MonteZuma Posted September 12, 2005 Report Posted September 12, 2005 Yeah. I agree with SOS. Two people can be both right and wrong about the same thing at the same time. It is a matter of perspective.
Hackysack Posted September 13, 2005 Report Posted September 13, 2005 Haha, this is what I love. Watching people like Astro prove "no it all kids" that they're wrong is funny. I not only cant wait to see spins reply, but even better wait for worthless'.
MonteZuma Posted September 13, 2005 Report Posted September 13, 2005 I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but this is kinda funny. To me anyway Watching people like Astro prove "no it all kids" that they're wrong is funny.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think you mean "'know it all' kids".
Aileron Posted September 13, 2005 Report Posted September 13, 2005 Actually, there are frequent examples where one person is right and one is wrong...I'd say that happens the majority of the time. (though we rarely think about or debate such cases...ex: robbing a bank is wrong, arresting the robber is right) But, SOS's point is still valid, they aren't mutually exclusive. Astro, spin isn't the insult police, I am. I've given everyone a warning about personal insults and posts will be edited and the thread may be locked if it happens again. spin doesn't have to worry about the insults. Besides, what he's been doing would probably egg Worthless on anyway, his pattern of behavior demonstrates that he spreads more insults with bigger failures of logic from the receiver. Besides, you shouldn't speak for someone else, you may not know what their real motives are.
Hackysack Posted September 13, 2005 Report Posted September 13, 2005 I'm not normally a grammar nazi, but this is kinda funny. To me anyway Watching people like Astro prove "no it all kids" that they're wrong is funny.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think you mean "'know it all' kids". <{POST_SNAPBACK}>ha, I was high at the time.
AstroProdigy Posted September 14, 2005 Author Report Posted September 14, 2005 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)
Aileron Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 You act as if there was some golden age of politics where negative campaigning didn't happen. No such age ever existed...except if you count times that pre-existed democracy, in which case one's position was determined from birth and campaigning, including negative campaigning, wasn't necessary. Other than that, its a constant in human nature, and not entirely dishonorable even...a skyscraper made of cards is not as good as a building of half the height made out of steel. If the owners of both buildings wanted to rent out space to a company, would it be wrong for the steel building owner to point out that the card skyscraper is unstable?
AstroProdigy Posted September 14, 2005 Author Report Posted September 14, 2005 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.
LearJett+ Posted September 14, 2005 Report Posted September 14, 2005 Give an example of negative campaigning. It has been going on for many years and you might have just not realized it until now. Maybe two presidential elections ago you weren't old enough or aware of it.
Hackysack Posted September 15, 2005 Report Posted September 15, 2005 I never knew, by me agreeing with what someone said that I all of a sudden became a professional at negative campaigning. By the way, I come on here while under the influence of something often, so I tend to have grammar and spelling errors. What I actually meant to type was more like "Watching people like Astro prove that "no it all kids" are wrong is funny." So in a way, yes I was calling him a kid, but it’s a figure of speech. Its not my fault you're insecure about your age. Which by the way, considering you're only 18, you shouldn’t take the term 'kid' so offensively. Now as for name calling, and posting pics of "me", I could care less. It just shows how pathetic people can get when they can't win. In other words, get a life.
AstroProdigy Posted September 15, 2005 Author Report Posted September 15, 2005 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.
LearJett+ Posted September 15, 2005 Report Posted September 15, 2005 Astro, I wasn't saying "You haven't provided a link or negative campaigning that i will call liberal biased so that means negative campaigning does not exist". - I was saying that it has existed all along and nothing is new about it. Don't put words in my mouth - especially ones that contradict what I'm saying. If you ever used a source, then if it was liberal I would say so. Most libs on here go get information from republicanssuck.com and call it impartial. [slight editing done...Sorry I seem to be doing it a lot these days...If I go to far remember to say something. -Aileron]
Hackysack Posted September 15, 2005 Report Posted September 15, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>You, by what Aileron editted did 'name calling'. Spin resorted to stupid pictures. Both equally childish and pathetic. If you can't win an arguement dont resort to childish behavior, it just makes you look bad. -_-
Aileron Posted September 15, 2005 Report Posted September 15, 2005 Hey, he's not nearly on the same level as spin...all he called you was a 12 yr old. I mean, on a normal topic I'd let that go, but this had gotten to be a pretty bad topic.
Hackysack Posted September 15, 2005 Report Posted September 15, 2005 Hey, he's not nearly on the same level as spin...all he called you was a 12 yr old. I mean, on a normal topic I'd let that go, but this had gotten to be a pretty bad topic.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ah, I see... Well if I knew it was something as little as that I wouldn't have wasted my time on that comment.
AstroProdigy Posted September 16, 2005 Author Report Posted September 16, 2005 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.
spin Posted September 21, 2005 Report Posted September 21, 2005 Astro, here are some points I would like to make1. When I was using the term "fascist" I was being literal, in other words, some have the MINDSET or the inclination to easily support such a system, with little to no problem. The reason I got a such a reaction from people like lear jet and Aileron is because they do not know what a Fascist system is like. And America's current Republican Party and its propaganda has indoctrinated them into much Fascist thinking, but as any good propagandist knows these days, the propagandist do not call it Fascism, they call it "Conservative". Which leads to point 2. 2. Lear Jet and Aileron have been taught not to think for themselves, and have been taught that if it does not come from a "Conservative" source it must be "biased" and to them that equals a lie. They will goto any length no to look too deeply into a subject and will only trust "Conservatives" sources because they are not "liberal" or "biased", which to them means "not true", which means they have done enough research and and KNOW that they are right. In other words, if you present ANY argument that is contrary to the "Conservative view", they will automatically assume that wrong... THEN they will answer you back with something like an insult or "that is not true", or ANY other argument that does not address sources or data or the facts. 3. They will ALWAYS have TOTAL faith in their "Conservative" source, they will ALWAYS reject any other source without and research, they will 90% of the time, try to throw back some logic question, like "why would they do that?" instead of sticking to the data, because they will ALWAYS claim you have no valid data, THEN they will tell you that they "won" the argument. 4. The reason they feel that they can trust their sources is due to the fact that the system of the "Republican echo machine" is set up in such a way that one propagandist re enforces the other (they use the same talking points). And as Hitler said, "the bigger the lie, the more inclined they are to believe it" And yes, our media sure does lie about some major imporatnt issues, so does bush. And no, it has never been this bad before, and no I do not see any type of reform coming soon :/ 5. The best way help these guys is to make them stick to ONE subject, present your best data (sources), NOW THE TRICKY PART-- make them actually review the data, then have them try to refute your data with data they bring to the table-- and go from there. 90% of the time they will say "I am not going to read this "liberal biased stuff" even if the source is not liberal. Basically, if you do not insist that they actually read your source, you will end up with what you had on your page 3 of this topic. hehe I am not trying to pick on lear jett and Aileron, and I do not think they are Fascist, but I do think they have been conditioned to behave this was, by the cues given from the mainstream right wing talking heads. And it does take some effort to break that cycle.And honestly as far as I can tell, the right wing talking heads that they trust are lying on a massive scale, and at the current time there simply is not this behavior being done of the left side of the isle. And I truly believe this is the time to !@#$%^&* about it, actually I more than half way think its too late to !@#$%^&* about it, this is much worse than say Vietnam era news/opinion media working with the military-industrial complex. (Before you say that concept is a "consericy theory" 1. check who warned of this danger (hint: a the last good Republican Prez we had 2. Much has been written on the subject as being a real and growing problem) Oh and then there is that problem that not special to any political party... It does take time and effort to actually look at the data, rather than have a talking head feed it to you, and yes, even liberals get stuck on trusting their sources too much.... but I do see the typical right wing rush Limbaugh person much more unwilling to actually REVIEW the evidence before dismissing it.. due to reasons 1 - 5.
Hackysack Posted September 21, 2005 Report Posted September 21, 2005 Astro, here are some points I would like to make1. When I was using the term "fascist" I was being literal, in other words, some have the MINDSET or the inclination to easily support such a system, with little to no problem. The reason I got a such a reaction from people like lear jet and Aileron is because they do not know what a Fascist system is like. And America's current Republican Party and its propaganda has indoctrinated them into much Fascist thinking, but as any good propagandist knows these days, the propagandist do not call it Fascism, they call it "Conservative". Which leads to point 2. Are you a complete moron? I believe that Aileron has described what fascist systems are like. All you do is try to compare Hitler to Bush, which is ridiculous. Get a life already, and more importantly a better education. 2. Lear Jet and Aileron have been taught not to think for themselves, and have been taught that if it does not come from a "Conservative" source it must be "biased" and to them that equals a lie. They will goto any length no to look too deeply into a subject and will only trust "Conservatives" sources because they are not "liberal" or "biased", which to them means "not true", which means they have done enough research and and KNOW that they are right. In other words, if you present ANY argument that is contrary to the "Conservative view", they will automatically assume that wrong... THEN they will answer you back with something like an insult or "that is not true", or ANY other argument that does not address sources or data or the facts.So far the all the sources that you have given have been biased. It's funny how hypocritical you are too. You don’t even bother going to most the sites given to you, because you live in a shallow little world where you have to be right and everyone else is wrong. As far as people arguing back to you, they give you facts which you just don't listen to because you're wrong. 3. They will ALWAYS have TOTAL faith in their "Conservative" source, they will ALWAYS reject any other source without and research, they will 90% of the time, try to throw back some logic question, like "why would they do that?" instead of sticking to the data, because they will ALWAYS claim you have no valid data, THEN they will tell you that they "won" the argument.So far no one has "rejected" any source you've provided. We've just pointed out the bull!@#$%^&* in them, and showed you how they're wrong. Now if your ignorance doesn't allow you to accept the facts, that’s your problem. 4. The reason they feel that they can trust their sources is due to the fact that the system of the "Republican echo machine" is set up in such a way that one propagandist re enforces the other (they use the same talking points). And as Hitler said, "the bigger the lie, the more inclined they are to believe it" And yes, our media sure does lie about some major imporatnt issues, so does bush. And no, it has never been this bad before, and no I do not see any type of reform coming soon :/That is 1 statement, with the many, that shows how ignorant you are. You believe in this huge conspiracy that the Republicans are these evil people who are trying to take over the world and destroy mankind. If you're truly this dumb, I'm wasting my time. The reasons Aileron, Lear, and myself believe our sources are correct is because, well they're facts rather than you sources that just try to bash Bush. 5. The best way help these guys is to make them stick to ONE subject, present your best data (sources), NOW THE TRICKY PART-- make them actually review the data, then have them try to refute your data with data they bring to the table-- and go from there. 90% of the time they will say "I am not going to read this "liberal biased stuff" even if the source is not liberal. Basically, if you do not insist that they actually read your source, you will end up with what you had on your page 3 of this topic.Although you may say your sources aren't biased, It's pretty obvious that sites that have banners with "Bush’s War for Oil!" and crap like that, how isn't that biased? There is not only no proof that we went there for oil, but no proof that we've gotten anymore oil from them then we used to. When you tried to argue this, I gave you a government source that was a fact sheet on the import of oil from the Gulf Coast. As soon as I sent it to you, you started to change the subject without even taking a look at the source I provided. Can you say Hypocrite? hehe I am not trying to pick on lear jett and Aileron, and I do not think they are Fascist, but I do think they have been conditioned to behave this was, by the cues given from the mainstream right wing talking heads. And it does take some effort to break that cycle.And honestly as far as I can tell, the right wing talking heads that they trust are lying on a massive scale, and at the current time there simply is not this behavior being done of the left side of the isle. And I truly believe this is the time to !@#$%^&* about it, actually I more than half way think its too late to !@#$%^&* about it, this is much worse than say Vietnam era news/opinion media working with the military-industrial complex. (Before you say that concept is a "consericy theory" 1. check who warned of this danger (hint: a the last good Republican Prez we had 2. Much has been written on the subject as being a real and growing problem)You telling others not to talk about conspiracies. HAH Not evening going to bother continuing.
AstroProdigy Posted September 21, 2005 Author Report Posted September 21, 2005 Hackysack...the way you use insults to try to shut spin up is exactly what I am talking about. Can we get back to the topic of the thread rather than this insult fest. Please, be civil.
Hackysack Posted September 21, 2005 Report Posted September 21, 2005 Hackysack...the way you use insults to try to shut spin up is exactly what I am talking about. Can we get back to the topic of the thread rather than this insult fest. Please, be civil.#1) The "insult" I've said is that spin is ignorant.#2) This reply to my post is nothing more than an attempt to make my post look unneccessary, which if my post is unneccessary, than we can delete spins entire topic since its unneccessary, and also filled with "insults"#3) Would it be a bad thing to shut spin up?
LearJett+ Posted September 21, 2005 Report Posted September 21, 2005 Come on Spin, do you actually think that we are brainwashed or products of an "Echo machine"? Your excuse for everything is about how Conservatives are trying to destroy the universe. Get past thinking that George Bush is Big Brother and then maybe we can have a real discussion.
Aileron Posted September 22, 2005 Report Posted September 22, 2005 Hackysack, insulting spin is unnecessary. He simply doesn't know any better. He's not used to logical rational discussion, so be patient. He is sort of a fish out of water in this forum, so expect that it will take time before he can breath air. And he is learning. His first post used big and colored letters with lots of pictures. He learned that this doesn't help and only brings insult upon himself. Thus, his last post didn't contain any of that. Many of us have thrown the communist or facist label around once in a while. I'm pretty sure I myself called Kerry a communist once or twice. spin merely uses it too often. He uses the fascist label merely because he hasn't learned how to use anything better yet. In the other topic he had a possible arguement going about how many times political discussion is allowed in pub chats, and before that arguement was picked apart, he stuck with it, because he realised it was a stronger arguement. As far as I can see, the only thing he lacks is training and discipline, and the only way he is going to get it is if we allow him to speak but be stern about correcting his mistakes. Okay, back to spin's post: First off, insulting me is going to get you knowhere. I am too used to it by now and my skin is very thick. Also, this is over the internet, so therefore you don't know me and can't back up your statement. Infact, I am a loner and currently living alone and therefore it is impossible for me not to think for myself...there is nobody I know who could possibly be thinking for me. I am infact very self motivated and sometimes impose my will on others as pointed out by Sever and Monte in another topic. While I am a math major, I have taken a variety of history courses as part of a general education requirement, as well as a big time fan of the history channel and know history from the stone age until now. Facism is something easy for me to recall. Do you know about the Ottomans, the Holy Roman Empire, the Abbasid Caliphs, the Tylonians, the Moors, or the Mongols? Each left lessons to be learned, and my opinion comes from many experiences throughout history, not just the idiots who tried to take over the world in WWII, who were frankly losers. I think domestically the Democrats are beginning to turn into the Ottomans. They are beginning to approach minority group with a sort of unconditional love and practically granting each group autonomy...this is a bad thing when taken too far, because you drive everyone apart and your country spilts itself at the seams. Their foreign policy isn't stable enough to be compaired with a historical case, probably a side effect of them being so far out of the seat of power at the moment. Domestically, the Republicans are showing a low-grade version of the Spanish during the time before, during, and after the Moor expulsion. Their task is tricky, because expelling the Moors from Spain was a good thing, but the Inquisition that happened afterwards was not. The republicans have to play a game of chicken, being sure to keep this ball going untill we win the War on Terror and stop it just afterwards. Foreign Policy wise, Bush isn't like any former group...which is encouraging as well as disturbing. (on one hand we aren't going to repeat any of history's mistakes, on the other that leaves the potential to make new ones.) The War on Terror is really centered around Saudi Arabia. The country is ruled by a monarchy. Like all monarchies (with real political power...the Queen of England does not count), it is weak by today's standards. It needs political support. Half that support comes from the wealth they get from selling oil to the US, and the other half they get from the local muslim clerics, many of which are Wahhabists. Basically, they are playing both sides. An outright invasion is uncalled for...after all, half of them support us and they are technicall our ally. Who knows how many of our other allies would react to a betrayal? What the overall goal in Saudi Arabia is to get them to take power away from the clerics and into a democratic parliament (which isn't going to try to kill us with fanatic devotion). We could try asking really really nice, but that isn't going to work. We could try sending !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*ins after the clerics, but that's against American policy. We could try financial persuasion, but they are already getting rich enough off of us as it is. The only way to win the War on Terror is to get the people of Saudi Arabia to demand democracy. Thus, we need them to learn what democracy is. The middle eastern media don't exactly portray the western democracies in a kind manner. The only democracy they had was Iraq, and that didn't function properly - it was democratic in name only. We could have made more effort into Afghanistan's democracy, but face it...its a farming country that isn't going to turn anyone's heads. Thus we arrive at Iraq. Economically its a keystone of the middle east...Baghdad is second only to Istanbul, and the history of prosperous nations here makes it encouraging. It was ruled by an evil SOB, so getting support to take him down shouldn't have been difficult. It was a grade A target, and Hussein knew this...he figured the US couldn't move without UN support (or figured it had better chances of success than fighting the US military head on). I guess that's why he got rid of the WMDs, but he had leave the implication that he still had the WMDs or the Kurds would have gotten together and run him over like an Armidillo on the freeway. In hindsight, what Bush should have done is secretly gotten the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran together and given them mad equipment (not guns and rocket launchers...tanks and aircraft) and training...its my lesson you should learn from the Mongols..."don't underestimate a bunch of hicks in the boondocks who have been fighting all their life, have been treated like second class citizens for most of their history, and have access to good weaponry" (that's why I don't make jokes about West Virginians). Then he should have exposed the fact that Iraq had no WMDs...and watched as the Kurds just ran Iraq over. As I said though, this is in perfect hindsight...Bush didn't know Hussein had no WMDs at that time...if he did he would have dropped them on the Kurds and it would have been a very very ugly ordeal. He had to work with the more probable !@#$%^&*umption. (Dictators of countries running about half their potential aren't usually intelligent enough to dispose of weapons when it served their best interests.) My advice to spin as well as the democrats in general: stop underestimating Bush. First off, he's a lot stronger and smarter than his father, though he may not appear as such on first glance. Secondly, he's got the democrats nailed into the coffin and has about four feet of the hole dug. If the democrats don't wake up soon they may very well be a dead party...they need to realise that Bush is very smart and a formidable opponant, and also come up with policies of their own rather than just attacking republican ideas.
Hackysack Posted September 22, 2005 Report Posted September 22, 2005 Hackysack, insulting spin is unnecessary. He simply doesn't know any better. He's not used to logical rational discussion, so be patient. He is sort of a fish out of water in this forum, so expect that it will take time before he can breath air. And he is learning. His first post used big and colored letters with lots of pictures. He learned that this doesn't help and only brings insult upon himself. Thus, his last post didn't contain any of that. As far as I can see, the only thing he lacks is training and discipline, and the only way he is going to get it is if we allow him to speak but be stern about correcting his mistakes.All I said was he was ignorant. Doesn't, not knowing any better make you ignorant? When a dog chases his tail around, is it not because he doesnt know better?
MonteZuma Posted September 22, 2005 Report Posted September 22, 2005 When a dog chases his tail around, is it not because he doesnt know better?Sometimes I think a dog chases its tail because it is fun.
spin Posted September 22, 2005 Report Posted September 22, 2005 Spinsanity's post #92vs"So far no one has "rejected" any source you've provided. We've just pointed out the bull!@#$%^&* in them, and showed you how they're wrong" - Hackysack Sorry Astro if I go outside the bounds of your topic, and Aileron I hope some of this addresses your post, but this is mainly about Hackysack's response to my post 92. Your post is worth of a new topic thread (and good effort, I read it all)I think most of this can be spun off onto other threads, but remember, I am not the one that expanded this subject (on this thread). However this is a good test case of Astro's orginial topic. To Hackysack and Aileron specifically... I INSIST that you review (read) and research (verify and look for VALID counter arguments) ALL of the sources I give, BEFORE you post ANY reply ---anyone else reading this may find the sources interesting too. GROUND RULES for replying - derived from my post 921. YOU HAVE TO READ ALL links given for the specific topic; reply ONLY to the sources I give, if I do not give a sorce you may reply to my opinion.2. YOU can not say "this is liberal" or "this is biased" or "look at that link, how dumb, anyone can say stuff on the internet" ---UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW that the articles given are presenting a half-truth by not including RELEVANT other factors/facts OR that the facts presented are simply wrong.3. IT IS REQUIRED that you show a source that is closer to the subject than I am using. Example- "spin your article says that Bush is doing something, well lets have what Bush said and not what someone said, here is my source"4. DO NOT REPLY to say something to the effect of "Well why would he do that, If he was going to do that then why are Democrats not calling for his impeachment? " ---- Again, YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO REPLY to the facts and opinions derived from the sources I am using.5. You can use the argument of "this can not be verified", ONLY after you have TRIED TO VERIFY. In addition you MUST make some attempt to verify that the source you are using is valid..... Honor system here guys! Topic 1:"You believe in this huge conspiracy that the Republicans are these evil people who are trying to take over the world and destroy mankind." - HackysackHackysack IS WRONG!Here is what the facts are, and I agree with the facts.The Republican Party is dominated by Neo Conservatives, NOT by Conservatives. The Neo Cons have made their home in the Republican Party, Limbaugh and other main stream media Republican talking heads are promoting Neo Conservative policys as being the both Conservative and Republican. Many Republicans are not aware of what is happening in their own party. Bush's policys are Neo Con policys, Neo Conservatives policys that Bush is implementing are indeed to dominate the worlds resources for American corporate interest. If this will benefit you or if this is good for America are outside the scope of this topic.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...32/ai_101448333http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htmhttp://www.shockingelk.com/text/neoconservative/http://www.againstbombing.org/howtookover.htm (some minor problems in wording, much valuable info) Topic 2:"All you do is try to compare Hitler to Bush, which is ridiculous." - HackysackHackysack IS WRONG!There are infact MANY strong comparisons, and yes I know Limbaugh and other Right Wing talking heads do what they can to say otherwise.http://www.awitness.org/journal/bush_hitler.htmlhttp://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.htmlhttp://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-10.htmhttp://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm Topic 3:"There is not only no proof that we went there for oil " - HackysackHackysack IS WRONG!But there are other reasons, just none that Bush has told ya about. (Other links in this post will point to some of the other reasons).http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.b_pr.shtmlhttp://msnbc.msn.com/id/4830129/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm Topic 4:Spinsainity's commentment to political conversations in Sub Space"I gave you a government source that was a fact sheet on the import of oil from the Gulf Coast. As soon as I sent it to you, you started to change the subject without even taking a look at the source I provided." - HackysackHackysack IS WRONG!Actually YOU are the one that changed the subject. As it stands now I assume the source you gave me is correct (and I did go to it). But the amount of oil we are getting HAS NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to the subject of the motives for Bush's wars... in other words, there is MUCH better evidence than what can ONLY BE INFERRED by how much oil is actually being shipped to USA. As you can tell from the above links. "You don’t even bother going to most the sites given to you" - HackysackHackysack IS sorta right sometimes.I do try, and VERY OFTEN I do, the times I do not, I am sorry. Since I play in windowed mode, I can only take screenshots or manually type a long url in while I am playing. I do try and I believe I will start logging my game play more to avoid this problem. "I believe that Aileron has described what fascist systems are like." - HackysackHackysack IS sorta right, Mostly wrongYes, Aileron in another topic gives the a textbook description on the basics of a dictatorships > http://www.ssforum.net/c/index.php?showtopic=7252#.Yet in another post he quickly went off track with respect to Nazi Fascism > http://www.ssforum.net/c/index.php?showtopic=7935&st=30# (see post below for correction of some of Aileron's claims)Aileron, see if this jives with what you know all ready. > http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/germany-1933.htm Spin Related topics:And lear jett.. Bush is only the figurehead, the real problem is the Neo Conservatives in the Republican party, and the very real danger is that they will simply push another figurehead in the 2008 elections and keep the same policys in place. (A dictatorship via pushing a candidate they want us to vote for via Right Wing media and opinion). But as it stands today, the buck stops with Bush. ANY non reply, and we will assume I am making largely correct arguments using largely valid resources. Please see rules for reply.
Recommended Posts