.

Maybe I was calling him an ingrate! Hmm???!!!? Whacha got now, buster?!

Maybe I was calling him an ingrate! Hmm???!!!? Whacha got now, buster?!

Point out that you mispelled ingrate. *nod*

Point out that you mispelled ingrate. *nod*

Fascist. :(

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

I'm glad you finally accept evolution and global warming exist. Took you long enough.

Science has said that evolution exists.
Science has said that global warming exists.
Science has said that there is a liberal bias in the media.

This isn't a "pick two out of three" opportunity; either you accept that all science's conclusions are valid or you accept that some may be flawed.

Ah. This reminds me of a show I saw (Bullshit!, I believe.) explaining that some people don't realize that science and religion are NOT the same. Extreme religious people acting like science is the same as their views on the bible: It's either ALL right, or ALL wrong. And science doesn't work like that.

Fascist. :(

Commie :D

Ah. This reminds me of a show I saw (Bullshit!, I believe.) explaining that some people don't realize that science and religion are NOT the same. Extreme religious people acting like science is the same as their views on the bible: It's either ALL right, or ALL wrong. And science doesn't work like that.

Actually, if you read his posts, you'll see that F&G is taking this one step further. He's saying the we have to accept it all but that he doesn't.

I know. I still wonder how these presidents do it. Especially ones that steered the nation through national crises, like FDR or even Bush. Like him or not, he was dealt a shitty hand as president.

I disagree. He was dealt a great hand in 9/11. It was tragic and all, but it created a huge amount of goodwill towards him and the government not only domestically but world wide. Then he went and fucked up what had the potential to be a great legacy.

No, I believe that science is dominated by nefarious individuals with a personal axe to grind; often, the truth is distorted or wholly covered up by those with vested interests. Thus, I believe that the following statement is true: "if science says it, that does not mean that it is true." However, the converse does not logically apply ("if it is true, that means science has not said it). Therefore, I do believe that science has correctly identified a liberal bias in the media but has reached erroneous conclusions regarding evolution and global warming.

theres only 2 people allowed to say liberal things for like 10 minutes every week on tv

Your reasoning capacity seems to be in need of a touch-up, but have no fear! I will clarify.

Science can be wrong, and it all too often is wrong. In the case of evolution and global warming, it is wrong. In the case of liberal bias, it is right.

Simple enough for you? As you can see, that is not hypocrisy, as I do not base many of my opinions on science, but rather what I deem to be true, what I have experienced, what the Bible says, intelligent individuals whom I trust, etc.

you just think everything to the left of Attila the Hun is liberal

I hate to break it to you guys but the Entire White House and Congress have been off their rocker since the 1800's...this is not news, infact this is no where near as shocking as Andrew Jackson's makeout session with his horse.

No, I believe that science is dominated by nefarious individuals with a personal axe to grind; often, the truth is distorted or wholly covered up by those with vested interests. Thus, I believe that the following statement is true: "if science says it, that does not mean that it is true." However, the converse does not logically apply ("if it is true, that means science has not said it). Therefore, I do believe that science has correctly identified a liberal bias in the media but has reached erroneous conclusions regarding evolution and global warming.

I believe that you're being stupid. And please don't bother responding to this post.

I hate to break it to you guys but the Entire White House and Congress have been off their rocker since the 1800's...this is not news, infact this is no where near as shocking as Andrew Jackson's makeout session with his horse.

got pics?

I see the red arrow has returned.

got pics?

use your imagination:)

I see the red arrow has returned.

