What is needed to make Republicans stop liking Bush?

[CptStern]

some of you right wingers are downright idiotic ..what's with this stupid obession with kerry? the elections over, get over it already. He doesnt represent the left-wing, nor does clinton


nothing short of bush saying to your face "I'm a liar" will convince you that all's not right with the oval office. I mean come on people, are you so ****ing blind that you cant see that you were bamboozeled into going into iraq? 1800 american soldiers paid with their lives for that deception ...you're all doing those dead a disservice by not questioning the motivations behind there deaths. It's as if you're purposelly ignoring their deaths by not holding him accountable for his actions


I know what you people will say: "quote a direct lie" ...that's just being ignorant and asinine not to mention avoiding the issue all together. The grand lie is self-evident: there are no wmd in iraq

here's a list of 237 LIES made by the bush admin about iraq and wmd ...disprove all 237 of them or SHUT UP

 

[Icarusintel]

Next time, take advice from the British, we spotted that hooligan when he was trying to become president

you guys have Tony Blair, 'nuff said
and Stern, if it was all lies, why did so many democrats allow us to go to war, you should think they would be able to see through all of it

 

[No Limit]

Well, to begin with, judging from the content of your other threads it seems like you paste almost every talking point straight from democraticunderground.com

Actually, yes, I got this post from DU as I get a lot of information from there; are you a member there? However, I factcheck everything before I would ever post it, hence why noone has been able to disprove it yet.

As for this thread, however, points 1,2, and 5 are about as left wing as they can get.

Then facts are about as left wing as you can get. Look, I am really getting sick of this "that's left wing" bullshit; well yeah, thats the point. If you think it is wrong disprove it, saying its left wing hardly does anything to help your argument.

1: Bush lied. So where are the charges against him and why did congress overwhelmigly vote along with his decision? If Bush deliberatly fixed intel, whatever then why is it 600+ congressman couldn't see through his scheme? That leaves a lot to be said about congress and they get no animosity directed towards them whatsoever about the Iraq war. What is worse: Bush lied or Congress believed him? I am inclined to think the latter is worse, but that is just me.

There are many threads on this topic with virtually every Republican on this board using the same talking points you just used.

"Where are the charges against him if he lied".

Are you forgetting you guys control the congress? And as I pointed out; it would take Bush eating a baby on live television for any Republican in congress to finally stand up to Bush and his lies. The Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, along with Powell, Rice, and Cheney all themselves proved he lied when they said before 2001 that Saddam had no WMDs and was not a threat. But that doesn't matter; 9/11 changed everything, right? Suddenly the public didn't care enough to fact check anything Bush said since it was in the name of fighting terrorism (which it really wasnt).

Talking Point #2: "Why did congress overwhelmigly vote along with his decision"

Rove had a great idea; lets schedule the vote for the war 2 days before the midterm elections. Since you republicans were using 9/11 as a very good political tool voting against the war would have lost huge amounts of Democratic seats in congress. Yes, Democrats are political pussies; you aren't really going to get me to defend Democrats when I think they are wrong, I just wish you would do the same with Republicans. Not only that but Bush promissed he would do everything he could to avoid war; guess what, he already had his mind made up long before he asked congress as the downing street memo shows.

As for the economy, the unemployment rate is 5%. Compare that to Germany's 11% unemployment rate. The economy might be heading down the wrong path as it is but it is most definatly not bankrupt or imploding as we speak, as your words imply.

Well, at least I got you to admit that the economy is shitty. But guess what, Bush isn't doing anything to help the economy, every economic policy he's had since he was elected has failed. Unless you can point me out one that didn't? We all make mistakes and if he said my policies haven't worked so lets look everything over and change them I would be perfectly okay with it and I would never again say anything bad about Bush's economic policies; but this prick won't admit he made any mistakes and jobs continue to go down the shitter. I know it might not matter to you yet but if you are out on the street with no job you might start looking at this a little differently. And comparing to Germany is absolutely insane; I don't think I need to explain that any further.

The whole anti-war message seems like something straight from Micheal Moore's playbook. I don't think any sane person can dispute MM is an ultra leftist

Why did we bring Moore in to this? I'm certainly not going to defend him nor am I going to discuss him as he has nothing to do with this topic.

