AstroProdigy

As for me, I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact, if everyone agreed it would be boring. I mind when people insult me.

Pics of you? I'm not sure what you're talking about. You still haven't told me how old you are. And there lear goes again. "You haven't provided a link or negative campaigning that i will call liberal biased so that means negative campaigning does not exist". 2 elections ago is 1996, which wasn't what i meant by decades ago.

Yes, but it has gotten worse and worse over the years, especially with the television media able to broadcast the negative campaigning in commercials over and over in all of the battleground states. People take it too far now.

Ok. a) I'm not a kid. People use that word to put you down. (edited) This is exactly what I mean, you pounce on anything you could argue against in order to make your own argument seem sound or, for some of the people here, to make them look smarter, in which case they try to sound "profound". c) If you actually read the last post before that one I said that some people try to turn the argument into if you're wrong then I'm right and then pounce on anything in the other person's argument they can find to discredit them rather than proving their own argument. In lear's response, he denies that he was using that tactic and i responded with his reasoning. That doesn't mean thats what I believe, although it can be like that sometimes depending on the situation. Then Hackysack replies with "Haha, this is what I love. Watching people like Astro prove "no it all kids" that they're wrong is funny." (edit) That's the strategy that I hate. Rather than proving your own competence, you slander someone else because, in effect, that makes you look better. It's called negative campaigning. It replaced real elections based on competency decades ago. (edit)

It's simple logic here. If I'm wrong than you're right. Therefore if you question my integrity as the reason my argument is wrong then you are saying you are right for that reason.

See, there you go. Instead of making an argument on what I wrote u turned it into "Your information is unreliable. Therefore, I am right and you are wrong". As for Bush's record, when u risk your life for your country, you shouldn't be insulted for it. When you pay your way out of risking your life for your country and then when your country needs you, disappear for six months, you aren't a war hero.

Oh i just noticed lear's post. That's funny that you say spin is not making any real points but only attacking Worthless because when Dr. Worthless was doing that to me, you were saying he was making an effective argument that was proving himself right and then thought u would try to turn the tables and say that it was me who was making personal attacks on him. This kind of strategy sounds just like what the conservative supporters used to trash John Kerry by making personal attacks on his war record, which is really a low blow considering that he actually fought in a war unlike Bush. Then Bush would say "I didn't attack his war record. It was those other guys." That's what was used to get Bush in all of his political positions. First he became governer of Texas by having a flyer float around with two homosexuals linking Ann Richards to homosexuality and then denied his involvment. He won the election. then for the 2000 Republican primary, Bush had John McCain's record as a prisoner of war in Vietnam attacked and then said "I do not support them. I think you served admirably." And with that he wiped his hands clean of it, but the damage was still done to McCain. This is the familiar trend with Bush's campaign strategy. It's the most despicable campaigning I have ever seen. It sickens me, but this is what these types of organizations do, anything to win. They also love to play on emotions to avoid allowing people to use their brains.

Spin, you are the man. Dr. Worthless had spammed me and insulted me into not posting on this thread anymore. He would pounce on any little error or part of my arguments that I did not put a lot of research into, (this is not on the top of my to do list), and use it as an excuse to say "Your whole argument is competely wrong and I am completely right" and then use quite of bit of vulgarity to shut me up. He would call me a brainwashed liberal bonehead, yet all that he said was in line with the conservative propaganda. Then he would say that we weren't tied up with our troops because most of our troops weren't in Iraq and Afghanistan. Newsflash, if we put all of our troops there we could easily be invaded. We have to have lots of troops at home to defend the !@#$%^&*ry and we have troops in dozens of other countries all the time. Of course, Worthless used my lack of eloquence in speech as an excuse to berate me to make his lie seem like the truth. People do that if their own argument is weak. He should be a lawyer, because he knows very well how to make people seem unreliable without actually proving his own argument. Then Learjett would defend him simply because he shares all the same views as the conservative propaganda and, in effect, the same views as Dr. Worthless since both of their opinions and what conservative propaganda wants people to believe are one in the same. I am ready for Dr. Worthless to berrate me some more as that makes his own opinions seem like they are proven.

So yeah. Post.

I didn't read most of the posts so forgive me for repeating anything. Well the first part of this was on FOX and the second part was on CNN, but Tucker Carlson, the guy who was talking, is actually a Republican. That's what makes CNN moderate, they look at both sides of the issues. People call CNN liberal, but that is simply because they look critically at the administration rather than parroting it. If the Democratic Party held the presidency, they would look critically at that administration and be looked at as right wing while the other stations would again be parroting the administration. As for the Fox part, the woman, Anne Coulter, said the worst American's end up going there citing examples of the Torries after the Revolutionary War, the draft dodgers in the Vietnam War, and the blue states after the last presidential election. Btw, I thought Dr Brain quit the politics forums...twice O_o

Yes.

Very useful post lear

Where did you hear this? You know theres video footage of him running right?

Yes, he was flaming. The insults “dip!@#$%^&*,” “stupid,” “pompous,” “mis-informed liberal biggot,” “grossly ignorant,” “!@#$%^&*ing pathetic,” “!@#$%^&*bag,” “!@#$%^&*ing ignorant,” “brainwashed liberal !@#$%^&*bag,” “thick-skulled,” “dim-witted,” “bonehead,” “!@#$%^&*bag” were used by him. Frankly, now I am afraid to post my opinion anywhere because I know he will be there to flame me. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I do mind people constantly cursing at me. This guy definitely minds people disagreeing with him because this is the way he reacts. He even says that I attacked HIM personally and was throwing half !@#$%^&*ed insults at HIM. That’s funny.

Yeah we should throw the all the corporate lobbyists out of Washington. As for Social Security, it is very hard to really know exactly how it is. You would have to research a lot of things like economic growth statistics and population changes to see where Social Security is going; and then you can take whatever numbers you want as long as its in each range for these factors and try to sway people to your opinion. The factors used to determine the future of Social Security are general and taking the highs and lows of them give you two completely different scenarios.

Well maybe you are right learjett. Unfotunately, the police did not have that kind of time to analyze the situation. Also, they did not want to shoot him once and not kill him immediately with that shot so he detonates the bomb before he dies.

Sigh. There is really no poin in arguing with you anymore Worthless. This would just go on and on. Frankly, I do not appreciate the wide array of personal attacks and curses that you fill your posts with. It makes you look very childish. You took a regular thread and broke it down into a flaming thread. For shame.

Sigh. You took my comment totally out of context on World War II. I said "The Nazis were in a rush to kill all the people they could when they saw they were losing the war." I did not say the Nazis were in a rush to kill people when they were winning the war. If your just going to do this taking out of conetext play you should work for Karl Rove. You do not know what was going on to think that there were a million prisoners in each of the main killing camps at one time. Please don't put incorrect information as your "proof". when you do not understand how things work do not act like you do. The end of the War isn't your discussion because you know that if you turn it into a different discussion you won't look like an !@#$%^&*. Is this what you are going to do; spew out what the administration is telling you? If Saddam Hussein had broken restrictions, what were they? Did he actually "have" weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction even though we have found no evidence of this? If you agree then you really are a die hard ignorant. You forgot that Kim Jong is a psychopath. Negotiations are doing nothing to stop his nuclear program. If anything they are buying him time to make as many nuclear weapons as he can. Now here you go again putting your own spin. I did not elude to the fact that we shouldn't care about the lower risk areas, I eluded to the fact that a high risk area should justly have much more protection than a low risk area. We should be trying to prevent terrorism based on the probability to be the most effective. We should get into the mind of a terrorist not play a divided political game at home giving the terrorists a better chance of succeeding. We only !@#$%^&*umed that negotiations did not work. In fact, they did. Saddam did not have any weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and was not producing any. North Korea, on the other hand, is giving us the run around and using the time to produce more weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. Wow. You have been trying to justify the Iraq War throughout your posts. Did you forget "I was simply saying let negotations try and work, and if the do not (as in Saddams Case), then something should be done." I mean come on; if you are going to lie you should make sure there is no proof glaring you in the face that you are lying. Learn from our administration. Stop choosing half of what I say. I said Iraq AND Afghanistan. Not to mention we have troops in a number of other countries to help protect them from terrorism. We also cannot have no troops in the United States, that would be extremely foolish. Stop taking things out of context or else I will say you are very good on putting your own "spin" on the truth. I said IF YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE. I never said YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE. If you want to not look at what I am actually writing, then do not comment on it. As for that God comment, it is called a flame. You have been doing it to me throughout your posts. I do not need sources to oppose your posts, because there is no basis to most of it. You actually believe you form your own opinions? All you have been doing in your posts is insulting me, spewing out what the administration tells you, and contradicting yourself.

Well now I am not saying it was only Bush. There were other Republicans in Congress that would not allow the session to end until they voted for the bill. Yes, I know about outsourcing. Letting American drug companies, which have quite of bit of influence over the government to monopolize and sell us drugs for insane prices sounds a lot worse than outsourcing. Calling it outsourcing is just an excuse. It seems the drug companies had more influence than the American public in that case; and don't say the American people supported this. There's no way to sell an idea like this that you may just force many Americans not to buy the drugs they need because they can't afford it for the benefit of big business. Trying to explain the outsourcing idea won't help either because they won't care if big business loses money rather than them losing money. This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic philosophy.

Only problem is, the Bush administration forced Congress (by making them stay in session and revote until they passed it) to p!@#$%^&* a bill that made it illegal to get perscription drugs from Canada. Senior citizens have to pay a lot more on perscription drugs simply because the drug companies have loads of lobbyists in Washington. It's really sad how the little guy is getting stepped on and doesn't even know it.

Lol. Just because GWB said that Social Security will be gone soon, that does not make it true. He is just trying to get Americans afraid of it so they would support his new Social Security plan so that he can cut Social Security for the profit of big corporations. That won't hurt the rich; it will hurt the poor. I'm scared by this link's information.

This is my non flaming post to the logical comments of everyone else. Yes, we are caught in a catch-22 situation . To pull out of Iraq before there is a stable government would be just as foolish as saying "Mission Accomplished" when we toppled Saddam's regime. That small town idea is very interesting. It does make a lot of sense using anhydrous ammonia as an attack to try to destroy feelings Americans have of safety. However, there are larger threats that we have to worry about. Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons that are still missing after the fall of the Soviet Union. If a nuclear weapon was used, the effect on a small town would be that it would completely obliterate the town killing everyone in it. Thats about 2000 deaths. An attack on Chicago with a nuclear weapon would kill most of the people in the city. That is about 4 million deaths, which is 2/3 of the city i believe. We should, however, consider the fact that terrorists can attack us in many ways. Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. I never said they treat our tourists badly, lol. Yes they do not like other groups either. I would think people of a certain country would not like every other country, of course. That is world politics at work.

Ok. I have not posted in a few days so here I go. Learn your World War II history better before you make comments that seem logical, but are not what the situation was at the time. Did you stop to think that Hitler had his troops fighting on other fronts? He did not have all his soldiers around the concentration camps. Air strikes coulda haqve dislodged the concentration camps near the end of the war. The Nazis were in a rush to kill all the people they could when they saw they were losing the war. As for we did not really know where Osama Bin Laden was, we could have cut off all the main exits there and probably would have caught Bin Laden running away, at which point we could have called air support to go and blow them into oblivion. Now of course you cannot prove that it was a conspiracy, but at the very le!@#$%^&*t it proves a blunder. For your comment of Kim Jong II, it looks like you are keeping your ears closed to the real argument. Why did we attack Iraq when there were other countries that were oppressing there people just as much, if not more, and were a real threat to the United States. Are you trying to say that Kim Jong II is a legitimate dictator and North Korea is just fine with him in control? They did not try to throw the UN "the bird," they simply kicked out UN observers so they could build their weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction. You are contradicting your whole argument with this. We should use preemption to take down dictators who we claim are a threat, but we should try to reason to the most psychotic dictators? Well that makes a lot of sense . Are you serious with this? It could also be said that only the extreme conservative right and the mi-informed still believe we were justified to go to war with Iraq and we handled it well. I am not taking Moore's do!@#$%^&*entary literally. I have said it already that he has an agenda and he does want to make the administration look bad, but it is still videos. It is not the same thing writing something as showing video of something. Yes, the place you discuss is a high risk area, but how dare you say that the Tri-state area does not have risk. We have nuclear plants there too. If they go off, there are 8 million people in New York City alone. If you think about the areas around it, a good 20 million peoples' lives would be at risk as well as pretty much completely anihallating the US economy and pretty much annihalating the world economy too. Who knows what will happen then? Nuclear War maybe? Are you kidding me? Most of our troops were either in Iraq or Afghanistan, or they were going to be in the next rotation. You are the one spewing Conservative propaganda that you probably saw on FOX 5. If you honestly believe that the United States has been taking a holy mission throughout its history, you seriously have a problem because you do not know what you are talking about. Learn to look at all the facts rather than !@#$%^&*uming that whatever conservatives tell you are holy and I am surprised you have not said that God is George Bush's friend and anyone who does not support the administration is going to !@#$%^&*. Everyone before you has been posting some intelligent comments and making good arguments. Before you posted, we were having an intelligent discussion. You just come in here and post your Republican sound bytes and p!@#$%^&* them off as facts. Most of the stuff you posted here was either put into your brain conservative propaganda or you used facts and twisted them around so that they would support your agenda.

I did not say I support his opinion because he is liberal; I said despite the fact that he is liberal and has an agenda to his work, it is hard to disagree with video footage and he did not make up the actual facts, he just used them for his own agenda. You should see Fahrenheit 9/11 before you infer it is just random footage thrown together to make the administration look bad. Your first source, however, was really easy to discredit, lol. That guy is a nutjob. As for foreigners being jealous, I did not say they are ALL jealous of us; I said a lot of them are jealous of us. Monte, when I said they insult us and then want our consumer goods, I do not mean they just disagree with some of our policies, I mean they just do not like us. Also, I went to Cyprus because that is where my parents are from and I was visiting relatives. As for the majority of Iraqis being in favor of us being there, it is more like the majority of Iraqis were in favor of us toppling Saddam. As for us have an extended stay in Iraq for at least a decade, much less Iraqis are in favor of that than the former. We are training Iraqis, but they will not be ready to defend their own country without us for several more years. The problem is, when they were starting the nuclear program, we were powerless to even try to stop them because most of our troops were stuck in Iraq for a war that will go out in the history books as just another war we fought to oppress other nations. Besides, if we really want to claim this role as the spreaders of democracy and human rights, we should do it with everyone; not pick and choose the countries that can give certain high level officials and their friends a profit. The first rule of a corporation is that you have to make a profit to your stockholders. They are your first priority. !@#$%^&* Cheney did a good job of making a profit for his stockholders at Haliburton. I mean, seriously, they did not even allow for compe!@#$%^&*ion in the contract for the rights to drill in Iraq for oil. That means the Iraqi people get ripped off and the American people get ripped off. Do you ever wonder why the introduction of the second largest deposit of oil in the world into our economy did nothing to reduce oil prices? Someone had to make the profit. If it was not the Iraqi people and not the American people, then it had to be the oil company that made a huge profit. It seems like a crackpot theory, but think about it.

Well as for your first link to your source discrediting Fahrenheit 9/11, here is a link discrediting the writer of that article. :-P Not only is the writer a conservative, but he writes some crazy stuff like writing a book insulting Mother Teresa as a "self serving-egotist". With regards to your second link, the writer, David T. Hardy happens to also be a conservate and a gun supporter. linkmetoyomomma Your last link is basically only some guy who made a website taking exerpts from conservatives' opinions. If you are going to get sources against Michael Moore, make sure to not get them from conservatives unless they can back up their opinions the way Michael Moore backed his opinions with VIDEO FOOTAGE. As for Montezuma saying that we should get off thinking the people of other countries are jealous of us, a lot of them really are jealous of us. I was on vacation in Cyprus, which is an island country in the Mediterranean Sea and a part of the Europian Union. You would not believe how they talk about the United States. They constantly insult us and then want to come to the United States for vacation to do their shopping because it is better than their stuff. As for talk of taking out Kim Jong, that is all it is, talk. The administration has shown no sign they would be willing to do this, whereas they were staunchly supporting the invasion of Iraq and not even considering peaceful methods. With North Korea that is all they are talking about actually doing; looking for peaceful ways to solve some of the problems but are not trying to overthrow Kim JongII. Yes, Michael Moore is definetely a liberal and he definetely wants to put his own spin on the facts, but it is hard to argue against video footage. Now I ask you again, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Yes, learjett, only extremist Iraqis are attacking our troops, but the ranks of them is constantly increasing. Why do you think so many of them are suicide bombers and yet theres attacks every day. Where do you think these people come from. Eventually they would all be gone if there was not more of them being created all the time by this administration's actions.