I never saw that movie--it sounds too much like you wouldve had to see the origional version to know whats goin on and I hate that--altho I have been following spiderman closely and the last sequel was even better then the origional--very rare

Project for the New American Century it's a neo-conservative think tank

Blink-tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)

Best part was when the author was on The Colbert Report, and used Bush as a perfect example of "action without experience". Not a fan, safe to presume.

and they(PNAC) work for the Zionists at Illuminati International, you know the guys that brought you 9-11 and the war on isl....terror. -puts on tin- foil hat-*





* I don't actually believe that shiite.
Well, don't believe your own sarcasm. The rest is already in print and action, regrettably.

his educational background was far from earned it just shows what money can buy when your a legacy quota--Im not sure if his idiocy is an act or real either but one thing I am convinced of is that hes a sociopath

I missed ya, man. :)
*bows*

I'm not sure if he's loosing sanity, but man, I would if I had that job. I cringe to think that people spend millions to get the world's most stressful and underpaying job. Really, Presidents don't make that much for their work.
Vice presidents seem to do pretty well, it could be said. :(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12318056/

I'm waiting for him to slip up and refer to the Iraq War as "The Great Cause" or something similar.

Hmmm ...
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.
-- George W Bush, using a loaded term which recalls the Christians' Medieval wars against Muslims in the so-called Holy Land, after stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001

...like that one maybe?

Hmmm ...

-- George W Bush, using a loaded term which recalls the Christians' Medieval wars against Muslims in the so-called Holy Land, after stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001

...like that one maybe?

I'm thinking he meant more along the lines of something Hitler-esque...

I can cite one authoritative study proving that despite crazy "consolidation" conspiracy theories, the media is extravagantly liberal.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Great another one of you wack jobs ... I thought the conservative bias dude was enough for one thread.

Right. Where and when did this happen?
Ah, I see, it's an opinion piece. I dislike Bush and his policies but I have to say it really lacks any kind of credibility. It seems like hyperbole tio me -- or there would have been some indication of where this took place and it should have been all over the news.
What, kinda like saying "It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" about the Constitution? :p

I see the red arrow has returned.

Yeah ... quite possibly though I just dont get the same feeling out of the OP as ol TRA/MKULTRA

you view GW as your enemy and feel you know him personally? you don't see that as some sort of problem?
You understand, of course, how many people have been personally maligned and hurt by certain actions and intent of Bush, right?
Don't fault anyone too much for having personal issues with Bush. He's earned them.

*thinks*




*thinks*


*thinks*


Erotomania!

Dream Theater? :)

Much as I'd love for this story to be true, there's no way it could be. If it were, every news outlet on the planet would have picked up on it, and there would be nothing else on TV for the next six months.

I partially agree ... and partially not.
You don't hear much about how Condi lied to the 9-11 Commission over the FAA reports on attacks - 52 of them between April and September of '01 ALONE - and you also don't hear much about how we shuttled all the bin Laden/Saudi families out during NOTAM ... and i probably could provide a few more examples.

Like, again, the Downing Street Memos, the BND Report, BOTH Duelfer Reports and a few other things - and when the Brits were asked about it, they said "Oh, that's old news."

EDIT: See :
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12730614&postcount=61

I can cite one authoritative study proving that despite crazy "consolidation" conspiracy theories, the media is extravagantly liberal.

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

Wha-AHAHAHAHAAA hoho ho HAHAHAHA *snort* hahahaHAHAHA!!!
*wipes tears*

Science has said that eggs are good for you.

Science has said that eggs are bad for you.

:)

Point for taco/mudman.

Congratulations, you have managed to both reveal yourself as a hypocrite and not make the slightest bit of sense in only one post.

Those congratulations, for the same reasons, are notches in that particular posters' bedpost.
Try not to swell his/her/its ego TOO much. :p

I missed ya, man. :)
*bows*

*Bows*

I spoke to a dead man in a dream last nite and he told me that we spend all our time trying to find the real meaning of life and the whole time its right in front of us but we;re too scared to see it

*Bows*

I spoke to a dead man in a dream last nite and he told me that we spend all our time trying to find the real meaning of life and the whole time its right in front of us but we;re too scared to see it

Unfortunate.
Funny, i've kinda lived backwards for so long - i wanted the meaning first, before the action.
I've passed the fulcrum now, i hope.