2. There are a lot of unanswered questions here and it is not the public's place to be judge, jury and execution for Rove. Despite his sleazyness he deserves rights afforded to him by the constitution. This whole crusade to burn Rove stinks of left wing scare tactics. For example, Rove's whole message to Cooper was a warning not to proceed on the Wilson story, at least that is my interpritation; he never mentioned Plame's name. Even if he did Wilson published Plame's name on his web biography, so it is not like it was some big secret who his wife was. Any laymen armed with google could figure out who his wife was at the time.

"Your interpritation" came from GOP talking points released yesterday. It had nothing to do with a warning. Yes, his wife recommended him for the job but it was Tenet who had to approve the trip and it was him who had the final say. He didn't mention Plame's name? For chirst sake dude, didn't you just say anyone to the extreme of the political spectrum is bad for the country? You are trying to say that when Rove said it was Wilson's wife a reporter couldn't find out who she was. Wait you just say they could with a quick google search but thats okay because wilson was talking about his wife publicly? No shit, but he never mentioned she was in the CIA; Rove did.

5. I can pull up sources straight from Greenspan's mouth that say Bush's tax cuts got the US out of the '01 recession.

And I can pull out the CBO which directly contradicts that.

Point 3 I am not sure about and point 4 is the spot on unadulterated truth, not much arguing can be done there on my part.

:cheers:

I will say that I respect that and it tells me you can have a good debate. You also seem to be pretty informed as I see from your post you do research on both, right and left web sites; however, I don't like the talking points you used. Welcome to the board and hope we can have some good debates around here.

 

[No Limit]

SHUSH, ONLY RIGHT WINGERS POST TALKING POINTS. THEY ARE ALL OREILLY CLONES, WE ALL THINK FOR OURSELVES.

Please add something to the thread or don't post.

 

[No Limit]

I would just like to point out I will only be responding to Olympus and Hapless, they are the only 2 that actually tried to make an argument.

Oh, boy...



Say there, friend, can you point out exactly where Bush lied? The uranium quote? Hmmmm...let's look at what the Butler Review says...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review#Conclusions_of_the_Review


Anything else? Relying on intelligence which is never 100% is not lying. But hype away...

Stern just posted over 200 lies Bush said in the lead up to war; look them over. But to simplify this lets look at the uranium claim they made. Rice, Bush's senior National Security Advisor, got a memo from the CIA that said that Uranium claim was based on forged documents. Are you going to tell me Bush knew nothing of these memos? If this is the case than Rice shouldn't have gotten a promotion; she should have been fired as it clearly means she isn't competent to do her job (to advise the president on intelligence). In addition to that Wilson himself told the administration that the documents were not authentic which lead to the administration outing his wife when he went public with the information that the administration ignored those facts. From the Post:

Hadley said the CIA -- the memo was not signed -- said that the amount was in dispute and that it was not clear the material "can be acquired from the source." The CIA also pointed out that Iraq already had its own supply, 500 tons, of the "yellowcake" uranium ore it was accused of seeking.

The second memo, dated Oct. 6 and sent to Hadley and Rice, was brought to the White House's attention yesterday by the CIA, the officials said. In response to another draft of the speech that had already deleted the uranium reference, the memo included fresh CIA objections to the charge, saying there was "weakness in the evidence" and that the attempted purchase "was not particularly significant," Hadley said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31597-2003Jul22¬Found=true

Our economy is bankrupt?
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aoh3OCkhi548&refer=home

Who said anything about bankrupt? But are you going to try and argue the economy, with a 7 trillion defecit, is doing good? Let me know, I'd love to argue this with you.

Kickstarted an era of Islamic Terrorism?
http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212088/tertime.htm

So all the incidents listed here dating back to 1979 were nothing? Or are you saying this is a different era of terrorism? I thought you guys said it was all hokum and scare-tactics anyway.

Why don't you go find how many terrorism acts there were before the Iraq war and after. I am at work so don't have time now. But guess what, Iraq is attacked daily but these terrorists and Britain had its first suicide bomb attack last week probably because of Iraq.

Valerie Plame had not been a CIA "covert operative" for 9 years. At this point, we only know that Rove hinted to the reporter that Wilson's wife may have gotten him the job, and what has NOT been said is that Rove leaked her name. I think it would be wise to withhold judgment until all the facts are out there, after all, it wouldn't do to make allegations based on faulty intelligence, now would it?

No, he leaked her name. Only a blind republican would think that saying "Wilson's Wife" is different from saying her name. Or I see, it could have been his other wife?

Blah, blah, blah, and Bush invaded Afghanistan to make way for the UNOCAL pipeline too. Next.

