Celsius 41.11

Pretty interesting.

Also disturbing at parts. :(
 
There's a pretty gruesome scene of fingers being chopped off (and a woman is shot in the head but you see before and after) so discretion is advised
 
ooh thanks for that, I didn't know about that one...

yeah kind of turned my head at the gruesome bits
 
User Name said:
Tell me. How is that funny?

When Bush speaks it's 1000X funnier than that. :LOL:
Click to expand...


Because he states that he would not have gone to war based on the current information and in the very next sentence says it was the right thing to do based on what Saddam had done.

hmm.. sorry but saying nucular instead of nuclear, or abu garef instead of abu grabe isn't funny for me..
 
User Name said:
Tell me. How is that funny?

When Bush speaks it's 1000X funnier than that. :LOL:
Click to expand...

...its funny because it shows how stupid kerry can be too.

Sure bush talks funny (all southern people do!) but bush only talked "politicaly" funny mostly on his 1st year as president.

Kerry is an idiot.

Thank you for that clip btw, hmmm I've never seen that before!
 
I like this one too, the "Kerry Iraq Documentary"

http://www.demsextrememakeover.com/

Sceptism is of course important because it is made by republicans, but the documentary is devoid of commentary and consist only of video fragments and direct quotes. Which makes it all the more impressive (or scary, depending how you look at it)
 
Incitatus said:
Because he states that he would not have gone to war based on the current information and in the very next sentence says it was the right thing to do based on what Saddam had done.

hmm.. sorry but saying nucular instead of nuclear, or abu garef instead of abu grabe isn't funny for me..
Click to expand...

And Bush said one day that that the war on terrorism can not be won, and then the next day he said it could be.

Both candidates have made slip ups like that.

For that one on Kerry it could easily have been just a slip of the tongue. If he had said, "what Sudam Hussein has supposedly done." it would have made perfect sense. So he probably forgot to add a qualifier. Big deal.
 
User Name said:
Tell me. How is that funny?

When Bush speaks it's 1000X funnier than that. :LOL:
Click to expand...


Wow another joke about how bush speaks... man your cool!!! (jk your not..your actually pretty stupid)

and like someone above posted..kerry is an idiot.. moore is an even BIGGER idiot.
 
KidRock said:
...and like someone above posted..kerry is an idiot.. moore is an even BIGGER idiot.
Click to expand...
...and Bush is the BIGGEST idiot. :p :rolling:
 
KidRock said:
Wow another joke about how bush speaks... man your cool!!! (jk your not..your actually pretty stupid)

and like someone above posted..kerry is an idiot.. moore is an even BIGGER idiot.
Click to expand...

I love how you mock someone for making fun of one candidate, while in the same breath calling the other candidate an idiot. Nice double standard there.

Niether candidate is an "idiot". You don't become president or a US senator by being an idiot.
 
Neutrino said:
Niether candidate is an "idiot". You don't become president or a US senator by being an idiot.
Click to expand...

For some reason I want to disagree with that statement (as in both are idiots). :imu:

[Edit]: Interesting side fact - Bush has never lost a debate he has been in.
 
Neutrino said:
I love how you mock someone for making fun of one candidate, while in the same breath calling the other candidate an idiot. Nice double standard there.

Niether candidate is an "idiot". You don't become president or a US senator by being an idiot.
Click to expand...

I love how you think you know absolutly everything about politics neut.

Stop thinking you're god and relax for christ sake.

You have said bush is an idiot before and I remember it! I'll try to find the post.
 
Not to defend Moore too much, as I think he does the antiwar movement a great disservice in many ways (as do the more extreme elements, as it is with any movement), but lets provide a little context for the quote they use in the trailer.