Unfortunate.
Funny, i've kinda lived backwards for so long - i wanted the meaning first, before the action.
I've passed the fulcrum now, i hope.

I suffered and in my pain I awoke

Past presidents have SO had to learn to ignore Bin Laden. His stories are really boring, so people, like, for example, Reagan, had to just tune him out.

To be fair, Reagan had Alzeimer's. Thus, he really didn't have a choice about whether or not he could tune out Bin Laden. Probably forgot who he was every other day.

got pics?

Didn't they doctor it a little and include it in Jackass 2?
:eek:

I'm thinking he meant more along the lines of something Hitler-esque...

Ah, kind of like "Well, all options are on the table, but I'm The Decider - and as The Decider, I'm gonna decide on a solution. And it'll be the final one on the matter." ?

Ah, kind of like "Well, all options are on the table, but I'm The Decider - and as The Decider, I'm gonna decide on a solution. And it'll be the final one on the matter." ?

Allahschwitz for Muslims, Asschwitz for Homosexuals, and AlFrankenschwitz for Liberals and Secularists.

Point for taco/mudman.

:D

In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of eliminationist rhetoric coming from the mainstream right wing media. They have talked about hanging liberals, gleefully suggested that terrorists should target liberals, prayed for the eternal torture of liberals, bemoaned the fact that we can't legally torture and murder liberals, and on and on and on.

So let me throw this out there as a peace offering:

If George W. Bush is impeached and put on trial for his crimes, or is even held legally accountable for the many illegal, corrupt, and (frankly) evil activities of his terms in office, I will promptly die of shock. But I will die with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

There you go, right-wing eliminationists. You can kill this liberal. All you'd have to do is actually follow the law.

There you go, right-wing eliminationists. You can kill this liberal. All you'd have to do is actually follow the law.

That's a tall order.

In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of eliminationist rhetoric coming from the mainstream right wing media. They have talked about hanging liberals, gleefully suggested that terrorists should target liberals, prayed for the eternal torture of liberals, bemoaned the fact that we can't legally torture and murder liberals, and on and on and on.

So let me throw this out there as a peace offering:

If George W. Bush is impeached and put on trial for his crimes, or is even held legally accountable for the many illegal, corrupt, and (frankly) evil activities of his terms in office, I will promptly die of shock. But I will die with a smile on my face and a song in my heart.

There you go, right-wing eliminationists. You can kill this liberal. All you'd have to do is actually follow the law.

Actually, see like a live Eichmann like trial of Bush, I would find quite satisfying, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants, I'd say it's high time already.

What I like is that so many other people have gone completely insane, as a result of their hatred of Bush.

Thousands, tens of thousands of people seem to believe now (and not before) that 9/11 was an inside Bush job, because of their hatred of Bush, and their insistence that everything bad (from indigestion to their recent job loss) is the fault of Bush. I see them every day on Daily Kos.

About 29 percent of Democrats now believe the 9/11 Bush conspiracy thing, due to hatred of Bush.

You see the livid, foaming at the mouth insanity on TV when you see Rosie O'Donnell.

It's even made some Republicans insane - take Ron Paul and his supporters, who hate Bush so much that they also believe Bush did 9/11.

What I like is that so many other people have gone completely insane, as a result of their hatred of Bush.
*snipped*
And what I like is the implication that anybody is remotely crazy for hating Bush.

Or that anybody is crazy for being foaming-at-the-mouth mad over what is happening to our country.

As far as I'm concerned, those are the ONLY sane responses to what is being done to the USA.

When our own government is flat-out lying, violating our Constitution, torturing people, breaking the law left and right, and sinking to levels of corruption that amaze even the most jaded among us...why on Earth would any sane person feel anything less than seething rage?