Don't tell me you didn't hear about this? You competely missed what I said; here you go:

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1127

What the hell are you babbling about?

You didn't hear about this too? You need to get a little more informed but don't worry, I'll help you out:

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/medicare/ns05202004a.cfm

This is just once example; there are many more including them paying reporters with tax payer money (like Amstrong Williams) to support their policies.

Massive giveaways to the rich, huh? Are you aware that the top 20% of people in this country pay 80% of taxes. And that the top 50% pay over 96% of all taxes? That's a pretty massive redistribution of wealth, I think. Of course, to you it's not enough. Those rich people should be punished for being rich. How dare they make money. Evil bastards.

I don't have time to argue this right now as I already spent an hour of work time on this thread but I'll try to get back to you later. What you need to know though is Bush is the first president ever to give tax cuts in time of war.

I don't think I've ever heard any Republican on this forum or elsewhere refer to GWB as the Messiah. I'll lose confidence in him if he starts sounding like Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. And as far as his actions hurting, "us" in 06 and 08, isn't that what you fools were saying back in 04?

The Christ thing was a joke to make a point, sorry if you missed it. In 04 Bush had a 50+ approval rating; this dipped down to around 40 before the london bombing but because Americans, how can I put this nicely, are ****ing idiots the bombing in London moved his approval ratings back up to about 47%. But look at the article I posted in another thread about independent voters having buyer's remorse.

 

[Icarusintel]

my god, triple posting! have you ever heard of the edit button?
and the economy is doing fine, because even with such a huge deficit, the GDP is still larger, which is what really matters

 

[No Limit]

my god, triple posting! have you ever heard of the edit button?
and the economy is doing fine, because even with such a huge deficit, the GDP is still larger, which is what really matters

Did you care to look at how long those posts were? Much easier to have them in 3 seperate topics especially since they were all addressed to different people. Besides that do you have anything else to add?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I asked President Bush if he'd lend me a fiver. He said "yeah, sure". but when I dropped round the next day, he had his spooks knock me out and leave me in a dumpster.

Lying bastard.

 

[Icarusintel]

Please add something to the thread or don't post.

well, this post was highly unnecessary

and as i said in my other post, the main thing to look at when looking at the deficit is also the GDP, which is far bigger than the deficit, which is important when weighing in on the economy

 

[No Limit]

well, this post was highly unnecessary

and as i said in my other post, the main thing to look at when looking at the deficit is also the GDP, which is far bigger than the deficit, which is important when weighing in on the economy

I think it was necessary as I am sick of stupid posts like that; but if you have a problem tell a mod, pointing out that I should use the edit button makes me think you just want to attack me on every corner. I've been around message boards for over 6 years, I know the ropes and don't need you to help me out.

Look, the US government makes about 2 trillion dollars a year in revenue. Our deficit is 7 trillion and it grows by about half a trillion each year. It will take decades to pay this deficit off if we stopped spending more than we take in today; but the problem is Bush isn't even willing to do that. He has done nothing to slow down spending (he wants to spend even more) which will lead to huge problems in the future. Do you have any idea how much of our country China owns? If they stopped buying our bonds today we would go in to a very deep depression. And again, Bush doesn't give a shit as long as his big business buddies are happy.

 

[Icarusintel]

I think it was necessary as I am sick of stupid posts like that; but if you have a problem tell a mod, pointing out that I should use the edit button makes me think you just want to attack me on every corner. I've been around message boards for over 6 years, I know the ropes and don't need you to help me out.

Look, the US government makes about 2 trillion dollars a year in revenue. Our deficit is 7 trillion and it grows by about half a trillion each year. It will take decades to pay this deficit off if we stopped spending more than we take in today; but the problem is Bush isn't even willing to do that. He has done nothing to slow down spending (he wants to spend even more) which will lead to huge problems in the future. Do you have any idea how much of our country China owns? If they stopped buying our bonds today we would go in to a very deep depression. And again, Bush doesn't give a shit as long as his big business buddies are happy.

ok, we have a problem, so, what do we do?

 

[No Limit]

ok, we have a problem, so, what do we do?

Umm, we fire Bush and the GOP congress in 06 and 08.

First, rolling back the tax cuts would give us around 1.1 trillion in revenue stopping deficit spending the instant it was passed. Iraq war is costing us around 100 Billion a year but I am not for stopping that spending as I think we need to stay there. However, you asking what do we do is kind of missing the point; the question is why isn't Bush willing to even admit there is a problem? If he did that we can talk about what needs to be done.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm not a politician and I don't know economics, but reducing defense funding and speeding up the 'Iraqification' process (ie making sure Iraq can take care of itself so the Western powers can leave already) would seem like a good idea.