They clearly imply that Moore believes there is "no terrorist threat [anywhere, at all, etc]". They show a clip of the towers being attacked, as if to say "oh yeah, what's all this then?" What nonsense.

transcript of Moore on Maher said:
MOORE: Yes, I think we are. I think – I think that this whole terrorism high alert, red alert, orange alert stuff is all just to get us whipped up into giving them whatever they want. It’s a cover for their agenda, for their right-wing agenda. [applause]

And it’s – the – I think these words need to be said somewhere on national TV, and they are: there is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat. Just as you said. No, there are acts of terrorism, and there will be more acts of terrorism. We’re not going to avoid that. And we should do whatever we can to prevent it. But there is no great terrorist threat where everybody is – you know, when we drove in here tonight to your show – we were here last year, there were mirrors under the car, they made me open the trunk.

MAHER: Right.

MOORE: Drove in here tonight, nothing! I said, what happened? Did they catch Osama? What’s up? [laughter] You know, it’s just – it’s just – and there’ll be something that’ll happen and it’ll ratchet it back up.

MAHER: It does seem that they do – I mean, I remember SARS early in the year was going to kill everybody.

MOORE: How about monkey pox?

MAHER: I remember when Y2K was going to kill everybody.

MOORE: Right.
Click to expand...
The point is that there is no "general threat" to everyone, all the time. Some people would like you to believe that a terrorist attack is imminent, wherever you live, at all hours of the day.

For example what is the threat level at right now? Lets take a look at the color-coded thingamabob. At best, you're looking at a "low risk of terrorist attacks". What's next? "General risk of terrorist attacks". Anytime, anywhere. What's middle-of-the-road? "Significant risk of terrorist attacks."

Go to the Department of Homeland Security's website. It's yellow; I don't think I've ever heard of it being blue, which isn't that fantastic either. I know it's been to orange a few times.

This is the point, which the creators of that trailer, at least, don't get. You've got:

SEVERE RISK
HIGH RISK
SIGNIFICANT RISK
GENERAL RISK
LOW RISK

*brain freezes in panic*

They're shilling for people who once loved Saddam too, yet they find a couple wacko protestors who focus too much on Saddam's positive accomplishment's (*shudder*), and suddenly Moore and the entire antiwar movement are supporting Saddam's atrocities (ohh the irony).
 
So what? you want us to be like "Today there is a terror alert but tomorow is clear blue skys"

...how do we KNOW when terrorists WILL or WILL NOT strike hmm?

Bush is doing the smart thing with terror alerts.. and how moore says "heh! There is no threat!" is pretty disgusting.

When we least expect it is when it will happen.
 
Hey they are just picking and choosing clips just like Moore does. He is the master of that kind of trickery.
 
I would submit that Moore also sucks, actually.

Hell, his movie ignores the massive worldwide protests, calling the administration on its lies, way before they were forced to admit to supposedly being duped by bad intelligence.

Oh well, history is infinitely malleable, by conquerors and charlatans alike!
 
blahblahblah said:
For some reason I want to disagree with that statement (as in both are idiots). :imu:

[Edit]: Interesting side fact - Bush has never lost a debate he has been in.
Click to expand...


and people make fun of the way bush talks... :burp:
 
thats not kool, infact , thats pro republican propaganda taking it too far. ffs, it is horrible what was going on under Saddam's rule, and their are right's to whats happened, but their are also many wrong's to go along side (and most apparently have resulted in the loss of more innocent lives).

Still.. it only addresses the known facts of 9/11, and the reason to goto war in Iraq it seems. Does the movie take a neutral stance? and ask questions about NORAD's failiure to scramble jet's?

does it ask why the twin towers where insured just 3 weeks before the trajedy? and why certain higher memebers of the public where informed to stay away from New York in that week, almost like someone knew it was going to happen.

does it answer and shed light of the lives of the supposed muslim terrorist's living it up in a un-muslim way in and around their homes in the US?.

Does it unravel Bush and Kerry's secrect Skull and Bones club they where intiated into at yale?

Does it tell us the truth about the history of Osama Bin Laden, and why it was him who planned to attacked New York?


Does it tell us the truth,?

or is it just the reitorated line of supposed events that came out of the mouth of a man who takes part in satanic mock sacrifice ritual's, and spend's his adult life within the elite of the world, talking of god knows what with his Elitest pal's (who have relations and own most of the worlds big buisness, which is the decerning factor in our way of life).