I see a bunch of crooks bankrupting my country, throwing away the lives of our soldiers, disgracing us around the world, and openly lying to the very people they are elected to represent. Yep, I'm pissed about that. And, frankly, it's pathetic and dishonest to imply that my anger about any of this is somehow irrational, or that it somehow renders my arguments invalid.

Yes, people are furious. AND THEY'RE RIGHT.

If you're not furious about what the Bush Administration has been up to, then you're either uninformed, insane, or on their pay roll.

And what I like is the implication that anybody is remotely crazy for hating Bush.

Or that anybody is crazy for being foaming-at-the-mouth mad over what is happening to our country.

As far as I'm concerned, those are the ONLY sane responses to what is being done to the USA.

When our own government is flat-out lying, violating our Constitution, torturing people, breaking the law left and right, and sinking to levels of corruption that amaze even the most jaded among us...why on Earth would any sane person feel anything less than seething rage?

I see a bunch of crooks bankrupting my country, throwing away the lives of our soldiers, disgracing us around the world, and openly lying to the very people they are elected to represent. Yep, I'm pissed about that. And, frankly, it's pathetic and dishonest to imply that my anger about any of this is somehow irrational, or that it somehow renders my arguments invalid.

Yes, people are furious. AND THEY'RE RIGHT.

If you're not furious about what the Bush Administration has been up to, then you're either uninformed, insane, or on their pay roll.

Oh, you believe Bush did 9/11 also?

That's my criteria for "insane". I see you care to ignore it.

What I like is that so many other people have gone completely insane, as a result of their hatred of Bush.

Thousands, tens of thousands of people seem to believe now (and not before) that 9/11 was an inside Bush job, because of their hatred of Bush, and their insistence that everything bad (from indigestion to their recent job loss) is the fault of Bush. I see them every day on Daily Kos.

About 29 percent of Democrats now believe the 9/11 Bush conspiracy thing, due to hatred of Bush.

You see the livid, foaming at the mouth insanity on TV when you see Rosie O'Donnell.

It's even made some Republicans insane - take Ron Paul and his supporters, who hate Bush so much that they also believe Bush did 9/11.

Right, the whole world is going crazy and Mr. Bush just happens to be in the eye of the storm, a shining locus of reasonableness, stability, common sense and all the other great synonyms for totally not being batshit-insane. Right.

Oh, you believe Bush did 9/11 also?

That's my criteria for "insane". I see you care to ignore it.

I see you care to ignore reality. That's my criteria for "Bushevik trash".

Right, the whole world is going crazy and Mr. Bush just happens to be in the eye of the storm, a shining locus of reasonableness, stability, common sense and all the other great synonyms for totally not being batshit-insane. Right.

Yet another person who fails to read the post, which included my criteria for "insane".

Do you believe that Bush did 9/11, like Rosie does? If so, you're insane.

BTW, the economy is going GREAT down here. Go ahead - it's Bush's fault, too.

When the hell did I post in this thread? :confused:

When the hell did I post in this thread? :confused:

I don't remember. Was it before or after it all went to hell?

PNAC?

P'nasch.

I don't remember. Was it before or after it all went to hell?

Before. And a bit during.

Yet another person who fails to read the post, which included my criteria for "insane".

Do you believe that Bush did 9/11, like Rosie does? If so, you're insane.

BTW, the economy is going GREAT down here. Go ahead - it's Bush's fault, too.

Ahahaha!

Do you honestly think terrorists were organized enough to attack on the day when the entire American airforce was in a test campaign?

No.

Ahahaha!

Do you honestly think terrorists were organized enough to attack on the day when the entire American airforce was in a test campaign?

No.

This thread is now a "Bush did it" thread.

Everyone, post your Loose Change links.

EDIT: In fact, does anyone know if there's a point-counterpoint video or article disproving the theory?

