What burns me?

[LearJett+]

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.

 

 

What are these evil policies you speak of? \

(I know a general guideline of what you people mostly say, but I want to know specifically.)

[spin]

Lear Jett- perfect example of my post 92

If you know the general concept, do your own research

The links addressing Hackysack's comments above show some of the specifics to some of the issues about bush's policys being bad.

To get other general reasons that you may not be aware of, listen to that link I emailed you, then follow up.

 

But as you said, "I do not have the time", so lear jett you will continue to post the same questions.

Maybe you should think of a way you could get beyond this trap.

Make the time maybe?

[LearJett+]

Do you believe everything you read, Spin?

[spin]

Lear Jett- perfect example of my post 92-AGAIN!

 

"Do you believe everything you read, Spin?"-Lear Jett

You broke rule #2

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.

 

Keep tryen Lear Jet, Makebe you can break all the guidlines and remain dumb and prove my point about misconceptions and why people continue to believe them.

But actually, I believe you are just here to cause trouble or make non-sense arguments.

[Hackysack]

Lear Jett- perfect example of my post 92-AGAIN!

 

"Do you believe everything you read, Spin?"-Lear Jett

You broke rule #2

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.

 

Keep tryen Lear Jet, Makebe you can break all the guidlines and remain dumb and prove my point about misconceptions and why people continue to believe them.

But actually, I believe you are just here to cause trouble or make non-sense arguments.

Quit hiding behind links and answer his question. The only reason you've tried to set up "guidelines" is because you've come to realize that without your links you have no information of your own. Right now you're hiding behind links to try to save face on the forums. Its quite a pathetic attempt. We can go back and forth posting sites that contradict one another, it wont get us anywhere. As far as me being wrong about the oil, I don’t understand why you don’t get it. The fact sheet is on the amount of oil imported. Are you trying to say that the government is now smuggling oil into the US too? HAHA Now as bush and Hitler being similar, try tell that to someone who lived through it. Im pretty sure they'll just laugh in your face for being that dumb. Blah Blah Blah. This Neo Conservative garbage is annoying. Today in the newspaper I saw an article that on one side said, "THEY LIED!" had a picture of Bush and some members of his administration. Then on the next page it had the list of every soldier that has died since the war. There it said "They died!". Spin, Id have to think you would agree with this so far. Then at the bottom of the second page it had a cutout for a donation. A donation to try to get rid of Bush’s Administration. They, like some of your sites I’ve visited, use stupid propaganda to try to get money or blind someone from the truth. Too lazy to argue more for now. -_-

[spin]

Hackysack- perfect example of my post 92

If you do not address the data (and not the stuff anyone could pull out of their !@#$%^&*), you will not be addressing the issue.

 

As far as "We can go back and forth posting sites that contradict one another, it wont get us anywhere" - Hackysack

The rules are designed so WE DONT throw !@#$%^&* around we know nothing about... I believe EVERYONE would agree that posting links back and forth would be a improvement to what you are doing. Plus lear jett asked for me to back up what I say, and this is a reasonable request.

 

YOU DID HOWEVER p!@#$%^&* on your "The fact sheet is on the amount of oil imported. Are you trying to say that the government is now smuggling oil into the US too? " statement. I gave an opinion and you are allowed to address that. All I can say is; the amount of oil being shipped from Iraq says nothing about what we were talking about... the subject as I recall was "Iraq war had a lot to do with Iraq's oil and nothing to do with the stated reasons Bush used to get us to invade Iraq". That is a example of how "logic questions" are used to get around the facts.. In your case your logic question is "If we invaded Iraq for it's oil, then why are we getting so little of it?", and then you ignore the data that shows the plans and motives of bush's people that planned the Iraq invasion, and say "I won". And that is the reason I have, and you broke this rule... 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.

 

If you want to say "Spin you are wrong" address the links I provided, show that they are wrong, follow the rules or continue to talk out of your !@#$%^&*.

[Hackysack]

Hackysack- perfect example of my post 92

If you do not address the data (and not the stuff anyone could pull out of their !@#$%^&*), you will not be addressing the issue.

 

As far as "We can go back and forth posting sites that contradict one another, it wont get us anywhere" - Hackysack

The rules are designed so WE DONT throw !@#$%^&* around we know nothing about... I believe EVERYONE would agree that posting links back and forth would be a improvement to what you are doing. Plus lear jett asked for me to back up what I say, and this is a reasonable request.

 

YOU DID HOWEVER p!@#$%^&* on your "The fact sheet is on the amount of oil imported. Are you trying to say that the government is now smuggling oil into the US too? " statement. I gave an opinion and you are allowed to address that. All I can say is; the amount of oil being shipped from Iraq says nothing about what we were talking about... the subject as I recall was "Iraq war had a lot to do with Iraq's oil and nothing to do with the stated reasons Bush used to get us to invade Iraq". That is a example of how "logic questions" are used to get around the facts.. In your case your logic question is "If we invaded Iraq for it's oil, then why are we getting so little of it?", and then you ignore the data that shows the plans and motives of bush's people that planned the Iraq invasion, and say "I won". And that is the reason I have, and you broke this rule... 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.

 

If you want to say "Spin you are wrong" address the links I provided, show that they are wrong, follow the rules or continue to talk out of your !@#$%^&*.

Ha, why would I follow some stupid guidelines YOU made up to address you? Thats like saying If a coin lands on heads I win if it lands on tails you lose. It just doesnt work. By the way, my replys are addressing your comments, not your links. Spin you're losing your touch as this topic goes along. You started off strong but now you're running out of bull!@#$%^&* to say to us. So keep trying to hold on by using your sites, I have better things to do than continue this arguement.

[AstroProdigy]

Lol. That's a great way to lose an argument Hackysack. Say you are not going to bother looking at his sources before discrediting them, comparing it to something completely different, saying that proves he is wrong and that you will not post anymore.

[LearJett+]

Lear Jett- perfect example of my post 92-AGAIN!

 

"Do you believe everything you read, Spin?"-Lear Jett

You broke rule #2

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.

 

Keep tryen Lear Jet, Makebe you can break all the guidlines and remain dumb and prove my point about misconceptions and why people continue to believe them.

But actually, I believe you are just here to cause trouble or make non-sense arguments.

 

... Did I say any of those things? No. I merely asked if you believe everything you read. It seems your paranoia is taking the better of you, Spin...

[Hackysack]

Lol. That's a great way to lose an argument Hackysack. Say you are not going to bother looking at his sources before discrediting them, comparing it to something completely different, saying that proves he is wrong and that you will not post anymore.

Ah, but I have gone to some of his sources before. As I have said in this and the other topic. Im just not in the mood to keep reading more and more bull!@#$%^&*. Its a waste of my time.

[AstroProdigy]

Then don't waste your time. It's a free country.

[SeVeR]

Drunken man agrees with hackysack.

[Aileron]

I think you should read my posts before expecting Hackysack to read all of your sources, and he's right, while reading someone else's sources is usually polite, there are just too many there, and he can't possibly have the time.

 

And the "that source is really biased" arguement does infact work. Bias has a tendancy to mess up scientific sampling, making the results fit what one is looking for. Professionals can limit this, but not if they are that far off-center.

[AstroProdigy]

Center. That's something that can take me to the original topic of my thread. It burns me that people say to try to think of things in a center view, but they believe that their own opnions are the mainstream and other peoples' are extremist. Liberal and conservative biased sources are neither center nor mainstream as people try to act like they are. The only difference is when one takes an extreme point on an issue, they tend to be more passionate about it. Erego, a larger percentage of them vote than centrists vote and the centrist view is likely the best view.

[spin]

AstroProdigy,

Here is the problem... the word "center" when used in politics is far too subjective.

I do understand your concern, I spend my time in sub space talking to people about politics, and I am dumbfounded by bush supporters simply because they are repeating propaganda and not being objective.

 

I am sure that there is mis-information in the liberal world, but the fact is rush, oriley, hanity, fox news, abc,nbc cbs are all promoting bush white house dis-info without question.

 

Republicans these days are not even aware that the mainstream republican party is not conservative, but rather neo-conservative (HUGE DIFFERENCE).

 

Republicans these days are blind to many crimes Bush White House has done to the American public. They tend to forget that Iraq war was legally justified by the idea of Iraq had WMDs. Republican controlled congress had a investigation, but TOTALLY IGNORED the very office that was set up by bush's people to be the gate keeper between our intel services and Congress/American public/media. The media doesn't talk about it, Rush says its time to move on, and bush supporters are happy with that, but still seem to be pissed that President Clinton lied about a sex scandal.

 

I would think the "center" would say, that lies to start a war and checks and balances in our gov being worked-around by bush's people would be of concern, but I guess that is just asking too much from the people dumb enough to be satisfied with the piss poor job our media is doing. The media sets the standard for what the "center" is.

 

Astro, Hitler's "big lie" tactic is in full effect in USA (the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to be believed)... Try pointing out that nearly everything a bush supporter believes is PURE FICTION and see the head-in-the-sand counter arguments come into play. Same thing happened in Nazi Germany with the people that supported Hitler... their view of the Nazi's were skewed from reality via a supportive media.... it is very very troubling that it is happening here in America.

 

Spin

(let me guess, I was attack for providing links in my last post, now I will be attacked for providing no links on this post)

**The office that bush's people set up to be the gate keeper of our intel, and was used to cherry pick and FAKE the Iraq WMD threat is called OSP or "Office for Special Plans"

[MonteZuma]

Yeah. The popular US news services are basically infotainment providers. The pictures are spectacular and the correspondents are sexy, but it isn't balanced news.

 

I only have free-to-air tv and radio, but I can watch or listen to news from BBC, NPR and PBS (US), DWTV and radio (Germany) and Radio Netherlands. ABC (Australia) is also very good. These all provide fairly balanced views and different perspectives.

 

Probably all of the radio stations are available online. The news programs are usually available 24/7 via podcasts.

 

There are heaps of opportunities to get balanced news coverage - if you care for it. One day internet TV and radio will be integrated into all tvs and radios. That will cause a revolution in news.

 

At the moment though, I suspect most people prefer dramatised news from Fox, CNN, NBC, etc, etc.

[Aileron]

spin, you didn't read my post...I know you didn't read my post. I don't know why Monte didn't catch this...probably because he's only half interested in this topic.

 

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.

 

Now, the question you should have asked is "Who the !@#$%^&* were the Tylonians?". There was no such group. I made that name up. The fact that it sounds like one of the alien races from Star Trek should have set off a red flag too.

 

Either A: you didn't read my post, B: you know nothing about history, or C: both.

[AstroProdigy]

That little "trap" you set doesn't really work because i don't think people were thinking about your imaginary civilization or cared to look it up. They took your word for it.

[Aileron]

First off the word trap shouldn't be in quotes...it was a trap whether or not it worked.

 

Your faith in me is appreciated, it is intelligent to take somebody at their word when you have no reason not to. Because of this you are correct in that this doesn't really apply to you. All you did was trust that I gave accurate information.

 

I mentioned Monte's name because undoubtedly he knows enough about history to recognize all the names except possibly the Abbasids (they didn't really accomplish that much). I was afraid for a while there that he would reveal my little trap before spin stepped in it. He too is smart enough to know that people don't lie without a reason, so this doesn't apply to him either.

 

The trap was set for spin, because he is the one claiming that I know nothing of history and !@#$%^&*uming that everything I say is false. If he had any right to make such a claim he would have picked that up.

[AstroProdigy]

I didn't even notice the post until then, lol. I was talking for spin.

[MonteZuma]

I don't know why Monte didn't catch this...probably because he's only half interested in this topic.

Hey. I'm not all-seeing or all-knowing.

 

Btw, you are right...the only group I hadn'y heard of was the 'Abbasids' - and of course the Tylonians. But ancient history isn't my favourite topic, so I didn't bother checking.

[Aileron]

The Abbasids weren't really that anchient...they were kinda in the late mevieval/early Rennaissance period. They were basically a trading empire that developed with the overland trade routes from Europe to Asia, located in the Tigris/Euphratis valley...they started declining when the sea trade routes to Asia were established and ended with the Mongol invasion.

 

They are kinda a nation only strict historians would bother learning about. I only learned of them myself when studying Iraq's history for a report, kinda a wierd bit of knowledge I picked up...If you asked me who any of their neighbors were I'd have no clue.

[Hackysack]

My friend brought up a good point in my Participation in Government class the other day. He brought up the point that instead of trying to conserve the oil supplies in the middle east, we should've focused on finding alternative fuels so we wouldn’t have to be dependant on middle east oil. He then continued to mention that although he doesn’t believe that we should've gone to war in the first place, that since we're there already we should finish what we started. We can't just start something, spending billions of dollars, just to pack up and leave. I thought this was a great point that I just thought I would share. We both do agree however that Saddam should've been taken care of, but fighting a preemptive war is ridiculous. It's a war to stop a future war. Which doesn’t quite make much sense to me. I'd also like to bring you guys up to date on my current situation. By the end of September 2007, I'll be starting bootcamp for the Marines. I have about 8 friends joining and 1 thats in bootcamp as we speak. I think this will be a great experience for myself and my friends, and I just thought I would share this bit of info for you guys. ^_^

[Aileron]

I guess I wish you luck then.

 

 

However the reason we shouldn't give up now is simple: We are almost done.

 

I have no way to back this opinion up, but I'd guess we'd PROBABLY withdraw forces as Iraqi forces are trained to take our place. The reason I think this is because that's what the current policy seems to be.

 

My guess is that by 2007 there would probably be enough Iraqi forces there to make any presence on our part entirely unnecessary, though I haven't seen the numbers, so that's only a guess.

[MonteZuma]

If it isn't too late H, I'd advise you to make love and not war! If you wanna do something for your country, volunteer for Meals on Wheels or something instead!

 

Other than that, I agree Hacksack. Good luck with your career!