But one thing I know is when it comes to addressing the masses , its all buttered up nicely for easier digestion, and you cant ignore the fact that nothing has been proven yet, and for all we know it could be an elaborate plot to guide the world in the direction the elite of the planet want it to go.

If that is true, Last time I checked, thats not democracey, it's fascsist dictatorism buttered up to seem like the wonderful illusion that is supposed to be democracey.
 
clarky003 said:
thats not kool, infact , thats pro republican propaganda taking it too far. ffs, it is horrible what was going on under Saddam's rule, and their are right's to whats happened, but their are also many wrong's to go along side (and most apparently have resulted in the loss of more innocent lives).

Still.. it only addresses the known facts of 9/11, and the reason to goto war in Iraq it seems. Does the movie take a neutral stance? and ask questions about NORAD's failiure to scramble jet's?

does it ask why the twin towers where insured just 3 weeks before the trajedy? and why certain higher memebers of the public where informed to stay away from New York in that week, almost like someone knew it was going to happen.

does it answer and shed light of the lives of the supposed muslim terrorist's living it up in a un-muslim way in and around their homes in the US?.

Does it unravel Bush and Kerry's secrect Skull and Bones club they where intiated into at yale?

Does it tell us the truth about the history of Osama Bin Laden, and why it was him who planned to attacked New York?


Does it tell us the truth,?

or is it just the reitorated line of supposed events that came out of the mouth of a man who takes part in satanic mock sacrifice ritual's, and spend's his adult life within the elite of the world, talking of god knows what.

But one thing I know is when it comes to addressing the masses , its all buttered up nicely for easier digestion, and you cant ignore the fact that nothing has been proven yet, and for all we know it could be an elaborate plot to guide the world in the direction the elite of the planet want it to go.

If that is true, Last time I checked, thats not democracey, it's fascsist dictatorism buttered up to seem like the wonderful illusion that is supposed to be democracey.
Click to expand...

Or you are wrong?
 
KidRock said:
Or you are wrong?
Click to expand...

aha :), or is the other story wrong, or are we all idiot's?

or are we simply to engrained into the ways of modern society that it becomes the unthinkable..?

so it stay's.. the truth is out there.
 
Here's something from the video that really disturbed me:
George Bush said:
I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The war on terror will not be won on the defensive . . . If we wait on threats to materialize, we will have waited too long.
Click to expand...
It's disturbing because his administration did exactly that from the start of his presidency leading right up to September 11th, 2001. They ignored all warnings of an imminent, large-scale terrorist attack on USA soil... until it was too late.

... but they've learned their lesson, right? They'll take the offensive and try to get rid of the terrorists, right?

Sure, after the WTC attacks they briefly sent some guys after Osama... it was half-assed, but at least it was something... then, soon after, they got distracted and went after Iraq instead. Well, so much for going on a strong, united offensive against the terrorists...

Seriously, why did they give up on Osama so quickly and move their attention to Saddam? Why attack someone who showed no interest in attacking us when we should be fighting back against the people that just attacked us? Why would they change their mind so quickly over, at best, questionable intelligence? That still confuses me.
 
hahahhaaha Clarky jumps off the deep end again. Keep em coming man!

"Fascsist dictatorism"- hahahahahhahaha

Why attack someone who showed no interest in attacking us
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Really, its a joke right.

Why would they change their mind so quickly over, at best, questionable intelligence? That still confuses me.
Click to expand...

"Slam dunk"
 
Has Saddam tried to attack the US?

We were on shaky terms, to say the least. He knew we'd bomb the shit out of him if he ever did attack us.

---

The evidence for WMDs in Iraq was testimony from some people that didn't like Saddam, his track record, satellite pictures of trucks and buildings that they claimed were "obviously" used to make/deliver WMDs (I watched that presentation when it was happening back in late 2001, and I was laughing the entire time), and other evidence of similar credibility.
 