Is that anything like nymphomania/satyrosis/hypersexuality? Because that's what it sounds like...
Nah, erotomania is usually what stalkers have. It's being in love with a prominent public figure that you don't actually know.
Dream Theater? :)
I love you.
When the hell did I post in this thread? :confused:

Were you drunk?

Were you drunk?

"Were" would indicate that he is no longer drunk.

Oh, you believe Bush did 9/11 also?

Do I believe Bush personally blew up buildings? Nope.

Do I believe that Bush was criminally negligent? Fuck yes.

Do I believe Bush received countless warnings about a specific threat, warnings which he elected to ignore? Do I believe the out-going Clinton administration specifically pointed to Bin Ladin as a serious threat, and Bush elected to ignore them?

Do I believe that Bush entered the White House already having decided to go to war with Iraq? Do I believe that Bush (and/or his handlers) fully intended, from the beginning, to use 9/11 for political purposes even if it meant doing a shitty job of actually protected the country he was elected to lead?

Do I believe there is far more to the story of 9/11 than what most of us have been told? Do I believe the Bush Administration has specifically and deliberately lied to the American public about 9/11?

To all of the above: Fuck yes.

Do I believe that George W. Bush is personally responsible for the absolute FAILURE in handling the aftermath of 9/11? You betcha. And for the complete and utter failure in coping with other recent national disasters, such as the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina.


That's my criteria for "insane". I see you care to ignore it.
Meh. People have been calling me "crazy" or "hateful" or "a terrorist" ever since I first pointed out that the "war on Terror" was bull crap.

People said I was crazy when, back in the fall of 2001, I predicted that Bush Jr. would use his new "War on Terror" as an excuse to return to Iraq and fight Saddam.

Before Michael Moore put out his movie, I was told I was insane for suggesting that Bush knew about the threat posed by Bin Laden ahead of time. (Never mind that CLINTON knew about Bin Laden. Nobody reads anything these days, I guess.)

I'm usually called "insane" by the 28-percenters. Forgive me for being somewhat numb to that particular jibe. It's like "terrorist" or "shrill." These are now words that simply set off my Wingnut Alert.

I don't think George W. Bush personally planned and executed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But, frankly, I would not be remotely shocked if it turned out that he had. Nothing about the man, or his administration, leads me to believe that such actions would be beneath them.

I don't think it's remotely insane to think that George W. Bush and his henchmen were responsible for 9/11. Personally, I don't think they intentionally engineered 9/11...but I don't think it's crazy for anybody to suspect that they did.

What I like is that so many other people have gone completely insane, as a result of their hatred of Bush.

Thousands, tens of thousands of people seem to believe now (and not before) that 9/11 was an inside Bush job, because of their hatred of Bush, and their insistence that everything bad (from indigestion to their recent job loss) is the fault of Bush. I see them every day on Daily Kos.

About 29 percent of Democrats now believe the 9/11 Bush conspiracy thing, due to hatred of Bush.

You see the livid, foaming at the mouth insanity on TV when you see Rosie O'Donnell.

It's even made some Republicans insane - take Ron Paul and his supporters, who hate Bush so much that they also believe Bush did 9/11.

No you don't, and you're a fucking liar. If you aren't you ought to be able to point to plenty of links, and since you said "every day," they'll be newer than some obscure diary from three years ago. So do it. Put up or shut up.

No you don't, and you're a fucking liar. If you aren't you ought to be able to point to plenty of links, and since you said "every day," they'll be newer than some obscure diary from three years ago. So do it. Put up or shut up.
DKos seems, if anything, far too mild these days. We're all getting a bit jaded, I suppose.

DKos seems, if anything, far too mild these days. We're all getting a bit jaded, I suppose.
I spend a lot less time there than I used to, though my three digit UID keeps me coming back. Gives you an idea of how long I've been a member. SO when RO/DK/Whispering Legs slanders the site, I get a bit defensive. DKos has its problems, but one thing is for certain--there's no 9/11 conspiracy theory mongering there. It's one of the few things to get you deleted from the site, which makes the accusation more stupid than normal.