 

[Olympus]

Actually, yes, I got this post from DU as I get a lot of information from there; are you a member there? However, I factcheck everything before I would ever post it, hence why noone has been able to disprove it yet.

I don't need much more motivation to not reply to you than that comment right there.

For those who don't know democraticunderground.com (DU) is a rabid left wing attack machine. Any dissenting opinion is promptly shut out and the user banned. They make a game of banning people over there. They are well within their rights to do that but anything as left wing as that orginazations represents is a little too extreme for my tastes.

Then facts are about as left wing as you can get. Look, I am really getting sick of this "that's left wing" bullshit; well yeah, thats the point. If you think it is wrong disprove it, saying its left wing hardly does anything to help your argument.

If your facts are openly left wing (which, from you comments below, seemed to have been spun every which way to support your argument) then I don't see how you are going to convice republicans of anything. Remember my main point: Left wing talking points aren't going to make Republican's hate Bush.

There are many threads on this topic with virtually every Republican on this board using the same talking points you just used.

"Where are the charges against him if he lied".

Are you forgetting you guys control the congress?

It is not like democrats don't have a say in anything. All they have to do is threaten a fillibuster on judicial nominees and the vote is stalled for years. Why can't the same be applied for a supposedly faulty war resolution?

And as I pointed out; it would take Bush eating a baby on live television for any Republican in congress to finally stand up to Bush and his lies. The Downing Street Memo, Richard Clarke, along with Powell, Rice, and Cheney all themselves proved he lied when they said before 2001 that Saddam had no WMDs and was not a threat. But that doesn't matter; 9/11 changed everything, right? Suddenly the public didn't care enough to fact check anything Bush said since it was in the name of fighting terrorism (which it really wasnt).

Which is why I raise the question: What is worse, that Bush lied or that 600+ Members of Congress believed him?

Talking Point #2: "Why did congress overwhelmigly vote along with his decision"

Rove had a great idea; lets schedule the vote for the war 2 days before the midterm elections. Since you republicans were using 9/11 as a very good political tool voting against the war would have lost huge amounts of Democratic seats in congress. Yes, Democrats are political pussies; you aren't really going to get me to defend Democrats when I think they are wrong, I just wish you would do the same with Republicans. Not only that but Bush promissed he would do everything he could to avoid war; guess what, he already had his mind made up long before he asked congress as the downing street memo shows.

I don't think it is fair to look back and say, "Well this would have happened if..." No one has a crystal ball and can predict events. I agree however that your theoretical scenario is a valid risk, but the issue is a huge factor in dividing the nation nowadays. One would think that something so important would have been discussed more in congress, especially concering the concequences(sp). All the Senators and Representatives who voted for this war are at fault, not just Bush, as far as I am concerned.

Well, at least I got you to admit that the economy is shitty.

I didn't say it was shitty, I said heading down the wrong path. I don't think anyone can disagree that record national debt is a good thing.

But guess what, Bush isn't doing anything to help the economy, every economic policy he's had since he was elected has failed. Unless you can point me out one that didn't?

Bush's tax cuts got us our of the recession. Short of that, however, you are correct, there isn't much more being done to fix the economy. Besides that, I think the economy is doing a fine job taking care of itself. Housing is still doing great and the unemployment rate is getting better by the month. Some things are bad, some are good. Lets just hope some spending is cut soon or if need be, taxes raised.

We all make mistakes and if he said my policies haven't worked so lets look everything over and change them I would be perfectly okay with it and I would never again say anything bad about Bush's economic policies; but this prick won't admit he made any mistakes and jobs continue to go down the shitter. I know it might not matter to you yet but if you are out on the street with no job you might start looking at this a little differently. And comparing to Germany is absolutely insane; I don't think I need to explain that any further.

As hapless said above, our economy is the strongest in the world. I think saying the economy is bad is another left wing scare tactic. It is also very pessimistic.

"Your interpritation" came from GOP talking points released yesterday. It had nothing to do with a warning.

And your interpritation is straight from DU. Keeping this on topic, what is going to convince republicans to dislike Bush, a talking point from DU or a GOP talking point?

Yes, his wife recommended him for the job but it was Tenet who had to approve the trip and it was him who had the final say. He didn't mention Plame's name? For chirst sake dude, didn't you just say anyone to the extreme of the political spectrum is bad for the country? You are trying to say that when Rove said it was Wilson's wife a reporter couldn't find out who she was. Wait you just say they could with a quick google search but thats okay because wilson was talking about his wife publicly? No shit, but he never mentioned she was in the CIA; Rove did.

Rove hasn't been indited(sp?) yet. So far he hasn't committed a crime. Lets hang back and watch before we make any judgements.

And I can pull out the CBO which directly contradicts that.

Lets see it.

:cheers:

I will say that I respect that and it tells me you can have a good debate. You also seem to be pretty informed as I see from your post you do research on both, right and left web sites; however, I don't like the talking points you used. Welcome to the board and hope we can have some good debates around here.

I don't care much for your talking points either. You can call them facts all you want but they are still left wing as you admitted above. Thanks.

 

[Icarusintel]

Umm, we fire Bush and the GOP congress in 06 and 08.

First, rolling back the tax cuts would give us around 1.1 trillion in revenue stopping deficit spending the instant it was passed. Iraq war is costing us around 100 Billion a year but I am not for stopping that spending as I think we need to stay there. However, you asking what do we do is kind of missing the point; the question is why isn't Bush willing to even admit there is a problem? If he did that we can talk about what needs to be done.

here's the thing, let's assume Bush will not admit anything to that extent, which he probably won;t, but he'll be gone in 08 and someone else will step up, but if people don;t start thinking of ways to solve it now and work out a good plan then we'll have the same problems with the next president
waiting for someone to take the blame before doing something about it just won;t work in this case

 

[No Limit]

I don't need much more motivation to not reply to you than that comment right there.

For those who don't know democraticunderground.com (DU) is a rabid left wing attack machine. Any dissenting opinion is promptly shut out and the user banned. They make a game of banning people over there. They are well within their rights to do that but anything as left wing as that orginazations represents is a little too extreme for my tastes.

There you go again, attacking the fact it is left wing. What do you want me to do, not post anything bad about Bush because it will be considered left wing? Yes, this came from http://www.democraticunderground.com and I encourage everyone to visit that site. Opposing view points don't get you banned but you will probably be attacked for your position with facts; what gets people banned is trolling. But don't sit there and pretend the post you made isn't virtually the same thing you can find on freerepublic; a extreme righty web site.

If your facts are openly left wing (which, from you comments below, seemed to have been spun every which way to support your argument) then I don't see how you are going to convice republicans of anything. Remember my main point: Left wing talking points aren't going to make Republican's hate Bush.

BECAUSE THEY ARE FACTS. Facts are not partisan; but what you are doing is taking a fact that goes against Bush and saying that fact is left wing; it doesn't make any sense. As Ronald Reagan said; you are not entitled to your own facts. I'm sure you'll agree with that. Nothing was spun, my reply showed you facts even though the first post was commentary based on facts.

It is not like democrats don't have a say in anything. All they have to do is threaten a fillibuster on judicial nominees and the vote is stalled for years. Why can't the same be applied for a supposedly faulty war resolution?

Republicans won't allow it. A fillibuster can only be used on proposed votes; Republicans won't allow democrats to propse votes. Did you hear about John Conyers doing a house meeting on the downing street memo and the republicans forcing him to do it in the basement of congress. And you are going to sit there and tell me Democrats still have power?

Which is why I raise the question: What is worse, that Bush lied or that 600+ Members of Congress believed him?

Both are horrible and like I said, I will not be defending the pussy democrats that went along with the war resolution because they were too afraid of the GOP and the fact the vote was there 2 days before midterm elections.

I don't think it is fair to look back and say, "Well this would have happened if..." No one has a crystal ball and can predict events. I agree however that your theoretical scenario is a valid risk, but the issue is a huge factor in dividing the nation nowadays. One would think that something so important would have been discussed more in congress, especially concering the concequences(sp). All the Senators and Representatives who voted for this war are at fault, not just Bush, as far as I am concerned.

And I agree that democrats had a role in it and you won't get me to defend them. However, it was Bush's war which is why he needs to take the most heat for it. He is the one that made up his mind to attack and he is the one that put political pressure on those democratic pussies to go along with him. And yes, that includes Kerry.

Bush's tax cuts got us our of the recession. Short of that, however, you are correct, there isn't much more being done to fix the economy. Besides that, I think the economy is doing a fine job taking care of itself. Housing is still doing great and the unemployment rate is getting better by the month. Some things are bad, some are good. Lets just hope some spending is cut soon or if need be, taxes raised.

And I agree with you on that with the exception of the tax cuts getting us out of the recession but I don't want to go in to great detail on that; we'd need a new topic for that. I'm glad you think, as every american should, that something needs to be done. That means it is your job to put pressure on Bush and any republican in congress to do this using your power to vote.

As hapless said above, our economy is the strongest in the world. I think saying the economy is bad is another left wing scare tactic. It is also very pessimistic.

There you go again with that left wing bullshit. I can label your post as a bunch of right wing garbage but I have a little more reasoning than that. The economy is much worse than it was in the 90s. You agree with that (I'm guessing). Saying it is still good because it is better than any other country is missing the point completely; this is a great country and if something can be done to improve the economy it should be done.

And your interpritation is straight from DU. Keeping this on topic, what is going to convince republicans to dislike Bush, a talking point from DU or a GOP talking point?

No, it is not from the DU, it is from a time email released because of a court order that says Rove is the source. The fact you are trying to defend his actions which could have caused lives is sick.

Lets see it.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

Website isn't loading for me right now so I can't comment on there. But it shows how revenue went down and debt went up. But again, I don't want to argue the fine points of this here; feel free to make a new topic if you want to discuss it there. The bottom line is what Bush did isn't helping us in the long run as you admitted.

I don't care much for your talking points either. You can call them facts all you want but they are still left wing as you admitted above. Thanks.

I'm not going to sit here and argue over the use of talking points but come on, you used talking points released by the GOP yesterday to defend Rove. But forget it, like I said, I respect the fact you look at Media Matters and other sources as I got from your post.

 

[No Limit]

here's the thing, let's assume Bush will not admit anything to that extent, which he probably won;t, but he'll be gone in 08 and someone else will step up, but if people don;t start thinking of ways to solve it now and work out a good plan then we'll have the same problems with the next president
waiting for someone to take the blame before doing something about it just won;t work in this case

But again, you are kind of missing the point of my original post; that most republicans will take the same position if god forbid they are again reelected in 08.

If Bush isn't willing to do anything now our deficit will grow by another 1.5 trillion in the next 3 years; not a good thing. The bottom line is Bush needs to take action; he is the leader. Democrats have been working up on plans and have made their ideas heard but Bush adn Republicans in congress aren't willing to listen.

 

[Icarusintel]

But again, you are kind of missing the point of my original post; that most republicans will take the same position if god forbid they are again reelected in 08.

If Bush isn't willing to do anything now our deficit will grow by another 1.5 trillion in the next 3 years; not a good thing. The bottom line is Bush needs to take action; he is the leader. Democrats have been working up on plans and have made their ideas heard but Bush adn Republicans in congress aren't willing to listen.

well, the whole partisanship issue is a problm with this, but its not fair to say that if a republican gets elected in 08 they will do the exact same thing with the economy, everyone's different, though that is a definite possibility, but it is also possible the next democratic candidate will make that one of their goals as president, which would be a smart move

on a side note i'm surprised you haven;t jumped on my most recent post in the Karl Rove thread

 

[Olympus]

There you go again, attacking the fact it is left wing. What do you want me to do, not post anything bad about Bush because it will be considered left wing? Yes, this came from http://www.democraticunderground.com and I encourage everyone to visit that site. But don't sit there and pretend the post you made isn't virtually the same thing you can find on freerepublic; a extreme righty web site.

I think you are missing my point. How is anything left wing going to convince republicans to dislike Bush?

There you go again with that left wing bullshit. I can label your post as a bunch of right wing garbage but I have a little more reasoning than that. The economy is much worse than it was in the 90s. You agree with that (I'm guessing). Saying it is still good because it is better than any other country is missing the point completely; this is a great country and if something can be done to improve the economy it should be done.

Again, left wing talking points won't convice republicans of anything. As far as debt goes yah it is much worse than the 90s, no one can argue that. But it is not like nothing can be done to fix the economy. Oh, and it isn't fair to say Bush has done nothing to cut spending. In his last budget proposal he cut the growth of some social programs. He didn't cut enough, and could have cut a lot more in different areas.

No, it is not from the DU, it is from a time email released because of a court order that says Rove is the source. The fact you are trying to defend his actions which could have caused lives is sick.

You might want to revise the second sentence. If I deduce correctly, I don't see how outing Plame would have caused people to die, she wasn't a foreign operative, not at the time anyways. Not only that, she was already outed by Wilson in his biography.

The bottom line is what Bush did isn't helping us in the long run as you admitted.

I won't argue there.

 

[No Limit]

You might want to revise the second sentence. If I deduce correctly, I don't see how outing Plame would have caused people to die, she wasn't a foreign operative, not at the time anyways. Not only that, she was already outed by Wilson in his biography.

She was working undercover at the time without a diplomatic passport which measn she and anyone working for her at time could have been killed. She was not outed by Wilson, he simply mentioned he had a wife; he said nothing of her involvement in the CIA. If I am married to a CIA agent me talking about my wife by name without saying anything about the CIA is outing her? Do you see how you aren't making any sense? As far as I know Wilson didn't even know of her status. Here is his biography you are talking about, it mentions nothing of the CIA:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030208060730/http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html

The rest of your post is again the left wing crap, I'm done discussin that. If you have a problem with what I post dispute it; saying its left wing is not disputing it.

 

[CptStern]

For those who don't know democraticunderground.com (DU) is a rabid left wing attack machine. Any dissenting opinion is promptly shut out and the user banned. They make a game of banning people over there. They are well within their rights to do that but anything as left wing as that orginazations represents is a little too extreme for my tastes

you sound like one of the ...regulars... from ProtestWaarrior ...hmmm just a coincidence, I'm sure ...although you did jump into political debates from the get go ...how many days has it been now?

 

[Foxtrot]

I find it pretty funny that PW is censored and DU isn't, just shows the bias of the mods here.

 

[CptStern]

please ...PW is censored because they sent their goons here to disrupt the politics forum ..if you have a problem with it, take it up with zerimski or even Munro

 

[seinfeldrules]

you sound like one of the ...regulars... from ProtestWaarrior ...hmmm just a coincidence, I'm sure ...although you did jump into political debates from the get go ...how many days has it been now?

Wow, whenever someone disagrees with stern and no limit, he merely attempts to get the poster banned. What a shock. I take it stern took offense to someone calling one of his favorite sites a 'rabid left wing attack machine'.

Furthermore, I dont see how no limit can still be pestering people for using supposed talking points when it has become clear that is all he does himself.

 

[Foxtrot]

please ...PW is censored because they sent their goons here to disrupt the politics forum ..if you have a problem with it, take it up with zerimski or even Munro

Are you sure they were from PW? I never saw any of them say that. I do have a problem with threads being closed for ridiculous reasons, like Bliink closing Rakuri's thread about that hacker. She closed it for some BS reason like "not wanting to start an argument of PW vs HL2.net" even though nothing like that at all had been posted in that thread.

 

[CptStern]

well I know for a fact the peeps who were banned were definately from PW. And bliink was in her right to close that thread as per the rules

Wow, whenever someone disagrees with stern and no limit, he ....

I can assure you that we are definately 2 people

.........merely attempts to get the poster banned. What a shock.

I/we havent tried to get anyone banned ...if they cross the line I/we like anyone else report it

I take it stern took offense to someone calling one of his favorite sites a 'rabid left wing attack machine'

no you took it wrong :E it was not yours for the taking, so no taking shall ye have

 

[ComradeBadger]

Are you sure they were from PW? I never saw any of them say that. I do have a problem with threads being closed for ridiculous reasons, like Bliink closing Rakuri's thread about that hacker. She closed it for some BS reason like "not wanting to start an argument of PW vs HL2.net" even though nothing like that at all had been posted in that thread.

Yes they did say they were going to attack hl2.net.. and posted the names they'd take in some thread on their forums. Bit silly really - we just banned those names/IPs etc

 

[seinfeldrules]

I/we havent tried to get anyone banned ...if they cross the line I/we like anyone else report it

......

you sound like one of the ...regulars... from ProtestWaarrior ...hmmm just a coincidence, I'm sure

I'm sure you just had to mention **************s.....

 

[gh0st]

But guess what, Iraq is attacked daily but these terrorists and Britain had its first suicide bomb attack last week probably because of Iraq.

So those attacks in Iraq are "terrorist" attacks, but they are "insurgents"? I just want a little clarification here.

Oh, and show some proof, some inkling of conscious thought, indicating that Iraq caused any terrorist attack in Britain. Do it or take the statement back.