Seriously, why did they give up on Osama so quickly and move their attention to Saddam?
Click to expand...

multiple goals my friend, US corporate buddy's want Iraq Oil to be easily accessable, perfect way to get it = Saddam (population will believe strongly enough of our move to stop his dictatorship because of our western belief in democracey and justice, and dont get me wrong it can be a good thing), try to stabilise the middle east, create greater US and UN influence in the area.

Multiple goals, but ultimately a lie to justify a war that hits the emotional centre's and create's dissaray within people, perfect for getting by without telling us of the other motives's,

was it all planned,? theres nothing that indicates it was or wasnt.
 
You silly dems. :LOL:

Bush is doing the exact oppisite as to what kerry "plans to do".

Wait.. kerry doesn't even actually have plans for all we know. :rolling:
 
Sure, he acted like he's a big, bad dictator that hates the USA and wants to attack us... but did he try? Osama showed us how easy it is. Why couldn't Saddam do it if he has wanted to kill us all for so many years?
 
OCybrManO said:
Sure, he acted like he's a big, bad dictator that hates the USA and wants to attack us... but did he try? Osama showed us how easy it is. Why couldn't Saddam do it if he has wanted to kill us all for so many years?
Click to expand...

bah , the CIA created Osama Bin Laden.

Is this a call to jihad (holy war) taken from one of Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden's notorious fatwas? Or perhaps a communique issued by the repressive Taliban regime in Kabul?

In fact, this glowing praise of the murderous exploits of today's supporters of arch-terrorist bin Laden and his Taliban collaborators, and their holy war against the “evil empire”, was issued by US President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985. The “evil empire” was the Soviet Union, as well as Third World movements fighting US-backed colonialism, apartheid and dictatorship.

How things change. In the aftermath of a series of terrorist atrocities — the most despicable being the mass murder of more than 6000 working people in New York and Washington on September 11 — bin Laden the “freedom fighter” is now lambasted by US leaders and the Western mass media as a “terrorist mastermind” and an “evil-doer”.

Yet the US government refuses to admit its central role in creating the vicious movement that spawned bin Laden, the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that plague Algeria and Egypt — and perhaps the disaster that befell New York.

The mass media has also downplayed the origins of bin Laden and his toxic brand of Islamic fundamentalism.

Mujaheddin
In April 1978, the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in reaction to a crackdown against the party by that country's repressive government.

The PDPA was committed to a radical land reform that favoured the peasants, trade union rights, an expansion of education and social services, equality for women and the separation of church and state. The PDPA also supported strengthening Afghanistan's relationship with the Soviet Union.

Such policies enraged the wealthy semi-feudal landlords, the Muslim religious establishment (many mullahs were also big landlords) and the tribal chiefs. They immediately began organizing resistance to the government's progressive policies, under the guise of defending Islam.

Washington, fearing the spread of Soviet influence (and worse the new government's radical example) to its allies in Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states, immediately offered support to the Afghan mujaheddin, as the “contra” force was known.

Following an internal PDPA power struggle in December 1979 which toppled Afghanistan's leader, thousands of Soviet troops entered the country to prevent the new government's fall. This only galvanized the disparate fundamentalist factions. Their reactionary jihad now gained legitimacy as a “national liberation” struggle in the eyes of many Afghans.

The Soviet Union was eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the mujaheddin captured the capital, Kabul, in 1992.

Between 1978 and 1992, the US government poured at least US$6 billion (some estimates range as high as $20 billion) worth of arms, training and funds to prop up the mujaheddin factions. Other Western governments, as well as oil-rich Saudi Arabia, kicked in as much again. Wealthy Arab fanatics, like Osama bin Laden, provided millions more.

Washington's policy in Afghanistan was shaped by US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and was continued by his successors. His plan went far beyond simply forcing Soviet troops to withdraw; rather it aimed to foster an international movement to spread Islamic fanaticism into the Muslim Central Asian Soviet republics to destabilize the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski's grand plan coincided with Pakistan military dictator General Zia ul-Haq's own ambitions to dominate the region. US-run Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe beamed Islamic fundamentalist tirades across Central Asia (while paradoxically denouncing the “Islamic revolution” that toppled the pro-US Shah of Iran in 1979).