Do I believe Bush personally blew up buildings? Nope.

Do I believe that Bush was criminally negligent? Fuck yes.

Do I believe Bush received countless warnings about a specific threat, warnings which he elected to ignore? Do I believe the out-going Clinton administration specifically pointed to Bin Ladin as a serious threat, and Bush elected to ignore them?

Do I believe that Bush entered the White House already having decided to go to war with Iraq? Do I believe that Bush (and/or his handlers) fully intended, from the beginning, to use 9/11 for political purposes even if it meant doing a shitty job of actually protected the country he was elected to lead?

Do I believe there is far more to the story of 9/11 than what most of us have been told? Do I believe the Bush Administration has specifically and deliberately lied to the American public about 9/11?

To all of the above: Fuck yes.

Do I believe that George W. Bush is personally responsible for the absolute FAILURE in handling the aftermath of 9/11? You betcha. And for the complete and utter failure in coping with other recent national disasters, such as the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina.


Meh. People have been calling me "crazy" or "hateful" or "a terrorist" ever since I first pointed out that the "war on Terror" was bull crap.

People said I was crazy when, back in the fall of 2001, I predicted that Bush Jr. would use his new "War on Terror" as an excuse to return to Iraq and fight Saddam.

Before Michael Moore put out his movie, I was told I was insane for suggesting that Bush knew about the threat posed by Bin Laden ahead of time. (Never mind that CLINTON knew about Bin Laden. Nobody reads anything these days, I guess.)

I'm usually called "insane" by the 28-percenters. Forgive me for being somewhat numb to that particular jibe. It's like "terrorist" or "shrill." These are now words that simply set off my Wingnut Alert.

I don't think George W. Bush personally planned and executed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But, frankly, I would not be remotely shocked if it turned out that he had. Nothing about the man, or his administration, leads me to believe that such actions would be beneath them.

I don't think it's remotely insane to think that George W. Bush and his henchmen were responsible for 9/11. Personally, I don't think they intentionally engineered 9/11...but I don't think it's crazy for anybody to suspect that they did.

I wouldn't put it past him either.

<<And it's "Loose Change" (the movie name. I'd try a search of that on YouTube for the "Bush did it" thing)>>

I spend a lot less time there than I used to, though my three digit UID keeps me coming back. Gives you an idea of how long I've been a member. SO when RO/DK/Whispering Legs slanders the site, I get a bit defensive. DKos has its problems, but one thing is for certain--there's no 9/11 conspiracy theory mongering there. It's one of the few things to get you deleted from the site, which makes the accusation more stupid than normal.
You know, I've got a Crazy Uncle Eddie (not his real name), who loves to make up stories. He's a very nice, well-meaning fellow. Pretty harmless. But he's a compulsive liar. He makes up stories about absolutely everything. He will lie about trivial and easily-verified things, like what day of the week it is.

The cutest thing about my Crazy Uncle is that his absolute favorite word is "bonkers." He loves to say that people, places, things, or ideas are "bonkers!"

It's funny as hell when a compulsive liar decides he's qualified to tell you "the truth" about something. It's shoot-milk-out-your-nose funny when somebody who is batshit insane goes around calling other things/people "bonkers."

That's the feeling I get from some of our friends here on NS General.

I'm just saying.

I wouldn't put it past him either.

<<And it's "Loose Change" (the movie name. I'd try a search of that on YouTube for the "Bush did it" thing)>>

Loose Change is the 9/11 conspiracy movie. The "Michael Moore" film that Bottle was refering to was Farenheit 9/11

Loose Change is the 9/11 conspiracy movie. The "Michael Moore" film that Bottle was refering to was Farenheit 9/11

That's what i was trying to say, only less clearly.

Actually, if you read his posts, you'll see that F&G is taking this one step further. He's saying the we have to accept it all but that he doesn't.