By the way stern, that website shows nothing about lies. In fact, I searched the document for "lies", "liar", "lie", and "lying", and I got nothing.

 

[Steve]

Only morons would start a civil war based on something like this.

I was about to freak out, because I first read this "Only mormons would start a civil war..."

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yes they did say they were going to attack hl2.net.. and posted the names they'd take in some thread on their forums. Bit silly really - we just banned those names/IPs etc

ZOMG terrorism! Why did they attack again?

Only morons would start a civil war based on something like this.

Yeah, but there's quite a lot of morons in the world.

 

[Foxtrot]

Yes they did say they were going to attack hl2.net.. and posted the names they'd take in some thread on their forums. Bit silly really - we just banned those names/IPs etc

Damnit, I wrote a reply to this like four times but stuff keeps happening. Anyways, why censor the whole site because of a few morons? It is a pretty large site, and just because four idiots came here and spammed doesn't mean that the site should be censored and any mention of it gets a thread locked (where is Bliink to lock this thread?).

 

[No Limit]

......



I'm sure you just had to mention **************s.....

Stern has a point, I have nothing against the guy that came on and hope he sticks around but come on; he comes in here, first post is in politics forum, and he doesn't seem to show any interest in Half Life nor any other game. Why do you feel you have to address Stern about that; if stern is wrong and Olympus has a problem let him address it. I also don't know how you took that to mean that Stern wanted him banned.

And as far as me using talking points; what are you talking about? I post information from around the web which I think will be useful here; that includes democraticunderground.com. What you guys do is take offical talking points from the GOP and argue with them no matter how many times they have been disproven. Show me one single example where I tried to argue with talking points.

 

[Olympus]

I'm Karl Rove and I play HL2 every chance I get. I saw my name in here a few too many times and thought enough was enough.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I also don't know how you took that to mean that Stern wanted him banned.

People who come from that site have a way of getting banned for it. Happened a few months ago.

I post information from around the web which I think will be useful here;

A talking point. Its not original.

What you guys do is take offical talking points from the GOP and argue with them no matter how many times they have been disproven.

So information is different if its offical compared to an unoffical talking point?

 

[Olympus]

Show me one single example where I tried to argue with talking points.

The title of a thread entitled "Karl Rove is a Traitor" is a DU talking point.

Thats one example.

 

[No Limit]

People who come from that site have a way of getting banned for it. Happened a few months ago.


A talking point. Its not original.


So information is different if its offical compared to an unoffical talking point?

Well not everything is original; I need to clarify what a talking point means when I use it. If I have back up for something and argue with that using sources this is not using talking points. When someone posts that Valerie Plame was not undercover at the time of the leak this is a talking point that has no back up and no basis in truth. Of course Democrats have talking points and I try to stay away from those and never post them if I can't actually fact check them; you guys don't say anything on the Rove matter until talking points are released from the GOP and then suddenly every Republican here wants to defend Rove.

 

[CptStern]

So those attacks in Iraq are "terrorist" attacks, but they are "insurgents"? I just want a little clarification here.

Oh, and show some proof, some inkling of conscious thought, indicating that Iraq caused any terrorist attack in Britain. Do it or take the statement back.

By the way stern, that website shows nothing about lies. In fact, I searched the document for "lies", "liar", "lie", and "lying", and I got nothing.

bwahahaha how freaking ironic gh0st ...funny how, I, out of curiosity, actually did search the text and found:

22 instances of the word "lie"
5 instances of the word "lies"
2 instances of the word "lying"

but a new search did turn up:

106 instances of the word "misleading"


mis·lead:

1.To lead in the wrong direction.
2.To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving



no "liar" I'll give you that

...so will you answer all 237 LIES? you've had over a month to prepare

 

[Lemonking]

lol No Limit is copy-paste dude lol you should be ashsamed of youself all you do is open threads to provoke other pepole.



off-topic you real name isnt Anthony isnt it?

 

[gh0st]

um... stern, no, you didnt. Click "match whole word only", bub, and you wont get results like "believing". "bwahahahha" indeed - basic computer literacy 101. You just kept clicking next and counted each time, thinking that IE was telling you what you wanted to hear. well, i'm sorry. yuck how embarassing for you.

you want to delve into semantics?

mis·lead:

1.To lead in the wrong direction.
2.To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.

Humans are imperfect and make imperfect decisions. Maybe you should note the word misleading, stern. If bush had in fact been lying, dont you think this liberal, california senator would have used the word all he possibly could? Next please.