Washington's favoured mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West's distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavory “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970's for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.

After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar's forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

Hekmatyar was also infamous for his side trade in the cultivation and trafficking in opium. Backing of the mujaheddin from the CIA coincided with a boom in the drug business. Within two years, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was the world's single largest source of heroin, supplying 60% of US drug users.

In 1995, the former director of the CIA's operation in Afghanistan was unrepentant about the explosion in the flow of drugs: “Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets... There was a fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.”

Made in the USA
According to Ahmed Rashid, a correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review, in 1986 CIA chief William Casey committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI proposal to recruit from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. At least 100,000 Islamic militants flocked to Pakistan between 1982 and 1992 (some 60,000 attended fundamentalist schools in Pakistan without necessarily taking part in the fighting).

John Cooley, a former journalist with the US ABC television network and author of Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, has revealed that Muslims recruited in the US for the mujaheddin were sent to Camp Peary, the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where young Afghans, Arabs from Egypt and Jordan, and even some African-American “black Muslims” were taught “sabotage skills”.

The November 1, 1998, British Independent reported that one of those charged with the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Ali Mohammed, had trained “bin Laden's operatives” in 1989.

These “operatives” were recruited at the al Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn, New York, given paramilitary training in the New York area and then sent to Afghanistan with US assistance to join Hekmatyar's forces. Mohammed was a member of the US army's elite Green Berets.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a Washington-approved plan called “Operation Cyclone”.

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin factions by an organization known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services — MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK. In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK.

Among those trained by Mohammed were El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Israeli rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane and plotting with others to bomb New York landmarks, including the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency was “partly culpable” for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent reported.

Bin Laden
Osama bin Laden, one of 20 sons of a billionaire construction magnate, arrived in Afghanistan to join the jihad in 1980. An austere religious fanatic and business tycoon, bin Laden specialized in recruiting, financing and training the estimated 35,000 non-Afghan mercenaries who joined the mujaheddin.

The bin Laden family is a prominent pillar of the Saudi Arabian ruling class, with close personal, financial and political ties to that country's pro-US royal family.

Bin Laden senior was appointed Saudi Arabia's minister of public works as a favour by King Faisal. The new minister awarded his own construction companies lucrative contracts to rebuild Islam's holiest mosques in Mecca and Medina. In the process, the bin Laden family company in 1966 became the world's largest private construction company.

Osama bin Laden's father died in 1968. Until 1994, he had access to the dividends from this ill-gotten business empire.

(Bin Laden junior's oft-quoted personal fortune of US$200-300 million has been arrived at by the US State Department by dividing today's value of the bin Laden family net worth — estimated to be US$5 billion — by the number of bin Laden senior's sons. A fact rarely mentioned is that in 1994 the bin Laden family disowned Osama and took control of his share.)

Osama's military and business adventures in Afghanistan had the blessing of the bin Laden dynasty and the reactionary Saudi Arabian regime. His close working relationship with MAK also meant that the CIA was fully aware of his activities.

Milt Bearden, the CIA's station chief in Pakistan from 1986 to 1989, admitted to the January 24, 2000, New Yorker that while he never personally met bin Laden, “Did I know that he was out there? Yes, I did ... [Guys like] bin Laden were bringing $20-$25 million a month from other Saudis and Gulf Arabs to underwrite the war. And that is a lot of money. It's an extra $200-$300 million a year. And this is what bin Laden did.”

In 1986, bin Laden brought heavy construction equipment from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. Using his extensive knowledge of construction techniques (he has a degree in civil engineering), he built “training camps”, some dug deep into the sides of mountains, and built roads to reach them.

These camps, now dubbed “terrorist universities” by Washington, were built in collaboration with the ISI and the CIA. The Afghan contra fighters, including the tens of thousands of mercenaries recruited and paid for by bin Laden, were armed by the CIA. Pakistan, the US and Britain provided military trainers.

Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who secretly fought for the mujaheddin told the August 13, 2000, British Observer, “The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism — car bombing and so on — so that they could strike at the Russians in major towns ... Many of them are now using their knowledge and expertise to wage war on everything they hate.”

Al Qaeda (the Base), bin Laden's organization, was established in 1987-88 to run the camps and other business enterprises. It is a tightly-run capitalist holding company — albeit one that integrates the operations of a mercenary force and related logistical services with “legitimate” business operations.

Bin Laden has simply continued to do the job he was asked to do in Afghanistan during the 1980's — fund, feed and train mercenaries. All that has changed is his primary customer. Then it was the ISI and, behind the scenes, the CIA. Today, his services are utilized primarily by the reactionary Taliban regime.

Bin Laden only became a “terrorist” in US eyes when he fell out with the Saudi royal family over its decision to allow more than 540,000 US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

When thousands of US troops remained in Saudi Arabia after the end of the Gulf War, bin Laden's anger turned to outright opposition. He declared that Saudi Arabia and other regimes — such as Egypt — in the Middle East were puppets of the US, just as the PDPA government of Afghanistan had been a puppet of the Soviet Union.

He called for the overthrow of these client regimes and declared it the duty of all Muslims to drive the US out of the Gulf states. In 1994, he was stripped of his Saudi citizenship and forced to leave the country. His assets there were frozen.

After a period in Sudan, he returned to Afghanistan in May 1996. He refurbished the camps he had helped build during the Afghan war and offered the facilities and services — and thousands of his mercenaries — to the Taliban, which took power that September.

Today, bin Laden's private army of non-Afghan religious fanatics is a key prop of the Taliban regime.

Prior to the devastating September 11 attack on the twin towers of World Trade Center, US ruling-class figures remained unrepentant about the consequences of their dirty deals with the likes of bin Laden, Hekmatyar and the Taliban. Since the awful attack, they have been downright hypocritical.

In an August 28, 1998, report posted on MSNBC, Michael Moran quotes Senator Orrin Hatch, who was a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which approved US dealings with the mujaheddin, as saying he would make “the same call again”, even knowing what bin Laden would become.

“It was worth it. Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

Hatch today is one of the most gung-ho voices demanding military retaliation.

Another face that has appeared repeatedly on television screens since the attack has been Vincent Cannistrano, described as a former CIA chief of “counter-terrorism operations”.

Cannistrano is certainly an expert on terrorists like bin Laden, because he directed their “work”. He was in charge of the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras during the early 1980's. In 1984, he became the supervisor of covert aid to the Afghan mujaheddin for the US National Security Council.

The last word goes to Zbigniew Brzezinski: “What was more important in the world view of history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few stirred up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”
Click to expand...

strange and frightening, but true fact's about what they could gather reviewing the 9/11 incident.

http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node.php?id=18219
 
Joeslucky22 said:
I love how you think you know absolutly everything about politics neut.

Stop thinking you're god and relax for christ sake.

You have said bush is an idiot before and I remember it! I'll try to find the post.
Click to expand...

:LOL:

Where did that come from? How in the world have I even implied I "know everything about politics"? I'll be the first to admit that there is much about it I don't know. I try to keep informed and learn about the candidates, but it's way to complex to really study as I probably should as I don't have the time or inclination for that.

All I said was that I thought he had a double standard by mocking someone for making fun of Bush's intelligence while at the same time calling Kerry an idiot. In addition I said that niether candidate was an idiot. How exactly does that mean I "think I'm god"? I merely stated that both people are intelligent men based on their accomplishments in life, which I think is a pretty solid statement. If you disagree you are of course welcome to point out why I'm wrong.

I also find it pretty funny that this is coming from someone who, judging from his posts, is always absolutely sure his opinion is correct. Hmm, now that I think about it is there perhaps a little psychological projection going on here? Hmm?

But if it offends you so much, sorry for voicing my opinion. I'll try not to do such a horrid thing in the future.:)

As for your claim that I once said Bush was an "idiot" I truly don't think I ever did. However, you're welcome to search for it and if by chance you do find such a quote I will apologize to you and Kidrock for saying it and admit it was a statement based on an emotional reaction and I shouldn't have said it.

blahblahblah said:
For some reason I want to disagree with that statement (as in both are idiots). :imu:

[Edit]: Interesting side fact - Bush has never lost a debate he has been in.
Click to expand...

Heh, at times I could agree it does appear that way. However, I truly do think niether one of the is dumb. I think both are quite intelligent in their own ways.

Also I think it's very very difficult to judge how smart someone is through the media. Here's a good example of that I think:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6100918/

Nor are the debates necessarily a good barometer of brains or character.

When he appeared in the 1992 vice-presidential debate, retired Admiral James B. Stockdale was: a former college president, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, an authority on the Stoic philosopher Epictetus (whose work he read in the original Greek), the holder of 11 honorary doctorates and the only man in naval history to wear three stars, aviator's wings and the Medal of Honor.

All that evaporated under the harsh stare of the camera when, with earnestly wide eyes, Stockdale introduced himself by posing two rhetorical questions: "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?" The hero-scholar came across like an addled old man.
Click to expand...
 
Alright, i've read your opinion (about 100 times)

Maybe you should write a book.

Because all your opinions turn into 3 page essays.

Its a hl2 forum for christ sakes.

How old are you btw?
 
Woah, that vid was pretty interesting, the finger part wasn't too bad...

I will for sure buy that.
 
Joeslucky22 said:
Alright, i've read your opinion (about 100 times)

Maybe you should write a book.

Because all your opinions turn into 3 page essays.

Its a hl2 forum for christ sakes.

How old are you btw?
Click to expand...

I'm 22 if it matters.

Why exactly is it a bad thing that I tend to write longer posts? I often feel that I can't explain my position in a few short words as many of these debates are pretty complex issues so I sometimes need more space to try to get my point across. However, if you don't want to waste your time reading them no one is forcing you to.

As for it benig an Hl2 forum, yes it is. So? I enjoy debating politics and any other controversial issues. It's just fun, so I usually post in threads discussing such matters.

"Alright, i've read your opinion (about 100 times)"

I think this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I do respond to political thread quite often, but I hardly ever, if at all, start a thread on politics. In fact I actually can't remember ever starting one, though I may have started one or two at some time. On the other hand, just how many have you started? I can think of atleast two in the last few days.
 
Neutrino said:
I'm 22 if it matters.

Why exactly is it a bad thing that I tend to write longer posts? I often feel that I can't explain my position in a few short words as many of these debates are pretty complex issues so I sometimes need more space to try to get my point across. However, if you don't want to waste your time reading them no one is forcing you to.

As for it benig an Hl2 forum, yes it is. So? I enjoy debating politics and any other controversial issues. It's just fun, so I usually post in threads discussing such matters.

"Alright, i've read your opinion (about 100 times)"

I think this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black by saying how much I post my political opinions. I hardly ever, if at all, start a thread on politics. In fact I actually can't remember ever starting one, though I may have started one or two at some time. On the other hand, just how many have you started? I can think of atleast two in the last few days.
Click to expand...

ah Neutrino :), we may have different opinion's in the ways of new science, but truer words were never spoken. Nicely put
 
clarky003 said:
ah Neutrino :), we may have different opinion's in the ways of new science, but truer words were never spoken. Nicely put
Click to expand...

Thanks. :) And I'm happy to keep debating those "ways of new science" with you. You keep posting the theories and I'll keep playing the skeptic. I think we perhaps both learn a bit that way. :E
 
clarky003 said:
ah Neutrino :), we may have different opinion's in the ways of new science, but truer words were never spoken. Nicely put
Click to expand...

September 27, Clarky. Where's my magnetic motor you promised me?

And yes, I agree with Neutrino's post. Joeslucky22, you make repulbicans look bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TechnoHippyChic
If you post it, they will come...
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
Hectic Glenn
Cold Case #1: Valve Voice Actress - October Moore
Replies
1
Views
18K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Hectic Glenn
Moondust Tech Demo by Valve [Video]
Replies
1
Views
21K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top