Ahem. I tend not to use any smilies other then the smile, sad, and grin. But this requires an exception.

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

Ahem. I tend not to use any smilies other then the smile, sad, and grin. But this requires an exception.

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

Are you frustrated with me, or him?

Are you frustrated with me, or him?

Him. Clearly.

Him. Clearly.

Should have guessed. MTAE makes me want to at least do that.

What I like is that so many other people have gone completely insane, as a result of their hatred of Bush.

Thousands, tens of thousands of people seem to believe now (and not before) that 9/11 was an inside Bush job, because of their hatred of Bush, and their insistence that everything bad (from indigestion to their recent job loss) is the fault of Bush. I see them every day on Daily Kos.

About 29 percent of Democrats now believe the 9/11 Bush conspiracy thing, due to hatred of Bush.

You see the livid, foaming at the mouth insanity on TV when you see Rosie O'Donnell.

It's even made some Republicans insane - take Ron Paul and his supporters, who hate Bush so much that they also believe Bush did 9/11.

well its the first time America ever had a Truely Evil President so of course people are gonna get a bit emotional over that

And what I like is the implication that anybody is remotely crazy for hating Bush.

Or that anybody is crazy for being foaming-at-the-mouth mad over what is happening to our country.

As far as I'm concerned, those are the ONLY sane responses to what is being done to the USA.

When our own government is flat-out lying, violating our Constitution, torturing people, breaking the law left and right, and sinking to levels of corruption that amaze even the most jaded among us...why on Earth would any sane person feel anything less than seething rage?

I see a bunch of crooks bankrupting my country, throwing away the lives of our soldiers, disgracing us around the world, and openly lying to the very people they are elected to represent. Yep, I'm pissed about that. And, frankly, it's pathetic and dishonest to imply that my anger about any of this is somehow irrational, or that it somehow renders my arguments invalid.

Yes, people are furious. AND THEY'RE RIGHT.

If you're not furious about what the Bush Administration has been up to, then you're either uninformed, insane, or on their pay roll.

I love you Bottle

Should have guessed. MTAE makes me want to at least do that.

Do we have any proof he's MTAE, or are we doing our usual He's-a-super-right-winger-so-he-must-be-Means-To-An-End thing?

Oh, you believe Bush did 9/11 also?

That's my criteria for "insane". I see you care to ignore it.

no one said he ACTIVELY did it but he certainly ALLOWED it

Ahahaha!

Do you honestly think terrorists were organized enough to attack on the day when the entire American airforce was in a test campaign?

No.

great point--the terrorists were so efficient they picked the one day out of all American history when the NORAD fighter jets were totally diverted

The Bottom Line is America Needs a Total Revolution and the People need to take to the streets en masse and shut down all Business until this Treasonous Regime is driven out of Power

on a side note: Even MEXICANS are complaining about losing all their manufacturing jobs to Communist China with Bushs "trade policy"

Do we have any proof he's MTAE, or are we doing our usual He's-a-super-right-winger-so-he-must-be-Means-To-An-End thing?

Just circumstantial evidence, I think. Similar views, similar style (like addiction to hyperbole), stuff like that.

Just circumstantial evidence, I think. Similar views, similar style (like addiction to hyperbole), stuff like that.

AKA as victims of the Hate Media

Do we have any proof he's MTAE, or are we doing our usual He's-a-super-right-winger-so-he-must-be-Means-To-An-End thing?

The latter :)

oh sorry I didnt know you were a Moderator--I make it a point not to debate with Moderators since it represents a conflict of interest

Why? I can debate without the Mod hat -- in fact, I do and do often.

yes and it wouldve been too back in the days when the American Media wasnt controlled and monopolized the way it is now--theres ALOT of stories the media could use to bury Bush if they wanted to--but its pretty obvious to everyone by now that they dont want to

I hate to break it to you -- but American Media ain't the only media in the world.

on a side note: Even MEXICANS are complaining about losing all their manufacturing jobs to Communist China with Bushs "trade policy"

That is because the Chinese are more efficient at such jobs; in the long-run, a trade system based on comparative advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) will enrich the world, whereas without it, economic growth will progress more slowly as countries hold on to antiquated industries instead of bowing to economic theory.

