Dr.Worthless Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 I'm sorry if quoting newsweek and the US Consitution was interpretted by you as me NOT citing sources. How does basic instinct of a species have anything to do with sexual orientation? Your blindly ignorant Catholicism has obviously enbedded into your mind the !@#$%^&*umption that humans aren't free willed. You're remarkably simple minded and boring.I have yet to see you cite any quotes used. Point them out to me if I'm just blind. Rather, Individualism has always existed. The foundation of the christian faith (as I believe in it) states that god gave humans free will. On the contrary, Non-Believers always get mixed up with the "church's" will and "gods" will, and yes, they can be and often times are different. The above is me quoting myself. When a discussion gets to the point where the others involved are dillusional enough to state beliefs that are contratry to what i've stated, I know its time to bow out. You're remarkably simple minded and boring.Wow, yet you somehow muster enough attention to reply to everything I have to say. Yeah, If i've heard it once, I've heard it 1000 times. In 1556 Phillip II took over Spain and the Netherlands from his father. Philip, much like Louis XIV, believed it was his duty as a king appointed by God to go to battle for the Catholic church. With the power of the the Spanish Inquisition he repressed the large Protestant Dutch population until it led them into open rebellion. Spanish Inquisition? Why surely the Catholics would never command a world leader to do something like this! Or maybe you've heard of the Thirty Years' War? I know its a stretch to assume you know anything, but hopefully this is common enough knowledge. Ok yeah, Nothing to say about that. Let me show you another quote of yours. Plus I find something unsettling about what happens when there is a Catholic President and Rome decides to conquer Europe (again). Will the word of god command the mighty arm of the US Armed Forces to destroy the sinners (Muslims, Jews, Protestants… do you believe anyone besides you is going to heaven)?Yeah, the key words being "Conquer Europe (again)" which is what my comments were about. Sorry, the Holy Roman Empire never conquered Europe. If you were somehow speaking of religious oppression, then yes. I only reply to what I read, unlike you I dont make !@#$%^&*umptions on what people are trying to say, because !@#$%^&*umptions are usually always wrong. You're simply incorrect, I do not sound like a 14 year old. Everyone here is quite impressed with my entertaining delivery of witty reparte, ROFL, Oh they are eh? Please site your gallop poll as proof, rofl. I'm sure everyone here thinks of you in the highest regards. Do you wake up in the mornings and say "Holy -*BAD WORD*- you are one fine sleeps with mothers, everyone in the world agrees with me too!" to the mirror? I hate to keep bringing it up, but it is quite obvious that my arguements inability to convince you is based on your mal-education and intellectual blindness. I continue to make valid arguements and you continue to fail at rebuffing them, instead spouting personal propoganda and !@#$%^&*umptions.So wait, you're saying that my arguement that every species is born with the instinct to reproduce is an !@#$%^&*umption? Heh, on the contrary, throughout all of your responses you have convieniently ignored my arguement. I'll state it for you again. If it is essential for an organism to have intercourse in order for the species to survive, then why would the organism be born with the orientation to have intercourse with something it cannot procreate with? I hate to keep bringing it up, but it is quite obvious that my arguements inability to convince you is based on your mal-education and intellectual blindness. Heh, All I can say is wow. orry, I'm here to try to educate you so you don't make such poor decisions in life as you have made so far. Consider this shock therapy. Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand isn't a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up, but I have some bad news - my -*BAD WORD*- is bigger than yours, and I swing it where I please. The only problem with your above statement, I believe you ment "Is a bad strategy". As in "Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand IS a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up." Don't you just hate it when you try to be cool, but -*BAD WORD*-up like that? <3 I eagerly await your counter-arguement on instinctual procreation. If you try and say that procreation isn't an instict, I'll wont be replying to the thread. Edited *** Ah -*BAD WORD*- it, beer #7 instructs me to leave the thread alone. Wouldn't want to go against what daddy coors says.
Live-Wire Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 If you try and say that procreation isn't an instict, I'll wont be replying to the threadProcreation isn't an instinct. Please leave the thread now so I can talk to less dumbererer people. How can you miss such basic core arguements? Do you read the posts or just click quote and and write from memory of your troubled childhood? Quoting myself, because you're too -*BAD WORD*-ing stupid to read. Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research !@#$%^&*ociates. May 13-14, 2004. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (total sample). "There has been much talk recently about whether gays and lesbians should have the legal right to marry someone of the same sex. Which of the following comes closest to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples; do you support gay civil unions or partnerships, BUT NOT gay marriage; or, do you oppose ANY legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples?" 28% Full Marriage Rights23% Civil Unions / Partnerships43% No Legal Recognition6% Don't KnowCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to !@#$%^&*emble, and to pe!@#$%^&*ion the Government for a redress of grievances.http://usinfo.org/USIA/usinfo.state.gov/us...trock/media.htm Polls in 1956, prior to the crisis, showed that 85 percent of the people of Arkansas supported segregationSTEVENS, BORN 1920, APPOINTED BY FORD RREHNQUIST, BORN 1924, APPOINTED BY REAGAN RO'CONNOR, BORN 1930, APPOINTED BY REAGAN RGINSBURG, BORN 1933, APPOINTED BY CLINTON DSCALIA, BORN 1936, APPOINTED BY REAGAN RKENNEDY, BORN 1936, APPOINTED BY REAGAN RBREYER, BORN 1938, APPOINTED BY CLINTON DSOUTER, BORN 1939, APPOINTED BY BUSH RTHOMAS, BORN 1948, APPOINTED BY BUSH R Uh. This is a post you replied to. How did you miss 90% of the post? Quoting you and replying: Yeah, the key words being "Conquer Europe (again)" which is what my comments were about. Sorry, the Holy Roman Empire never conquered Europe. If you were somehow speaking of religious oppression, then yes. I only reply to what I read, unlike you I dont make !@#$%^&*umptions on what people are trying to say, because !@#$%^&*umptions are usually always wrong. Once again. -*BAD WORD*-ing simple minded. How come I have to explain this stuff to you? Are you stupid? And the United States doesn't own ever inch of land in what is called the "Continental United States." Don't be so -*BAD WORD*-ing rediculous and simple (I come back to that word often because you bring me there). I can't even begin to explain this concept because it blows my mind that you don't get it. You must be kidding. Maybe god dictated geography and you have the lines drawn out in your head. Let someone else in this thread stoop to the intelligence required to make you understand something. And now, you've walked yourself into a trap you set for your dumb!@#$%^&* self: The only problem with your above statement, I believe you ment "Is a bad strategy". As in "Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand IS a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up." Don't you just hate it when you try to be cool, but -*BAD WORD*-up like that?Lets see if you can keep up as I slowly reproduce what I said. Me:Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand This is a description of your attempt to made attacks at me instead of addressing any valid points. This was your attempt at making up for your inferior ability to speak. ... isn't a bad strategy..."Isn't" translates to "is not". Would you like me to define those two words, or maybe provide a link to a dictionary? This qualifies your strategy. I give praise to your attempt to compensate for idiocy. ... when your intellect can't keep up... Here is WHY you employed your strategy. Again, idiocy. ... but I have some bad news ...This is me announcing that your strategy doesn't work. ... my -*BAD WORD*- is bigger than yours, and I swing it where I please. And this is where you get shot down, and probably close the thread in disgust at having talked yourself into a corner. Lets bring this whole quote together.... Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand isn't a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up, but I have some bad news - my -*BAD WORD*- is bigger than yours, and I swing it where I please.And for entertainment value we'll toss in your quote, so should you edit your post (which I would imagine you will), we won't lose the fun we're having at your expense. You: The only problem with your above statement, I believe you ment "Is a bad strategy". As in "Trying to compare -*BAD WORD*- sizes with me instead of addressing the issues at hand IS a bad strategy when your intellect can't keep up." Don't you just hate it when you try to be cool, but -*BAD WORD*-up like that? Oh, and 'meant' is spelt with an 'a' (not suggesting you should check my posts for spelling errors, but I'm not the one trying to avoid the point by using semantics to throw people off the trail of moronic-mind-grease I leave in my wake). Oh and talking about drinking beer makes you cooler than me, sorry, you win. Don't you just hate it when the foundation of your existance gets shaken and you can't come up with a good reason why you're right, so you swat clumbsily with your shriveled and malnourished mind that has grown dusty with lack of use at the reasoning that simply can't be ignored. If you had provided any indication of having a feasible arguement, I wouldn't have had to bloody you so badly.
Live-Wire Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 I will like for the insults to go to a minimiun please, i believe they are getting out of control. -nintendo64The rules of the forum state that if you can't make bold claims without posting any sources. Please ban everyone from this forum.
Live-Wire Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 Hey -*BAD WORD*- head do you read my posts correctly "Live stfu u uneducated prick all you can do is insult people to get you points across here is a little article that expresses both view points on sexual orientation neither are right or wrong so don't start -http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm " When you -*BAD WORD*-gots started insulting me from the get-go, you dug yourself a deep grave. Came back to bite you, maybe just a little bit? :muhah:
Dr.Worthless Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 Heh dude, you've gone off the deep end, enjoy the thread. <3 Worthless.
MasterDrake Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 My god "if I only had a brain"- Wizard Of Oz thats for a special someone
Bacchus Posted July 18, 2004 Report Posted July 18, 2004 If it is essential for an organism to have intercourse in order for the species to survive, then why would the organism be born with the orientation to have intercourse with something it cannot procreate with? Are you getting laid only to have babies? wake up man, admit you want her/him. period. Well, works the same for everyone you know... ...or your sex life must be -*BAD WORD*-ishly boring...or you haven't experienced any yet. btw, homosexuality is part of nature from dog to man, in history and is still practiced today why are fussing over it? ***For the poll's sake: Kerry will win.
MonteZuma Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Ok from what I have researched from this gay marriage deal there is no amendment stating a right to marriage it is pure religion. And basically that means that means that the churchs have the choice of what happens, currently the president in pushing for a banning of gay marriage or basically stating marriage is only between a man and a women. They were also trying to p!@#$%^&* a amendment earlier to approve gay marriage but was shot down.And yes in recent polls 70% of americans don't want gay marriagesMarriage is not purely a religious ins!@#$%^&*ution. Many non-religious people get married. There are legal implications !@#$%^&*ociated with marriage that have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with civil rights and responsibilities. Gay people want access to those same rights and responsibilities. That is all. Religion should have nothing to do with it. The president shouldn't drag religion into the debate. He isn't the religious and moral leader in this debate. His job is to represent the people. And just because 70% of Americans don't want gay marriages doesn't mean that it should be banned. 30% is still a huge number of supporters. Democracy isn't a case of majority rules. Democracy is about government by the people. In a true democracy, even the will of the minority is considered in the decision-making process. What are the 70% afraid of anyway? What are the cons !@#$%^&*ociated with gay marriage? Once those !@#$%^&*umptions are surfaced the treatment of this issue might start to make sense. At this time though it seems to be just an ignorant religious debate.
»nintendo64 Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 At this time though it seems to be just an ignorant religious debate.Monte, Maybe the problem with society is that they don't want to make the choices, maybe because there's the responsability factor or any other weight they have to take. People these days want to be told what they have to do, and they will follow it blindly, maybe that's why religion has endured all these years. Yes this topic went a little off, but it did prove that humans need to start being critical about their leaders choices and more importantly see how it will affect everyone not only them. Ah, and please acknowledge that religion has no place in politics. -nintendo64
MonteZuma Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Please provide substancial proof that people are born with sexual orientation. A simple arguement against that statement would be that every species on this earth is born with the instinct to procreate. This is obviously to ensure the survival of the species. So, why would humans be born with the preference of wanting to have sex with something that it cannot pro-create with? Since same sex couples cannot pro-create, that would be going against the laws of self preservation.Bah. Without anthropomorphising too much, it is clear that many animal species engage in masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality (ie sex with a different species), sex with minors (sex with juveniles of the same species) and incest. Sex isn't just about survival of the species. We have condoms and the pill so that we can have sex without the 'danger' of procreation. The birthrate in the west keeps dropping even though there is more sexual openness than ever before. Self- (or species-) preservation and sex are 2 different things that are only partly linked.
MonteZuma Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 I want to clear up this 'moral' word that you people keep throwing around, because many of you don't understand what it means. Moral-Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. And then you ask, "Where the -*BAD WORD*- do morals come from? Who has the authority to tell humans what is good and bad?" That answer, unfortunately, is God (or some other form of supreme en!@#$%^&*y that is above humans), no matter how you use the word, you are in fact saying you are a right wing religious wack. This isn't my opinion, Moral as a word has a religious connotation and is an appeal to value (your good character).Where in your definition does it state that the judgment of goodness or badness is only the domain of God and religion?
MonteZuma Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Obviously there was something in the very beginning; perhaps not creating man.. But creating the very elements and atoms that lead to the creation of other things.Currently, I don't believe there is a suitable arguement about that. Things begin from certain cir-*BAD WORD*-stances, but there needs to be 'someone' implementing those cir-*BAD WORD*-stances in the first place.I think nothing is obvious. Who created the 'someone' that created the elements and atoms? If He was always there then what did He do for the eternity before He created elements and atoms? Apparently there is a strange relationship between time and space and matter that ordinary people just don't understand. I don't think that we should put all our eggs in one basket and expect that there must have been a creator.
MonteZuma Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 At this time though it seems to be just an ignorant religious debate.Monte, Maybe the problem with society is that they don't want to make the choices, maybe because there's the responsability factor or any other weight they have to take. People these days want to be told what they have to do, and they will follow it blindly, maybe that's why religion has endured all these years. Yes this topic went a little off, but it did prove that humans need to start being critical about their leaders choices and more importantly see how it will affect everyone not only them. Ah, and please acknowledge that religion has no place in politics. -nintendo64 Exactly. People don't want to confront issues that make them question their deep-seated sense of morality. People like to think they know right from wrong, and when a minority suggests that they might not, they often lash out to defend their views. Other people turn to religion and use a 2,000 year old set of writings or the authority of the Pope to justify their beliefs. Religion is a security blanket for the masses. Bush knows this and uses religion to support his simplistic and dangerous policies. Politics isn't simply about a fight between good and evil. But an ignorant electorate wants desperately to think that it is as easy as that. Then they don't have to question everything they've been told and believed since they first went to Sunday School or read a newspaper. Life really is complicated.
Aileron Posted July 19, 2004 Author Report Posted July 19, 2004 :wtfwtf: :wtfwtf: :wtfwtf: :wtfwtf: :wtfwtf: The last relevent political post I have seen was Dr. Worthless, who way back when, said that neither candidate is going to stop frivolous lawsuits. That is incorrect, caps on lawsuits is a centerpiece of Bush's program.
Vile Requiem Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 And speaking of Kerry having no set agenda (which he actually does at johnkerry04.com)... Bush doesn't have one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jul17.html Hooray for people with no current vision
A Soldier Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Would you mind pasting the article? Don't wanna register
Vile Requiem Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Previous Article: President Is Still Mum on Agenda For Second Term By Dan BalzWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, July 18, 2004; Page A01 As he campaigned around the country last week, President Bush asked voters to give him another four years to make the nation "safer and stronger and better." But with the election less than four months away, one of the biggest mysteries surrounding the president's campaign is what he would actually do if he wins a second term. Bush's failure to detail a second-term agenda -- beyond his pledge to keep waging an aggressive war on terrorism -- represents a stark contrast to his previous campaigns, in which he set out a handful of priorities almost from the opening day and rarely deviated from them. Throughout the year, Bush has focused on Iraq and terrorism and on drawing attention to improved economic statistics, but has barely begun to make the case about second-term priorities. Whether there is room for a bold domestic agenda, given the fiscal strains his first term has created, and whether Bush has fresh ideas on issues such as health care, education and the economy are questions yet to be answered. Bush's advisers, in a series of interviews in recent days, were quick to rebut those questions. They !@#$%^&*erted that there will be a vigorous new agenda and challenged those who have suggested that a second-term blueprint could be little more than a warmed-over version of what Bush ran on in 2000 but has failed to enact. They said Bush plans to use the period around the time of the Republican National Convention in late August to put forward the main elements of a new agenda in an effort to draw a clear contrast with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-mass) and seize control of the debate during the final two months of the campaign. "After their [the Democrats]convention is over and we're into the August phase and into our convention, we will begin aggressively talking about the president's vision for the next four years," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. Said another adviser: "We are going to have a window after the Democratic convention and at our convention where people are going to say, what are you going to do the next four years? We will robustly seize that opportunity." The details remain closely held. Presidential advisers said elements of the plan have been agreed to, with debate still underway on others. Fighting terrorism remains paramount to the president, and on domestic issues there is a consensus outside the administration that Bush is likely to renew his call for changes in Social Security. Outside analysts are in far less agreement on whether, beyond calling for making his tax cuts permanent, Bush will push for significant tax law revisions or simplification. Bush's education focus may shift to higher education, while his health care agenda is likely to focus on some combination of medical liability reform, efforts to curb rising costs with the help of information technology and programs to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance. Bush began this campaign year sketching out several new initiatives, including the manned exploration of the moon and eventually Mars and immigration reform. Neither, however, captured sustained attention or support. Another major proposal, a cons!@#$%^&*utional amendment banning gay marriage, was soundly defeated in the Senate last week. Waiting until his convention to offer a campaign agenda represents a major strategic shift for Bush. Some administration allies worry that the time is late to introduce a new agenda and expect voters to digest it and give the president a mandate to implement it. And Bush's political team declined to say whether they will use their advertising dollars this fall to push that agenda, or continue to attack Kerry. But former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said he agrees with the White House decision to wait, and predicted an ambitious package when it is unveiled. "I am told by people who have heard him talk privately that it is very powerful, that he's deeply, passionately committed and in many ways wants to stake his place in history in achieving substantial change in the country, not just as the president who led the war on terror," Gingrich said. One Bush adviser said, "The general feeling is we've got to have the same ambition and clarity we're bringing to the international agenda to some important domestic policy issues. . . . I don't think it's accurate to say we're making a turn. It's accurate to say we're filling out a message." Four years ago, Bush ran on an agenda that included big tax cuts, education reform, a faith-based initiative, military modernization, missile defense and Social Security reform -- all of it unveiled long before the GOP convention that summer. But White House senior adviser Karl Rove has told Republican allies that, in the 2000 campaign, Bush suffered from having little new to say in September and October, and that the 2004 campaign plan was drawn up to avoid that mistake. Click here! In 2000, say his advisers, Bush had a prominent political name but little definition as a potential president. Setting out a substantive agenda that defined his claim to compassionate conservatism was an important strategic goal. "The definitional phase of a campaign is the springtime, and the biggest mistake Al Gore made was to allow us to define ourselves," a senior adviser said, adding, "We weren't going to make the mistake we thought Al Gore made." Which is why, instead of offering his own agenda, Bush has poured tens of millions dollars into television ads attacking Kerry, a strategy they believe was successful in casting Kerry as a flip-flopper, although Kerry and Democratic strategists say it accomplished far less than Bush had hoped. But Bush advisers said even if they had tried to present a second-term agenda, news from Iraq would have overwhelmed it, and they point to the president's job training initiatives, which have received little attention, as evidence. They also said the president has had to struggle to change public perceptions that the economic recovery has not reached down to help average Americans. "I think there's a general feeling that we're getting those things right," one Bush adviser said. "But that's a platform on which to build. We have to get those things right, and we have to go from there." The longer Bush has waited to lay out his agenda, the more that has triggered discussion among policy analysts about what Bush should propose. Will he attempt to run again as a compassionate conservative? Will he claim the mantle of reform by tackling such major issues as the tax code and health care? Or will he frame his agenda under the rubric of an ownership society, designed to appeal to younger voters, by pushing not only Social Security accounts but also other tax-based savings programs for health, education and retirement? The broadest consensus among analysts is that the president will resurrect his call to alter Social Security by allowing individuals to create personal savings accounts with a portion of their payroll taxes. Early in his presidency, Bush appointed a commission that returned with a series of policy options. But the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and political fears among Republicans on Capitol Hill effectively dashed any chance for action. Some outside analysts said the federal budget's imbalance will complicate Bush's desire to change Social Security, particularly if he continues to push to make his tax cuts permanent. "If the administration is reelected . . . it will face a choice between making the tax cuts permanent and pushing Social Security reform," said Peter R. Orszag of the Brookings Ins!@#$%^&*ution. He noted that making the tax cuts permanent and fixing the alternative minimum tax would cost about $1.5 trillion, almost exactly the transition costs of setting up personal accounts in Social Security. Stewart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation made a similar point about the impact on the budget of making the tax cuts permanent. "There's got to be a real strategy to get en!@#$%^&*lements under control," he said. There is far less consensus on what else Bush should offer for a second term. On health care, Bush has a smorgasbord from which to choose. With Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), a former trial lawyer, on the Democratic ticket, medical liability reform will likely climb higher in the president's list of priorities. Beyond that, Bush's outside allies expect him to focus on restraining costs through information technology initiatives, a project favored by Gingrich, and by focusing on the cost of prescription drugs. Some Republicans expect Bush to focus more of his attention on the problem of the uninsured, a major initiative of Kerry's. Bush allies doubt that he will attempt to alter Medicare. Having enacted a prescription drug benefit, several analysts said, makes the chances of revision less likely. "It's too divisive, and Bush wants to say he's fixed Medicare," said Michael Tanner of the Cato Ins!@#$%^&*ute. "And they've given away the ice cream, so it's tough to go back and say eat your spinach." On education, Bush succeeded in enacting his signature issue from 2000, the No Child Left Behind Act, and though that remains controversial, the next frontier appears to be higher education. Kerry has made proposals in this area, and one domestic policy expert close to the White House said he expects Bush to fill out in more detail his ideas for preparing high school graduates for college and making college more affordable. Bush advisers discount the idea that they have waited too long to unveil a second-term agenda. They note that President Bill Clinton did not unveil his theme of a "bridge to the 21st century" until his convention in 1996. But they say they recognize that victory depends on Bush's ability to convince voters that he has an agenda superior to Kerry's. "In-*BAD WORD*-bents who win always run prospectively rather than retrospectively," said Matthew Dowd, senior adviser at Bush's campaign committee. "There are things you have to deal with retrospectively, but in the end it's going to be a prospective election."
Vile Requiem Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 What that article essencially says is that this forum topic is pointless until the Republican National Convention, Neither Bush nor Kerry have said what they're doing yet because there's really no reason to do so
A Soldier Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Thanks vile. http://cronus.com/bushresume/ <- Bush "resumé"
»nintendo64 Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 Now, i ask what are the reasons supporting another Bush Presidency? (besides the Pope supporting and the religion blah blah) think about imperialism, think about the budget, think about the diplomacy. -nintendo64
Bacchus Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 he represents the average american's traditionnal values?
white_0men Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 he represents the average american's traditionnal values?yay average! Maybe it's just me, but how much do you trust the average american's values as being good for everyone else?
Aileron Posted July 19, 2004 Author Report Posted July 19, 2004 WTH was that reporter smoking? I attended one of those rallies he talked about, and Bush came down to a few fairly specific points. Its obvious Mr. Balz is either extremely biased or didn't attend the rallies. Bush DID specifically discuss Tort law reform, and made the point of giving a few local doctors VIP seats. He discussed more traditional republican issues such as abortion, gun control, and gay marriage. He discussed how his tax cuts helped small businesses and proposed bigger cuts. Bush spoke for about an hour and a half, and discussed an appropriate number of issues, and set a good many stances. That article only proves the sad state of the American media. If a reporter can write that in a national newspaper and still keep is job, it is pathetic. Maybe I'm putting a rightist slant on things, but that is definitely a leftist slant, if infact it is even a slant at all, rather that flat-out misinformation. I mean, how could he possibly miss all the things Bush discussed? Bush did not deviate from his usual campaign strategy, he DID lay out his stances and it looks like he is going to stick to them. Sorry Vile, but that article is incorrect. A similar thing happened with our local town paper. As I was leaving I noticed a handful of pro-Kerry protesters (I guess they were protesting the democratic process of campaigning) outside the York Fairgrounds (were the convention was held). There were about fifteen of them, compared to several thousand people inside who attended the rallies. There easily could have been 100 rally attenders per every one protester. Sure enough, the next day, the protesters made the front page - complete with a nice picture that really made it seem that there were a few hundred of them. These people probably deserved an article on the second or third page. However, there were simply too few of them to compare to the number of people who came to the rally and they shouldn't have been given a front page article with a picture.
Vile Requiem Posted July 19, 2004 Report Posted July 19, 2004 The Washington Post is generally considered a right-slanted paper fyi. But if you were there and it didn't happen that way, he's a liar regardless. In addendum: The pro-bush people are planning a similar "anti-protest" for the RNC, in which there's expected to be upwards of 100000 anti-bush protestors. I garuntee you the wrong people get the press in that case too Protest Warriors, which claims about 3,000 members nationwide, expects about 200 in New York for the four-day convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of opponents of President Bush (news - web sites). http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ention_protests And a bonus for anyone with broadband...Mr. Jon Stewart at his best. Self Explanatory:http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft/video/200...king_points.mov
Aileron Posted July 19, 2004 Author Report Posted July 19, 2004 Well, I attended one of a group of rallies done that week. I !@#$%^&*umed he used the same speech at each one, he COULD have listened to a different speech, though it is extremely unlikely. I'm 90% sure he is reporting on the same speech I heard, and if not, he should have gone to more than one rally. The Washington Post is only considered right wing relative to the New York Times, who TRIES to put a left wing slant and in some cases admits it. Nothing can be more liberal than that! However, the Washington Post is probably up ther. After all, it serves Washington DC, probably the most liberal city in the western hemisphere. I mean...I knew the media had a big left wing bias, but I had no comprehension of how big it was. For starters, I now have much more faith in both candidates. Guess what people, BOTH of these guys would make good presidents! The problem is the media, being so negative, has attacked both candidates to it being ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with either one of these guys, and both will likely take steps to solve the few problems this country actually has. The second revelation I had is that Fox News may actually be as fair and balanced as they say they are. I've seen people from both sides of the political spectrum on their programs. However, I'm still rather skeptical at this point. There was a time when the media merely reported the facts and let people come up with their own opinions. They would occ!@#$%^&*ionally put their opinions in, but would view the occ!@#$%^&*ional opinionated statement as a mistake. Now, they use the fact that they cannot completely eliminate their opinion as an excuse to go all-out editorial. It obvious they don't care about the facts any more - that guy probably didn't even attend the speech. If the facts don't coincide with their opinion, they make things up. Seriously, somebody should organise some kind of boycott against news sources. I'm sure the advertisers who pay these guys would pay attention. Anyone know a good website to start such a thing?
Recommended Posts