That is because the Chinese are more efficient at such jobs; in the long-run, a trade system based on comparative advantage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) will enrich the world, whereas without it, economic growth will progress more slowly as countries hold on to antiquated industries instead of bowing to economic theory.

You do realize the military disadvantage of putting all our factories in another country presents, right?

You do realize the military disadvantage of putting all our factories in another country presents, right?

Unless we plan on going to war against China, it should present no problems. Furthermore, I fail to see why one would believe that industry will be concentrated in China given a system of free trade; in fact, many developing nations have comparative advantages in cheap, unskilled labor and thus could support such factories. We would not be solely dependent on one country.

Unless we plan on going to war against China, it should present no problems. Furthermore, I fail to see why one would believe that industry will be concentrated in China given a system of free trade; in fact, many developing nations have comparative advantages in cheap, unskilled labor and thus could support such factories. We would not be solely dependent on one country.

Who said we would start it? They could do it just as easily, perhaps more.

As for the distribution to other nations, I ask "Which ones?"

I think we'd need at least 10 or so to counterbalance China.

Who said we would start it? They could do it just as easily, perhaps more.

As for the distribution to other nations, I ask "Which ones?"

I think we'd need at least 10 or so to counterbalance China.

It's that whole "the US is the center of the world and no one would dare fuck with us" mentality that's going to get us all killed one day.

It's that whole "the US is the center of the world and no one would dare fuck with us" mentality that's going to get us all killed one day.

Yeah, probably.

Though I think you left out the part about how the US is immortal in the mentality.

Yeah, probably.

Though I think you left out the part about how the US is immortal in the mentality.
Well, I figured that was understood, seeing as how the US is the only true Christian nation and all that jazz. ;)

Yeah, probably.

Though I think you left out the part about how the US is immortal in the mentality.

And of course if and when that day comes, the U.S. will be howling like a supervillain.

"NO!! THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING!! YOU CAN'T KILL ME.... IIIIII'M INVINCIBLE!!"

Why? I can debate without the Mod hat -- in fact, I do and do often.

Aye, lass, but taking your mod hat off just means you debate us with a solid titanium hat in your hands. :D

Yeah, probably. Though I think you left out the part about how the US is immortal in the mentality.

Well, it is true. We possess the grandest military on the planet and can demolish whatever foe stands in our way. We cannot be defeated through military means; the only obstacle which could possibly stand in our way is of a psychological nature (ie, traitors who don't believe in what this great nation stands for, certain liberals, etc.).

Aye, lass, but taking your mod hat off just means you debate us with a solid titanium hat in your hands. :D

All kidding aside -- when have I used my moddiness in debate as a sledgehammer?

Well, it is true. We possess the grandest military on the planet and can demolish whatever foe stands in our way. We cannot be defeated through military means;

Powerful =/= Immortal

And I'm not even gonna start with you on the second one. It'd take until next Tuesday.

All kidding aside -- when have I used my moddiness in debate as a sledgehammer?

Never, I just find the image of a kitty using a titanium hat as a weapon to be too amusing not to mention.

Allahschwitz for Muslims, Asschwitz for Homosexuals, and AlFrankenschwitz for Liberals and Secularists.

:eek:

You SO fucking rock!!
*mega-BOW*

Obviously sigworthy.
:D

There you go, right-wing eliminationists. You can kill this liberal. All you'd have to do is actually follow the law.
I can't say it enough. You ROCK!
*mega-BOW*

I love you.
First one's free. Next one'll cost y- hey, is this a case of definition in action? :confused: